Student Learning Outcome [SLO]/Institutional Effectiveness
Final Assessment Report
Georgia State University
Division of Student Services
Academic Year 2006/2007
May 17, 2007
Copy / paste the current mission statement for your department or unit here. But review it to make sure it clearly states the
purpose of the department and notes the key responsibilities the department has and the key services it provides.
The Department of Recreational Services strives to promote a healthily lifestyle
through recreational sports and fitness activities (purpose) offered to the
University community, delivering programs, services and facilities that meet or
exceed customer needs (functional responsibilities).
SLO, IEP, or IEP/SLO:
Intended/Expected Outcome Statement
Record the stated SLO, IEP, or IEP/SLO [also called the intended/expected outcome statement] exactly as originally
submitted. If you have modified it since then, please indicate that.
The Department of Recreational Services will provide facilities at the Student
Recreation Center that are utilized by members.
For IEPs and IEP/SLOs: Short Version of IEP [Intended/Expected Outcome
If the full stated IEP is longer than 50 characters (that’s not many characters, so this will apply to most IEPs), include a
short version for use on summary reports and pop-up menus.
Recreation facilities are utilized by members
For IEPs and IEP/SLOs Only: Linkages and Reference Points for
Weaveonline submissions are not necessary for free-standing SLOs that are not also IEPs. For
free-standing SLOs, skip directly to Effectiveness Indicators.
Is this IEP/Outcome also an SLO? Yes_____ No __X__
If the IEP/Outcome is also an SLO, which of the General Education Outcomes is it related to?
See expanded list in Appendix 1. Please list the most important of the general education outcomes that is linked to your
IEP first. When you enter this report online, please select the most important first. DSS IEP/Outcomes will always be
linked to core general education goals, rather than major goals.
1. Written communication-major
2. Written communication-core
3. Oral communication-major
4. Oral communication-core
7. Critical thinking-major
8. Critical thinking-core
9. Contemporary issues-major
10. Contemporary issues-core
11. Quantitative skills-major
12. Quantitative skills-core
What part of the GSU strategic plan is your IEP/Outcome related to?
Onine selections listed below. Most DSS IEPs will be related to A-2 and/or A-3; some may link to C-2.
1. A-1 Recruitment
2. A-2 Undergraduate experience
3. A-3 Graduate experience
4. B-1 Faculty
5. C-1 New academic programs and modes of delivery
6. C-2 Interdisciplinary programs
7. C-3 International initiatives
Staff and Facilities
8. D-1 Staff
9. D-2 Facilities
10. D-3 Technology
11. D-4 External relations
12. E-1 Financial support
Selections: ___ A-2, A-3, D-2___________________________
Which of the institutional priorities is your IEP/outcome related to?
Online selections listed below. Most DSS IEPs will be linked to #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, or #10.
1. Targeted programs of distinctiveness
2. Excellence in the liberal arts and sciences
3. Quality professional programs
4. Interdisciplinary research and educational programs
5. Global, cultural perspectives
6. Distinctive education due to urban center of international commerce, media, and government
7. Learning-centered environment that supports individual learning
8. Graduate and research programs with national and global recognition
9. Partnerships that have a positive impact on the community
10. Dynamic, intellectual environment that stimulates scholarly activity
11. Service as a resource to local, state, and federal entities
12. Fiscal accountability
Selections: ______7, 10_________________________________
Which elements of the Division’s strategic plan [Blueprint for Action] are related to your
See list of Blueprint for Action goals in Appendix 2. List the most important goal first.
Selections: ____3, 1, 4, 2________________________________
For All SLOs, IEPs, and IEP/SLOS: Effectiveness Indicators [Measures]:
List here the indicators [measures] you decided to use when you designed your assessment plan. What are the things you
will use and measure to determine whether your intended SLO or IEP was achieved?
Average daily (Monday through Friday) utilization data from ID swipes and hand
counts at turnstiles and entry gate.
Average daily utilization for 2006 = 1,315. Total utilization for 2006: 337,897.
Average daily utilization for 2005 = 1,420. Total utilization for 2005: 365,072.
