Appendix A - Santa Clara University by wuzhenguang

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 33

									9/28/129/5/11
                             SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
                GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENTOF LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                                     2011-12

                                        Table of Contents
 Sec. 1           Introduction                                       1
 Sec. 2           Guidelines for Annual Assessment Report            5
 Sec. 3           Guidelines for Mission, Goals and Objectives       8
 Sec. 4           Guidelines Curriculum Alignment Matrix             12
 Sec. 5           Guidelines Assessment Plan                         18


 Appendix A       Broader Context of Assessment and Program Review   23
 Appendix B       Summary of 2011 Strategic Plan                     25




                                                 1
                           SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY
              GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENTOF LEARNING OBJECTIVES
                                   2011-12

                                               SECTION 1
                                             INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF PROCESS

        Every academic program at Santa Clara University is expected to assess student learning
        objectives1 at the program level. That assessment should include the review of evidence
        demonstrating that students have achieved specific learning objectives and the use of that
        evidence to make strategic program improvements. To support assessment, programs
        should ensure that course objectives as well as relevant program objectives are included
        on all syllabi.
        Programs are expected to submit an Annual Assessment Report to the Dean and the
        Office of Assessment on a date to be determined by the Dean each year but no later than
        March 31. Section 2, Guidelines for Annual Assessment Report, specifies what
        information should be included in Annual Assessment Reports.

        Programs are expected to incorporate the results of assessment activities in the Self-Study
        Report required for program review. Academic units are on an eight year Program
        Review Cycle unless otherwise agreed upon with the Provost and the Dean. Program
        review focuses on formal evaluation of the program as a whole. The Program Review
        process is described in the separate document: Guidelines for Academic Program Review.

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTS
All academic programs are expected to maintain current versions of the following items:

    1. MGOs. Mission, goals, and objectives of the program for student learning, curriculum
       and pedagogy, scholarship / creative work, and service. (See Section 3: Guidelines for
       Mission, Goals, and Objectives.)

    2. Curriculum Alignment Matrix. This matrix is used to compare how well the
       curriculum addresses the stated learning objectives of the program. It is also used to
       identify where in the curriculum evidence of student learning might be obtained (See
       Section 4: Guidelines for Curriculum Alignment Matrix.)

    3. Assessment Plan. This plan should outline the methods and timetable for assessing each
       of the stated learning objectives of the program. Programs should carry out the studies

1
 The term “objective” is used in this document to refer a specific and detailed statement of content, level of
knowledge, skills, and/or values that faculty expect students to possess upon completion of a specific course or
program of study (“mastery objectives”), or for which students have demonstrable growth or change at the end of a
course or program (“developmental objectives”).

                                                        2
       called for by the Assessment Plan and initiate program improvements suggested by the
       findings. In addition, departments are expected to coordinate and collaborate with the
       Core Curriculum Implementation Team and the Office of Assessment in the assessment
       of Core Curriculum Learning Objectives when appropriate. (See Section 5: Guidelines
       for Assessment Plan.)

PURPOSE OF STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT

In an educational context, assessment is the process of collecting, recording, analyzing, and
interpreting information about a student's or one's own learning. Assessment is an essential tool
for evaluating the effectiveness of changes and improvements in teaching-learning processes.

The University’s mission statement declares that Santa Clara “makes student learning its central
focus.” The purpose of assessment is to foster educational effectiveness in the context of Santa
Clara’s mission as a Catholic and Jesuit university committed to education for competence,
conscience, and compassion.

Assessment provides a means for every academic
program to address three critical questions:
                                                                MEANINGFUL and
                                                                MANAGEABLE assessment
      What learning (goals and objectives related to
                                                                starts with the questions: What
       knowledge, skills, and values or attitudes) do we
                                                                should our students learn? How
       expect?
                                                                do we know our students are
      What evidence do we have about how well
                                                                learning? How can we improve
       students in our program are achieving these
                                                                student learning in our
       goals and objectives?
                                                                program?
      How can we use this evidence to improve
       program quality and student learning?

Only through an understanding of what students actually learn can programs assure that the
learning objectives they have set are realized.

CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT
The following practices characterize effective student learning assessment endeavors at the
program level:

1. Assessment activities are designed to be meaningful, manageable, and sustainable.

2. The program follows the guidelines provided in this document unless alternatives have been
   approved in advance by the Dean in consultation with the Office of Assessment.

3. The assessment process reflects broad participation by program faculty in defining issues,
   analyzing evidence, and formulating plans.


                                                 3
4. The process is based on pertinent quantitative and qualitative evidence, with an emphasis on
   direct evidence of student learning (e.g. student papers, projects, performances, etc.) in
   addition to indirect measures (e.g. opinion surveys).

5. The program responds to assessment findings with actions designed to improve educational
   effectiveness.

6. All participants in the process, including the Dean’s Office and the Provost’s Office, act with
   an understanding that the primary purpose of this assessment process is to help the program
   realize the learning objectives it has set.

7. The assessment process includes periodic reflection on actions taken to improve educational
   effectiveness in an effort to evaluate whether positive changes have occurred

8. Assessment activities include seeking assistance and feedback from the Office of Assessment
   and responding to student learning assessment recommendations received from the Office of
   Assessment and the Dean’s Office.

RETENTION OF ASSESSMENT MATERIALS
Programs must retain documentation relating to assessment of student learning objectives in a
systematic and retrievable fashion for at least ten years. Such documentation includes:
     A representative sample of student work products assessed by the program;
     Blank copies of questionnaires, rubrics, and other instruments used;
     Reports of individual assessments conducted;
     Annual Assessment Reports (described in Section 2).
     Response Letters received from the Office of Assessment for each year’s Annual
       Assessment Report (starting in 2010).

These materials are important for program improvement, future self-studies, and accreditation
processes. Accreditation visiting teams will expect these materials to be available for scrutiny.

MANDATE FOR ASSESSMENT
The assessment of student learning is required by the University’s Board of Trustees, its
Strategic Plan, and its accrediting agencies. The Director of Assessment, reporting to the Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs, is responsible for coordinating assessment activities. The
Academic Affairs Committee is the policy committee charged with approving any major changes
in policies or procedures related to assessment. For additional information, see Appendix A:
Broader Context of Assessment and Program Review.

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
The Office of Assessment is available to provide advice and technical assistance to programs on
all aspects of the assessment process. Contact information is provided below.

Office of Assessment

                                                 4
AssessmentOffice@scu.edu
114 St. Joseph’s Hall
http://www.scu.edu/assessment




                                5
                                  SECTION 2
                  GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Every academic program submits a report to its Dean and to the Office of Assessment each
academic year, on a date to be set by the Dean, but in no case later than March 31. This report
should summarize the program’s progress in carrying out its assessment plan, analyzing key
findings, and making program improvements. The report should discuss a) all completed
assessment projects as well as any projects in process but not yet completed, b) analyses of
findings, and c) improvements made as a result of student learning assessment activities.
Assessment efforts must be meaningful. They must assist the program in improving
student learning.

