Capella University's Journey Toward Sustained Excellence in

January–February 2022

Volume 34, Number 1

Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education

Institutional Context

          to

extend access to high-quality bachelor’s, master’s, specialist, doctoral, and

certicate programs for adults who seek to maximize their personal and pro-

fessional potential. This mission is fullled through innovative programs that are re-

sponsive to the needs of adult learners and involve active, engaging, challenging, and

relevant learning experiences offered in a variety of delivery modes.

All Capella curricula are competency-based, dened by scholar-practitioner fac-

ulty, and aligned to the expectations and standards of professional associations and

accreditors, state licensing boards, and respected employers. Capella offers academic

programming in the elds of business; information technology; education; nursing and

health sciences; public administration; counseling and therapy, human services and

social work, and psychology.

Integration Among Curriculum and Assessment

Capella University’s assessment system is modeled on the assessment triangle (cog-

nition, observation, and interpretation) and is operationalized through a fully embed-

ded assessment model (FEAM). Assessment is one component in our academic qual-

ity framework, a logic model articulating the elements of the educational ecosystem

in terms of input, output, outcome, and impact. The assessment system is founded

on clearly stated and dened outcomes at the university, offering, and course level;

consistent development of and use of scoring guides; and a tight alignment structure

between all the curricular elements.

Outcomes. University outcomes clearly state what learners at all degree levels are ex-

pected to demonstrate during their education. Program- and specialization-level learn-

ing outcomes express the expectations of the discipline and measurable performance

standards. Competencies articulate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions learners are

expected to demonstrate and are assessed in multiple assignments in courses.

Scoring Guides. The purpose of a scoring guide is to provide clear, measurable cri-

teria and grading information for each assignment. Faculty use these criterion-refer-

enced scoring guides to directly assess the demonstration of each competency in every

Capella University’s Journey Toward

Sustained Excellence in Assessment

Jaclyn Zacharias, Nancy Ackerman, and Christine S. Yates

View this newsletter online at wileyonlinelibrary.com

ARTICLES

Capella University’s Journey Toward 1

Sustained Excellence in Assessment

Jaclyn Zacharias, Nancy Ackerman, and

Christine S. Yates

Editors’ Notes 3

Stephen P. Hundley and Caleb J. Keith

Reections on California State 4

University East Bay’s Excellence in

Assessment Designation through the

Lens of Student Learning and Success

Kevin W. Kaatz and associates

Nurturing a Culture of Continuous 6

Improvement: Sustaining Excellence in

Assessment at the Community College

of Baltimore County

Jennifer Kilbourne and associates

Broadening and Deepening a 8

Campus Culture of Assessment at

Cameron University

Karla J. Oty

Transformative Principles 10

Contributing to Whatcom Community

College’s Assessment Progress

Anne Marie Karlberg, Tresha Dutton,

Peter Horne, and Ed Harri

Sustaining a Culture of Assessment 12

Excellence at IUPUI

Susan Kahn and Stephen P. Hundley

COLUMN

NILOA Perspectives 14

Gianina Baker and Kate Drezek

McConnell

ONTENTS

assignment. The use of standard scoring guides in all sections helps ensure grading con-

sistency across faculty and over time. Faculty judge competency demonstration as reect-

ing one of four performance levels: nonperformance, basic, procient, and distinguished.

Alignment Leading to Measurement of Learning. Capella’s FEAM embeds curricular

expectations—in the form of course competencies aligned to program outcomes—into

every graded assignment and assessment instrument. Scoring guide criteria are aligned

to competencies and are, therefore, used as measures of outcome and competency dem-

onstration. As a result, faculty judgments can be aggregated over time as a measure of

learning at the unit, course, and program level and builds a rich context for interpreting

data to improve the learning experience.

Using Measurement of Learning to Evaluate Program Health

Capella conducts regularly scheduled reviews at different frequencies and levels of

detail that include data trend analysis, interpretation, and action plan development as

needed. The two primary reviews are Academic Program Review (APR) and Learner

Performance Review (LPR). Additionally, Capella uses measurement of learning to fa-

cilitate transparency to both internal and external audiences.

Academic Program Review. APR is a holistic analysis of the health of a particular

academic offering using the Academic Quality Framework. APRs are conducted every

ve years by faculty in collaboration with assessment specialists, accreditation special-

ists, product managers, institutional effectiveness analysts, and others as needed. This

team analyzes aggregated competency demonstration and learning outcomes assessment

data; alumni survey results; end-of-course evaluation (EOCE) results; a quarterly experi-

ence survey that measures learner satisfaction with overall experience at Capella; faculty

course evaluation results; faculty performance, enrollment, persistence, and completion

rates; and additional measures as appropriate. They also conduct an in-depth review of

curriculum elements, course sequencing, and external standards and monitor the success

of previously made improvements against goals. The team develops recommendations

to address any issues identied and presents these to the dean for resource prioritization.

Learner Performance Review. Assessment specialists conduct LPRs for all academic

offerings; these involve an in-depth review of each course in a program or specialization

every two to three years, or more frequently if needed for specialized accreditations. The

assessment specialists produce a report showing aggregated performance data for each

learning outcome and each course competency in every course; they include additional

review as needed of assignment-level performance, course revision history, curricular-

assessment alignments, and EOCE data. The report includes analysis of data and recom-

mendations for revisions to the overall offering, specic courses, and/or specic course

activities as appropriate. A team including the assessment specialist, program director,

faculty, academic associates, and accreditation specialist discuss the report and recom-

mendations and determine action plans for moving forward.

Transparency. Capella has a public-facing website (CapellaResults.com) which dis-

plays aggregated learning and career outcomes data for Capella’s academic offerings.

Additionally, every learner at Capella has a personalized competency map which shows

their academic progress on each course competency, so they can build on their strengths

and improve in needed areas. Learners can share Competency Maps on social media

(continued on page 9)

Assessment Update

Progress, Trends, and Practices

in Higher Education

ASSESSMENT UPDATE (Print ISSN: 1041-6099; Online ISSN: 1536-

0725) is published bimonthly by Wiley Periodicals LLC, 111 River St.,

Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 USA.

Postmaster: Send all address changes to ASSESSMENT UPDATE,

Wiley Periodicals LLC, C/O The Sheridan Press, PO Box 465, Hanover,

PA 17331 USA.

Information for Subscribers: Assessment Update is published in 6

issues per year. Subscription prices for 2022 are: Institutional Print

+ Online: $399 (The Americas), £210 (UK), €262 (Europe), $399

(rest of the world). Institutional Online Only: $355 (The Americas),

£187 (UK), €233 (Europe), $355 (rest of the world). Institutional

Print Only: $371 (The Americas), £196 (UK), €244 (Europe), $371

(rest of the world). Personal Print + Online: $176 (The Americas),

£95 (UK), €121 (Europe), $217 (rest of the world). Personal Online

Only: $126 (The Americas), £60 (UK), €77 (Europe), $126 (rest of the

world). Personal Print Only: $160 (The Americas), £98 (UK), €125

(Europe), $201 (rest of the world). Prices are exclusive of tax. Asia-

Paciﬁc GST, Canadian GST/HST and European VAT will be applied at

the appropriate rates. For more information on current tax rates, please

go to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/library-info/products/price-lists/

payment. The price includes online access to the current and all online

backﬁles to January 1, 2018, where available. For other pricing op-

tions, including access information and terms and conditions, please

visit https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/library-info/products/price-lists.

terms-and-conditions.

be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means

without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder.

