Get documents about "College Admission Letter of Recommendation Template
Description
College Admission Letter of Recommendation Template document sample
Document Sample
Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Instructions
Applicable to the 2007/2008 Academic Year
Version 2.0 edited: 9/10/2007
Note: Because major changes have been made to the Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Template in 2007,
we have highlighted major changes in the template instructions in yellow. We still recommend reading the full
instructions, but expect this will better ensure that the new facets of the template are not overlooked.
Introduction
The intent of this spreadsheet is to provide a means for each program to present the results of their assessment processes in a systematic fashion that is comparable to
the reports of all other programs on campus.
It is anticipated that the first use of this spreadsheet will be somewhat time consuming but that subsequent uses will involve a minimum of effort to accomplish the
assessment. Please request assistance from the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs in the Office of Academic Affairs if you have questions or require assistance in
understanding these tables.
It is assumed that there are within your program sufficient spreadsheet skills to edit the required tables. If you have trouble with any part of the spreadsheets please
contact the Assistant Provost's office for assistance.
To aid you in filling out this table, comments have been scattered throughout the spreadsheets. You can get rid of these by right clicking on the cell the comment is
attached to then either hiding or deleting the comment. Note: unless you change your settings to print comments, they will not print with the rest of the document.
The edited version of this spreadsheet for each program is to be submitted to the Assistant Provost by June 15th of each year. It is important to submit these materials
on time so that the summer Assessment Peer Review Committee can complete its review of the institution's assessment progress in a timely manner.
Instructions Editing Frequency
Sheet tab: Mission & Context
Table 1: Program Mission & Context
Program Mission & Context
Edit the information in the upper left hand corner identifying the program being reported on and the
assessment coordinator (or faculty member responsible for the program's assessment). This information will
automatically fill in on the other tabs of the report.
When the mission or values of the program
Enter the mission for your program. You can also list values for the program that are not related to measurable
change. Review this tab each year to determine
student learning outcomes.
whether the mission and values are still accurate.
If you would like to provide context to the peer review evaluators about your program or your assessment
process (i.e. the program is new, or the program had fewer faculty than usual in the current academic year.) Review this tab each year to determine whether
This is an optional cell, which serves as a location for comments not related directly to the assessment of the context narrative is still accurate.
student learning outcomes.
Review this tab each year to determine whether
Outcomes should be published in a student-friendly, accessible location, such as your catalog copy or program
the location of the published outcomes is still
website. Note where your outcomes are located here.
accurate.
Submitted Month/Day/Year 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Instructions
Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Instructions
Applicable to the 2007/2008 Academic Year
Version 2.0 edited: 9/10/2007
Note: Because major changes have been made to the Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Template in 2007,
we have highlighted major changes in the template instructions in yellow. We still recommend reading the full
instructions, but expect this will better ensure that the new facets of the template are not overlooked.
Introduction
The intent of this spreadsheet is to provide a means for each program to present the results of their assessment processes in a systematic fashion that is comparable to
the reports of all other programs on campus.
It is anticipated that the first use of this spreadsheet will be somewhat time consuming but that subsequent uses will involve a minimum of effort to accomplish the
assessment. Please request assistance from the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs in the Office of Academic Affairs if you have questions or require assistance in
understanding these tables.
It is assumed that there are within your program sufficient spreadsheet skills to edit the required tables. If you have trouble with any part of the spreadsheets please
contact the Assistant Provost's office for assistance.
To aid you in filling out this table, comments have been scattered throughout the spreadsheets. You can get rid of these by right clicking on the cell the comment is
attached to then either hiding or deleting the comment. Note: unless you change your settings to print comments, they will not print with the rest of the document.
The edited version of this spreadsheet for each program is to be submitted to the Assistant Provost by June 15th of each year. It is important to submit these materials
on time so that the summer Assessment Peer Review Committee can complete its review of the institution's assessment progress in a timely manner.
Instructions Editing Frequency
Sheet tab: Outcomes Results
Table 2: Assessment of Program Outcomes
Published Program Outcomes:
Edit this part of the table to match the program outcomes that you have currently listed in your program's
Edit when program outcomes in the assessment
assessment plan. The plan and report should be updated whenever there are changes made to the outcomes
plan change. This should be done only with input
or measures.
from program faculty.
You will probably need to add and delete rows here.
Outcome Measures:
Edit this part of the table to match the assessment measures that you have currently listed in your program's
Edit when you add or delete assessment
assessment plan. The plan and report should be updated whenever there are changes made to the outcomes
measures in your assessment plan. This should
or measures.
be done only with input from the program faculty.
You will probably need to add and delete columns here.
Grade:
This is the "grade" that your assessment measure would indicate for performance relative to the associated
outcome. In some cases, this grade can be determined by some computational procedure that compares the
Edit these EVERY YEAR. This is what your
results of the assessment to some expected performance value. In many cases, this will be a judgment call by
measures are telling you about performance.
the program faculty based on what they are seeing in the data and/or experience that came out of the
application of the indicated assessment process.
The grades enter into the spreadsheet should meet the standard listed as follows:
A = Honor grade; indicates comprehensive mastery of the outcome. Performance is exemplary. There is no
way to improve performance on this outcome.