The following activities “count” as assessment:
    Collection and review of student work related to a program student learning goal /
       objective.
    Collection and review of survey data from students, alumni, employers, and other
       relevant stakeholders.
    Collection and review of evidence from focus groups, interviews, performance critiques,
       observations, etc. as they related to student learning goals / objectives.
    Program improvement actions taken in response to assessment efforts in previous year(s).
    Revision of program’s mission, goals, objectives, curriculum, curriculum alignment
       matrix, or assessment plan.
    Discussion of programmatic improvements made as a result of program review,
       professional accreditation activities, or recommendations from external reviewers.
    Findings from the evaluation of student learning in courses offered for the Core
       Curriculum (collaborations with the Office of Assessment in the review of the Core
       Curriculum).
    Assessment of student learning or program effectiveness conducted for professional
       accreditation.
    Actions taken as a result of recommendations received from the previous year(s) Annual
       Assessment Report Response Letters prepared by the Office of Assessment

Departments should discuss any of these assessment efforts in their Annual Assessment Report.

Programs must also address how the results of assessment endeavors have been analyzed,
interpreted and used for determining strengths and areas for improvement. Areas of
improvement that are identified should be accompanied by a discussion of the changes that are
being considered or implemented by the faculty. The Dean, in consultation with the Office of
Assessment, may excuse a program from submitting this report during the period in which it is
participating in a formal program review.

To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty on continuing appointment are
expected to review and discuss the Annual Assessment Report document.

                                                6
The Annual Assessment Report should use the format displayed on the next page and should not
exceed three pages (excluding attachments). With approval from the Dean and the Office of
Assessment, a program may submit an Annual Assessment Report using a format that
accommodates the assessment expectations of specialized (professional) accrediting bodies.


Incorporating Annual Assessment Reports into the 8 year Program Review Cycle:
As noted in Section 5. Guidelines for the Assessment Plan, programs are encouraged to develop
a multi-year assessment plan aligned with the program review cycle in order to ensure
manageable and meaningful alignment of assessment and program improvement.

In the following example, the Annual Assessment Report in Year 1 would describe the revision
of the MGO, the Curriculum Alignment Matrix, and the Assessment Plan for the future years.
The report in Year 2 would describe the findings and conclusions based on the first set of
assessments and the improvements made or planned, and so forth. Programs are advised to
identify a manageable number of learning objectives so that each learning objective can be
assessed within the eight year program review cycle.




             The following timeline offers a suggested approach to
             aligning the assessment of student learning with the 8 year
             Program Review Cycle:
                    Year 1 - Action Plan Implementation (revise MGO, Curriculum
                    Matrix Assessment Plan)
                    Year 2 - Student Learning Objectives
                    Year 3 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 2
                    Year 4 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 3
                    Year 5 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 4
                    Year 6 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 5
                    Year 7 - Program Review Year
                    Year 8 - Program Review Year




                                                  7
                                          (Name of Program)
                                      Annual Assessment Report
                                      For (Specify Academic Year)
                                         Submitted on: (Date)

I.      Mission, Goals, and Objectives2

                 1. Describe and explain any changes in Mission Statement

                 2. Describe and explain any changes in Student Learning Goals and Objectives

                 3. Describe and explain any changes to the Curriculum Alignment Matrix

                 4. Describe and explain any changes to the Assessment Plan


II.     Assessments

        Summarize assessments conducted since the last report

                  Which student learning objectives did you assess?

                  What data did you gather? What form did it take (exam questions, capstone
                   projects, papers, presentations)?

                  Where and how are you storing the data, student work products, and/or
                   instruments used in your assessments? What procedures are in place to ensure
                   that these materials will be retrievable in the future?

III.    Analysis of Findings
        Analyze findings to evaluate how well your program is meeting the objectives it has
        assessed since the last report. If a project is underway but not yet completed, please
        provide an update on the status of this on-going project.

                  What findings did you obtain?

                  What conclusions do you draw from these findings?

IV.     Improvements Made
        Describe how your program has used its current or previous years’ assessment findings to

2
 The Annual Assessment Report focuses on assessment of student learning goals and objectives. However, if your
program has made changes to other program goals and objectives such as Curriculum & Pedagogy, Scholarship &
Creative Work, or Service, please attach the revised goals and objectives to this report.
                                                          8
     make improvements since the last report.

             What curricular revisions, changes in pedagogy, differences in resource
              utilization, or other program changes have been made or requested as a result
              of the assessment findings?

             What obstacles, if any, are blocking you from meeting your objectives; what
              actions have you taken to overcome these obstacles; and what plans do you
              have to address remaining obstacles?

ATTACHMENTS

A.   Current Mission, Goals, and Objectives

B.   Current Curriculum Alignment Matrix

C.   Current Assessment Plan




                                            9
                                    SECTION 3
                  GUIDELINES FOR MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

The Mission, Goals, and Objectives (MGO) document provides the foundation for program
assessment and self-study. To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty on
continuing appointment should review and discuss this document.

Useful resources for preparing and revising this document are available from the Office of
Assessment and include:

       “Defining Learning Objectives” in Mary J. Allen, Assessing Academic Programs in
        Higher Education (Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 2004), pp. 27-38.

       “Mission, Goals, and Objectives” in Mary J. Allen and Richard C. Noel, Outcomes
        Assessment Handbook (May 2002), pp. 12-14.

MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES STATEMENT (MGOs)
The Mission, Goals, and Objectives document consists of a statement of the program’s mission
in relation to the University’s mission and strategic plan and a list of goals and objectives for
student learning, for curriculum and pedagogy, for scholarship and creative work, and for
service.

Each academic program should have an adopted mission statement and an articulated set of
programmatic goals and objectives3. At any given time based on the results of evidence-based
programmatic improvements, a program may elect to revise its MGOs. A current version of the
statement of Mission, Goals, and Objectives should be submitted to the appropriate Dean’s
Office as well as to the Office of Assessment with the Annual Assessment Report.

NOTE: It is also recommended that programs develop a plan for the periodic assessment of the
Curriculum and Pedagogy domain in anticipation of the program review year. The Scholarship
and Creative Work, and Service domains are typically assessed through existing annual and
cyclical evaluation processes (e.g., Faculty Activity Reports, Rank and Tenure, etc.). For
assistance in developing a more comprehensive assessment plan, please contact the Office of
Assessment.

MISSION
A mission statement is a brief description (one to three paragraphs) of the distinctive purpose and
functions of your program. The mission statement should be framed in the context of the
relevant discipline(s), the mission statement of your College or School, and the University’s
mission and Strategic Plan (see Appendix B: Summary of the 2011 Strategic Plan).



3
  Program level goals and objective should reflect mandated student learning outcomes or assurance of learning
indicators as articulated by specialized accreditation agencies when appropriate.
                                                           10
A good mission statement speaks to the core functions of the program. Please read your mission
statement with these questions in mind:
      Does it articulate the role of the program within the discipline and the University?
      Does it specify the degree level(s) at which the program offers instruction?
      Does it reflect the program’s curriculum?
      Does it articulate the overarching learning expectations for students in your program?
      Does it articulate the importance of faculty scholarship?
If the answer to one or more of these questions is no, the mission statement is probably
incomplete.

Distinctiveness is also an important quality of a good mission statement. Please read your
mission statement with these questions in mind: Could the statement apply to a department in a
different discipline? Could it apply to a department in the same discipline at any other
university? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, the mission statement is probably
too generic.