Authorization to copy items for internal and personal use is granted

by the copyright holder for libraries and other users registered with

their local Reproduction Rights Organisation (RRO), e.g. Copyright

Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,

USA (www.copyright.com), provided the appropriate fee is paid

directly to the RRO. This consent does not extend to other kinds of

copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or

promotional purposes, for republication, for creating new collective

works, or for resale. Permissions for such reuse can be obtained using

the RightsLink “Request Permissions” link on Wiley Online Library.

Special requests should be addressed to: [email protected].

Delivery Terms and Legal Title: Where the subscription price includes

print issues and delivery is to the recipient’s address, delivery terms are

Delivered at Place (DAP); the recipient is responsible for paying any

import duty or taxes. Title to all issues transfers Free of Board (FOB)

our shipping point, freight prepaid. We will endeavour to fulﬁl claims

for missing or damaged copies within six months of publication, within

our reasonable discretion and subject to availability.

Our policy is to replace missing or damaged copies within our reason-

able discretion, subject to print issue availability, and subject to Wiley’s

Title-By-Title Journals Subscriptions Terms & Conditions. Claims for

missing or damaged print issues must be sent to cs-journals@wiley.

com within three months from date of subscription payment or date

of issue publication, whichever is most recent.

Back issues: Single issues from current and recent volumes are avail-

able at the current single-issue price from [email protected].

Disclaimer: The Publisher and Editors cannot be held responsible

for errors or any consequences arising from the use of information

contained in this journal; the views and opinions expressed do not

necessarily reﬂect those of the Publisher and Editors, neither does

the publication of advertisements constitute any endorsement by the

Publisher and Editors of the products advertised.

Journal Customer Services: For ordering information, claims and

any enquiry concerning your journal subscription please go to https://

wolsupport.wiley.com/s/contactsupport?tabset-a7d10=2 or contact

your nearest ofﬁce. Americas: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +1

877 762 2974. Europe, Middle East, and Africa: Email: cs-journals@

wiley.com; Tel: +44 (0) 1865 778315; 0800 1800 536 (Germany).

Asia Paciﬁc: Email: [email protected]; Tel: +65 6511 8000.

Japan: For Japanese speaking support, Email: [email protected].

Visit our Online Customer Help at https://wolsupport.wiley.com/s/

contactsupport?tabset-a7d10=2.

Wiley’s Corporate Citizenship initiative seeks to address the envi-

ronmental, social, economic, and ethical challenges faced in our

business and which are important to our diverse stakeholder groups.

Since launching the initiative, we have focused on sharing our content

with those in need, enhancing community philanthropy, reducing our

carbon impact, creating global guidelines and best practices for paper

use, establishing a vendor code of ethics, and engaging our colleagues

and other stakeholders in our efforts. Follow our progress at www.

wiley.com/go/citizenship.

View this journal online at www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/AU.

Executive Editor: Stephen P. Hundley. Associate Editor: Caleb J. Keith.

Assistant Editors: A. Katherine Busby and Shirley J. Yorger. Publishing

Director: Lisa Dionne Lento. Production Editor: Mary Jean Jones.

Editorial Correspondence: Contact via email: [email protected].

For submission instructions, subscription, and all other information,

visit: www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/au.

Printed in the USA by The Sheridan Group.

Assessment is one component in our academic quality framework, a

logic model articulating the elements of the educational ecosystem in

terms of input, output, outcome, and impact.

ditors’ NotEs

Peer Review in Assessment and Improvement:

An Overview of Five Principles to Promote Effective Practice

Stephen P. Hundley and Caleb J. Keith

     Assessment

Update, we prole select recipients

of the 2021 Excellence in Assess-

ment (EIA) Designation, a national-level

recognition co-sponsored by VSA Ana-

lytics, the National Institute for Learn-

ing Outcomes Assessment (NILOA),

and the American Association of Col-

leges and Universities (AAC&U). As

described on NILOA’s website (https://

www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/

eia/), the EIA Designation recognizes

institutions that successfully integrate as-

sessment practices throughout the institu-

tion, provide evidence of student learning

outcomes, and use assessment results to

guide institutional decision-making and

improve student performance. This issue

features articles from some of the institu-

tions receiving the 2021 honor, including

IUPUI, our home institution.

As many readers know, IUPUI also

hosts the Assessment Institute in Indian-

apolis, the oldest and largest U.S. higher

education event focused on assessment

and improvement. Following two years

offering a virtual engagement to accom-

modate disruptions associated with the

COVID-19 pandemic, we will resume

our in-person Assessment Institute,

held October 9–11, 2022, at the Indi-

anapolis Marriott Downtown Hotel.

We look forward to presenting an array

of workshops, keynote presentations,

concurrent and poster sessions, and net-

working opportunities at the 2022 As-

sessment Institute. Learn more about

this year’s event, including registration

details, schedule overview, and program

tracks and topics, at our website, https://

assessmentinstitute.iupui.edu/index.html.

The theme of our Editors’ Notes for

2022 is “Peer Review in Assessment and

Improvement: Five Principles to Promote

Effective Practice.” Peer review has long

been used in the higher education sector

to serve a variety of purposes and meet

the needs of several audiences. Activities

supportive of assessment and improve-

ment also increasingly rely on peers to

offer credible subject matter expertise in

respective contexts, provide judgments,

develop recommendations for enhanced

performance, and make contributions to

creating and sustaining a culture of con-

tinuous improvement and innovation. The

ve principles to promote effective prac-

tice in peer review for assessment and im-

provement are:

1. Recognize the purpose of the peer re-

view process in higher education as-

sessment and improvement.

2. Value the multitude of perspectives,

contexts, and methods related to as-

sessment and improvement.

3. Adopt a consultative approach to the

peer review process.

4. Make effective judgements using in-

clusive sources and credible evidence.

5. Provide relevant feedback to

stakeholders.

