3.3.1: The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.
Narrative:
The University of Texas (UT) at Arlington identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.
The Unit Effectiveness Process:
The Unit Effectiveness Process (UEP) is the mechanism through which all units at UT Arlington participate in the outcomes assessment process and this process is outlined on the UEP website. [1] The process has been in place since 1996, first annually, and then since 2001 on a biennial cycle. 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 academic year 1999-2000, a decision was made to lengthen the time frame for the process and instructions were distributed to the units. [2]
The last two completed cycles are the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 cycles. The process was postponed in academic year 2005-2006 to accommodate the formation of the new strategic plan. It was decided that the revision of University priorities, goals and objectives should be completed first in order to provide the foundation for the unit plans. At the time of this writing, all academic and administrative/educational support units are developing and finalizing their UEP plans for the 2006-2007 cycle.
The UEP is a three phase process: (a) planning; (b) implementation, assessment and analysis and (c) improvement. Documentation accompanies each phase of the process. Documentation reports serve as evidence that academic, administrative and support units are identifying and assessing expected outcomes and demonstrates that units are using the assessment results for improvement. Below is the UEP timeline that shows the relationship between the phases and the respective time allocations within the two-year cycle.
Phase I - Planning:
This is the phase when UEP Plans are devised and finalized. During Phase I, units document their assessment plans. The procedure requires units to describe intended outcomes along with action steps for achieving the intended outcome. An assessment methodology must accompany each intended outcome, and units are encouraged to use direct measures whenever possible as well as multiple assessment measures. The plans are approved by the appropriate dean or vice president and then forwarded to the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness for review and feedback. Once the plan is approved, it is implemented in the upcoming academic year.
Phase II - Implementation, Assessment and Analysis:
During this phase, action steps designed to achieve the intended outcomes are
implemented. Assessment data is collected, analyzed, reviewed and reported. Proposals for Improvement are developed. Phase II documentation records the results of the assessment activities and proposals for improvement for those outcomes that were not achieved. Data collection and assessment begins as early as spring of the academic year with final results being reported in early fall. Within the results report is a proposal for improvement for outcomes that were not achieved (or that were achieved, but which faculty and staff believed to be an area for improvement).
Phase III – Improvement:
Proposed changes are implemented and reported. This part of the process completes the planning and evaluation cycle by looking back over the change proposals of the previous cycle(s) and listing improvements that were actually implemented. Phase III documentation validates, on an annual basis, which proposed improvements were actually implemented. Implemented improvements are reported annually based on the previous calendar year. If a proposed improvement is not implemented, units are asked to justify its lack of implementation.
The table below aligns each phase with its corresponding report(s).
PHASE |
REPORT |
| I – Planning |
Form A – Coversheet
Form B – Assessment Plan for Student Learning Outcomes
Form B – Assessment Plan for Administrative Outcomes |
II – Implementation,
Assessment & Analysis |
Form C – Assessment & Analysis |
| III – Improvement |
Form D – Annual Improvement Update |
Â
Current Reporting Cycle Changes:
For the current 2006-2008 UEP cycle, the reporting format was changed in response to recommendations from the Institutional Effectiveness Advisory Committee (IEAC), as well as feedback from faculty and staff. For further information on the IEAC, see UT Arlington’s response to SACS Core Requirement 2.5. [3] For this cycle, reports are Word Forms and are located on the UEP website. [1]
Examples:
An example of an implemented improvement in an academic unit comes from the Philosophy Department’s 2003-2004 assessment. The faculty assessed students’ ability to construct and critically assess a complex philosophical argument. Student performance was below the intended performance level. Faculty discussed the findings and determined there was a high correlation between those who underperformed and those who rarely attended classes. The department decided to implement an attendance policy as an improvement.
An example of an implemented improvement in an administrative support unit comes from the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EOAA) Office’s 2003-2004 assessment. EOAA’s plan and assessment revealed a need for more sexual harassment prevention training. As a result, a sexual harassment online training module was added to the other required online employee training modules.
Sample plans and assessment reports, as well as improvement reports for the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 cycles and sample plans from the 2006-2008 cycle, are located on the UEP website. [1]
Other Forms of Outcomes Assessment:
Course Level Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes:
Faculty are required to identify student learning outcomes for their courses on the syllabus. [4] Identification of course-level student learning outcomes is a flexible process whereby outcomes may be identified by individual faculty members or through a coordinated faculty effort. Assessment of course-level student learning outcomes is an individualized process wherein faculty members devise their own methods of assessing the achievement of the intended learning outcome as well as incorporating assessment feedback into future course offerings. Course-level student learning outcomes culminate in program level outcomes that identify broad knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviors that program majors should be able to demonstrate upon completion of the degree program. As described above, program level outcomes are assessed within the UEP. Tips for developing student learning outcomes are available on the Provost’s website. [5]
Academic Program Review:
Existing UT Arlington degree programs undergo a rigorous program review every seven years. [6] UT Arlington’s Program Review Manual [7] helps guide the review process, which includes a self-study and a Program Review Team assessment that includes a site visit. Three weeks after the Program Review Team’s visit to the campus, the Team submits a formal report regarding their findings. The department chair of the reviewed program then submits departmental feedback regarding the review to the Provost. The Provost then submits program recommendations to the President. In cases where programs are accredited by external accreditation agencies, said accrediting reviews are accepted in lieu of a program review. [8] Programs accredited by external agencies are listed in the Table of Accredited Programs in the UT Arlington Fact Book. [9] For further information on UT Arlington program reviews, see UT Arlington’s response to SACS Core Requirement 2.5. [3] For information on program content, see UT Arlington’s response to SACS Core Requirement 2.7.2. [10]
|