The following draft mission statement, even with the reference to the Jesuit tradition, is
incomplete and generic:


       The Department of X promotes the methods and benefits of rigorous, objective thought, the
       diligent pursuit of truth, and the flexibility of perspective needed to find innovative solutions to
       important problems. These principles are to be incorporated into the larger university program of
       educating the whole person in the Jesuit tradition. Our aims are focused not only on our students,
       but also on our professional communities and the community at large.

In contrast, the next three mission statements are more comprehensive and distinctive:

       The principal educational purpose of the psychology department is to provide an excellent basic education
       for undergraduates in the theory, methodology, and core content areas of contemporary psychology. A
       second purpose is to develop our students' critical thinking abilities and their capacities to express their
       thinking clearly when they speak or write. A third purpose is to help our students apply psychological
       knowledge in ways that will improve the quality of people’s lives and promote the common good. There is
       a strong emphasis on scholarship in the department, including faculty with active research programs and
       frequent opportunities for students to collaborate with faculty in research. Small class sizes, close student-
       faculty interactions, and a climate of quality scholarship are distinctive features of the psychology program.

                                                        ***

       The mission of the Department of Electrical Engineering is to educate our students, at the
       bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral levels, to prepare for careers in electrical engineering, or in other
       professions, in which they make a positive contribution to the growth of society, and to the
       betterment of the human condition, in the Jesuit tradition. We do this by teaching the concepts
       and the tools necessary to understand the physical world, particularly with respect to the
       fundamental laws of electricity and magnetism. Our students apply this knowledge to engineering
       problems, and they seek to understand the effect that electrical engineering has on society, and the
       obligations that the electrical engineer has to society. The Department contributes to the vitality of
       Silicon Valley and beyond through its teaching, practice, and scholarship.

                                                         11
                                                     ***
       The mission of the Department of Economics is to advance the understanding of economics. We educate
       undergraduate and master’s level students; we advance knowledge within the discipline; and we help our
       local, national, and international communities probe the economic dilemmas of the world today. We do
       this through teaching, scholarly research, and community outreach involving:

              The analytical tools for understanding how economic choices are made and the repercussions of
               those choices.
              The empirical methods needed to explore economic issues using the data of the contemporary
               world and of the past.
              The application of analysis and empirical methods to illuminate debates about important issues of
               the day, such as poverty, economic development and growth, globalization, and economic and
               social policy.

       Our understanding of economics is shaped by the recognition that economics serves society and that at the
       heart of each economic decision is a human being.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A Goal is a broad statement of what the program hopes to accomplish. A learning goal is a
statement of content, level of knowledge, skill and/or personal characteristic that faculty in an
academic program expect their students to possess as a result of the program’s curricular
offerings and other endeavors.

Objectives (sometimes called “outcomes”) are operational definitions of goals that are more
specific and measurable. Student Learning objectives, in particular, describe the knowledge,
skills, and values or attitudes students are expected to possess when they complete the
program. NOTE: It is appropriate for programs that are professionally accredited to adopt
the standards or student learning outcomes that are mandated by the specialized accreditor.

The following excerpt from the Communication Department MGO illustrates the difference
between goals and objectives:

           Goal 1. Demonstrate understanding of the processes of communication.

                       Objective: Students are able to recognize and define key variables and concepts
                       in communication processes.

Programs are expected to articulate goals and objectives for four domains:

   1. Student Learning. List goals and objectives for student learning at the program level
      that are meaningful to your program faculty. Possible questions for discussion: What
      kinds of knowledge and skills should students, majors, or graduates of the program have?
      What kinds of attitudes and values? How will students or graduates demonstrate the
      desired knowledge, skills, and values? Apart from student achievement within individual
      courses, how will faculty know? What is the program doing well? What opportunities for
      improvement are there?

                                                      12
        NOTE: WASC Standard 2 also requires that student learning objectives be clearly stated
        at the course as well as at the program and institutional level. Every syllabus should
        explicitly state the learning objectives of the course.

    2. Curriculum and Pedagogy. List goals and objectives for the ways in which the
       curriculum and pedagogy can better contribute to the achievement of student learning
       objectives. Possible questions for discussion: How coherent is the curriculum? Does it
       have appropriate breadth and depth? Is it logically sequenced? Does it reflect current
       knowledge in the field? How does the curriculum contribute to University and
       College/School goals? Are declared learning objectives adequately addressed within the
       curriculum? Do pedagogical practices in the program advance these learning objectives
       as effectively as possible? What is the program doing well? What opportunities for
       improvement are there?

    3. Scholarship and Creative Work. List goals and objectives for ways the program will
       foster the kind of scholarship it aspires to produce. Please note that these goals and
       objectives should focus on what the program does rather than what individual faculty
       members do. Possible questions for discussion: How does the program encourage
       scholarship? Does it want to be known for a particular kind or focus of scholarship? Is a
       collective goal for scholarship appropriate? What opportunities are there for scholarly
       collaboration among its faculty, between faculty and students, and with other programs?
       Does the program act as a community of scholars? Does the program have the capacity
       and interest to make a mark on the discipline by sponsoring research conferences,
       scholarly journals, or publication series? What is the program doing well? What
       opportunities for improvement are there?

    4. Service. List goals and objectives for ways in which the program can better serve the
       University, the community, or the profession. Please note that these goals and objectives
       should focus on what the program does rather than what individual faculty members do.
       Possible questions for discussion: What service does the program currently provide to the
       College or School, the University, the profession, or the community? How does the
       program contribute to University initiatives such as the Core Curriculum, Residential
       Learning Communities, and Centers of Distinction? Can the program, as distinct from
       individual faculty, use its particular disciplinary or professional competencies to provide
       service in other areas? Can service activities be better integrated with teaching and
       scholarship? What is the program doing well? What opportunities for improvement are
       there?

*** The number of goals and associated objectives should be manageable so that the program
can monitor and assess the full set of student learning goals and objectives between Program
Review Self Study years4. While programs may vary, a reasonable target might be three or four
goals for Student Learning, and between one and three each for Curriculum and Pedagogy,

4
 Santa Clara University is on an 8 year Program Review cycle. In the case of some professional programs the
Program Review cycle is linked to the cycle for specialized (professional) accreditation.
                                                         13
Scholarship and Creative Work, and Service. An exception to this recommendation would be
when certain goals and objectives are required by a professional accreditor.

When you review your goals and objectives, it may be useful to ask: Are these the program’s
most important goals and objectives? Are they achievable? Will achieving them make a
significant difference in the effectiveness of the program and the quality of student learning?
Are they few enough to be manageable? Can they be measured through appropriate quantitative
or qualitative methods?

EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETE DOCUMENT
Here is an example of a complete Mission, Goals, and Objectives document prepared by the
Sociology Department.

         Statement of the Program’s Mission

               The Sociology program at Santa Clara University is rooted in the tradition of cultivating a
               sociological imagination that emphasizes critical analyses of the relationships between individual
               actions and social structures. The major provides our students with rigorous theoretical and
               methodological training. Our program emphasizes the need to apply sociological analyses to
               understand our everyday lives in ways that embody the Jesuit commitment to building a
               community of scholars who are concerned with ethical and social justice issues in a diverse
               society.

         Enumeration of Programmatic Goals

         I. Goals and Objectives for Student Learning

         Goal 1: Students will demonstrate growth in sociological imagination (that comes from gaining greater
               understanding of social forces and processes that shape our social environments and influence
               individual thinking and behavior).

