2.5: The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. Narrative: The University of Texas (UT) at Arlington can demonstrate that its institutional planning and evaluation processes are ongoing, integrated, institution-wide and research based. Furthermore, information gained from these processes results in continuing improvement and helps to ensure that the University accomplishes its mission. Strategic Planning: Although strategic planning and academic program review had been occurring regularly for several years, and outcomes assessment had been undertaken sporadically, it was in 1996 that the University integrated these processes into a comprehensive, ongoing, campus-wide planning and evaluation system. While the system has evolved over the ten-year period, it is still comprised of the same basic elements: Strategic Planning, the Unit Effectiveness Process (UEP), Academic Program Review and the Linking Budgeting to Planning Exercise. UT Arlington Relationships Among the Strategic Planning Exercise, the Linking Budgeting to Planning Exercise and the UEP Flowchart outline the linkages between the UEP, strategic planning and the budget.  [1] The first three processes are connected through shared information and their impact on the budget; however, they differ in cycle length and purpose. The strategic planning process establishes organizational priorities and unit-level strategies to support those priorities. The UEP is a biennial process focusing on assessment of outcomes, both student learning outcomes and administrative outcomes. [2] The administrative outcomes assessed in the UEP relate back to the goals, objectives and strategies of The UT Arlington Strategic Plan. The Academic Program Review process evaluates the quality and effectiveness of programs in supporting the University’s mission on a five-year cycle.    The fourth process, the Linking Budget to Planning Exercise, annually documents how the University’s financial resources are used to support priorities identified in the Strategic Plan. Linking the planning process to budget decisions and continually assessing the effectiveness of the processes ensures that planning and evaluation are effective and meaningful. The Strategic Planning Process: Beginning in 1993, Chapter 2056 of the Government Code (originating from House Bill 2009 passed by the 72nd Legislature in 1991) [3] required each state agency and institution of higher education to issue an agency plan in even numbered years to cover five fiscal years beginning with the next odd-numbered fiscal year. [4] [5] UT Arlington incorporated this mandated process as the basis of the ongoing planning and evaluation cycle. A diagram of The UT Arlington Strategic Planning Process is located on The UT Arlington website. [6] In Fall 1996, the Long Range Planning Committee at UT Arlington was charged with developing a new strategic plan. In January 1997, the Long Range Planning Committee was divided into two committees -- a Facilities Committee and a Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) -- so that each group could focus more efficiently on its task. [7] Membership of the SPC included a representative from the following units: Budgets and Financial Planning; Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness; Research and Graduate Studies; Student Enrollment Services; UT Arlington Library; Colleges of Business, Engineering, Liberal Arts, and Science; and the Schools of Architecture, Education, Nursing, Social Work, and Urban and Public Affairs. A representative from the student body completed the membership. Working from the mission statement, the SPC developed goals, objectives and strategies in the areas of Learning, Knowledge and Outreach (reflecting teaching, research and service). The resulting document, the Strategic Plan and Mission 1997 – 2000, was approved by President Robert E. Witt in August 1997. The President also designated seven planning priorities for 1997-98 from the goal statements in the Strategic Plan. These priorities guided budget allocation decisions and provided additional focus for subsequent University-wide and unit-level planning efforts. This Strategic Plan also became the basis of the Agency Strategic Plan 1999 – 2003, [4] submitted to the Legislative Budget Board in June 1998.           Improvements resulting from this round of strategic planning include: an increase in faculty granted developmental leave from 0 in 1996-97 to 10 in 1997-98 and 7 in 1998-99 (Goal 1, Objective 1.2, Strategy 1, “Expand existing faculty development leave programs.”) an increase in the number of distance education courses from 76 courses with an enrollment of 594 students in Fall 1997 to 102 courses with an enrollment of 819 in Fall 1998 (Goal 2, Objective 2.1, Strategy 1,”Develop and implement a comprehensive university-wide program for distance learning.”) the opening of Arlington Hall in Fall 2000, the first new residence hall at UT Arlington since 1965 (Goal 1, Objective 1.3, Strategy 11, “Maintain and enhance a student living and learning environment that complements the academic program.”) the opening of the Nanotech Research and Teaching Facility in Fall 2001 (Goal 5, Objective 5.3, Strategy 4, “Facilitate the development of emerging research fields.”) Strategic Plan for FY2001-2005: The preparation of the Agency Strategic Plan 2001-2005 [5] was coordinated through the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness (IRPE) and included input from the broad-based membership of the SPC, as well as administrative and academic units of the University. The SPC reviewed and updated the goals, objectives and strategies contained in the July 1997 document, Strategic Plan and Mission Statement 1997-2000. [8] The SPC also recommended updated planning priorities for approval by the President. Appropriate administrators updated the components of the External/Internal Assessment and IRPE staff compiled and analyzed the data from “customer service” assessment surveys. Members of the senior administration reviewed the work of the other participants. The resulting Agency Strategic Plan was submitted to the Legislative Budgeting Board in June 2000 for implementation beginning in FY2001.           