B = Indicates a high level of performance in meeting the outcome. Performance is more than acceptable but is
not exemplary.
C = Indicates a satisfactory level of performance in meeting the outcome. Performance relative to this
outcome meets minimum standards.
D = Indicates that some level of performance has been achieved but that the level achieved is not acceptable.
F = Indicates failure to achieve this outcome in any reasonable sense.
NG = No Grade. The assessment measures are not used to measure the associated outcome.
Plus and Minuses may be added to the grades to indicate degrees of accomplishment. Note: The high end of
the grade table is an A, and the low end is an F. (There is no A+ or F-.)
NOTE: A grade MUST be assigned to each cell or an error will result. All grades are upper case and
without spaces before, within, or after.
Be sure to leave grades as NG if a tool does not apply to a measure. This keeps the cell from factoring
into the averages.
For each grade, you should list the sample size ("n") of the results listed. For instance, if 20 student
presentations were evaluated to determine a grade of B, the sample size would be 20.
Submitted Month/Day/Year 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Instructions
Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Instructions
Applicable to the 2007/2008 Academic Year
Version 2.0 edited: 9/10/2007
Note: Because major changes have been made to the Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Template in 2007,
we have highlighted major changes in the template instructions in yellow. We still recommend reading the full
instructions, but expect this will better ensure that the new facets of the template are not overlooked.
Introduction
The intent of this spreadsheet is to provide a means for each program to present the results of their assessment processes in a systematic fashion that is comparable to
the reports of all other programs on campus.
It is anticipated that the first use of this spreadsheet will be somewhat time consuming but that subsequent uses will involve a minimum of effort to accomplish the
assessment. Please request assistance from the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs in the Office of Academic Affairs if you have questions or require assistance in
understanding these tables.
It is assumed that there are within your program sufficient spreadsheet skills to edit the required tables. If you have trouble with any part of the spreadsheets please
contact the Assistant Provost's office for assistance.
To aid you in filling out this table, comments have been scattered throughout the spreadsheets. You can get rid of these by right clicking on the cell the comment is
attached to then either hiding or deleting the comment. Note: unless you change your settings to print comments, they will not print with the rest of the document.
The edited version of this spreadsheet for each program is to be submitted to the Assistant Provost by June 15th of each year. It is important to submit these materials
on time so that the summer Assessment Peer Review Committee can complete its review of the institution's assessment progress in a timely manner.
Instructions Editing Frequency
Values:
The values entered here correspond to the grades entered on the line above. The scale is a 4.0 scale. The
associated values are: A = 4.0, B = 3.0, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0. A PLUS adds 0.3 to the grade value. A
These are automatically computed values. There
MINUS subtracts 0.3 from the grade value.
is no need to edit.
The scale is from A to F, with no value for A+ or F-.
If you measure your outcomes in a way that makes it easier to enter values manually (such as performance on
a qualifying professional exam), please be sure to update the letter grades that correspond to the entered
values.
Weights:
It is recognized that not all measures are as significant as others when evaluating performance. The "weights"
allow you to give different weight to each measure.
In general, a "1" should be used for any measure that is a strong indication of performance on a particular
outcome. A "0.5" weight should be used for measures that are indirect (such as surveys), have a low return
rate, or are anecdotal in nature.
This should not change unless your assessment
For example, if your assessment measure did not return good results for reasons such as low return, it did not measures change or there is a change in opinion
measure accurately for some reason, or any other reason that makes the results suspect or of lesser value, of the program faculty concerning the applicability
you should enter a 0.5 for that measurement. of the measure.
If you have a high degree of confidence in the correlation between the results of the assessment and the
associated outcome then enter a 1.0.
Be sure to leave weights as NG if a tool does not apply to a measure. This keeps the cell from factoring into
the averages.
Current Year Results:
These cells contain the weighted average of all the measure results for a given outcome. Particularly verify These are automatically computed values. There
that all measures are accounted for if you added to the list of measures. These weighted averages will be is no need to edit unless columns were added that
mapped to the university outcomes and matched with similar results from other programs. do not appear in final computation.
5 Year Trend Data:
It is important to follow trends, particularly when working with the imprecise data of assessment. This part of
Edit EVERY YEAR, including the data from the
the table should go back up to five years if you have such data available. You will need to enter these data
prior assessments.
from previous years; the cells do not automatically fill in previous years.
Sheet Tab: Outcomes Analysis
Table 3: Analysis of Outcome Assessment Results
The purpose of this table is to provide analysis on the meaning of the results listed in Table 2. Outcomes and
results will automatically fill in from Table 2.
Edit EVERY YEAR. This section interprets the
current year's results.
Your analysis should interpret the results, and discuss the significance of the program. What do the results
really mean? Analysis should not focus on the tools or outcomes themselves.
As an alternate, a word processing document can be provided (electronically) that accomplishes the same
purpose. This table gives the program's interpretation of the results and explains the significance of the
results. If a word processing document is used, please provide it in a format compatible with MS Word, and
include all the aspects of the table (i.e. Outcome, Result, and Explanation of the Results).