               Objective 1 (Exposure to Basic Concepts): Students will demonstrate enhanced knowledge of
                     basic sociological concepts (acquired early in the program as conceptual building blocks for
                     later work).

               Objective 2 (Critical Thinking): Students will critically analyze the relationship between
                     individual actions and social structures in the context of a project involving a sustained
                     (four weeks or more) investigation of a defined issue.

         Goal 2: Students will demonstrate growth in theoretical and methodological sophistication in our
               theory/methods “inquiry sequence.”

               Objective 3 (Growth in Theory Knowledge): Students will demonstrate growth in knowledge of
                     multiple theoretical perspectives.

               Objective 4 (Qualitative Methods): Students will demonstrate the ability to conduct situationally
                     appropriate collection and analysis of at least one form of qualitative evidence.

               Objective 5 (Quantitative Methods): Students will demonstrate the ability to access quantitative
                     data and use appropriate statistical techniques when testing bivariate and multivariate
                     relationships.

                                                        14
      Objective 6 (Professional Writing): Students will complete a professional style sociological
            research paper involving data analysis.


Goal 3: Students will demonstrate that they understand how sociological analysis can be applied to issues
      in our diverse world.

      Objective 7 (Research Ethics): Students will reflect on ethical issues associated with social science
            investigation in a diverse society.

      Objective 8 (Applied Sociology): Students will demonstrate awareness of some ways sociological
            concepts and tools are used to address challenges commonly faced in families,
            organizations, and communities.

II. Goal and Objectives for Curriculum and Pedagogy

Goal 4: The Sociology program will implement the developmental sequence within the major, broadly
      consistent with American Sociological Association recommendations.

      Objective 9 (Foundation Course First): Students will take Principles of Sociology before
            beginning theory methods courses.

      Objective 10 (Capstone after Theory/Methods): Sociology 118, 119, and 120 will be followed by a
            designated capstone (Sociology 121 or Sociology 170).

III. Goal and Objectives for Scholarship

Goal 5: Promote scholarship and a sense of being members of a community of scholars for students,
      faculty, and staff within the program.

      Objective 11 (Student Scholarship): Encourage and attempt to support faculty efforts to include
            students in a community of scholars (particularly as measured by mentored introduction of
            students to professional associations).

      Objective 12 (Faculty Scholarship): Foster intellectual inquiry and professional involvement of
            sociology faculty (particularly as measured by published scholarship).

IV. Goal and Objectives for Service

Goal 6: Promote service engagement of faculty and students as sociologists committed to applying
      sociological frameworks, knowledge, and skills, in addressing social problems or organizational
      challenges on campus, in surrounding localities, and in religious congregations, service
      organizations, businesses, and professional associations.

      Objective 13 (Community Research): Encourage significant student and faculty involvement in
            university, organization, and community research projects aimed at contributing to better
            understanding of needs and policy/program effectiveness.

      Objective 14 (Community Service): Encourage faculty and student service involvement in
            leadership roles in the management and/or operation of campus committees, public service
            organizations, religious congregations, and professional associations.


                                              15
                           SECTION 4
         GUIDELINES FOR CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT MATRIX:
  SHOWING HOW THE CURRICULUM MEETS LEARING GOALS / OBJECTIVES

Curriculum mapping is a method to align instruction with desired goals and program
outcomes. It can also be used to explore what is taught and how. The map or matrix:
      Documents what is taught and when (for sequenced courses)
      Reveals gaps in the curriculum
      Helps design an assessment plan by identifying sources of evidence for program learning
       goals and objectives at the course level

The benefits of a curriculum matrix include:
      Improves communication among faculty
      Improves program coherence
      Increases the likelihood that students achieve program-level goals and objectives
      Encourages reflective practice

The Curriculum Alignment Matrix should serve as a basis for analyzing the extent to which
individual courses and, more importantly, the program as a whole address specific program
learning objectives. There should be a close connection between stated learning objectives and
the content of the curriculum. To ensure broad participation and support, all full-time faculty on
continuing appointment should discuss this document while it is being prepared and after any
curricular modifications that result from annual assessments and program evaluations. If there is
a change made to the curricular offerings within the program (e.g., existing courses substantially
modified, new courses created, courses renumbered or discontinued, etc.) then the Curriculum
Alignment Matrix should be updated.

A useful resource in preparing this report is the chapter on “Alignment” in Mary J. Allen,
Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education (Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company,
Inc., 2004), pp. 39-53.

A Curriculum Alignment Matrix should show which of the program’s student learning objectives
are addressed in each course offered. If different sections of a course address different
objectives, each course section should be listed. The following format is recommended:

 Course         Objective 1      Objective 2         Objective 3   Objective 4      Objective 5
    1               I                                                                   I
   30                                   I
   40                P                                   I              I
                                                16
      90                                    P                                                          P
     100                                                         P                 P
     120                 P                  P                                                          D
     150                 D
     170                 P                  D                    D
I = Introduced, P = Practiced, D = Demonstrated
An acceptable alternative hierarchy is Basic, Intermediate, Advanced. With the approval of the Dean, a program
may replace either of these schemas with one that is more appropriate to its discipline or pedagogy.

If a particular course is expected to address a specific program-level learning objective, that
objective should be stated in the course syllabus.

Programs that offer a large number of courses or unique sections may wish to create
multiple matrices to reflect sub-domains (majors, minors, emphases or certificates, etc.) of
the program’s curriculum if these have unique course requirements.

This matrix should be accompanied by an analysis of what it shows. Analysis of the Curriculum
Alignment Matrix can assist a program in identifying courses or places in the curriculum where
direct evidence of student learning for a particular learning goal or objective can be obtained.
Another reason to analyze the Curriculum Alignment Matrix is to identify when learning
objectives are not adequately reflected in the existing curriculum. This may lead a program to
clarify or revise its learning objectives. It may also result in adding, modifying, or eliminating
courses. Possible questions for discussion: Are all of the objectives addressed somewhere in the
curriculum? Does every course address at least one of the objectives? Is there a clear rationale
for how learning objectives and courses are aligned? Are students likely to experience a
cohesive curriculum that enables them to master the program’s learning objectives? If the
answer is no to any of these questions, why? What steps should the program take to create
better alignment?

EXAMPLE OF A CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT MATRIX
The following excerpt from the Mathematics and Computer Science Department’s Curriculum
Alignment Matrix demonstrates a successful representation of the alignment between upper
division courses and program learning goals and objectives. This matrix reveals that all courses
address at least one program learning goal and/or objective. Furthermore, it is clear that several
courses could be considered as sources of direct evidence of each learning goal / objective:

   COURSE               Goal 1          Goal 2 Obj. A        Goal 2 Obj. B     Goal 3 Obj. A      Goal 3 Obj. B
     11                    I,P                                     P
     12                    I,P                                     P
     13                 I, P, D                                    P
     21                  P, D                                    P,D
     22                     P                                    P,D
     30                     I                                      P
     31                  P, D                                    P, D
     32                     I                 P
     100                                     P,D                 P,D
                                                        17
        101                                              P,D
        102                                   I,P        I,P
        103                                              P,D                       P
        105                                               P                       I,P
        111                                    P          P
        112                                  P,D         P,D
        113                                    P          P
        122                 P                             P
        123                P,D                           P,D                      I,P
        133                                    P
        134                                    P
        144                P,D                            P        I,P             D
        153                                               P
        154                                              P,D
        155                P,D                            P                        I
        161                                    P                   I,P            P,D
        162                                  P,D                    D             P,D
        163                                                                       P,D
        164                P,D                                     D              P,D
        165                                              P                        P,D
I = Introduced, P = Practiced, D = Demonstrated


Any department or program for which it is not appropriate to discuss how the curriculum
  meets learning goals and objectives via the creation of a Curriculum Alignment Matrix
should consult with the dean and Office of Assessment in order to determine an alternative
            way of describing how the curriculum relates to student learning.