Principle #1

: Recognize the

purpose of the peer review

process in higher education

assessment and improvement

One enduring feature of the higher

education sector is its use of peers in pro-

cesses to generate, evaluate, disseminate,

and curate knowledge for a variety of

purposes and audiences. Peers are often

individuals who are regarded as subject

matter experts in a particular domain, and

they usually have educational and profes-

sional preparation and experiences com-

parable to those desirous of and reliant

on the peer’s perspectives, judgment, and

feedback. Depending on the purpose of

the peer review process, peers may be lo-

cal in nature (e.g., within the institution),

represent a valued external constituency

(e.g., community members, employers,

or alumni), or have an “arms-length” dis-

tance from the activity under review (e.g.,

colleagues from the discipline or profes-

sion working in other institutional set-

tings). The type of review informs which

peer(s) are appropriate to engage. Indeed,

peers have the potential to contribute to

a variety of worthwhile activities, in-

cluding reviews of teaching; evaluations

of academicians for tenure and promo-

tion purposes; making judgements about

the signicance and quality of scholarly

contributions; as part of periodic, inter-

nally oriented program review processes;

as colleagues serving on accreditation

teams; and, increasingly, as part of assess-

ment and improvement activities taking

(continued on page 15)

Reections on California State University

East Bay’s Excellence in Assessment

Designation through the Lens of Student

Learning and Success

Kevin W. Kaatz, Ana Almeida, Sarah Aubert, Paul Carpenter, Caron Inouye,

Danika LeDuc, Balaraman Rajan, Julie Stein, and Fanny Yeung

Institutional Context

ntroduction to california State uni-

versity East Bay (CSUEB). Part of the

23-campus California State Univer-

sity system, CSUEB is a designated His-

panic-, Asian-American-Native-Ameri-

can-Pacic-Islander-, and Minority-Serv-

ing Institution, serving a high proportion

of commuter, transfer, rst-generation,

international, and non-traditional stu-

dents. With one of the most diverse stu-

dent populations in the United States, the

university has a strong commitment to

building a culture of equitable and inclu-

sive teaching, learning, and assessment.

Summary of ILO Assessment Integra-

tion into Existing University Assessment

Processes. Institutional Learning Out-

comes (ILOs) were developed campus-

wide with faculty, staff, and students

and approved by the Academic Senate in

2012. Cross-disciplinary faculty teams

collaborated to build an ILO assessment

infrastructure that integrated with exist-

ing academic, general education, gradu-

ate, and co-curricular assessment. As part

of that process, multi-disciplinary faculty

developed, piloted, and implemented as-

sessment rubrics for every ILO following

a university-wide plan. Today, the cam-

pus has a robust campus-wide assessment

process including closing-the-loop activi-

ties supported by multiple faculty com-

mittees and campus leadership.

Focus of Article. CSUEB’s award

of the Excellence in Assessment (EIA)

designation is a credit to the multidis-

ciplinary collaboration of faculty who

shepherded our assessment processes and

resulting institutional improvements and

growth. Looking ahead, our direction is to

increase active learning, become a more

unied campus around student success

approaches, include more student voices

in the assessment process, and build in

more assessment of student learning ex-

periences outside the classroom that align

to our ILOs.

Top EIA Assessment Achievements

Were Pointed Toward Student

Success

University-wide Engagement. Hun-

dreds of faculty members from the univer-

sity’s four colleges and university libraries

have been involved in all aspects of ILO

assessment, including rubric development,

collection, and evaluation. Faculty from

every college also developed ILO assign-

ment guides for every ILO, which were

shared with the campus community.

Peer-to-peer Discussions of Effec-

tive Assignment Design. University-wide

engagement extended to funded profes-

sional development opportunities in the

form of assignment design workshops

providing faculty with the time, space,

structure, and funding to create tangible

and concrete assignments that aligned

with the ILOs and deepened student

learning. Faculty coaches reviewed as-

signments, explained learning outcomes,

and brainstormed creative options to help

their faculty peers meet the ILO in a par-

ticular discipline. Faculty implemented

different strategies to elicit student work

that clearly demonstrated their learning

of that outcome. These facilitated peer-to-

peer coaching sessions improving assign-

ment design proved to be a critical part of

the assessment process.

Closing the Loop. Closing-the-loop

discussions took place in all colleges fol-

lowing the aggregation and reporting of

assessment data. Faculty discussed im-

proving pedagogical practices, assign-

ment design, and the format of assign-

ments (e.g., formative vs. summative,

scaffolding, self and peer assessment).

The results provided a starting point for

rich conversations among faculty as to

how they dene, understand, and use the

ILO rubrics to improve engagement and

demonstrate student learning.

By improving assignment design to be transparent, anti-racist, and

equitable, we better serve our diverse students by giving them the

opportunity to be more reective on their learning, which more

authentically represents their learning.

University-wide Growth. It is clear

from this university-wide work that fac-

ulty have a passion for student learning

and a desire to dedicate more time and

energy to best support students’ learning.

Campus-wide activities and discussions

provided forums to remind students that

they are doing good, albeit challenging,

work. It showed faculty are not alone in

helping students attain these learning out-

comes. This work also allowed faculty the

chance to learn more about their own in-

stitution and to realize that they are work-

ing collectively toward similar goals. It is

also clear that the university as a whole

has matured in its collective decision-

making ability. We now have a range of

faculty and staff highly experienced in

assessment who also operate very ef-

fectively as a group to make meaningful

improvements.

Top Future Directions Are Toward

Strengthening Student Success

Assessment Practices that Differen-

tiate Between Teaching and Learning.

Engaging students in evidence-based ac-

tive learning experiences is a priority at

CSUEB. Providing students multiple

ways to externalize their thinking, with

more emphasis on no- or low-stakes as-

sessments, allows us greater insight into

student learning and the ability to adapt

as needed. We are shifting the metrics of

our teaching from “content coverage” to

“student mastery.” By improving assign-

ment design to be transparent, anti-racist,

and equitable, we better serve our diverse

students by giving them the opportunity

to be more reective on their learning,

which more authentically represents their

learning. We are also moving toward the

idea that assessment is “student-centered

and instructor-supporting.” It is our ex-

pectation and assumption that improv-

ing assignments for assessment purposes

will allow for a better understanding of

student learning while also pointing out

areas for improvement. As part of this,

we plan to continue collecting compara-

tive data to show improvement of student

learning over time.

Integration of Curriculum and As-

sessment Processes. We will continue

to integrate our curricular and assess-

ment processes in our ongoing work to

strengthen student success. This process

has intentionally brought together fac-

ulty from all over the university at every

stage of the process, on every ILO. It is

apparent we have a collective responsi-

bility around shaping and developing a

student’s progress toward any given out-

come. This also highlights the need to

continue to work together to help better

understand the interconnectedness of cur-

riculum and assessment and to provide

the most cohesive student experience

possible, particularly around the core

competencies. Institutional and pedagogi-

cal goals will also continue to focus on

alignment and supporting student learn-

ing and success. As part of this effort, we

are evaluating technologies that support a

more integrated curriculum development

and assessment infrastructure. By better

integrating processes into all aspects of

curriculum and assessment, faculty have

a better understanding of student learning

while simultaneously providing CSUEB

with the necessary data for accreditation

and institutional improvement.

Increased Inclusion of Student Voices

in ILO Assessment. Another future direc-

tion is to give students more opportuni-

ties to engage with the ILO process and

listen to their feedback on assessed as-

signments. As we prepare our students to

be life-long learners, a more intentional

and structured process for them to reect

on their own development across all the

learning outcomes over time will prove

useful.

Increased Integration of Experiences

Outside of the Classroom. We recognize

students’ growth over the course of their

college experience extends beyond the

classroom to their involvement in ac-

tivities such as internships and clubs.

This engagement contributes to student

learning and supports mastery of skills

as they apply them in “real-world” set-

tings. We plan to increase assessment

across various student experiences over

time to gather more on the progression of

core competency development. Aligning

and assessing students’ experiences out-

side the classroom will also broaden the

campus conversation about institutional

effectiveness.