Submitted Month/Day/Year 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Instructions
Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Instructions
Applicable to the 2007/2008 Academic Year
Version 2.0 edited: 9/10/2007
Note: Because major changes have been made to the Program Level Outcome Assessment Report Template in 2007,
we have highlighted major changes in the template instructions in yellow. We still recommend reading the full
instructions, but expect this will better ensure that the new facets of the template are not overlooked.
Introduction
The intent of this spreadsheet is to provide a means for each program to present the results of their assessment processes in a systematic fashion that is comparable to
the reports of all other programs on campus.
It is anticipated that the first use of this spreadsheet will be somewhat time consuming but that subsequent uses will involve a minimum of effort to accomplish the
assessment. Please request assistance from the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs in the Office of Academic Affairs if you have questions or require assistance in
understanding these tables.
It is assumed that there are within your program sufficient spreadsheet skills to edit the required tables. If you have trouble with any part of the spreadsheets please
contact the Assistant Provost's office for assistance.
To aid you in filling out this table, comments have been scattered throughout the spreadsheets. You can get rid of these by right clicking on the cell the comment is
attached to then either hiding or deleting the comment. Note: unless you change your settings to print comments, they will not print with the rest of the document.
The edited version of this spreadsheet for each program is to be submitted to the Assistant Provost by June 15th of each year. It is important to submit these materials
on time so that the summer Assessment Peer Review Committee can complete its review of the institution's assessment progress in a timely manner.
Instructions Editing Frequency
Sheet Tab: Current Year Recommendations
Table 4: Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
This table is a critical part of the improvement process. After discussing the results of your assessments with
your constituent groups, it is time to recommend improvements to the program. Recommendations need to be
recorded and tracked. Update EVERY YEAR.
Record all improvement recommendations based on the current year's assessment. Identify the outcomes that
the improvement recommendation is intended to enhance. Some rationale for the proposed action is
suggested to tie the recommendation to the issues discussed in Table 3.
Responding to popular demand, there are now two recommendation tables on this tab. The first table should
reflect recommendations for program improvement, rather than for the assessment process. Examples of
program improvement recommendations include adding tutors or course lab time to improve weak
performance on a particular outcome.
The second table can be used to make recommendations that are not programmatic, but are solely focused on
the program assessment process. Examples of assessment process recommendations include changing an
outcome, or adding a direct measure (such as performance on a course presentation) because of low
response rate for existing surveys.
State the resource implications associated with each suggestion. For instance, if you are adding tutors for
students struggling with a given outcome, will a course fee be added to offset the cost?
Also include all prior year recommendations that have not been previously completed. For clarity, it is good to
note that these recommendations carry over from previous years.
Sheet Tab: Previous Year Recommendations
Table 5: Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
Record all improvement recommendations made in the previous year's assessment report. Note the action
taken to address each of these recommendations. Describe the effect of these actions, if there has been Update EVERY YEAR.
sufficient time to demonstrate results.
Like the Current Year Recommendations tab, there are two recommendation tables on this tab. The first table
should reflect previous year recommendations for program improvement, rather than for the assessment
process. Examples of program improvement recommendations include adding tutors or course lab time to
improve weak performance on a particular outcome.
The second table can be used to show previous year recommendations that are not programmatic, but are
solely focused on the program assessment process. Examples of assessment process recommendations
include changing an outcome, or adding a direct measure (such as performance on a course presentation)
because of low response rate for existing survey tools.
Submitted Month/Day/Year 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Instructions
Program Outcomes Assessment
Program University Honors College
Department University Honors College
College/School University Honors College
Academic Year 2007
Assessment Coordinator Marian Mitchell
TABLE 1
PROGRAM MISSION AND CONTEXT
Use the space below to enter your program's mission, and provide general comments about the program that are not directly related to the assessment process. If there are factors
you would like the peer review committee to be aware of that are not directly related to student learning outcomes, you can describe them in this space.
You should also use the space below to note where the program outcomes are published.
Program Mission
“The University Honors College offers capable and motivated students exciting intellectual experiences to develop an integrative
perspective extending beyond the confines of individual majors and disciplines. The mission of the University Honors College is
to be a catalyst for scholarly excellence in undergraduate education. The College advances, coordinates, and administers active
learning and undergraduate research opportunities for students across the campus. Through its multi-disciplinary academic and
student support programs, the College serves as a locus for inquiry, discovery, leadership and engagement. Above all, the
College helps students develop a competitive edge for career options as well as for admission to the best graduate and
professional schools in the nation.”
Program Context and General Comments
We have made major revisions to the Honors assessment plan since our first report in summer 2007, and we plan to make additional major revisions in the future. Assessing Honors
and Undergraduate Research presents unique challenges because of the interdisciplinary and university-wide nature of the college and its activities. That the Honors College does
not house its own faculty compounds the challenge of engaging faculty in the time-intensive process for an in-depth assessment of Honors. We plan to refine our measures to come
up with means of collecting quantitative measures that are more efficient and practical than those in our original plan. Also, for the very first time the National Collegiate Honors
Council is offering a training session specifically on assessing Honors programs and colleges and addressing some of the same issues we face at UAA. The session will be held in
July 2008 in Portland, Oregon. We are sending a representative and we hope to gather ideas specifically tailored for honors that we can include in our revised plan for next year.
