TIFFIN UNIVERSITY “Inspiring Professional Excellence” Office of Outcomes Assessment Annual Report Academic Year 2005-2006 Prepared for Dr. John J. Millar Vice President for Academic Affairs & Dean of the Faculty By Dr. Teresa Shafer, Dean of Outcomes Assessment Acknowledgements The author of this report acknowledges and applauds the ongoing efforts of the academic department chairs and school deans as well as the non-academic division and department leaders for their assistance in completing this year’s annual report. Appreciation is also extended to the members of the Tiffin University Outcomes Assessment Advisory Committee (OAAC) for their support and ongoing efforts in making outcomes assessment (OA) a regular part of doing business here at the institution. Special thanks to Ms. Jeanie Fisher for all the follow-up work with all the parties involved concerning the content of this document. Special thanks also for her dedication in helping to prepare and proof this document and its eventual distribution. 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................4 II. Introduction .........................................................................................7 III. General Education Curriculum Assessment .......................................9 A. Office of Academic Affairs .......................................................9 B. History........................................................................................9 C. AY 2005-2006 .........................................................................11 D. National Survey of Student Engagement .................................13 IIII. Academic School Outcomes Assessment Reports ........................... 20 A. School of Arts and Sciences ....................................................22 B. School of Business ...................................................................49 C. School of Criminal Justice & Social Sciences .......................116 IV. Non-Academic Division .................................................................178 A. Academic Affairs Division ....................................................180 B. Campus Services & Athletics ................................................197 C. Business Affairs Division ......................................................201 D. Development & Pubic Affairs ...............................................207 E. Enrollment Services ...............................................................210 F. Recruitment & Admissions Division .....................................214 3 I. Executive Summary This report presents a summary of Tiffin University’s (TU) outcomes assessment (OA) strategies, data gathered, analysis conducted, and conclusions reached as a result of assessment activities carried out in Academic Year (AY) 2005-2006. The report consists of the following main sections: executive summary; introduction; General Education Curriculum assessment, academic school OA reports; non-academic division OA reports; and a glossary. It was determined early in the process of gathering this report that all appendices would be compiled and maintained in the Dean of OA’s office and in a separate e-folder. Anyone wanting additional information should contact that office at 419-448-3309. The reader is referred to the Table of Contents for the main sections’ subdivisions. A glossary of acronyms used is included at the end of the document for quick reference. AY 2005-2006 was a year in which the institution took major steps in improving and using past OA results as well as involving the entire community in the OA process. This was aided in large part by President Marion’s direction as the top strategic plan for the year included continued academic OA progress as well as instituting OA efforts in all non-academic areas of the campus. A significant step in this direction was garnered by the establishing of the Tiffin University Outcomes Assessment Advisory Committee (OAAC) as well as the continued work of the Academic Outcomes Assessment Committee (AOAC). The membership of these two committees provided substantial leadership that allowed for the gains achieved in the various OA efforts that took place during this academic year. Extra assistance was also achieved within the Faculty Curriculum Committee which took a leadership role in assessing the GEC outcomes. Leadership in the academic schools once again was in flux as a new Dean of the School of Business was appointed in January 2006 and the Dean of Arts and Sciences announced her retirement at the same time. However many department chairs remained constant and as such much progress was made in assessing program goals. At the end of AY 2004-2005 it was discovered that each of the academic school’s assessment plans were different. The School of Arts and Sciences assessed majors, the School of Business assessed departments, and the School of Criminal Justice and Social Sciences assessed at the school level. Few assessments actually took place and those that did assessed indirect measures of student learning. Given that knowledge, the goal for AY 2005-2006 was to standardize the OA process within the academic division. That evolved into getting the academic schools to prepare program rational statements for each major, including marketing targets, program goals, OA plans to assess each goal, classes where goals were taught and standards for meeting those goals. These reporting requirements are now in place for all new program proposals that are submitted to the Faculty Curriculum Committee for approval. To assist schools with this process, standardized formats for reporting information were created. This process revealed serious deficiencies within many of the course curriculum guides in use. Deans and department heads were challenged with updating those guides with 4 respect to the program rational statements and OA plans. Much work still needs to be done in this area. Two professional development workshops were held to help faculty clarify and formalize program goals for all undergraduate and graduate majors. Substantial work was done to help faculty understand the importance of measuring direct evidence of student learning within their classroom assignments. One of the workshops was held on constructing evaluation instruments, grading rubrics and understanding their connections to OA. This course embedded assessment strategy was instituted and departments were mandated to evaluate at least one goal, within at least one class during spring semester 2006. We also energized assessment of the GEC by involving the Faculty Curriculum Committee and using our “Writing Across the Curriculum” (WAC) faculty. A writing assessment rubric was developed by the English Faculty and eleven faculty members in 17 classes used the rubric to assess writing skills on an assignment they evaluated as part of their WAC course. Results will be discussed below. Another workshop was held and a follow-up survey was administered to determine the various skills and knowledge sets expected of an “ideal” TU graduate. Refinement and use of results continues. Awareness of OA issues increased as well during the academic year as regular meetings were held with individual faculty, department heads, academic deans, schools and the VPAA to discuss issues. The academic OA team continued to meet and work on clarifying their duties with respect to OA. This is a very dedicated group of faculty who are making great strides in moving OA to the forefront within their respective schools. As stated briefly earlier, a university wide OA committee was created and met as a group each semester to discuss OA issues outside of the academic unit. Individual meetings between the Dean of OA (DOA) and each representative were held a number of times throughout the year as well. Representatives were challenged with discussing department/division mission statements and goals and how their unit’s activities impacted student learning. This information will become part of this Annual OA. This will be the first time that non-academic data will be part of the annual report. A presentation was also given to the Director’s meeting to spread the word about OA across the institution and to garner support for OA efforts within each non-academic division. Deadlines were also established for the process in AY 2004-2005. Adhering to these deadlines makes the entire process run smoother and allows for improved editing and analysis of the results. It also allows for earlier reporting of findings. The expectation is that results will be distributed during the fall faculty workshops so that schools and departments can take advantage of recommended action plans. 5 Results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) administered in AY 2004-2005 were received. Analysis of those results took place over the summer of 2006 and will be discussed below and shared with the university community at the fall 2006 meetings. The Office of Institutional Research has registered TU to participate in this survey again during AY 2006-2007. Overall AY 2005-2006 was a year when the assessment process became a fundamental part of doing business at the institution. All academic and non-academic divisions of the institution were involved in the process. As all participants in the assessment process have become more comfortable with the process, the level of involvement and understanding has improved, and the value of assessment activities has become clearer. The ‘culture