CSUEB’s President on Assessment

Journey. CSUEB President Cathy Sand-

een effectively summarized our assess-

ment journey in the August 2021 award

announcement. “We know that a Cal

State East Bay education is transforming

for our students’ lives. This honor recog-

nizes how our faculty and staff connect

the dots throughout an entire degree pro-

gram, including our beyond-classroom

experiences. The signicant collabora-

tions that occur to ensure these learning

outcomes are unparalleled and make stu-

dents’ learning equitable, accessible and

useful.” ■

Kevin W. Kaatz is an associate professor

of history, Ana Almeida is an assistant

professor and associate director of the

Green Biome Institute, Sarah Aubert is

the curriculum services project manager,

Paul Carpenter is a professor and chair of

kinesiology, Caron Inouye is the director of

general education and a professor, Danika

LeDuc is the associate dean in the College

of Science, Balaraman Rajan is an associ-

ate professor of management, Julie Stein

is the educational effectiveness project

manager, and Fanny Yeung is the director

of Institutional Effectiveness and Research

at California State University East Bay.

Assessment Institute in Indianapolis

Hosted by IUPUI, the Assessment Institute in Indianapolis is the oldest and

largest U.S. higher education event focused on assessment and improvement. This

year, we will resume our in-person event at the Indianapolis Marriott Downtown

Hotel October 9–11, 2022.

Learn more at the Assessment Institute website: https://assessmentinstitute.

iupui.edu/

Nurturing a Culture of Continuous

Improvement: Sustaining Excellence in

Assessment at the Community College of

Baltimore County

Jennifer Kilbourne, Amy Roberts Wilson, Glenda Breaux, and Joaquin G.

Martinez

 ,  

of Baltimore County (CCBC) has

had an assessment system in place

that draws upon the expertise of assess-

ment professionals and faculty stakehold-

ers to conduct purposeful, systematic, and

collaborative assessment at the course,

program, and institutional levels. Apply-

ing for the renewal of the Sustained Ex-

cellence in Assessment award allowed us

to re-examine our assessment initiatives

through an external lens with the help of

the Excellence in Assessment (EIA) des-

ignation rubric, and the process revealed

areas for improvement. We are honored

to have now won the sustained desig-

nation in both 2016 and 2021, and we

move forward committed to continuous

improvement.

Institutional Context

CCBC is a large, multi-campus in-

stitution serving more than 45,000 stu-

dents each year. CCBC offers associate

degrees and certicate programs in both

career and transfer curricula that comple-

ment workforce demand in the Baltimore

Region.

The philosophy that all members of

the institution share responsibility for

improvement of student learning as a

collective enterprise guides assessment

at CCBC. Collaborative internal reviews

and advisory boards work with assess-

ment leaders to monitor best practices,

develop assessment resources, and sup-

port policies and procedures related to

scheduled stages of the assessment loop.

While these entities guide the assessment

stages, discipline-faculty teams develop

course and program assessment tools

and interventions, which are embedded

authentically within the classroom. That

faculty drive tool development and im-

plementation ensures authentic use and

investment in assessment measures. The

Ofce of Planning, Research, and Evalu-

ation (PRE) provides the infrastructure

to analyze data used to develop interven-

tion strategies to address learning de-

cits. These coordinated efforts embed as-

sessment in students’ CCBC experience

and sustain excellence in assessment at

CCBC.

Assessment Strategies Embedded

in the CCBC Experience

CCBC’s mission and strategic priori-

ties guide institutional assessment. Quali-

tative and quantitative data are analyzed

through the collection of internal survey

data, student success data, learning out-

comes assessment data, general educa-

tion outcomes assessment data, and pro-

gram assessment data. Results determine

intervention strategies in the classroom,

guide program improvement, and inform

professional development opportunities

for faculty and staff. Validation, both in-

ternal and external, of assessment instru-

ments ensures the use of high-quality as-

sessment tools and procedures.

CCBC has four primary sets of stu-

dent learning outcomes that guide all pro-

grams of study: core competencies, gen-

eral education (GE) outcomes, program

outcomes, and institutional benchmarks.

Within each degree, students take both

GE and program requirements, where

core competencies are fostered. Institu-

tional benchmarks, including course suc-

cess, retention, completion, and transfer

rates, are tracked and reported annually.

Combined, these outcomes prepare stu-

dents with 21st century skills for lifelong

learning.

Goals for communication, problem

solving, global perspective and social

responsibility, and independent learning

and personal management are reected in

course-level learning outcomes, general

education outcomes, and program-level

outcomes. Co-curricular activities and

High Impact Practices (HIPs) infusion projects, designed to boost student

engagement, success, and retention, provide broad assessment of

shared learning outcomes through a data dashboard that allows course,

program, and co-curricular stakeholders to disaggregate success and

retention rates.

High Impact Practice infusion projects

facilitate the development of these core

competencies. These shared learning

outcomes form scaffolded infrastructure

throughout students’ academic and co-

curricular experiences.

CCBC intentionally embeds program

outcomes in program requirements to en-

sure students master learning outcomes

upon degree completion. All GE courses

utilize a common graded assignment that

maps both GE and course-level learning

outcomes and serves as an authentic as-

sessment tool. On a three-year cycle, stu-

dent artifacts are scored by trained faculty

teams, PRE analyzes and reports data, and

faculty teams develop interventions based

on the data and plan the next assessment.

Furthermore, multiple targeted as-

sessments work together to capture stu-

dents’ mastery of course, program, and

co-curricular shared learning outcomes.

Highly enrolled courses assess learning

outcomes using faculty-developed and

externally validated instruments in Learn-

ing Outcomes Assessment projects. Since

1999, CCBC has assessed 50 high-impact

(highly enrolled, multi-section) courses

through these projects. As a result, inter-

vention strategies have been implemented

to improve the learning experience for

over 75,000 students.

In addition, academic programs are

evaluated through a committee-driven

program review process in a ve-year cy-

cle. Program review includes curriculum

assessment as well as market feasibility

analyses. CCBC’s program review pro-

cess uses curriculum mapping to iden-

tify and assess program outcomes within

program-required courses. Program out-

comes assessment projects ensure gradu-

ates are meeting outcomes required for

entry into the workforce or transfer.

High Impact Practices (HIPs) infu-

sion projects, designed to boost student

engagement, success, and retention, pro-

vide broad assessment of shared learning

outcomes through a data dashboard that

allows course, program, and co-curricular

stakeholders to disaggregate success and

retention rates. While achievement gaps

persist at CCBC, they were signicantly

decreased in courses such as Biology I:

Molecules and Cell (–20%), Fundamen-

tals of Communication (–7%), and Intro-

duction to Psychology (–11%) when HIPs

were infused.