Improvements resulting from this round of strategic planning include: In October 2002, the initiation of a partnership with the Arlington Chamber of Commerce to operate the Arlington Technology Incubator (Objective A.1.1.d, “To partner with the broader community to contribute to dynamic and continuing economic, social, and cultural development.”) In December 2002, breaking ground on an $8.5 million Workforce Development and Continuing Education building (Objective A.1.1.d, Initiative 5, “Offer a variety of educational programs designed to meet the unique needs of working professionals.”) Strategic Plan for 2003-2007: Although HB 1545 (the higher education deregulation bill passed by the 77th Legislature) removed the requirement for institutions of higher education to submit strategic plans to the Governor’s Office and the Legislative Budget Board, the University strategic plan remained an integral part of the comprehensive, ongoing planning process at UT Arlington. In Fall 2001, the goals, objectives and strategies of the 2003-2007 strategic plan [9] were reviewed and updated by the SPC, with a second level review and approval by the central administration. The items in the plan were re-organized to emphasize their relationship to the state’s Closing the Gaps initiative. [10] Improvements resulting from this round of strategic planning include: In Spring 2003, the creation of the Academy of Distinguished Researchers (Strategy 3, Objective B, Initiative 3, “Recognize and reward outstanding faculty contributions to teaching, research, creative activity and service.”) In Fall 2004, the initiation of Mavs Meet, UT Arlington’s fall convocation event (Strategy 2, Objective B, Initiative 9, “Strengthen and encourage student involvement in all aspects of campus life.”) In Spring 2004, the approval of a joint research project on medical imaging with UT Dallas and UT Southwestern Health Science Center (Strategy 4, Objective A, Initiative 7, “Encourage research partnerships with public and private entities.”) Current Strategic Plan 2006-2010:  In Fall 2004, UTA embarked on a new strategic planning process for Strategic Plan 2006-2010. [11] The process began with a series of strategic conversations with key constituencies (e.g., faculty, students, staff, alumni, community members) led by President James Spaniolo and Provost Dana Dunn. Approximately 130 faculty and academic unit administrators participated in providing ideas, suggestions and comments. [12] Input from these conversations was then shared with the University SPC in early 2005 informing them of the development of University planning priorities.  The planning priorities drafted by the University SPC were put out for review by the campus community and finalized in late March 2005. The University SPC also conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis during this period to further inform the development of a new strategic plan. [13] In April 2005, the academic deans participated in a planning retreat that resulted in a draft of goals, objectives and strategies for the new strategic plan. These goals, objectives and strategies were reviewed -- first by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and then by the larger campus community during the Fall 2005 semester -- and revised based on that input. The final version of Mavericks on the Move: The University of Texas at Arlington Strategic Plan 2006 – 2010 was published in Spring 2006 and distributed to internal and external stakeholders. [14] The nine planning priorities and a small number of selected strategies are listed in the formal plan. As the most appropriate unit for developing strategies for implementing the plan is at the individual academic/administrative unit, the Provost and President instructed colleges/schools and academic/administrative support units to develop strategies for how their units would implement the strategic plan. Outcomes associated with the unit strategies were included in UEP assessment plans developed in Spring and Summer 2006. [15]  The Unit Effectiveness Process: The UT Arlington planning and evaluation system provides for the development and implementation of unit plans that flow from the Strategic Plan. These unit assessment plans help to ensure that all units are engaged in initiatives that address the institutional priorities and help achieve the University mission. Since the purpose of the planning/assessment activities is program improvement, units use the results of the assessment to develop proposals for improvement. First Cycle (1997-98): In August 1997, as approved by President Witt, the Office of IRPE distributed instructions for preparation of the 1997-98 Unit Effectiveness Plans and Annual Reports. The instructions for Unit Effectiveness Plans required academic units to state educational outcomes as well as research and service objectives. Units were