For All SLOs, IEPs, and IEP/SLOs: Evaluation Criteria [Success Criteria, or
Target Performance Level]:
List here the evaluation criteria you included in your assessment plan. What level of accomplishment defines
success? What indicates a need for improvement?
Average daily (M-F) utilization data for 2006 will fall within 10% of 2005 data. An
11-19% decrease in utilization signals need for improvement. Greater than 20%
warrants immediate intervention.
Average daily (M-F) utilization for 2006 is 7.4% less than 2005 (within 10%).
For Free-Standing SLOs Only: Population Assessed:
Note that this question is not required for many IEPs/Outcomes, and is not included in the online
submission. It is required for all free-standing SLOs.
What students, or categories or groups of students, participated in your program or activity and were
How many students did you assess?
For SLOs, IEPs, and IEP/SLOs: Results [Findings]:
Primary Findings: Achievement of Institutional Effectiveness Goal
Using your chosen evaluation criteria (from above and your assessment plan), state your primary
results in this format:
Evaluation Criteria [Measure] #1:
The average daily (M-F) utilization of the Student Recreation Center during
2006 did fall within 10% of the utilization for 2005.
Average daily (M-F) utilization for 2006 is 7.4% less than 2005 (within 10%).
Met, Partially Met, or Not Met:
Here list any other pertinent findings from your assessment project; what else did you learn?
Since 2001 was a partial year, we will only compare 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005 & 2006. Listed below is the percentage of change in utilization as
compared to the percentage change in GSU enrollment:
Year SRC Total Utilization GSU Enrollment (Sp/Sum/Fall)
2002 to 2003 down 4.09% up 3.26%
2003 to 2004 down 9.78% down 2.08%
2004 to 2005 down 1.93% down 5.83%
2005 to 2006 down 7.4% almost identical
The roller coaster numbers of utilization and student enrollment don’t
seem to make a whole lot of sense. We know that utilization should be
tied (somewhat) to enrollment but the 2002-2003 year does not fit the
pattern. Nor does the over 7% decrease in utilization from 2005 to 2006
with an almost identical enrollment. As the campus dynamics change
over the next few years it will be interesting to see what happens with rec
center utilization. The data may signal a need for improvement, however,
future IEP’s will look at both specific populations as well as overall
Validity and Limitations
How confident are you in your findings? Is there any reason to doubt their validity? Did anything happen
that might have limited the value or reliability of your results?
I am confident in all of the findings and do not question the validity of the
For SLOs, IEPs, and IEP/SLOs: Utilization of Results, Interpretation, and
Comments [including Action Plan]
What do you think these results mean? In a “big picture” sense, what do they tell you?
If you had to explain your assessment results in one sentence, what would that sentence say? What
difference do the results make?
In one sentence: Daily (M-F) utilization of the Student Recreation Center was
down in 2006 but continues to provide recreational sports and fitness
activities to the GSU Community.
The analysis of the members who utilized the facility using their ID card in
2006 comprise of 84% of the daily usage (16% of the daily users entered
through the pass gate ~ first time users, problems with ID, guests).
We know in 2006, that 75% of all eligible students at least came into the SRC
~ if only one time. This concerns us knowing that ¾ of the student population
utilized the facility but only 26% of all eligible students are using the SRC at
least each semester. Again, this seems lower than what was anticipated by
the department staff. But then again, exit surveys of recent graduates
indicate that less than 20% of students said they utilized the SRC, “very often”
and almost 25% of students surveyed said they “never” use the SRC (this is a
decrease from nearly 30% in 2005). The large percentage of faculty/staff
utilization is very surprising as we currently have over 1,000 (31%)
faculty/staff members as compared to a student population of over 25,000.
This might suggest that fee-paying faculty/staff are more committed to
frequent workouts than a large percentage of students (who are also paying
fees whether they use the facilities or not).