Location of Published Outcomes
www.uaa.alaska.edu/honors/academicprgms.cfm
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Mission & Context
Program Outcomes Assessment
Program University Honors College
Department University Honors College
College/School University Honors College
Academic Year 2007
Assessment Coordinator Marian Mitchell
TABLE 2
PROGRAM OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Current
Measures 5 Year Trend Data
Year
retention and graduation
Feedback from community
# of undergraduate research
Grades in HNRS 192 & 292
Research Faculty Mentors
members on HNRS 310
submissions received and
Student Focus Groups for
(Calculates automatically)
Evaluation of student
Survey of Undergraduate
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Sample size for measure
Senior Thesis or Project
GPA in Honors Classes
Faculty Evaluations of
Learning Outcomes
and/or overall GPA
Weighted Average
HNRS 310 grades
selected courses
awards given
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
2007/2008
Grades
Grade NG NG NG B- NG NG NG NG NG NG B- B-
Increasing the retention and graduation
1 Value 569 19 506 2.70 605 158 27 61 10 18 114 2.70 2.70
rates of students participating in Honors
Weight NG NG NG 1.00 NG NG NG NG NG NG
Grade A- A- B B- NG NG A- NG NG A B+ B+ B+
2 Academic achievement Value 3.70 569 3.70 19 3.00 506 2.70 605 158 27 3.70 61 10 18 4.00 114 3.47 3.55 3.47
Published ProgramObjectives/Outcomes
Weight 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 NG NG 1.00 NG NG 0.50
Grade A- A- B+ NG NG NG A- NG NG A B+ B+ B+
Critical and analytical reading and effective
3 Value 3.70 569 3.70 19 3.30 506 605 158 27 3.70 61 10 18 4.00 114 3.69 3.54 3.69
writing
Weight 1.00 1.00 0.50 NG NG NG 1.00 NG NG 0.50
Grade NG A- B+ NG NG NG A- NG NG NG B+ B+ B+
4 A broad base of knowledge and experience Value 569 3.70 19 3.30 506 605 158 27 3.70 61 10 18 114 3.57 3.5 3.57
Weight NG 1.00 1.00 NG NG NG 1.00 NG NG NG
Grade NG NG NG NG NG NG A- NG A A A- A- A-
Preparedness for work or continuing study
5 Value 569 19 506 605 158 27 3.70 61 10 4.00 18 4.00 114 3.90 3.73 3.90
in graduate or professional school
Weight NG NG NG NG NG NG 1.00 NG 1.00 1.00
Grade NG NG NG NG B+ A- NG B+ NG NG B+ B+ B+
Participation in and appreciation for
6 Value 569 19 506 605 3.30 158 3.70 27 61 3.30 10 18 114 3.46 3.56 3.46
community engagement and learning
Weight NG NG NG NG 1.00 1.00 NG 0.50 NG NG
UAA Undergraduates successfully Grade NG NG NG NG NG NG A NG A A A A- A
participating in faculty-mentored research,
7 Value 569 19 506 605 158 27 4.00 61 10 4.00 18 4.00 114 4.00 3.64 4.00
and/or receive competitive grants and
awards, and/or presenting or publishing Weight NG NG NG NG NG NG 1.00 NG 1.00 1.00
their work. (university-wide goal) Blank and shaded = Does not measure this published outcome.
Weights: 0.5 = Measure gives anecdotal or indirect indication of published outcome, or has a limited sample size.
1 = Measure provides direct, reliable information on the published outcome.
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Outc Results
Program Outcomes Assessment Discussion
Program University Honors College
Department University Honors College
College/School University Honors College
Academic Year 2007
Assessment
Coordinator Marian Mitchell
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Note: Alternatively, an electronic word-processing document compatible with MS Word may be substituted for this table.
Outcome Result Explanation of the Results
Outcomes and results automatically fill in from the previous tab.
To assess Honors persistence and retention, we ran more than 600 transcripts and entered data on enrollment, completion of Honors classes, GPA and graduation rates. A preliminary analysis
shows that students who started in honors in fall 2006 had a first-year persistence rate of 86%, compared to the UAA average of 70.9%. As of this writing, 61 students have completed all Honors
Increasing the retention and graduation requirements including a senior thesis and graduated, most within 5 years, with an average GPA of 3.73 (an average completion rate of 20% from 1998 to 2004). An additional 10 students have
1 B-
rates of students participating in Honors deferred or incomplete grades on thesis. Of students participating in Honors, an estimated 51% have completed UAA degrees between 1998 and 2004 with an average GPA of 3.53 (compared
to an overall UAA full-time baccalaureate graduation rate of 26% per OPRA Table B-13). More analysis of honors persistence, retention and graduation rates will be done in the future, including
examining the retention of the Forty-Ninth State Fellows Program.
