Appendix 7
Assessment Committee Report to Faculty
November 17, 2004

Assessment Committee Established:

	Ad hoc:	1990
	Ad hoc reestablished:	2000
	Permanent	4-10-02

Membership (2004-2005):

	Elected:	Keith Pedersen (Arts: Art, LJML, Music, Phil/Religion)
		Jesus Jimenez (Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Math/CS)
		Ron Kirkemo (Social Sciences: Com, H/PS, Psych, Soc/Swk)
		Anita Smith (Professional Studies: SoB, FCS, Kinesiology, SoN)
		Jim Johnson (School of Education)
	Ex officio:	Cheryl Gaughan (Institutional Research)
		Anne-Elizabeth Powell (Library Services)
		Becky Modesto (Spiritual Development)
		Caye Smith (Student Development)
		Barbara Rutledge (Information Technology)
		Hadley Wood (Dean of General Education)
		Becky Havens, Chair (Vice Provost for Educational Effectiveness)

Definition:

Assessment at Point Loma Nazarene University is the gathering, synthesis and utilization of information in order to facilitate on-going improvement in the institution’s effectiveness to achieve its mission and to achieve learning objectives in major academic programs and general education.

Major Responsibilities (Faculty Handbook):

1. Oversee the assessment program for the University, in order to support institutional effectiveness.
2. Work with chairs of academic major programs to review program learning objectives, means of assessment, criteria for assessment, results of assessment, and use of results.
3. Work with educational support units to review program objectives, means of assessment, criteria for assessment, results of assessment, and use of results.
4. Work with the general education committee to oversee assessment of the general education program.
5. Work with Institutional Research to link data collection with the assessment of major programs and general education.
6. Provide summary documentation and reports, as needed, detailing the assessment program of the University, in support of institutional accreditation.
7. Ensure that the institutional assessment program is linked to the University’s strategic plan and the academic planning process.

Status of Assessment at PLNU

Are we ready for WASC?
We’re getting there!
See the PLNU Assessment Inventory developed for our WASC Proposal, in Institutional Proposal, web page: http://www.pointloma.edu/academicaffairs/wasc/

Accomplishments 2000-2004

• PLNU has adopted a solid assessment structure that provides guidance for essential elements while remaining flexible for individual programs/units
• Most academic majors and many educational support units have assessment plans in place; many have integrated “to teach, to shape, to send” into the learning outcomes
• Maturation of evidence collected and interpreted; some have closed the loop (used the results to improve their programs)
• Some academic programs (typically those with external professional accreditation) have been through the assessment cycle multiple times
• Good start on general education assessment
• We have periodically evaluated the institution’s assessment system (consultant visits), with affirmation of our process

We need to keep pressing forward.
We have made significant progress, but there is much work to be done.

Goals 2004-2007

• Deepen assessment of academic majors, co-curricular programs and general education; all on board and through multiple cycles
• Create continuous learning system for general education program improvement
• Improve documentation of data collection and program improvement efforts
• Create web page containing documentation of assessment activities to support WASC educational effectiveness audit
• Improve teaching and learning about assessment – develop assessment resources for faculty and staff on the web
• Link data collection by Institutional Research to appropriate assessment activities
• Measure broad educational outcomes – educational effectiveness indicators (EEI’s)
• Link assessment activities to strategic planning activities
• Build culture of understanding about assessment as a continuous system of program change and improvement – assessment is a journey, not a destination
• Build system of continual evaluation of quality assurance mechanisms
• WASC Preparatory Review: discuss progress since last WASC visit; evaluate current assessment system
• WASC Effectiveness Review: evidence of assessment system permeating all levels

Expectations for Academic Departments

• Periodic Program Review (5 year cycle): assessment activities and use of results are an important component of periodic Program Review
• Annual Assessment Report (1 year cycle): filing guidelines attached

Attachment: Annual Assessment Report Filing Guidelines, 2004
(See Guidelines for Annual Assessment Report)