Were the results different from what you expected? If so, what factors might explain
Results may be different from expectations for many reasons; “different from expected” does not mean
The results were not different than I expected because daily (M-F) utilization
has been down each year since opening, as well as a decline in most years in
overall GSU enrollment. I believe that we will see an increase in utilization
beginning Fall ’07 (with the opening on new on-campus housing) and more
increase as we have a full year (2008) to analyze.
What report(s) will be prepared from these findings?
Findings will be included in the department annual report as well as included
in the Weave-On-Line university-wide submissions.
How will the results be integrated into the department or unit’s continuous quality
improvement and planning processes?
We are continuing to analyze the card swipe data and know that 63% of our
users are students and 34% are faculty/staff. We also know that 60% of our
student users are male, thus suggesting we need to target more marketing to
female students since female students comprise of 60% of the GSU
population. We need to continue to access programs and services and
provide the best possible recreational opportunities for the GSU Community
Now that you have these results, what actions do you plan to take?
In the online submission, this information is entered into Action Plan.
Name the action (short, summary version: 50 characters)
Full description of the action
Further analysis will determine college, major and year in school as well
as male/female and undergraduate/graduate status to better target
marketing efforts to specific populations.
Which effectiveness indicator/measure is the action linked to?
Average daily utilization.
What person or group is responsible for taking this action?
Director will keep data information.
What is the target date for implementation of the action?
Will compare 2007 to 2006.
What priority does this action have (high, medium, or low)?
High priority (if people are not using the facility, then we cannot offer our
programs and services).
What additional resources, if any, are needed to complete this action?
For IEPs and IEP/SLOs: Analysis
The online submission must include this section. Respond to the following questions for IEPs or IEP/SLOs only:
What specifically did your assessments show regarding proven strengths or progress you made
Progress you have made, improvements related to this year’s or last year’s results
Strategies for further improving performance based on these results, including
changes you are planning to make or have recently made
We clearly feel that utilization is directly related to enrollment although the
decrease in usage in 2006 from 2005 with nearly identical enrollment
remains a mystery. As on-campus housing increases, we feel our usage
will also increase. We will also continue the marketing efforts that have
been in place (Incept Orientation, Marketplace, Panther Shuttle Ads,
Distribution of Rap-Up Program Guide, Ads in GSU Publications).
What specifically did your assessments show regarding any outcomes that will require continued
Discuss outcomes that were not met or only partially met
Identify any needs to modify outcomes or targets
We will always continue to strive for a higher percentage of eligible users
utilizing the facilities, programs and services that Recreational Services
has to offer the GSU Community.
Submitted by: Scott R. Levin
Date: May 17, 2007
General Education Goals
Goal I. Communication
Students communicate effectively using appropriate writing conventions and
Students communicate effectively using appropriate oral or signed conventions
Goal II. Collaboration
Students participate effectively in collaborative activities.
Goal III. Critical Thinking
Students formulate appropriate questions for research.
Students effectively collect appropriate evidence.
Students appropriately evaluate claims, arguments, evidence and hypotheses.
Students use the results of analysis to appropriately construct new arguments and
formulate new questions.
Goal IV. Contemporary Issues
Students effectively analyze contemporary issues within the context of diverse
Students effectively analyze contemporary multicultural, global, and international
Goal V. Quantitative Skills
Students effectively perform arithmetic operations, as well as reason and draw
appropriate conclusions from numerical information.
Students effectively translate problem situations into symbolic representations and
use those representations to solve problems.
Goal VI. Technology
Students effectively use computers and other technology appropriate to the
Blueprint for Action
Goal 1: Develop students into successful and productive lifelong learners
Responsible retention strategies
Critical thinking skills
Practical life and work skills
Goal 2: Develop students into leaders, responsible citizens, and active
volunteers in a multicultural society
Developmental leadership opportunities for students
Improving collaboration with academics
Goal 3: Engage students with the GSU community through a meaningful
Establish effective communication with students
Determine how to promote a student-friendly environment
Opportunities to build a sense of community
Goal 4: Strengthen assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation
of University services to students and other stakeholders
Assess student learning, interests, and needs
Maximize investment of University resources to assure outcome-driven services
Establish a system to establish and evaluate Divisional priorities