requested to link the outcomes to the University’s Strategic Plan and the seven planning priorities designated by the President. They were also instructed to list action steps and assessment methods they would use to evaluate success in achieving those outcomes and objectives. The format of the Annual Report, submitted at the end of the academic year, included a description of the assessment procedures, evaluation of assessment data and use of results for improvement of programs and curricula. All units developed Unit Effectiveness Plans according to the instructions described above. IRPE and the SPC reviewed the plans according to a set of guidelines and made suggestions to units for improving their plans. In July 1998 all units submitted completed Unit Effectiveness Plans containing the results of assessment and the recommendations for improvement, as well as Annual Reports summarizing their actions and results for the academic year, to the appropriate dean or vice president. IRPE reviewed the end-of-year documents for completeness, and this review confirmed that 100% of the units participated in the planning and evaluation process. The final documents were presented in a follow-up report the Commission on Colleges, October 1998, Supplementary Volume I: Unit Effectiveness Plans and Annual Reports, AY1997-98. [16] Evolution of the Process: Since the first UEP cycle in 1997-98, UT Arlington has completed four rounds of unit-level planning and assessment. At this writing, the sixth cycle is in process, with final assessment plans due to IRPE in August 2006. The table below shows the significant dates associated with each cycle. UEP Cycle   Instructions Issued   Plans           Due Assessment Results and Analysis Due   Improvement Reports Due First Cycle: AY 1997-98 August 1997 November 1997 July 1998 N/A Second Cycle: AY 1998-99 August 1998 Nov 1998 (Draft) Feb 1999 (Finalized) September 1999 N/A Third Cycle: AY 1999-00 through October of     AY 2000-01   Nov 1999 (Draft) Feb 2000 (Finalized) October 2000 December 2000 (for improvements  in AY 1998-99 or  Fall 1999) Fourth Cycle (First Biennial Cycle): December 2000 through December 2002 December 2000 March 2001 (Draft) Sept 2001 (Finalized) October 2002 December 2002 (for improvements in AY 2000-01or AY 2001-02) Fifth Cycle: January 2003 through December 2004 January 2003 March 2003 (Draft) Sept 2003 (Finalized) October 2004 December 2004 (for improvements in AY 2002-03, AY 2003-04 or Fall 04) Sixth Cycle (currently in process): March 2006 through April 2008 March 2006 June 2006 (Draft) August 2006 (Finalized) October 2007 (Draft) Feb 2008 (Finalized) April 2006 (Improvements in Calendar 2005) May 2007 (Improvements in Calendar 2006) April 2008 (Improvements in Calendar 2007) Since its inception in 1997, the process has evolved and matured. As the number of outcomes that academic units were to state and assess increased to include the areas of undergraduate student learning, graduate student learning, research, service, advising, computer proficiency and oral communication, it quickly became evident that an annual cycle did not allow sufficient time for thoughtful planning based on analysis of assessment results. During the implementation of the third cycle in AY 1999 -2000, a decision was made to lengthen the time frame for the process, and instructions were distributed to the units. [17] The calendar was modified and final reports were submitted in the fall of the following academic year (October 2000). At the same time, a new feature was added to the process, the Assessment-Based Improvement Report. Since the original UEP forms ended with recommendations for improvement, the IRPE office determined that a report documenting improvements that were actually implemented was needed in order to fully “close the loop.” In December of 2000, the instructions for the first two-year assessment cycle were distributed to units. [18] The new timeline allowed a longer period for IRPE to review the draft plans submitted by units in the spring of the first year of the cycle and to offer suggestions to be incorporated into the plans prior to implementation in the second year of the cycle. In the 2002-2004 cycle, academic units were instructed to replace the department-level plans they had been developing with separate assessment plans for each academic program they administered.  [19] Evaluation of the Unit Effectiveness Process: In September 2005, Provost Dana Dunn formed the Institutional Effectiveness Advisory Committee (IEAC) with representatives from various academic and administrative units across campus. [20] The IEAC met throughout the fall to conduct a “best practices” search among institutions comparable to UT Arlington and to evaluate UT Arlington’s existing unit effectiveness planning process and supporting infrastructure in comparison to those institutions. At the culminating brainstorming session in December 2005, the IEAC identified numerous improvements to make the UEP process more manageable, efficient, effective and meaningful. From these 60+ ideas, the committee produced a prioritized list of issues/recommendations. The following were the committee’s six top-ranked suggestions for improvement: Allow the UEP process to focus on larger, fewer issues. Develop a professional support staff to assist with the planning and execution of assessments. Provide training sessions at both basic and advanced levels. Replace the UEP process with program review for all academic programs. Spell out better links with the budget process. Make the online UEP system easier to use.  