To assess whether the honors students are succeeding academically, we examined their performance in HNRS classes and their overall term and cumulative GPAs. In the Honors foundation
courses (HNRS A192, A292, A310), students completed these courses with a "B" or better at a rate of 88.1%, 85.6% and 89.2% respectively. Attrition rates (grades of F, W. AU or NP) were
5.24%, 5.32% and 5.7% respectively, compared to overall UAA attrition of 17.8% (OPRA Table B-24). In the honors tutorials (HNRS A191, A291, A391), students completed these courses with
2 Academic achievement B+
a "B" or better at a rate of 88.6%, 87% and 100% respectively, with attrition rates of 2.3% and 13%. In fall 2007 and spring 2008, current honors students had an average term GPAs of 3.313
and 3.384 (compared with an average term GPA in fall 2006* of 2.64 by Anchorage undergraduates) and cumulative GPAs of 3.468 and 3.459 (compared with a cumulative GPA of 2.88 in fall
2006* by Anchorage undergraduates).
The skills of critical reading and effective writing skills are among the basic outcomes of the Honors freshman seminar (HNRS A192) and tutorials (HNRS A191, A291 and A391). Given that the
majority of the course content in these classes is devoted to close reading, writing and rewriting, we feel confident that course grades are a good indication of mastery of skills. In fall 2007 and
Critical and analytical reading and spring 2008, students received high grades (A or B) at the following rates: HNRS 192 - 88.1%, HNRS A191 - 88.6%, HNRS A291 - 87%, HNRS A391 - 100%. Faculty teaching these classes
3 B+
effective writing are surveyed regarding whether these outcomes are met; they respond that students' reading and writing skills show marked improvement over the course of the semester, and they estimate that
87-91% of students are meeting that outcome at a high level (attachment 1). Individual student assignments from selected courses have been collected, and a review of grades on individual
papers show a correspondence of paper grades with overall course grades for individual students.
Measuring whether the Honors Program is successful in conveying a broad base of knowledge and experience can be judged in part by examining the success of students completing the Honors
courses that are core to the Program. HNRS A192 and A292 faculty indicate that they felt that 90-95% of the students (respectively) were meeting the student outcomes (attachment 1), which
A broad base of knowledge and included being able to read closely and demonstrate comprehension (HNRS 192) and demonstrate an understanding of the discipline in question and formulate research ideas (HNRS 292).
4 B+
experience Students taking these classes completed them with a "B" or better at a rate of 88.1% (A192) and 85.6% (A292). The honors students' overall GPA also indicates success in other disciplines: an
average cumulative GPA of 3.47 in Fall 2007 and 3.46 in Spring 2008. Honors students completing their senior theses (which are in their major disciplines or on an interdisciplinary topic)
received 84.4% A's, and 11% B's.
Measures indicate that students doing undergraduate research are producing quality projects. A survey of HNRS A392 faculty indicates that 95% of students met the course outcomes, which is
corroborated by a 91.1% completion rate by students. A student focus group confirmed that the class is largely meeting its intended outcomes. Honors students completing senior theses (on a
topic in their major discipline or an interdisciplinary topic) have received 84.4% A's, and 11% B's. 100% of faculty mentors of undergraduate research award winning students surveyed agreed
Preparedness for work or continuing
5 A- that their students had successful undergraduate research or scholarship experiences (attachment 3). In addition, 88% of faculty agreed that the research or creative work produced by the
study in graduate or professional school
student was of the quality for further research or dissemination (i.e., presentation in a local, regional, national conference or publication). Anecdotal information indicates that Honors students are
having success in winning awards (Truman scholarships) and being admitted to prestigious graduate and professional programs (Johns Hopkins, University of Wisconsin, WWAMI medical
school).
The University Honors College requires all of its students to complete a 3 credit course on community engagement, HNRS A310. Students are required to find a volunteer placement and
perform at least 40 hours of community service, as well as complete journals reflecting on the experience, an organizational analysis of the organization, and a final paper. This course has had
Participation in and appreciation for only 5.7% attrition indicating successful completion by a large proportion of registered students. Community partners working with the students give largely positive responses to whether
6 B+
community engagement and learning outcomes were met (2.74 on 3 point scale - attachment 2). The faculty feel that the instructional goals for the course are being met (attachment 1), but indicate that the course outcomes need to
be reworked. A student focus group held to explore whether the students felt the learning outcomes of the course were being met indicated a lack of clarity in communicating a honors core value
to the students.
Since 2001, the University Honors College has created 11 university-wide competitive award programs, funded exclusively through private donations. In 2007-08, undergraduate research
UAA Undergraduates successfully through our programs involved 114 students submitting proposals for posters and projects (a 12% increase from 2006-07). In April 2008, 35 undergraduates presented their research at the
participating in faculty-mentored annual Undergraduate Research Symposium either in poster form or oral presentation, with many others receiving recognition their research and presentation at conferences. The Honors
research, and/or receive competitive College also hosts Freshman Convocation, an annual event which provides a context to inquiry and discovery as an inherent part of the undergraduate experience. Because this the promotion of
7 A
grants and awards, and/or presenting or undergraduate research is a university wide goal, we need to find additional methods for assessing our success in this area, and have proposed an undergraduate research index for this
publishing their work. (university-wide purpose. The Honors College has been working with a faculty member in Computer Science to develop a web-based tracking and assessment tool to allow students and faculty to record their
goal) research projects. We will continue to work on this project in the hopes of developing a web-based tool that can be used by faculty and students across the MAU for recording their participating in
faculty-mentored research.
