Appendix 12
Assessment Structure Evaluation: Survey Instrument

 

To: Assessment planning leaders for Academic Departments/Schools and Educational Support Units.

Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment planning structure at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Distribution List:
Academic School Deans/Assessment Liaisons:
                Dottie Crummy (Nursing)
                Sam Powell (Theology/Christian Ministry)
                Bruce Schooling (Business)
                Jim McEliece (Business)
                Darrel Falk (Education)
                Jo Birdsell (Education)
Academic Site Directors:
                Karen Davis (Arcadia)
                Don Burnard (Bakersfield)
                Sue Bentley (Mission Valley)
Academic Department Chairs/Assessment Liaisons:
                Jim Skalman (Art)
                Kerry Fulcher (Biology)
                Ken Martin (Chemistry)
                Randall King (Communication/Theatre)          
                Kay Wilder (Family/Consumer Sciences)
                Linda Beail (History/Political Science)
                Ted Anderson (Kinesiology)
                Leon Kugler (Kinesiology/Athletic Training)
                Karl Martin (Literature/Journalism/Modern Languages)
                Maria Zack (Mathematical, Information and Computer Sciences)
                Paul Kenyon (Music)
                Keith Walker (Physics and Engineering)
                Brad Strawn (Psychology)
                David Barrows (Sociology/Social Work)
                Pat Leslie (Social Work)
Co-curricular Program Directors/Educational Support Unit Liaisons:
                Gordon Golsan (Student Development)
                Caye Smith (Student Development)
                Michael Pitts (Spiritual Development)
                Becky Modesto (Spiritual Development)
                Jim Newburg (Library)
                Anne-Elizabeth Powell (Library)
                Robert Joslin (Information Technology Services)
                Barbara Rutledge (Information Technology Services)
President
                Bob Brower, President
Cabinet
                Patrick Allen, Provost and Chief Academic Officer
                Gordon Golsan, Vice President for Student Development
                George Latter, Vice President for Financial Affairs
                Dan Martin, Vice President for University Advancement
                Michael Pitts, Vice President for Spiritual Development

 

Point Loma Nazarene University
WASC Preparatory Review
Assessment Structure Evaluation – Survey Instrument

To: Administrators and assessment planning leaders for Academic Departments/Schools and Educational Support Units.

Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment planning structure at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Instructions: Please complete this evaluation instrument based on the effectiveness of the assessment planning structure to provide a framework for systematic program improvement. The Assessment Committee welcomes your general impressions, feedback, open-ended remarks, and suggestions for improving its effectiveness for program quality improvement. Forward copies of this survey to individuals you believe could provide useful feedback. Return to Lauren Johnson, laurenjohnson@pointloma.edu.

Demographics: Please check the first one that applies to you.

1. Cabinet
2. Vice Provost/College Dean
3. Department Chair/School Dean
4. Assessment Committee Member
5. Department/School Assessment Leader/Team Member
6. Co-curricular Assessment Leader/Team Member
7. Other (specify) _______________________________

General Impressions: Rate these items in terms of your overall impression of the effectiveness of the assessment planning structure that is currently in place at Point Loma Nazarene University.
Item	Rating Scale: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree; NA=not applicable
1	I understand the model of assessment planning (the Nichols model) that is currently in use at Point Loma Nazarene University.	1	2	3	4	5	NA
2	Assessment planning is conducted as a team effort in my unit.
3	Clear learning goals for students are identified in the assessment plan for my unit.
4	The assessment plan in my unit links student learning objectives to program mission.
5	The assessment plan for my unit has established tools to measure student learning outcomes.
6	Data is being collected as a part of an assessment system in my unit.
7	The current assessment system provides enough guidance for me in my attempt to provide leadership in assessment efforts for my unit.
8	The current assessment system provides enough flexibility to meet the needs of my unit.
9	Assessment efforts in my unit have been productive in guiding program improvement.
10	Assessment efforts in my unit have been productive in guiding curricular change.
11	The individuals in my unit are currently supportive of the assessment system that is now in place.
12	I have received adequate support from the Assessment Committee.
Comments:

 

Open Ended Questions: In this section, please comment on the effectiveness of the assessment planning structure, and your suggestions for improvements.

1. What is working well about the current assessment planning structure?

2. How would you revise the current assessment system to make it more effective to meet your needs?

3. In your opinion, what should be the role of the Assessment Committee?

Comments:

Thank you! The Assessment Committee appreciates you taking a few minutes to complete this survey. Your input will be used to improve the assessment planning structure at Point Loma Nazarene University and to fulfill the requirements of the WASC Preparatory Review.