                                                    18
                                        SECTION 4
                             GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT PLAN

Good assessment begins with clarity about mission, goals, and objectives. Once a program has
articulated objectives to its satisfaction, it must then carefully assess how well it is achieving
them.

All academic programs at Santa Clara University are expected to have a multi-year Assessment
Plan in place. This plan should address goals and objectives for student learning. This plan
should outline the methods and timetable for assessing each of the stated learning objectives of
the program. Programs should carry out the studies called for by the Assessment Plan and initiate
program improvements suggested by the findings. In addition, departments are expected to
coordinate and collaborate with the Core Curriculum Implementation Team and the Office of
Assessment in the assessment of Core Curriculum Learning Objectives.5

The Assessment Plan should be meaningful, manageable, and sustainable. The plan should
also be viewed as a living document to be refined as needed. It is anticipated that programs will
modify their plans over time as a result of learning from the assessment and / or program review
process, clarifying their student learning objectives, discovering more relevant or efficient
methods, or responding to unanticipated program needs. To ensure broad participation and
support, all full-time faculty on continuing appointment should review and discuss this
document.

Useful resources in preparing the Assessment Plan are available in the Office of Assessment and
include:
     Chapters on “Assessment Planning and Implementation,” “Direct Assessment
       Techniques,” and “Indirect Assessment Techniques” in Mary J. Allen, Assessing
       Academic Programs in Higher Education (Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company,
       Inc., 2004), pp. 55-129.

       Mary J. Allen and Richard C. Noel, “Outcomes Assessment Handbook” (May 2002), pp.
        1-89.

FORMATTING THE ASSESSMENT PLAN
The Assessment Plan should identify which learning goal(s) and objective(s) will be assessed in
a given year, how the objective(s) will be assessed (including a discussion of the methods to be
used in the assessment); when the assessment will take place (which year in the six-year cycle),
and who will be involved (responsible parties for each assessment).

While programs are free to use whatever format best presents their plan, one simple way to do so
is to use a table or matrix. The following excerpt from the Political Science Department’s
Assessment Plan is provided as an example.

5
 The Assessment Schedule for the Core2009 Curriculum is available from the Office of Assessment web site:
http://www.scu.edu/assessment
                                                    19
OBJECTIVE                    METHOD                              TIMETABLE   RESPONSIBILITY

Substantive Knowledge.       Based on student                    2008-10     A focus group is being
                             responses to the senior exit                    convened to consider the
                             survey, department will                         logistical issues.
                             review the possibility of
                             adding an Economics
                             course requirement to the
                             major.
Substantive Knowledge.       Based on student                    2010-2011   Faculty committee will be
                             responses to the senior exit                    elected to re-organize the
                             survey, department will                         course layout.
                             consider changing the
                             format of our required
                             Applied Quantitative
                             Methods course.

Substantive Knowledge.       We will undertake a                 2009-10     The chair will collect
Objectives A.1: Students     “value added” measure of                        questions from each
should understand the        students’ demonstrated                          member of the full-time
processes and institutions   knowledge in these two                          faculty; department
that shape politics within   areas. We will collect data                     administrators will create
and between nations; and     in the form of a multiple-                      Angel exam and track
A.2.: Students should        choice quiz on Angel (10                        student responses.
understand the theoretical   questions assigned
traditions, debates, and     randomly from a larger
methodological               bank of ~ 100 questions)
approaches used in the       administered to all
study of politics.           students as part of their
                             mandatory advising or
                             senior exit survey. The
                             2009-10 survey will focus
                             on learning in
                             Comparative Politics.


CONDUCTING ASSESSEMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING DURING THE
ACADEMIC YEAR
In order to engage in effective assessment, there needs to be time to design / plan a project,
collect and analyze evidence of learning, review and discuss the findings among program
faculty, and determine an appropriate action plan. This cycle of assessment is referred to as
“closing the loop.” The following timeline offers a suggested approach to aligning the
assessment of student learning with the academic quarter system calendar. This timeline
demonstrates the conclusion of the prior year’s assessment activity and the initiation of the
current year’s activity. NOTE: The Annual Assessment Report that is submitted by each
program in the spring may include information from prior years as well as the current year (see
Section 2 Guidelines for the Annual Assessment Report).

                                                            20
                Suggested Timeline for Aligning Assessment of Student Learning
                         with the Academic Quarter System Calendar
                                    FALL                          WINTER                       SPRING


                       Revisit last year’s Annual         Modify MGO,
                       Assessment Report and              Curriculum Alignment
                       Response Letter from Office of     Matrix, and /or
Wrapping up the        Assessment                         Assessment Plan
previous academic                                         documents as
year’s assessment      Discuss findings from previous     necessary based on
activity               year; Wrap up / select actions     findings from previous
                       items based on findings from       year.
                       previous year.



                       Select Learning Objectives &       Collect and analyze data     Prepare Annual
                       data source for current year’s     for current year’s project   Assessment Report
                       assessment project (refer to                                    (submitted no later than
                       Assessment Plan)                                                March 31st) documenting:
                                                                                            Activities for
Conduct the current                                                                             current year
year’s assessment                                                                           findings and
activity                                                                                        action items for
                                                                                                current year if
                                                                                                possible
                                                                                            Findings and
                                                                                                action items from
                                                                                                prior year.


ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING DURING PROGRAM REVIEW CYCLE

Programs should monitor and assess the full set of student learning goals and objectives between
Program Review Self Study years6. The frequency of assessments for each objective should be
determined by the context of the student learning objective(s) of interest.

NOTE: It is also recommended that programs develop a plan for the periodic assessment of the
Curriculum and Pedagogy domain in anticipation of the program review year. The Scholarship
and Creative Work, and Service domains are typically assessed through existing annual and
cyclical evaluation processes (e.g., Faculty Activity Reports, Rank and Tenure, etc.). For
assistance in developing a more comprehensive assessment plan, please contact the Office of
Assessment.




6
 Santa Clara University is on an 8 year Program Review cycle. In the case of some professional programs the
Program Review cycle is linked to the cycle for specialized (professional) accreditation.
                                                         21
Programs engaging in revisions of the MGO, Curriculum Alignment Matrix and / or Assessment
Plan documents should report these activities on the Annual Assessment Report whether or not
student learning data were collected and evaluated in that non-Program Review year.

In the following example, the Annual Assessment Report in Year 1 would describe the revision
of the MGO, the Curriculum Alignment Matrix, and the Assessment Plan for the future years.
The report in Year 2 would describe the findings and conclusions based on the first set of
assessments and the improvements made or planned, and so forth. Programs are advised to
identify a manageable number of learning objectives so that each learning objective can be
assessed within the eight year program review cycle.