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Outc Analysis
Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
Program University Honors College
Department University Honors College
College/School University Honors College
Academic Year 2007
Assessment
Coordinator Marian Mitchell
TABLE 4
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ASSESSMENT RESULTS: CURRENT YEAR
Recommendation Outcome(s) Rationale for the Recommendation Resource Implications
An exit survey of Honors graduates will allow us to assess
Working with faculty committee and alumni association to develop survey
student satisfaction with 1) the quality of Honors curriculum
Work with the Honors College faculty assessment committee and the Honors instrument. Tracking down all Honors graduates. In future, distributing
all and classes, 2) opportunities for civic engagement,
Alumni Association to develop an Exit Survey to be given to Honors graduates survey in a timely fashion before graduates disperse. Collecting and
leadership and research, 3) advising, faculty and staff, and
analyzing data.
4) number of graduate
Revamp the HNRS A310 Community Service class to better convey the core The course outcomes and core values need to be made Work with faculty who have taught and will be teaching this class to
6
value of service, civic engagement and leadership to the Honors students. clearer for students. rework the course.
Encouraging departments to offer departmental honors
Develop systems for determining the number of students receiving departmental options for students is part of the mission of the Honors Departmental honors awards are already noted in Banner. A query to
2, 5, 7
honors each year. College. Tracking these awards will be important to capture this data needs to be written.
determine if efforts to promote them are succeeding.
Work with Honors Council to set goals for retention and graduation rates based on Retention and graduation rates are considered to be key Measuring honors retention and graduation rates may be more time-
1
existing honors data and UAA data measures of student success consuming than we have staffing to complete.
Compare Honors student performance on standardized tests in departments with May provide a more accurate way to measure student Collection of data from different departments may be more time-
2
non-Honors students success than GPAs consuming than we have staffing to complete.
This information may be captured in part by the web-based survey we are
To promote participation in undergraduate research across
Develop systems for determining the number of students completing theses or developing to track faculty-mentored research projects. In addition, we
2, 5, 7 the university, it will be important to track when both honors
senior projects outside of Honors. will need to develop registration queries to track when students register
and non-honors students are completing research projects.
for independent research projects.
TABLE 5
ASSESSMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ASSESSMENT RESULTS: CURRENT YEAR
Recommendation Outcome(s) Rationale for the Recommendation Resource Implications
OAA has agreed to pay a faculty member (Dr. Claudia Lampman) to
revise the Honors assessment plan and develop outcome measures. By
Until this point we have not had dedicated faculty available
The Honors Assessment Plan (both outcomes and measures) need to be revised. all revising the plan, we hope to achieve a simplified plan with fewer, more
to spearhead Honors assessment.
targeted tools will allow us to do effective assessment with less impact on
staff.
Develop and implement an assessment plan for Forty-Ninth State Fellows This is a transcripted program that started in Fall 2005 that Work with faculty overseeing this program to finalize and implement the
all
Program. The attached document is being submitted as it was received from the needs to be assessed. plan.
This is a transcripted program that need to be assessed.
The official start to the program was delayed due to
Draft assessment plan for Natural and Complex Systems Program all Work with faculty overseeing this program to draft the plan.
funding, scheduling and staffing issues, so assessment
cannot begin but a plan needs to be developed.
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Current Yr Recommendations
Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
Program University Honors College
Department University Honors College
This page should show recommendations made in previous years, along with
College/School University Honors College action taken since that time and the effect of those actions.
Academic Year 2007
Assessment
Coordinator Marian Mitchell
TABLE 6
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ASSESSMENT RESULTS: PREVIOUS YEARS
Year Recommendation Outcome(s) Rationale for the Recommendation Resource Implications Actions Taken
An exit survey of Honors graduates will allow us to
Working with faculty committee and alumni
assess student satisfaction with 1) the quality of Honors
association to develop survey instrument.
Work with the Honors faculty assessment committee and the Honors curriculum and classes, 2) opportunities for civic
Tracking down all Honors graduates. In future, Have not yet developed - plan to develop
2006-07 Alumni Association to develop an Exit Survey to be given to Honors 2,3,5,6,7 engagement, leadership and research, 3) advising,
distributing survey in a timely fashion before and get approved in summer/fall 2008
graduates faculty and staff, and 4) number of
graduates disperse. Collecting and analyzing
graduate/professional school, employment opportunities
data.
as well as scholarships and other awards received.
A tool to collect information across the MAU about Complete work on web-based survey. Post on
Complete web-based instrument for collecting information on faculty- faculty-mentored research would help UAA assess it's web. Market to UAA community and work out Web-based instrument has already been
2006-07 5,7,8
mentored research projects progress in this area, which is one of our primary strategies to encourage widespread use. drafted. Still working on release
strategic goals Collect and analyze data.