The co-chairs of the committee completed additional review of the potential improvements identified by the committee and the materials gathered from other universities, then produced a final report to the Provost that presented recommendations based on the targeted timeframe for implementation: Immediate recommendations targeted for implementation within the next three months,   Short-term recommendations within the next year, and Long-term recommendations within the next three years. Many of the recommendations targeted for immediate implementation were incorporated into the UEP cycle that began in March 2006. [21] Current Cycle 2006-2008: Prior to the current cycle, the process reports (including the assessment plan, the results of assessment and the proposed changes for improvement) were referred to as the Unit Effectiveness Plan. [22] In observance of its significance as a mechanism for promoting continuous improvement, and to clarify the inclusion of implementation and reporting phases as well as the planning phase, the name of the process was changed in January 2006 to the UEP.  Further exemplifying the maturity of the process is the appointment of a Coordinator of Outcomes Assessment, in December 2005, whose charge is to coordinate the complexities of the UEP. The following improvements were made to the UEP for the current cycle: The oral competency and computer literacy outcomes will not be required as part of the UEP. The University will still need to ensure that students have acquired the basic skills in these two areas, but the assessment will be included in the Evaluation of the Core Curriculum being conducted over a five-year cycle for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Departments may still elect to include discipline-specific oral competency and computer proficiency skills among the competencies important for their graduates. Student learning outcomes and assessments in these areas would be part of the UEP plans for those degree programs. Academic departments will focus on articulating and assessing student learning outcomes related to the student competencies for each degree program. Academic departments will not be required to address research and service in the department UEP plan. Advising may be addressed at the level of the department or the college/school, depending on the organization of advising services in the unit. Colleges and schools will develop administrative UEP plans containing strategies and outcomes related to their core functions, linked to the priorities, goals, objectives and strategies of the new UT Arlington Strategic Plan. These strategies and outcomes may be in areas such as increasing the effectiveness of the learning process, providing events that bring the public into contact with UT Arlington programs, improving retention and graduation rates, increasing research expenditures, improving the quantity and quality of research space and infrastructure, increasing cross-disciplinary collaborations, establishing more effective partnerships with educational and government entities and increasing diversity among faculty, staff and students. Schools that are not organized into departments will also be responsible for completing student learning outcome assessment plans for each of the degree programs they administer. The format of the UEP documents, which are currently in a Word-based format,  will change from columnar to textual. Eventually there will be a new and improved online entry system. The assessment information available through the IRPE web page is being updated and improved. Eventually we will add online training modules. Discussions of more meaningful ways to link the planning/assessment and budgeting processes are underway. IRPE assessment staff will meet personally with unit effectiveness contacts over the next few months to go over the new UEP instructions and forms and to assist with formulating outcomes and assessment methods. Integrating information from existing plans and related assessments for program review and professional accreditation can also be discussed at this time. The Provost is identifying funds for small stipends for a faculty coordinator in each school/college to develop expertise in the academic units and provide additional assistance with assessment. BA and BS programs in the same discipline may be assessed as a single program if student competencies are very similar. The forms for the current cycle and instructions to units are accessible through the IRPE website. [23] Academic Program Review Process: Review of academic programs at the doctoral level was instituted in 1991 as a result of legislative mandate. The process employed both external committees and review by the THECB. A number of ad hoc reviews of doctoral programs in humanities, teacher education and public administration were conducted by THECB members and staff during 1996 based upon statistical analyses, site visits and exchanges of reports and correspondence. In line with the final stages of the THECB reviews, The UT System adopted a policy requiring all undergraduate and graduate programs to be reviewed at five-year intervals to evaluate their quality and their effectiveness in supporting the University’s mission. During the 1997-98 academic year, UT Arlington completed policies and procedures for Academic Program Review (APR). These procedures provide for an in-depth examination of educational, research and service functions of each program on a five-year cycle. The first round of academic