              The following timeline offers a suggested approach to
              aligning the assessment of student learning with the 8 year
              Program Review Cycle:
                     Year 1 - Action Plan Implementation (revise MGO, Curriculum
                     Matrix Assessment Plan)
                     Year 2 - Student Learning Objectives
                     Year 3 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 2
                     Year 4 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 3
                     Year 5 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 4
                     Year 6 - Student Learning Objectives; implement year 5
                     Year 7 - Program Review Year
                     Year 8 - Program Review Year




                                                 22
APPENDIX A
BROADER CONTEXT OF ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM REVIEW

Although program review and the assessment of student learning objectives are separate
processes, they are closely related. Assessment of student learning is an integral part of program
review.

Both assessment and program review benefit the students, the faculty, and the University as a
whole. Assessment supports deep learning and excellent teaching. Program review supports
program improvement and academic excellence. In addition, both assessment and program
review fall under a broadly consistent mandate from the University and external agencies.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The University’s mission statement, as it appeared in the University’s 1996 Strategic Plan,
described Santa Clara as an institution that “makes student learning its central focus, promotes
faculty and staff learning in its various forms, and exhibits organizational learning as it deals
with the challenges facing it.” Building on this general commitment, the Strategic Plan (as
revised in 2001) articulated two specific goals:

       Initiate program review to promote overall quality and consistency with the vision,
       mission, and values of the University. [3.E.1.]

       Assess learning outcomes and use performance indicators to improve educational quality
       and administrative effectiveness. [3.E.3.]

These goals are consistent with the 1996 recommendations of the faculty Task Force on
Academic Program Review, which noted:

       Program planning and review systematizes the process by which the interrelated activities
       of learning, scholarship and service are continuously observed and improved.....Preparing
       planning reports provides the program with an opportunity to think about where they are,
       where they want to go and how to get there. To know where they are, the programs need
       to develop methods to measure learning outcomes, scholarly production, and service.
       Instead of assuming they are doing a good job (a culture of self-evidence), programs need
       to demonstrate that they are doing a good job (a culture of evidence).

Santa Clara’s stated commitment to program review and assessment mirrors a strong external
mandate. The U.S. Department of Education requires that all institutions receiving federal funds
engage in assessment of learning outcomes, leaving it up to regional accrediting agencies to
assure compliance. Santa Clara’s regional accrediting agency, WASC, as well as its professional
school accrediting agencies such as AACSB, ABA, ABET and CTC, have all placed increasing
emphasis on assessment of learning outcomes as an accreditation requirement.


                                                 23
Santa Clara’s 1999 Self Study for Reaffirmation of Accreditation by WASC made several
recommendations approved by the University Planning Council, including:

   A. Provide the expertise needed to support assessment of learning outcomes with more use
         of objective, longitudinal, and comparative data.

   A. Implement a more systematic process of assessment-based review of academic majors
         and co-curricular programs that allows for local experimentation guided by identified
         learning outcomes.

In response to these recommendations and its own findings, the WASC visiting team
recommended in 2000 that Santa Clara “link teaching and learning with a systematic, multi-year
faculty development plan for assessment support,” “clarify administrative accountability for
institutional assessment of student learning and educational effectiveness,” and “move quickly in
implementing a systematic approach to program review.” More specifically, the visiting team
stated that “[I]ncreased resource allocation for learning assessment should be included in budget
planning.”

The subsequent Action Letter issued by the WASC Commission identified five areas of specific
concern. Two of these areas were assessment and program review. The WASC Commission
endorsed the recommendations of the visiting team and noted that “A broad and sustainable
infrastructure is needed for the assessment of quality and student learning at the program level.
Such processes and structures are vital to assure program currency and quality, and can be an
important way to engage faculty in determining how well program learning objectives are
achieved.”

At its February 2000 meeting, Santa Clara’s Board of Trustees approved a resolution calling on
the University “to adopt a more systematic approach to program review that is centered on the
goal of ‘educating for competence, conscience, and compassion.’ This approach should be based
on assessment of learning outcomes distinctive to a Santa Clara education, place the focus on
academic and co-curricular programs as learning programs, and support strengthening the
connection between the evaluation of teaching and the assessment of learning.”

In 2010, in response to the University’s Capacity and Preparatory Review for Reaffirmation of
Accreditation, the WASC Commission letter commended Santa Clara for “building a robust
structure for assessment of student learning and developing an enhanced process for program
review.” And in 2011, after a site visit focused on Educational Effectiveness, the WASC visiting
team encouraged the university to make program reviews more consistent across academic units
and to ensure closer attention to the assessment of student learning as an essential part of the
review.

Santa Clara’s Strategic Plan approved in February 2011 reiterated the University’s commitment
to assessment and program review, stating, “to strengthen our academic community, we

                                                24
will…advance our ability to assess student learning and programs in ways that are manageable
and used systematically to improve learning in the curriculum and co-curriculum.” (5.D)

CURRENT WASC FRAMEWORK

Since Santa Clara’s WASC visit in 1999, WASC has revised its accreditation standards. In the
revision adopted in February 2008, WASC places even greater emphasis on the importance of
assessment and program review as tools for increasing educational effectiveness. The following
framework appears in the WASC Core Commitments and Standards (www.wascsenior.org) as a
context for applying the specific standards of accreditation:

       The institutions accredited by WASC represent a remarkable range of diversity in
       terms of mission, size, and relative maturity. They are bound together, however,
       by a common pair of commitments – to institutional capacity and to educational
       effectiveness. The WASC process begins by asking institutions to ground their
       efforts in these two commitments. In this way, each institution connects more
       closely to its own distinctive character and to its responsibilities to its
       stakeholders. By reaffirming these core commitments, the institution more fully
       owns both the process and the outcomes from an accreditation review.

       Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity:

       The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of institutional integrity,
       fiscal stability, and organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.

       The Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity enables the institution to consider
       resource issues from a holistic perspective, and to consider capacity as an
       institutional attribute beyond minimum compliance and a review of assets.
       Looking at itself through a “lens” of institutional capacity enables the institution
       to reexamine what it is in terms of its capacity to fulfill its aspirations, and to
       integrate and synthesize findings and recommendations for improvement gained
       through its self-review under Commission Standards. While the Standards provide
       an opportunity to review institutional performance within a defined area, the
       framework of institutional capacity allows an institution to explore cross-cutting
       issues such as whether resources, structures and processes are aligned with the
       institution’s mission and priorities, and whether the institution has the capacity to
       measure, interpret, and use evidence about its effectiveness. An important
       dimension of institutional capacity is the institution’s readiness to define and
       sustain educational effectiveness. This dimension is reflected in the review cycle
       by the name assigned to the first review, the Capacity and Preparatory Review.

       Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness:

       The institution evidences clear and appropriate educational objectives and design
       at the institutional and program level. The institution employs processes of
                                                 25
       review, including the collection and use of data, which ensure delivery of
       programs and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for
       the degree or certificate awarded.