Lessons Learned

CCBC benets from years of thought-

ful engagement with assessment prac-

tices and policies. As we went through

the Excellence in Assessment applica-

tion process, we were able to examine

our assessment infrastructure and pro-

cesses through an external lens. The EIA

scoring rubric was particularly helpful in

framing not only the processes involved

in assessment excellence, but also en-

gaging the people. During the process

we learned we have a robust, multi-level

system that is inclusive of many stake-

holders, but that some groups do not yet

have a seat at the table and others are

not included in information sharing. In

particular, we learned students have not

had a voice in the development and im-

plementation of assessment practices.

As a result, student representatives will

begin to serve on the General Educa-

tion Review Board. We also learned that

greater integration between Instruction

and Student Support Services is required

to reap maximal benet from assessment

activities. A reorganization of the college

will begin to break down these silos as

both areas will now serve under CCBC’s

Provost, bringing quality learning to the

forefront of our mission. CCBC recog-

nizes the central, instrumental role that

assessment plays in the life cycle of the

academic enterprise. Therefore, we re-

main attentive to the iterative nature of

our work on behalf of our students and

appreciate the opportunity to provide

an update of the comprehensive institu-

tional efforts as part of this designation.

Recommendations

CCBC’s application for the renewal of

the Sustained Excellence in Assessment

award embraced the need for continuous

improvement by examining our assess-

ment initiatives. CCBC’s data-informed

decision-making is prevalent; however,

institutions can become complacent with-

out continual evaluation. This reapplica-

tion exercise pushed us to examine all

aspects of our assessment model.

When applying for the EIA desig-

nation, think critically about the crite-

ria and develop a plan to address each

component of the application from the

institution’s perspective. Approaches to

assessment are different and exciting.

The EIA application is a place to high-

light strengths and recognize opportuni-

ties for improvement. It is also essential

to establish a team of assessment experts

throughout the college as contributors.

CCBC’s Learning Outcomes Assessment

Advisory Board, composed of faculty,

staff, and administrators, guided our pro-

cess of self-reection.

While CCBC has been recognized

by this esteemed designation, the jour-

ney of continuous improvement never

ceases. We look forward to engaging

faculty, staff, and students with these

sustained efforts for an enriched student

experience. ■

Jennifer Kilbourne is the dean of curricu-

lum and assessment, Amy Roberts Wilson

is the Honors Program director and an

associate professor of English and women’s

studies, Glenda Breaux is the senior direc-

tor of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,

and Joaquin G. Martinez is the provost and

vice president of instruction at the Com-

munity College of Baltimore County.

Have an idea for an article or special issue

of Assessment Update? Let us know.

Email the executive editor at [email protected]

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/au

or http://assessmentinstitute.iupui.edu/

Broadening and Deepening a Campus Culture

of Assessment at Cameron University

Karla J. Oty

Institutional Context

  ()   -

gional public university located

in southwest Oklahoma. CU is an

open admission institution at the Associ-

ate in Applied Science level with mini-

mal admissions requirements at the As-

sociate in Arts, Associate in Science, and

bachelor’s degree levels. CU also offers

a limited number of master’s degrees in

the professional areas of teaching, busi-

ness, and psychology. In Fall 2020, CU’s

enrollment was 3,471 undergraduate stu-

dents and 300 graduate students.

Assessment activities at CU began in

annual year (AY) 1992–1993 for academic

programs and in AY 2008–2009 for units

in Student Services. Units have been added

to the assessment process annually since

AY 2011–2012. In AY 2020–2021, all ac-

ademic programs and all but eight non-ac-

ademic units participated in the formal as-

sessment process. This sustained practice

of assessment helped CU be selected to the

inaugural class of Excellence in Assess-

ment (EIA) designees and as a continued

Sustained Excellence designee in 2021.

Assessment Strategies

At CU, the primary purpose of assess-

ment is to use data to determine if student

learning, engagement, and satisfaction is

at the desired level and, if not, to develop

action items to address shortfalls. CU’s

comprehensive system of assessment is

managed by the Ofce of Institutional Re-

search, Assessment, and Accountability

(IRAA) and the Institutional Assessment

Committee (IAC) and is overseen by the

Executive Council (EC) of the University.

IAC is comprised of 26 faculty and staff

members including the vice president for

academic affairs, the IRAA director, the

chair of the General Education Commit-

tee, the chair of the Developmental Edu-

cation Assessment Committee, a Faculty

Senate representative, and other members

representing both programs and units.

Programs leading to a degree or certi-

cate, general education, developmental ed-

ucation, and non-degree granting academic

and non-academic units participate in the

assessment process each year. Information

for programs and units is entered into a

software package to create an assessment

report. Two members of IAC acting as peer

reviewers and the appropriate supervisor

use a PDF form to indicate elements that

are addressed, provide written comments,

and make a recommendation as to whether

the program or unit would benet from a

roundtable discussion. The appropriate EC

member determines whether the program

or unit will participate in a roundtable; all

programs and units participate in a round-

table at least once every three years. Each

roundtable begins with the program or unit

members answering questions about what

they have learned from their assessment

data and how they have used what they

have learned to make improvements. The

rest of the allotted time is spent discussing

feedback, results of the assessment pro-

cess, and suggestions for improvements.

The exibility of the scheduling of the

roundtables ensures programs struggling

with a particular part of the assessment

process can participate in conversations

each year to help them make progress,

while programs with a well-developed

assessment process participate in round-

tables once every three years.

Lessons Learned in CU’s

Assessment Journey

In 2010 the assessment process was

changed in an attempt to shift the mind-

set away from compliance and toward

one that would result in improvements of

student learning, engagement, and satis-

faction. The implementation of roundta-

bles was intended to ensure there were

substantive conversations about what

was working well and what could be im-

proved. The discussions were also meant

to emphasize the role of IAC as peer re-

viewers providing advice and guidance,

and not as individuals who were trying to

nd something wrong in the assessment

report. There was also an added empha-

sis in encouraging faculty and staff to

critically examine the data collected and

to use the data to identify strengths and

weaknesses. It was, and is, sometimes

difcult to admit students may not be

doing as well as would be desired on a

particular measure, and the roundtable

conversations provide a vehicle in which

weaknesses in student learning, engage-

ment, or satisfaction can be discussed in

a non-threatening manner. The IAC peer

reviewers share examples of approaches

that they have tried in their program or

that they have seen in other programs

they have reviewed, which can lead to

Programs leading to a degree or certicate, general education,

developmental education, and non-degree granting academic and non-

academic units participate in the assessment process each year.

a rich conversation on how to make im-

provements based on data. Although the

process is not perfect, and there have been

adjustments made along the way, the as-

sessment culture at CU has changed dra-

matically over the last 10 years.

Other key lessons learned were that

training, resources, and timely responses

to questions were needed to help faculty

and staff. The IRAA director conducts

training sessions on the assessment soft-

ware used for the assessment reports,

provides an updated User Document each

year, and hosts ofce hours. Each year

IAC members undergo peer reviewer

training before beginning their reviews,

which helps the reviewers provide consist-

ent, clear, and constructive feedback to the

programs. Faculty and staff can send an

email to [email protected] with

any questions or concerns they have relat-

ing to assessment; someone in the IRAA

ofce responds within one business day.