program reviews was completed by August 1998. The provost formulated recommendations for improvement at the conclusion of each of the reviews and submitted the recommendations to the president. The president then used these recommendations to guide decisions about program direction and funding. A complete set of these documents was submitted to the Commission on Colleges as part of the October 1998 Follow-Up Report, Supplementary Volume V: Academic Program Review Results, AY 1997-98. [24] APR has continued from 1997-98 to the present, with every academic program having been reviewed at least once in that time and 16 programs having been reviewed twice. The Program Review Committee (PRC) oversees the process and is composed of faculty members and administration. The PRC reports to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, under whose auspices the academic program reviews are conducted and supported. Academic programs are reviewed at five-year intervals, or more frequently, if the PRC determines circumstances warrant an earlier review. Relevant statistical data, (e.g., multi-year enrollment, credit hour trends, number of graduates, external funding) are provided by the IRPE and are analyzed as part of each program review. The review includes an evaluation of the undergraduate and graduate curricula and programs of instruction; the student demand for these programs; the scholarly activity of the unit’s faculty; the unit’s facilities; the national stature and impact of the unit’s undergraduate and graduate programs, where appropriate; the quality of its students; the market for its graduates; the level of support for the unit; the effectiveness of its leadership and its effectiveness in furthering the University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity goals. The faculty and administration of the unit review the final Program Review report and provide a written response, prepared in consultation with the unit’s faculty members, giving specific improvement actions planned in the light of the report’s recommendations.  In recent years, some important changes were made to the APR Policy. In April of 2004, the University announced that the cycle for APR would change from every five years to every seven years. In addition, undergraduate and graduate academic programs that are subject to rigorous review by external accreditation organizations would be exempt from the University’s APR process. As a result of this new policy, a number of programs that previously underwent both rigorous external accreditation review and APR no longer have to comply with an unnecessarily redundant policy. Other changes were made to the APR Handbook to integrate the APR process more closely with the UEP. Units were instructed that the faculty section of the self-study should contain a discussion of the research and public service outcomes and results from the Unit Effectiveness Plan. Similarly, the student section of the self-study should review the student learning outcomes and results of student assessment documented in the Unit Effectiveness Plan. Improvements in programs or services resulting from recommendations of the program review team should be included in the next Assessment-Based Improvement Report prepared by the unit, in order to document that the program reviews are effective in producing information that is used for improvement. Current policies and procedures for APR are contained in The UT Arlington Program Review Manual [25] and a multi-year master schedule of program reviews is maintained by the PRC. [26] For further information on the program review process, including actual program reviews, see UT Arlington’s Response to SACS Core Requirement 2.7.2. [27]    Integration of Budget and Planning: The University’s planning and evaluation system is aligned with the budget process.  Each year, budget development begins with discussions between the President, the Provost, the vice presidents and the athletic director. The President notes strategic areas, identified within each division, that define areas of emphasis for the coming year. The vice presidents work within their areas of responsibility to develop a budget plan, using guidance from the President and the Budget Office. Vice presidents are responsible for providing budget requests that are aligned with goals identified in the Strategic Plan. Each budget unit (academic and administrative) is required to document the link between its budget and institutional planning priorities. This information is aggregated by the Assistant Vice President for Budgeting and Financial Planning into a presentation for the University community each fall entitled How the FY 2006 Operating Budget is Linked to Planning Priorities, which shows how new or reallocated funds support each of the University’s major planning initiatives. [28] The instructions to units regarding the Linking Budgeting to Planning Exercise for the FY2007 budget [29] and examples of materials submitted by the units for the current year and for past years are available on the UEP website. [22] Institutional Measures of Effectiveness: In addition to the unit-level assessment that is part of the UEP and APR the University gauges it effectiveness by examining University-wide measures and assessment. UT Arlington’s Compact with UT System: In 2004, The UT System initiated a compact process with each of its constituent institutions. The Compact is a “written agreement between the Chancellor of The University of Texas System and an institution president that summarizes