Encouraging departments to offer departmental honors Departmental honors awards are already
Develop systems for determining the number of students receiving options for students is part of the mission of the Honors noted in Banner. A query to capture this data
2006-07 4, 5 Not yet developed
departmental honors each year. College. Tracking these awards will be important to should be fairly easy to arrange, but current
determine if efforts to promote them are succeeding. Honors staffing is a hindrance
This information may be captured in part by
the web-based survey we are developing to
To promote participation in undergraduate research track faculty-mentored research projects. In
Develop systems for determining the number of students completing across the university, it will be important to track when addition, we will need to develop registration
2006-07 7, 8 Not yet developed
theses or senior projects outside of Honors. honors and non-honors students are completing queries to track when students register for
research projects. independent research projects in different
disciplines. Current Honors staffing is a
hindrance
Tools to collect information from Honors students about
their involvement in civic engagement and leadership, Developing and posting web-based tools will
Develop web-based self-reporting tools for Honors students to reporton This goal will not be possible to achieve
honors and awards received, and job and school and require technical staffing, expertise and time
2006-07 civic involvement, participation in leadership, honors and awards, job and 2,3,4,5,6 until additional administrative staffing is
scholarship offers will allow us to better assess the that we do not currently have available in our
school offers, scholarships available.
success of honors students during their tenure at UAA current staffing of honors.
and after graduation
TABLE 7
ASSESSMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ASSESSMENT RESULTS: PREVIOUS YEARS
Year Recommendation Outcome(s) Rationale for the Recommendation Resource Implications Actions Taken
Honors staffing has not been augmented as we had
hoped since the initial assessment plan was developed,
and some of the tools (such as web self-reporting tools)
we had hoped to develop have not come to fruition for
After compiling this first assessment report on the University Honors lack of staffing. Now that we have more experience in
A revised plan with fewer, more targeted tools
College's academic and undergraduate research programs, we find that collecting and analyzing data, we hope to develop some Plan revised for 2008 report, with plans to
2006-07 all will hopefully allow us to do effective
portions of the assessment plan need to be revised because they are not new and more workable methods for assessing the revise further
assessment with less impact on staff.
workable in their present form. program. Upon reviewing our plan, we have realized
that we need to add assessment measures of student
satisfaction with the overall program, which is data that
we collected in spring 2007 in the form of a student
satisfaction survey.
The Forty-Ninth State Fellows Program
The Natural and Complex Systems Program is new to
assessment plan has been drafted but
Fall 2007. The assessment plan for the Honors College
Need to develop assessment plans for the Forty-Ninth State Fellows Work with faculty overseeing those programs need much work. The Natural & Complex
2006-07 all obviously apply to these programs, but these are
Program and the Natural and Complex Systems Program to develop plans Systems Program implementation has
transcripted programs that should have assessment
been delayed and an assessment plan
plans focused on their own outcomes.
still needs to be developed.
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Previous Yr Recommendations
Document submitted by Forty-Ninth State Faculty on 6/23/08 regarding Fellows Program assessment.
UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE 1. In regard to travel
FORTY-NINTH STATE FELLOWS PROGRAM a. To Washington, DC and environs:
i. Demonstrate knowledge of Thomas Jefferson
Curricular Assessment ii. Demonstrate knowledge of the American founding
iii. Demonstrate knowledge of the American Civil War
Students shall demonstrate mastery of the content of course material, including the b. To Alaska Native villages:
following: i. Discuss challenges of subsistence living
ii. Discuss challenges of remote, roadless living
1. purpose of the subject and material (goal, objective) iii. Discuss social challenges of small community living
2. questions at issue iv. Discuss the impact of state policy in rural communities
3. information about the subject (data, facts, observations, experiences) c. Abroad:
4. interpretation and inference (conclusions, solutions) i. Demonstrate broader perspective on America’s world role
5. concepts (theories, principles, models) ii. Demonstrate knowledge of non-American cultures
6. assumptions (presupposition)
7. implications and consequences Rating will be by application of a five-point scale; Program directors will apply the scale
8. points of view (frame of reference, perspective, orientation) through direct observation and recording of their judgments, by grading seminar
performance and by grading exit essays following Fellows activities.
Mastery shall be evaluated by three methodologies:
1. written examination Outcome Measure Method
2. oral examination 1) Preside at meetings Presiding Observation, Rating
3. written essays 2) Meet and converse Interaction Observation, Rating
4. oral in-class discussion 3) Read aloud Reading Observation, Rating
4) Discuss current events Discourse Seminar, Rating
Student performance on these elements can be measured by four universal standards: 5) Public speaking Public Speaking Observation, Rating
6) Comportment and dress Appearance Observation, Rating
1. clarity 7) History and politics Knowledge Seminar, Rating
2. accuracy, precision, relevance 8) Shakespeare Seminar performance Seminar, Rating
3. depth 9) In regard to travel
4. significance a) To Washington, DC and environs:
i) Jefferson Seminar performance Seminar, Rating
Elements can be rated on a 5-point scale, in descending order from superior, through ii) American founding Seminar performance Seminar, Rating
good, average, poor, to inadequate. iii) Civil War Seminar performance Seminar, Rating
b) To Alaska Native villages:
Co-curricular Assessment i) Subsistence Exit essay Rating
ii) Remoteness Exit essay Rating
Program Outcomes: upon graduation, Fellows will be able to: iii) Small communities Exit essay Rating