       The Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness provides an opportunity for
       the institution to explore holistically its approaches to educational effectiveness.
       The institution assesses whether its systems, such as course and program design,
       faculty support, and program review, are effectively linked to evidence of student
       learning and are consistent with the educational goals and academic standards of
       the institution. By design, elements of educational effectiveness were
       incorporated into all four Commission Standards, so that institutions would
       explore the relationships between capacity and educational quality and
       effectiveness. Each of the four Accreditation Standards describes key elements of
       educational effectiveness.

To help institutions and others interpret and apply the Core Commitments to Institutional
Capacity and to Educational Effectiveness, the Commission has defined Standards for
Accreditation (www.wascsenior.org). These Standards are intended to serve several purposes:

   A. To guide institutions in self-review as a basis for assessing institutional performance, and
         to identify needed areas of improvement

   B. To provide a framework for institutional presentations to the Commission and review
         teams

   C. To serve as the basis for judgment by evaluation teams in the institutional review process
         — for the Capacity and Preparatory Review in addressing the Core Commitment to
         Institutional Capacity and for the Educational Effectiveness Review in addressing the
         Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness

   D. To provide a foundation for Commission actions and the basis for required institutional
         follow up to such actions

   E. To assist those involved in the accrediting process, in higher education generally, and
         members of the public, in defining institutional quality and educational effectiveness,
         and in promoting the development and sharing of practices leading to the
         improvement of quality.

The following excerpts from the WASC standards illustrate its expectation that all accredited
institutions must have effective systems of assessment and program review in place.



                                                26
Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
The institution defines its purposes and establishes educational objectives aligned with its
purposes and character. It has a clear and conscious sense of its essential values and character, its
distinctive elements, its place in the higher education community, and its relationship to society
at large. Through its purposes and educational objectives, the institution dedicates itself to higher
learning, the search for truth, and the dissemination of knowledge. The institution functions with
integrity and autonomy.

       1.2. Educational objectives are clearly recognized throughout the institution and are
       consistent with stated purposes. The institution develops indicators for the achievement
       of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program, and course levels.
       The institution has a system of measuring student achievement, in terms of retention,
       completion, and student learning. The institution makes public data on student
       achievement at the institutional and degree level, in a manner determined by the
       institution.


Standard 2: Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions
The institution achieves its institutional purposes and attains its educational objectives through
the core functions of teaching and learning, scholarship and creative activity, and support for
student learning and success. It demonstrates that these core functions are performed effectively
and that they support one another in the institution’s efforts to attain educational effectiveness.

       2.2. All degrees—undergraduate and graduate—awarded by the institution are clearly
       defined in terms of entry- level requirements and in terms of levels of student
       achievement necessary for graduation that represent more than simply an accumulation of
       courses or credits.

       2.2a. Baccalaureate programs engage students in an integrated course of study of
       sufficient breadth and depth to prepare them for work, citizenship, and a fulfilling life.
       These programs also ensure the development of core learning abilities and competencies
       including, but not limited to, college- level written and oral communication; college-level
       quantitative skills; information literacy; and the habit of critical analysis of data and
       argument. In addition, baccalaureate programs actively foster an understanding of
       diversity; civic responsibility; the ability to work with others; and the capability to
       engage in learning. Baccalaureate programs also ensure breadth for all students in the
       areas of cultural and aesthetic, social and political, as well as scientific and technical
       knowledge expected of educated persons in this society. Finally, students are required to
       engage in an in-depth, focused, and sustained program of study as part of their
       baccalaureate programs.

       2.2b. Graduate programs are consistent with the purpose and character of their
       institutions; are in keeping with the expectations of their respective disciplines and
       professions; and are described through nomenclature that is appropriate to the several
       levels of graduate and professional degrees offered. Graduate curricula are visibly
                                                 27
       structured to include active involvement with the literature of the field and ongoing
       student engagement in research and/or appropriate high-level professional practice and
       training experiences. Additionally, admission criteria to graduate programs normally
       include a baccalaureate degree in an appropriate undergraduate program.

       2.3. The institution’s student learning outcomes and expectations for student attainment
       are clearly stated at the course, program and, as appropriate, institutional level. These
       outcomes and expectations are reflected in academic programs and policies; curriculum;
       advisement; library and information resources; and the wider learning environment.

       2.4. The institution’s expectations for learning and student attainment are developed and
       widely shared among its members (including faculty, students, staff, and where
       appropriate, external stakeholders). The institution’s faculty takes collective
       responsibility for establishing, reviewing, fostering, and demonstrating the attainment of
       these expectations.

       2.6. The institution demonstrates that its graduates consistently achieve its stated levels of
       attainment and ensures that its expectations for student learning are embedded in the
       standards faculty use to evaluate student work.

       2.7. All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. The
       program review process includes analyses of the achievement of the program’s learning
       objectives and outcomes, program retention and completion, and, where appropriate,
       results of licensing examination and placement and evidence from external constituencies
       such as employers and professional organizations.

       2.10. The institution collects and analyzes student data disaggregated by demographic
       categories and areas of study. It tracks achievement, satisfaction, and campus climate to
       support student success. The institution regularly identifies the characteristics of its
       students and assesses their preparation, needs, and experiences.

       2.11. Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co-curricular
       programs.

Standard 4: Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement
The institution conducts sustained, evidence-based, and participatory discussions about how
effectively it is accomplishing its purposes and achieving its educational objectives. These
activities inform both institutional planning and systematic evaluations of educational
effectiveness. The results of institutional inquiry, research, and data collection are used to
establish priorities at different levels of the institution, and to revise institutional purposes,
structures, and approaches to teaching, learning, and scholarly work.

       4.3. Planning processes are informed by appropriately defined and analyzed quantitative
       and qualitative data, and include consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness,
       including student learning.
                                                  28
       4.4. The institution employs a deliberate set of quality assurance processes at each level
       of institutional functioning, including new curriculum and program approval processes,
       periodic program review, ongoing evaluation, and data collection. These processes
       include assessing effectiveness, tracking results over time, using comparative data from
       external sources, and improving structures, processes, curricula, and pedagogy.

       4.5. The institution has institutional research capacity consistent with its purposes and
       objectives. Institutional research addresses strategic data needs, is disseminated in a
       timely manner, and is incorporated in institutional review and decision-making processes.
       Included in the institutional research function is the collection of appropriate data to
       support the assessment of student learning. Periodic reviews are conducted to ensure the
       effectiveness of the research function and the suitability and usefulness of data.

       4.6. Leadership at all levels is committed to improvement based on the results of the
       processes of inquiry, evaluation and assessment used throughout the institution. The
       faculty takes responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching and learning
       process and uses the results for improvement. Assessments of the campus environment in
       support of academic and co-curricular objectives are also undertaken and used, and are
       incorporated into institutional planning.

       4.7. The institution, with significant faculty involvement, engages in ongoing inquiry into
       the processes of teaching and learning, as well as into the conditions and practices that
       promote the kinds and levels of learning intended by the institution. The outcomes of
       such inquiries are applied to the design of curricula, the design and practice of pedagogy,
       and to the improvement of evaluation means and methodology.

       4.8. Appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners, and others
       defined by the institution, are regularly involved in the assessment of educational
       programs.
                                          APPENDIX B
                       SUMMARY OF THE 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN

The University’s Strategic Plan, approved in 2011, begins with a statement of Vision:
      Santa Clara University will educate citizens and leaders of competence, conscience, and
      compassion and cultivate knowledge and faith to build a more humane, just, and
      sustainable world.