the institution's major goals and priorities, strategic directions, and specific tactics to achieve its goals.” Because the time frame for a compact is shorter than that of strategic plans (18 – 24 months), this document is not intended to replace an institution’s other planning processes. Compacts are updated annually to show progress that has been made, thereby providing a measure of the institution’s effectiveness in meeting the goals deemed most critical to accomplishing its mission. The compacts for UT Arlington and other institutions are available on The UT System website. [30] Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Accountability System: On January 22, 2004, Governor Perry issued Executive Order RP 31 requiring the Coordinating Board and each institution and system to work together to provide “the information necessary to determine the effectiveness and quality of the education students receive at individual institutions” and to provide “… the basis to evaluate the institutions’ use of state resources.” [31] The Texas Accountability System for public higher education provides data for 35 public universities, nine health-related institutions, the four Texas State Technical Colleges and three two-year Lamar State Colleges. The state’s two-year colleges will be added to the System in early 2005. The System currently has three essential components: Key Accountability Measures. A small number of key accountability measures were identified for each goal. There are five categories of accountability measures (participation, success, excellence, research and institutional effectiveness and efficiencies) for the general academic and two-year institutions. Health-related institutions include an additional area for patient care. Contextual/explanatory Measures. Additional measures were included to help place the key accountability measures in context and/or to more fully describe the efforts of each institution. Institutional explanation and description. Each institution was given the opportunity to provide further information or explanation. Each institution was also given the opportunity to add one or two additional measures. A description of the measures included in the system as well as performance data for UT Arlington can be found on the THECB web site. [32] The University of Texas System Accountability Report: This report also resulted from Executive Order RP 31. Information on The UT System Accountability Report is available on The UT System website. [33] National Survey of Student Engagement: Since 2001, UT Arlington has participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), conducted by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and launched with the support of the Pew Charitable Trust. [34] The student questionnaire evaluates the extent to which first-year (FY) and senior (SR) students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development. The results of the survey provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college. The assumption is that the more engaged students are, and the more a university conducts itself to contribute to that success, the better the student experience.  NSSE does not assign rank nationally or within a cohort group, but rather it focuses on practices that lead to student successes, establishing benchmarks to give each participating school a way to compare itself to other universities and colleges.  NSSE considers five factors as Benchmarks of Effective Education Practice: Level of Academic Involvement Active and Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interaction Diverse Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment The Benchmark results for UT Arlington compare the institution to other schools in The UT System, to other schools with the same Carnegie classification and with all institutions participating in the NSSE. Various groups, including the Graduation Rates Task Force and the Quality Enhancement Plan Steering Committee, have reviewed the NSSE results to better understand the experiences and needs of UT Arlington students.  The 2005 results indicate that 8 out of 10 SR and more than 8 out of 10 FY students had a good to excellent experience at UTA. However, student experiences tend to fall more into the “good” category as opposed to the “excellent” category The University wants to provide an environment that will create excellent experiences for a larger proportion of students. In reviewing the University’s benchmark scores against the national benchmarks and other institutions’ Effective Education Practice benchmarks, the survey revealed that UTA has room for improvement.  The area of Active and Collaborative Learning stood out among other benchmarks as an area in which actual scores were lower than the predicted scores for both FY and SR groups. While this is not the only area where improvement is desired, the University recognizes that improvement here would benefit student engagement and student learning. This finding contributed to the University’s decision to choose the theme of “Active Learning for Higher Order Thinking Skills” for the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). This plan calls for each of the colleges and schools to identify their own exemplars of active learning and approaches to assessing student learning outcomes within in these exemplars, and the results culled from these exemplars will serve as the basis of the QEP. The QEP is intended to focus primarily on the undergraduate experience, though what is learned in the process