STATEMENT BY THE

ALL UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON A UNIVERSITY FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING ASSESSMENTS OF

STUDENT EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

              Educating undergraduate and graduate/professional students continues to be a primary mission of Michigan State University.  The goal is to graduate men and women from diverse backgrounds who will remain active learners and assume the responsibilities of positive leadership.  By doing so, MSU graduates will contribute to society as effective citizens:

• intellectually, through their analytical abilities and insightful use of knowledge;

• socially, through an understanding and appreciation of the world and of individual and group beliefs and traditions; and

• economically, through productive application of skills.

Given our mission to assist students in the attainment of their educational achievements, it becomes our responsibility to assess not only the performance of the students but also the impact our programs have on the students.  In addition, the current climate for higher education is one in which universities increasingly are expected to provide evidence of their effectiveness, relevance, and stewardship.  No longer are national and state legislatures, funding or accrediting agencies, or other supporters willing to accept the claims of post-secondary institutions that students are learning, and are developing new skills and accumulating knowledge applicable to their life’s work and to their role as contributing citizens.  On the contrary, these organizations are demanding more visible accountability than they have seen in the past and are expecting more concrete verification that fiscal and human resources invested in educational institutions are, indeed, being used in ways that result in an educated populace.  Further, many of these agencies are requiring that evidence on the results of an education be provided through a specified process:  the assessment of student academic outcomes.

              Michigan State University has reason to take pride in steps we have already taken to demonstrate the vitality and relevance of the University and its academic programs.  Faculty driven reviews of undergraduate education (CRUE) and graduate education and research (CORRAGE) are examples of initiatives already undertaken that suggest different roles of faculty, students and administrators in the transformation of educational parameters and practices.  MSU has already demonstrated a willingness and ability to assess its own programs and to make reasoned changes in those activities related to the creation, transmission, application and preservation of knowledge.

              Following the implementation of the revised curricular and programmatic changes associated with CRUE and the shift to the semester calendar, and in the spirit of CORRAGE recommendations on program reviews, a next logical step is to design and implement assessment programs which ask meaningful, appropriate, and well timed questions to examine the educational experience of students at Michigan State University.  Under the current rules for University accreditation, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) requires institutions to have assessment plans in place which demonstrate that we gather, interpret, and use information about student academic outcomes for program improvement.  To meet our internal commitments to assessment as well as to address the expectations of external agencies, it is necessary to develop unit- and University-level processes and measurements to assess outcomes of students’ educational experiences at Michigan State University which, in turn, will reflect the effectiveness of the University in meeting its stated mission.

              Measuring students’ educational outcomes is central to ongoing individual and collective efforts of faculty and staff to further improve the level of educational achievement of MSU students.  It is a natural extension of the more particularistic forms of measurement that faculty have applied historically in their classrooms and other instructional settings to the cumulative education and academic development of students and use the information to improve all areas of the educational environment.  Assessments must be made of the outcomes of students’ structured learning experiences, thereby becoming one response to the institutional commitment inherent in the mission of the University to support quality teaching and learning.  They may also provide indications of the levels of students’ satisfaction with specific components or the totality of their educational experiences.  Thus, assessing educational outcomes across the full range of students’ educational experiences, rather than limiting assessment to student academic outcomes, is central to further improving the educational achievement of MSU students; the assessments are not ends in themselves.

              Assessment must be ethical in approach and practice from the multiple perspectives and expectations of the faculty and students as well as from external audiences. Particularly in a large research University, scholarly values must be reflected in the practice of assessment:  a research-based mode of inquiry that expects the University to address questions of significance.  Finally, assessment must be characterized by relevance to a wide spectrum of the University’s vital processes that support the educational environment—intellectual, cultural, social.

              Assessment should contribute to the University’s commitment to excellence, access, equity and diversity.  Furthermore, assessment should be an essential tool to understand better and respond to the changing demands on the University and the needs of the people it serves.  It should also reflect the uniqueness of disciplines, the different paradigms of knowledge among the disciplines and the diversity of educational goals across the university’s academic and support units.

GUIDELINES

The development of assessment programs must take into account the complexities that are indigenous to particular kinds of institutions, complexities that present both limitations and opportunities.  Even within the context of diverse institutions, however, specific characteristics of good assessment practice emerge.  The characteristics for programs identified by the All-University Assessment Policy and Practice Advisory Committee serve as overarching guidelines to assessment that are appropriate to a large, public research institution.  The following guidelines should apply to any assessment activity or assessment program developed within Michigan State University.  These guidelines are intended to provide direction and assistance to administrative, academic, and academic support units as assessment activities are developed or refined.  The information from these assessment programs will provide the basis for developing the University-wide assessment program.

• Assessment programs for student educational outcomes should be designed to improve program effectiveness.  These programs are not intended to be evaluations of individual faculty or students.  Procedures and practices will vary according to the individual characteristics of the program.

• Assessment programs should cover the wide spectrum of intellectual, cultural, and social processes that are a part of the educational environment.

• Assessment programs must be ethical in approach and practice and incorporate the multiple perspectives and expectations of faculty and students as well as external audiences.

• Faculty advice, direction, and participation should be an important component of the planning and implementation of assessments.

• Students should be invited to participate actively in the planning and implementation of assessments.

• Ongoing communication among and between faculty, students, and administrators is necessary in the development, implementation, and modification of assessment programs.

• Assessment programs should provide appropriate feedback to faculty, administrators, and students as well as provide information for institutional reporting activities.

• Assessment programs should be embedded in sound scholarship, based in a research mode of inquiry which includes multiple measures looking at relevant domains (cognitive, affective, behavioral).

• Assessment programs should facilitate both the improvement and reinforcement of quality teaching and learning.  This emphasis should lead to educational outcomes for students that are clearly identified and consistent with unit and University mission statements.

• Assessment programs should promote students’ self-assessment abilities and develop skills associated with lifelong learning.

• Assessment programs should reflect reasonable investments of time, money, and human resources and include training and related resources for faculty and support personnel who are responsible for assessment activities.

• Individual assessment programs should focus on the most relevant issues, practices or achievements.

• Assessment programs should be reviewed periodically and modified as needed.

• Assessment programs should be consistent with University goals of access, equity, and diversity

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

              After study and deliberation, the Committee has affirmed the need to direct new and special attention to the assessment of student educational outcomes.  The Committee believes the adoption and implementation of these guidelines will provide a framework for programs to review their existing practices and maximize the effectiveness of their programs through assessment activities.  The Committee recognizes that application of the guidelines it has proposed crosses multiple vice-presidential areas.  In the context of the guidelines and the University organizational structure, the Committee makes the following recommendations for immediate implementation:

• Designate a University "coordinator" for providing leadership in and coordination of assessment activities.

• Establish a small Implementation Committee to work with the coordinator.  Among the first responsibilities would be to develop a calendar for assessment activities.

• Establish a continuing All University Assessment Advisory Committee to work with the coordinator in reviewing unit assessment plans for their consistency with the guidelines and to make recommendations for modifications.  Ongoing work would also be done to refine and modify University policy and practices.

• The three vice-presidential areas of Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and Services, and Finance and Operations will assert leadership to promote, support, and sustain assessment activities appropriate for their respective areas.

• The guidelines should be accepted and implemented by the responsible vice-presidential area.

February 1, 1993