CU also provides resources to assist

programs and units participating in the as-

sessment process to ensure the processes

and methodologies for assessment reect

good practice. The chair of IAC conducts

an annual campus-wide meeting to update

and inform faculty and staff on the assess-

ment process. Additionally, IAC hosts

workshops to provide support for assess-

ment topics. Workshops in the last 10

years include developing SLOs, rubrics,

curriculum mapping, inter-rater reliabil-

ity and content validity, online assessment

strategies, data tables, and co-curricular

assessment. In 2021–2022, members of

IAC are making short videos on key as-

sessment topics that will be available on

demand. Over the last 10 years, additional

funding has been available to offset costs

associated with assessment, including

external reviews of locally developed

measures and rubrics for content validity,

external experts to conduct workshops on

assessment-related topics, and opportuni-

ties for faculty to participate in confer-

ences related to assessment. The IRAA

Ofce provides funds to purchase stand-

ardized assessment exams.

Recommendations to Other

Institutions as They Consider

the EIA Designation Application

Process

Although the writing of the EIA nar-

rative for the application process can

involve signicant time and effort, we

found the process to be meaningful and

useful. The application process allowed us

to reect and articulate the improvements

we have made as a campus and to help

focus the discussion on what areas still

need improvement. The provided rubric

is especially valuable in preparing a suc-

cessful application. We formed a smaller

sub-committee to write the application

narrative. This draft was then shared with

the relevant committees and leadership to

garner feedback and strengthen the appli-

cation. One of the most challenging parts

of the application was to include as much

information as possible while still coming

in under the word count of the applica-

tion. Our most recent application was one

word short of the limit! The feedback re-

ceived from CU’s successful Excellence

in Assessment application in 2015–2016

helped guide improvements in the assess-

ment process, and CU looks forward to

using the feedback received this Fall from

EIA to guide improvements over the next

ve years. ■

Karla J. Oty is the director of Institutional

Research, Assessment, and Accountability

at Cameron University.

(continued on page 16)

and on resumes to show employers their

achievements.

Lessons Learned

Reecting on challenges and imple-

menting continuous improvements with

our own assessment strategies is no dif-

ferent from the process we do on a regular

basis. Here are a few of the lessons we

have learned and are actively targeting for

improvement:

1. Closing the Loop: One of our biggest

challenges was “closing the loop” on

our quality-improvement efforts. Each

of our assessment strategies had well-

considered, detailed processes laid

out. However, we continued to strug-

gle with the collection and tracking

of the nal decisions made toward

our continuous quality efforts. To ad-

dress this challenge, we created best

practices and expectations for docu-

mentation of improvement initiatives

and a standardized tracking document.

While still in the early stages, we have

seen an increase in follow-through of

action plans.

2. Improved Communication and Vis-

ibility: Many times, assessment work

had been unknowingly duplicated or

repeated due to lack of visibility and

communication. In response, regular

quarterly check-in meetings were es-

tablished with all stakeholders of an

academic program to ensure aware-

ness of assessment efforts. Addition-

ally, a centralized SharePoint site was

created to house assessment efforts

and is widely available to stakehold-

ers. This has helped increase visibility

of current assessment work and allows

for previous efforts to be reviewed to

help minimize redundancies.

3. Evidence of Faculty Involvement: Fac-

ulty involvement, both leading and

contributing to our assessment sys-

tems, is part of our regular processes.

However, we recognized there was

not always clear tangible evidence of

their involvement. As a result, we have

prioritized taking thorough minutes in

committee meetings and saving email

correspondence as direct evidence of

faculty involvement.

Recommendations to Future

Applicants

When considering the EIA designa-

tion application process, we recommend

applicants:

Capella University’s Journey Toward

Sustained Excellence in Assessment

(continued from page 2)

Transformative Principles Contributing to

Whatcom Community College’s Assessment

Progress

Anne Marie Karlberg, Tresha Dutton, Peter Horne, and Ed Harri

Institutional Context

  -

lege (WCC), in Bellingham,

Washington, served 7,400 stu-

dents in 2020–21. WCC offers transfer

degrees, professional-technical degrees

and certicates, Bachelor of Applied Sci-

ence degrees, basic education, and com-

munity and continuing education courses.

In February 2008, the Northwest

Commission of Colleges and Univer-

sities expressed “grave concern” that

WCC did not have meaningful assess-

ment processes linking data, analysis,

and planning. With new leadership and

faculty, WCC made critical and mean-

ingful changes to its processes, devel-

oping sustainable assessment processes

to support student learning and inform

college planning. In 2007, WCC created

a faculty outcomes assessment coordi-

nator position with release time and, in

2008, hired a director for assessment and

institutional research (AIR) to build an

AIR ofce. These two individuals have

worked together for the past 13 years.

In its 2019 accreditation visit, WCC re-

ceived no recommendations and three

commendations, including recogni-

tion of “its widespread and systematic

use of data for decision-making and

improvement.”

WCC’s Guiding Principles for

Outcomes Assessment

The following principles are indis-

pensable in guiding the outcomes assess-

ment work at WCC to inspire and support

conversations among faculty, staff, and

students and to improve student learning.

WCC lives and breathes these principles

that have transformed assessment.

1. Creating sustainable processes

a. Create simple, meaningful, and

sustainable reports and processes:

WCC limits report content to the

most essential elements that en-

courage reection and result in ac-

tion (preferably 1–2 pages).

b. Start with invested faculty and staff:

When WCC rst developed assess-

ment processes, it started with a

group of faculty volunteers who

saw the long-term vision. WCC fo-

cuses on faculty who are motivated

to create meaningful teaching and

learning experiences and promotes

opportunities for other faculty to

join when they begin to hear the

passionate conversations among

their peers.

c. Frame outcomes assessment re-

sults as a resource for continuous

improvement and support: WCC

makes it clear to faculty and staff

that assessment results will not be

used punitively.

d. Start with a proposal and request

feedback when creating new as-

sessment-related processes: Start-

ing conversations with the best

available ideas, while encouraging

critique and the emergence of new

ideas, often results in more mean-

ingful and substantial feedback and

products. For example, when rst

developing rubrics, consider start-

ing with the NILOA rubrics, rather

than creating rubrics from scratch.

e. Develop a culture of institutional

learning through action: WCC

gathers enough information—rath-

er than an exhaustive amount—at

an appropriate level, to be able to

take a logical next step and, then,

learns from the experience. For

example, WCC piloted a new core

learning ability report with summer

faculty to get a sense if the college

was moving in the right direction in

revising the process. This informa-

tion was then immediately used in

the fall by the outcomes assessment

committee to guide their next steps.

f. Create support and incentives for

faculty to participate: In addition to

the faculty educational workshop

incentives noted in the paragraph

below, faculty professional reports,

including course outcome reports,

are contractually required annually

of full-time and adjunct faculty.

Embedding this work in the review

cycle has created a systematized

and valued element of the faculty

review process.

Invest in relationships across campus to build trust, solicit input

and feedback, improve relevance and responsiveness, offer

support, and increase receptivity.