The plan then presents the University Mission, stating,
       The University pursues its vision by creating an academic community that educates the
       whole person within the Jesuit, Catholic tradition, making student learning our central
       focus, continuously improving our curriculum and co-curriculum, strengthening our
       scholarship and creative work, and serving the communities of which we are a part in
       Silicon valley and around the world.

                                                29
The plan identifies five strategic goals and priorities:
    1. Excellence in Jesuit Education
    2. Engagement with Silicon Valley
    3. Global Understanding and Engagement
    4. Justice and Sustainability
    5. Academic Community

Strategic Plan 2011 goes on to provide more information about each priority and the University’s
fundamental values:

Priority 1. Excellence in Jesuit Education

    A Santa Clara education is distinguished by its attention to the formation of the whole
    person – one who has the knowledge and skills to act effectively (competence), the
    determination to reason morally (conscience), and the capacity to feel solidarity with the
    poor and powerless as well as the will to relieve suffering (compassion).

    Cultivating these qualities, which are inseparable in a well-educated person, requires us to
    pursue an ever more integrated approach to Jesuit education. Such an education includes
    opportunities to acquire breadth and depth of knowledge, use that knowledge for the
    common good, and deepen a faith that does justice through spiritual development,
    interreligious dialogue, and creative engagement with culture and society.

    To enhance excellence in Jesuit education, we will:

        A. Foster the development and integration of competence, conscience, and compassion.
        B. Ensure successful implementation of the undergraduate Core Curriculum.
        C. Establish the University as a national and international leader in theological study
           and service to the wider Catholic community.
        D. Advance the University’s mission and identity as a Jesuit, Catholic university.
        E. Increase our standing in American higher education as an example of excellence in
           Jesuit education.

Priority 2. Engagement with Silicon Valley

    There are many reasons why people from all over the world choose to work, study, and live
    in Silicon Valley – its spirit of technological and scientific innovation, entrepreneurialism,
    cultural diversity, and natural beauty to name a few. Silicon Valley is more than a location;
    it is a state of mind characterized by an innovative and imaginative approach to creating new
    opportunities in our globalizing world.

    By strengthening ties with our surrounding communities and our local alumni network, the
    University can offer students, faculty, and staff opportunities to think in new ways, and to

                                                  30
    learn from and contribute to both the leading institutions that make Silicon Valley attractive,
    and to the most marginalized groups in Silicon Valley that call out for help.

    While learning from Silicon Valley’s culture of innovation, Santa Clara University can also
    play an important role in raising the moral and ethical questions that inevitably arise with the
    creation and use of new technologies.

    To promote engagement with Silicon Valley, we will:

       A. Increase learning, service, and research opportunities with Silicon Valley
          corporations, institutions, and communities.
       B. Strengthen distinctive academic niches, particularly at the graduate level, that will
          address the needs of Silicon Valley, both locally and in its global outreach.
       C. Promote Jesuit values in ways that enhance the humanity and common good of the
          Silicon Valley community.
       D. Partner with Silicon Valley companies to enhance student learning, provide state-of-
          the- art delivery of course content, and improve the University’s administrative
          functions through technology.

3. Global Understanding and Engagement

    A 21st century education requires global understanding--an understanding that leads to
    action and engagement. Santa Clara will extend its ties with others around the world to offer
    our students a deeper understanding of the global context of their lives and work. Through
    our existing study abroad and immersion programs, our academic curriculum, our
    membership in the global network of Jesuit universities, and our Silicon Valley location and
    its global reach, we are well-equipped to promote understanding of global issues and prepare
    students to use their knowledge and skills to help address these issues.

    To foster global understanding and engagement, we will:

       A. Enhance and expand global learning opportunities here and abroad including those
          resulting from our relationships with Silicon Valley-based international corporations
          and organizations.
       B. Attract more international students and visiting scholars.
       C. Build partnerships with universities in the international network of Jesuit universities
          and other targeted institutions.

4. Justice and Sustainability

    Our integration of social justice, as a priority of the Society of Jesus, into our teaching,
    research, and community engagement has established Santa Clara as a leader in American
    higher education. More recently, Santa Clara has drawn national attention for our
                                                31
   commitment to sustainability, including the promotion of environmental stewardship in our
   campus operations. Santa Clara can distinguish itself further by advancing academic and
   public understanding of the ways in which social justice and sustainability, broadly defined,
   intersect. As a Jesuit university in Silicon Valley, we are in an excellent position to illustrate
   the connections among a healthy environment, just societies, and a vibrant economy that
   meet all people’s fundamental needs, especially those of the global poor.

   Santa Clara’s focus on advancing understanding of a just sustainability should inspire a
   broad and enlivening range of activities and perspectives. We understand sustainability as
   involving three components: environmental protection, economic development, and social
   development. Questions of sustainability and justice are not the province of a single
   discipline, or point of view, but can be illuminated by all fields and perspectives. The co-
   curriculum also offers many opportunities to integrate these questions into students’ lives.

   To advance justice and sustainability, we will:

      A. Increase and enhance curricular and co-curricular learning specific to sustainability
         and justice.
      B. Develop a distinctive and substantial research focus on justice and sustainability.
      C. Model how a Jesuit university can contribute to sustainability and justice through its
         service, operations, and outreach.

5. Academic Community

   Santa Clara must continue to strengthen the quality and diversity of the academic
   community – our faculty, staff, and students – by providing the strong and sustainable
   infrastructure needed to make the University’s vision a reality.

   Our efforts must begin with renewed investment in the faculty. We will hire more full-time
   faculty, both tenure track and non-tenure track, and provide them resources to pursue new
   knowledge. Students learn best when they engage with professors whose passion for
   teaching informs their active scholarship and professional engagement, which in turn inform
   their teaching. Providing more time and resources for an increased number of full-time
   faculty will enhance teaching effectiveness by helping the faculty to stay current with
   rapidly changing knowledge and methods. This will attract better undergraduate and
   graduate students, provide more opportunity for them to conduct research with faculty, and
   strengthen their preparation for future work and study. It will also attract more external
   research funding to support the University; produce new knowledge that makes the world
   more humane, just, and sustainable; and boost Santa Clara’s reputation in national rankings
   of universities.

   Our vision also depends upon attracting students who have the preparation and motivation to
   take full advantage of the distinctive educational experience Santa Clara offers. It depends as
   well upon retaining experienced and effective staff, many of whom contribute directly to
                                                32
    learning and scholarship, and all of whom help to create the financial, technological, and
    operational conditions for a successful university.

    To strengthen our academic community, we will:

       A. Provide greater support for excellence in and integration of teaching and scholarship.
       B. Recruit and retain a diverse community of outstanding faculty, staff, and students.
       C. Add and upgrade facilities to support learning, scholarship, and community.
       D. Advance our ability to assess student learning and programs in ways that are
          manageable and used systematically to improve learning in the curriculum and co-
          curriculum.
       E. Strengthen the University’s shared governance structure and processes.
       F. Increase integration of strategic planning, program review, budgeting, facilities
          master planning, and capital campaign planning.

The complete Strategic Plan, with metrics and an appendix identifying fundamental values can
be found on the President’s web site http://www.scu.edu/strategicplan/2011/index.cfm.




                                               33

								
To top