may be extended to the graduate level at a later date. A full report of NSSE results from the 2002-2004 surveys can be found in Results of the National Survey of Student Engagement 2002 – 2004. [35] The 2005 highlights are also available for review. [36]     Collegiate Learning Assessment: In 2004, UT Arlington began participating in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) along with the other universities in The UT System. [37] The purpose of the assessment is to understand how well students are achieving certain learning outcomes compared with their predicted performance and the performance of students at other undergraduate institutions. The CLA measures students’ skill development in the areas of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving and written communication, without reference to specific course content. Tests are administered to all or a sample of an institution’s first-year and seniors, and results are compared against those obtained from other participating institutions. This study helps answer several important questions.  First, how well do the learning outcomes of students enrolled at UT Arlington compare to students from other UT System institutions and participating institutions across the country? Second, do students at UT Arlington, relative to students from other institutions, perform above, at, or below ‘expected’ levels based on their admissions test scores?  Third, does attending UT Arlington “add value” as indicated by seniors showing levels of learning higher than expected relative to first-year performance? The 2004-2005 results showed that overall performance was at and, in some cases, above expected levels. UT Arlington seniors performed above the level expected for analytical writing tasks relative to seniors nationally when compared to first-year performance. The test also revealed that The UT Arlington seniors scored below the level expected relative to seniors nationally in the areas of critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving and written communication. However, the University is in line with peer institutions in The UT System and students performed as expected in both Performance Tasks and Analytic Writing Tasks. Essentially, the CLA validated that the University is educating its students consistent with national standards, but also pinpoints areas that could be further developed in the core curriculum. Full details of the results can be found in the CLA Institutional Score Report 2004-2005. [38]      The results from this first cycle of testing will be used as a baseline from which further progress can be measured. The UT System encourages chief academic officers to use the test results to address weaknesses in the core curriculum or to build skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, analytical reasoning and writing skills in the overall undergraduate preparation program. The test results may also be used for benchmarking academic performance of their students against national peers and setting targets for improvement. Results may also be used to provide information to the public, funding organizations, policymakers and parents on how their students perform academically in relationship to a national standard.  Management and Support for the Planning and Evaluation System: The responsibility for facilitating and coordinating the overall functioning of the planning and evaluation system at UT Arlington rests with the IRPE, which reports to the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs. IRPE has sole responsibility for the UEP process; however, IRPE works with the SPC in managing the Strategic Planning Process and with the Office of Budgets and Planning in directing the Linking Budgeting to Planning Exercise. The Office of Graduate Studies has the primary role in coordinating the APR Process. The Provost has provided ongoing support through allocation of funds to the IRPE budget. Over the years, approximately 25% - 50% of the Assistant Vice President/Director’s time and at least 50% of another staff member’s time have been devoted to the planning and assessment functions. As mentioned previously, a position was reclassified in Fall 2005 to create a Coordinator of Outcomes Assessment role in IRPE, whose time is allocated 100% to these functions. The IRPE budget funds the development and administration of University-wide surveys such as the Alumni Survey and the Student Experience Survey. Travel monies are available for IRPE staff members as well as other faculty and administrators to attend professional conferences related to planning and assessment in order to remain current on techniques and tools in the field. IRPE funds were used to bring a well-known assessment expert to campus in Spring 2006 to present workshops for UT Arlington faculty, staff and administrators. Additional faculty development workshops are planned for 2006-07.   At various times, the Provost has made additional funds available to units to assist with their assessment efforts. For example, Assessment Mini Grants were awarded during the 2000-2002 UEP cycle. When academic units were required to begin assessing each degree program separately in the 2002-2004 cycle, the Provost provided $55,000 for assessment, which was allocated to units based on the number of programs each had to assess.  In 2006-07, the Provost has approved funds for a $1,000 stipend for a faculty member or administrator in each school/college who will act as an assessment contact person and facilitator for peers in their academic area.