2. Engaging in collaborative learning

a. Engage faculty and staff in peer-

driven professional development

opportunities to advance assess-

ment work: WCC is committed to

instituting transformational change

by encouraging faculty and staff

to use innovative, equity-driven

strategies for student learning and

assessment. To advance this effort,

WCC engages faculty and staff in

peer-driven professional develop-

ment. Since 2011, WCC has of-

fered faculty education workshops

(FEWs) focused on teaching,

learning, and assessment practice.

Through these FEWs, which are

15-hour mini-courses, WCC es-

tablished and institutionalized the

foundational work of outcomes

assessment and data-driven reec-

tion. Initial FEWS were designed

by AIR and focused on topics such

as writing course outcomes; creat-

ing meaningful rubrics; and align-

ing course outcomes, teaching

strategies, and assessments. Over

time, an increasing number of fac-

ulty and staff developed FEWs, and

WCC now offers about 13 FEWs

annually, focusing on assessment,

equity, student-centered pedagogy,

and using student success data for

improvement. As part of WCC’s

commitment to assessment and

equity-driven pedagogy, full-time

faculty completing FEWs receive

permanent salary increases, and ad-

junct faculty are paid stipends. This

investment has provided a huge

incentive for participation in out-

comes assessment and data-driven

equity work and has reinforced the

value of this work by faculty.

b. Routinely request feedback on

processes and reports: For exam-

ple, WCC includes a space on its

reports for faculty and staff to sug-

gest improvements to its reports

and processes. The College then

tries to integrate substantive sug-

gestions. For instance, the faculty

reports Canvas page noted below

resulted from a faculty suggestion

on a program outcome report.

3. Providing transparent communication

a. Make outcomes assessment data

and resources accessible on a pub-

lic website: Since 2009, WCC has

maintained a comprehensive pub-

lic AIR website, which includes a

wealth of outcomes assessment,

student success data, and educa-

tional materials and serves as a re-

source for faculty, staff, students,

and the public. Maintaining re-

sources in an easily accessible cen-

tral location broadens engagement

and participation in assessment ef-

forts. Providing access to resourc-

es and transparency is central to

WCC’s assessment work.

b. Create a central place for faculty to

submit reports: WCC has a faculty

reports Canvas page centralizing

all faculty assessment resources,

reporting, and tracking.

c. Provide timely feedback to each

faculty and staff member who sub-

mits an assessment report: Faculty

and staff receive feedback on all

reports submitted, to acknowledge

the value of their work and appreci-

ation for the time dedicated to cre-

ating the reports. The “next steps”

identied by faculty in their course

and program outcome reports are

emailed to faculty during the quar-

ter in which the information is rel-

evant, reminding them of the great

ideas generated when the initial re-

ports were submitted.

d. Communicate assessment-related

information in multiple forums and

encourage conversations: In addi-

tion to communicating informa-

tion via the website, professional

development day, and other work-

shops, AIR staff routinely meet

one-on-one and in small groups

with faculty and staff to discuss as-

sessment information. WCC tries

to create spaces—at workshops, in

meetings, or one-on-one—where

faculty and staff can reect about

outcomes assessment informa-

tion and, together, consider possi-

ble next steps. Also, in 2018, AIR

began sharing recent assessment

results in short catchy monthly or

quarterly emails to employees ti-

tled “What’s in the AIR?” In spring

2020, AIR also began sending reg-

ular “Assess-Minute” emails to fac-

ulty communicating brief, relevant,

and timely assessment, teaching,

and learning resources.

e. Invest in relationships across cam-

pus to build trust, solicit input and

feedback, improve relevance and

responsiveness, offer support, and

increase receptivity. When possi-

ble, respond to individuals request-

ing assistance through a phone call,

in-person, or zoom, rather than

through email.

Next Steps in WCC’s Assessment

Journey

Embracing its guiding principles of

creating sustainable processes, engaging

in collaborative learning, and providing

transparent communication, WCC is fo-

cusing on two major initiatives this aca-

demic year:

1. WCC’s core learning ability process,

which has been in place for the past

eight years, is being revised by its

outcomes assessment committee to in-

crease the meaningfulness of the data

and simplify the process.

2. WCC will be more proactive in en-

gaging students in all assessment

processes by forming an AIR student

advisory group (with paid students),

which will take WCC’s assessment

work to the next level, providing

more systematic student input and

feedback. ■

Anne Marie Karlberg is the director for as-

sessment and institutional research, Tresha

Dutton is a professor of communication

studies and faculty outcomes assess-

ment coordinator, Peter Horne is a senior

research analyst, and Ed Harri is the vice

president for instruction at Whatcom Com-

munity College.

Sustaining a Culture of Assessment

Excellence at IUPUI

Susan Kahn and Stephen P. Hundley

Our Context

 , , +

programs (including under-

graduate, graduate, and profes-

sional), more than 4,000 faculty members,

and a budget of some $1.7 billion, Indi-

ana University-Purdue University Indian-

apolis (IUPUI) represents a unique and

enduring partnership between Indiana’s

two major public universities. Formed in

1969 from an array of graduate and pro-

fessional programs offered by Purdue and

IU in Indianapolis, IUPUI built its under-

graduate core within a non-traditional, de-

centralized framework. Degree programs

are connected to either IU or Purdue and

students receive degrees from one or the

other, depending on the program. In ad-

dition, IU, our managing partner, was an

early adopter of Responsibility-Centered

Management, a budget model that sup-

ports the scal decentralization and in-

dependence of each budget unit. Given

this history and context, academic cul-

tures across the campus vary widely and

top-down academic mandates are typi-

cally difcult to implement. For us, then,

“excellence in assessment” arises from a

culture of evidence-based teaching and

learning informed by strategic and dis-

tributed leadership that vests assessment

primarily at the program level.

In 2016, we were recognized as one of

the inaugural recipients of the Sustained

Excellence in Assessment designation,

and we were pleased to receive this honor

once again in 2021. IUPUI has created an

enduring and pervasive culture of assess-

ment and improvement for more than 30

years. Supporting this culture are an ar-

ray of campus-wide resources, including

a robust data infrastructure, a rich variety

of professional development opportuni-

ties, and distributed assessment expertise.

Assessment and improvement are also

strengthened by effective leadership and

governance at the campus, school, and de-

partment levels.

At the undergraduate level, we envi-

sion students’ educational experience as

a coherent learning pathway, beginning

with the First-Year Experience; advancing

through general education core and elec-

tive courses, the major, and at least four

validated “engaged learning” experiences;

and culminating in a senior capstone expe-

rience. Ideally, these experiences combine

and cohere, as students gain progressive

mastery of both their chosen discipline and

our institutional learning outcomes, known

as the Proles of Learning for Undergradu-

ate Success (“the Proles”), which incorpo-

rate both intellectual and personal growth.

Ongoing assessment, improvement,

and evidence-based decision-making are

essential to realizing this vision for all

students. Thus, to qualify for inclusion in

the general education program, courses

must present evidence of student learning

of one or more of the Proles. All under-

graduate degree programs have integrated

the Proles into degree-level learning out-

comes, introductory courses, key courses

in the major, and capstone experiences.

Many have gone beyond this minimum

requirement and aligned all courses, and

even assignments, with the Proles.