iv) state policy Exit essay Rating
1. Preside at meetings c) Abroad:
2. Meet and converse with community, regional and national leaders i) Broader perspective Exit essay Rating
3. Read aloud with clarity, expression and confidence ii) Non-American cultures Exit essay Rating
4. Discuss current events
5. Demonstrate facility in public speaking Note: specific rating measures are being articulated and will be forthcoming.
6. Manifest professional comportment and dress
7. Apply lessons of history and politics
8. Discuss a number of Shakespeare plays they have read
Submitted 6-23-08 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls 49th State Program
Values by Tool Year Average
Grade Table Grade Table
0 F A 4
0.3 F+ A- 3.7
0.7 D- B 3
1 D B- 2.7
1.3 D+ B+ 3.3
1.7 C- C 2
2 C C- 1.7
2.3 C+ C+ 2.3
2.7 B- D 1
3 B D- 0.7
3.3 B+ D+ 1.3
3.7 A- F 0
4 A F+ 0.3
NG NG
Submitted Month/Day/Year 95af5ddc-7b92-49e3-ab77-2b42d0d6780c.xls Grade Table
The Instructional Goals and Student Outcomes on this survey are taken directly from the CCG for each course.
This example is for the HNRS A192 course.
SAMPLE SURVEY
University Honors Program
End-of-Semester Evaluation
Semester: Spring 2008
Course: HNRS 192 – Honors Seminar: Enduring Books
Instructional Goals:
The goals of this course are to teach students:
(1) the skills of close reading,
(2) to analyze what they are reading and place it in a larger context,
(3) to improve their writing style, and
(4) to develop their capacity for interactive discussion, including both listening and
presentation skills.
In addition, honors students will start the program with strong mentoring from a faculty
member, and benefit from early development of a sense of intellectual community
among their honors student peers.
Student Outcomes:
The outcomes of this course are to teach students:
(1) to learn to read closely and demonstrate their comprehension in a weekly discussion
of assigned texts,
(2) to be able to write expository papers making good use of evidence from the texts
using a suitable academic format, and
(3) to demonstrate their capacity for interactive discussion through classroom
participation and an oral presentation to the class.
Given these Instructional Goals and Student Outcomes as expressed in the
Course Content Guide:
1. Overall, do you feel that all of these Instructional Goals and Student Outcomes were
met by your class this semester? (Yes or No)
Can you estimate what proportion of students in your course met these outcomes?
2. Which goals or outcomes do you feel were not met? Why?
3. Do you have any comments about the class, the goals and outcomes, or anything
else that we might find useful?
Thank you for participating in this evaluation.
Survey of Community Partners
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE
UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE
<Date>
Dear <Contact>
<Organization Name>
I’d like to thank you for working with a UAA Honors student, <Student Name>, during the
<term> semester. He was enrolled in Honors A310; Community Service: Theory and
Practice, a course which requires completion of an organizational analysis, 40 hours of
community service, five journals regarding the service experiences, and a final paper. The
final paper was to be in the form of a mock research proposal: the student was to reflect on
the agency experiences and pose a research question, do an abbreviated literature review,
and outline a possible research design to answer the research question.
As part of our overall program assessment, it would be very helpful for us to get partner
feedback on this service experience and the interaction with a UAA student. Below are a
few questions for you to rate, with space for comments. You may fax the survey to the
number below, email it to me, or mail it to me at the address below. Your response will not
affect the student’s grade, as that has already been assigned, but may help us in refining
goals for this course in the future.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns, and thank you in
advance for being willing to host our student and participating in our assessment process.
Sincerely,
<Name>
<Contact Information>
University Honors College
University of Alaska Anchorage
3211 Providence Dr, RH 119
Anchorage, AK 99508
Student: <Student Name>
Organization: <Name of Organization>
Semester: <term>
Below are some of our goals in requiring Honors students to do community service. Given
your experience with our student, do you think these goals were met? You may use these
numerical codes and add additional comments as desired.
1. Goal not met
2. Goal met somewhat
3. Goal met
4. Goal not applicable or not observed
1. Student performed worthwhile service activities in an agency in response to a need of
that agency.
2. Student demonstrated positive interpersonal skills in the community agency.
3. Student demonstrated beginning leadership abilities in the community agency.
4. Student demonstrated ability to identify and discuss larger social issues learned about
at the agency.
5. Student demonstrated beginning ability to change or impact social issues learned about
at the agency.
6. Student represented UAA and him/herself at the agency in a manner that reflects
integrity and respect.
7. Student followed through with any commitments made to the community agency.
Other comments from you? (please feel free to elaborate)
Survey of Undergraduate Research Faculty Mentors
Dear Professor <name>,
In the 2007-08 academic year, you mentored <student name>, who won an <grant or
award name>. As part of our assessment of the Office of Undergraduate Research &
Scholarship award programs, we are polling faculty mentors of award-winning students
for their perspective on their student’s work. Please answer these brief questions and
return via email.
1. Did the award-winning student have a successful undergraduate research/scholarship
experience? YES NO
If no, please comment:
2. Do you feel the research/creative work produced by the student is of the quality for
further research or dissemination (i.e., presentation in a local, regional, national
conference or publication, etc.). YES NO
If no, please comment:
Thank you in advance for your participation. Please respond by Friday, June 13. We
appreciate your mentorship of UAA students.
Sincerely,
Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarship
Related docs
Other docs by roj84247
MD Anderson Faculty Center 2 Schedule of Equipment INSERT BIDDING COMPANY NAME HERE R
Views: 75 | Downloads: 0