Because of IUPUI’s decentralized

structure and culture, we do not mandate

specic assessment strategies, methods,

or instruments; rather, we build capacity

for assessment and improvement through

professional development, collaborative

campus-wide initiatives, and committees

that engage in ongoing assessment work,

discussion, and exchange. Annual unit

assessment reports are reviewed through

our campus-wide Program Review and

Assessment Committee (PRAC), and,

collectively, enable us to gauge progress

in student achievement of campus-wide

learning outcomes.

IUPUI’s Conceptual Learning

Framework

To encapsulate the myriad instructional

and assessment activities taking place

across IUPUI, our conceptual learning

framework depicts how we intentionally

develop, implement, and align campus-

wide efforts to promote student learning. At

IUPUI, we prepare graduates for a variety

of post-degree roles and contexts. Some of

these broad outcomes include demonstrat-

ing civicmindedness, nding employment,

engaging in lifelong learning, pursuing

graduate and professional education,

thriving in a diverse and global world, and

remaining connected to us as alumni. Stu-

dents participate in a variety of purposeful

learning experiences on their pathway to

graduation to prepare them for a dynamic,

meaningful, and resilient future.

As noted, the Proles are IUPUI’s

institutional-level student learning out-

comes (SLOs). All our learning activities

intentionally prepare students to be com-

municators, problem solvers, innovators,

and community contributors—learning

outcomes we desire of all our graduates,

regardless of major. They are cascaded

and aligned throughout IUPUI. Program-

level SLOs represent specic learning

achievement required of graduates in indi-

vidual degree programs. These reect the

various disciplinary ways of advancing

our broader institutional SLOs. Course-

and activity-level SLOs are the individual

contexts in which learning occurs. These

include academic courses, along with ex-

periential, community, global, and cocur-

ricular learning opportunities involving

on- and off-campus partners. The Proles

and program-level SLOs get introduced

and/or reinforced in these learning expe-

riences. Finally, assignment-level SLOs

include specic interventions and assess-

ments designed to implement course- and

activity-level goals for learning. These

also give students plentiful opportunities

to demonstrate competence related to the

Proles and program-level learning goals.

Undergirding these activities is IU-

PUI’s mission, vision, values, and stra-

tegic plan. Our #1 strategic plan goal is

to promote undergraduate student learn-

ing and success. In addition to academic

affairs, student affairs, and the academic

units, a host of ofces and committees

engage in distributed leadership to sup-

port our efforts, including: PRAC; Center

for Teaching and Learning; Planning and

Institutional Improvement; Institute for

Engaged Learning (IEL); Student Expe-

rience Council; Institutional Research &

Decision Support (IRDS); Undergraduate

Affairs Committee; Division of Under-

graduate Education; and Ofce of Com-

munity Engagement. Several processes

and tools enable faculty, staff, students,

and other stakeholders to facilitate and

document student learning and assure

our ongoing commitment to quality. Pro-

cesses include degree proposals, periodic

general education and program reviews,

strategic plan and PRAC reports, and ac-

creditation activities. Tools such as our

Learning Management System, The Re-

cord (IUPUI’s version of a Comprehen-

sive Learner Record), ePortfolios, degree

maps and audits, and transcripts all sup-

port and encapsulate student achievement

of learning at IUPUI.

Recent and Ongoing Priorities

Since 2016, IUPUI has focused ev-

idence-informed improvements in ve

high-priority areas that advance our stra-

tegic plan goal of promoting undergradu-

ate learning and success:

1. We developed capacity to disaggregate

data to highlight needs and uncover

equity gaps among various popula-

tions. Robust data infrastructure in

IRDS enables campus-, unit-, and

program-level decision-makers to ac-

cess context-specic student data to

identify and address equity gaps. We

also provide professional development

to enhance decision-makers’ ability to

understand and respond appropriately

to assessment data.

2. We focused on holistic learner support.

Enhanced collaboration and coordina-

tion across campus-level units enabled

implementation of needed improve-

ments: expanding Bridge and the other

programs above; increasing capacity

in Counseling and Psychological Ser-

vices; expanding resources to address

student nancial, housing, and food

insecurity; and organizing scattered

services into a comprehensive Center

for Transfer and Adult Students.

3. We reorganized our work on High Im-

pact Practices (HIPs). The creation of

IEL brought campus ofces leading

HIPs under one organizational um-

brella. This realignment enables us to

promote delity, equity, and scalabil-

ity of HIPs and to integrate HIPs en-

gagement into guided, coherent educa-

tional pathways.

4. We pursued a strategic equity agenda.

These efforts have included a holistic,

test-optional admissions process de-

signed to broaden access for histori-

cally underserved students; updated

promotion and tenure guidelines that

recognize and reward faculty achieve-

ments that enhance equity and inclu-

sion; and professional development on

culturally responsive instructional and

assessment approaches.

5. We disseminated our assessment work,

strengthened our reputation for assess-

ment leadership, and advanced assess-

ment as a eld. Along with organizing

the Assessment Institute in Indianapolis

and producing Assessment Update—

both sites for disseminating IUPUI as-

sessment work—campus assessment

leaders implemented the podcast series

Leading Improvements in Higher Edu-

cation, and produced a volume, Trends

in Assessment, that draws on Institute

tracks to discern new and emerging as-

sessment trends and issues.

Reection and Conclusion

Three decades of sustained effort have

enabled IUPUI to establish and maintain

a ourishing assessment culture. Special

strengths include:

• Abundant opportunities for profes-

sional development in assessment.

• Widespread understanding of the im-

portance of ongoing assessment and

improvement.

• Knowledgeable leadership for

assessment.

• Distributed assessment expertise at the

institution, school, and program levels.

• Varied approaches to assessment

among our diverse academic units,

enabling assessment to reect unit

missions and disciplinary standards of

evidence, thus supporting sustainabil-

ity of assessment.

• A reward structure that recognizes as-

sessment achievements and leadership.

• Signicant contributions to the devel-

opment of the assessment as a eld.

Finally, our goals for the future

include:

• Continue implementing the Proles

and promoting “whole student” devel-

opment through use of authentic as-

sessment approaches.

• Expand the number of experiences

included in The Record, based on evi-

dence of student learning of the Proles.

• Implement a campus-based assess-

ment award to complement the Trudy

W. Banta Lifetime Achievement in As-

sessment Award conferred at the As-

sessment Institute.

• Continue to broaden stakehold-

er engagement in assessment and

improvement.

• Continue promoting increased campus

assessment capacity through profes-

sional development.

• Enhance IUPUI’s national leadership

role in developing the assessment eld.

• Continue to sustain excellence in

assessment. ■

Susan Kahn is director of planning and in-

stitutional improvement initiatives (retired)

and Stephen P. Hundley is senior advisor to

the chancellor and executive editor of As-

sessment Update, both from IUPUI.

NILOA Perspectives

What’s Next for the Excellence in Assessment

Designation

Gianina Baker and Kate Drezek McConnell

Context

   

(EIA) Designation was intro-

duced at the Association of

Public and Land Grant Universities in

2016 under Peter McPherson’s leader-

ship and Teri Hinds’ direction. Jointly