CHAPTER 5: Accomplishment of Purposes

Assessment of Student Learning

Commitment to Assessment

CU-Boulder pays serious attention to evidence concerning student completion rates, learning, satisfaction, and success after graduation. The campus collects information on these measures annually or biennially through several formal assessment programs and studies the resulting time series for patterns of slippage and improvement. Academic programs, student affairs units, and the campus as a whole have, as a consequence, made changes in curriculum, teaching, advising, processing students' business transactions, admissions communications, and many other areas.

CU-Boulder is known as a national leader in outcomes assessment, due in part to a comprehensive assessment Web site: www.colorado.edu/pba/outcomes. This site provides information on history, methods, results, use of results, and summaries of activities for individual units.

Undergraduate Outcomes Assessment Program

This formal, campuswide component examines the quality and effectiveness of academic programs through examination of student learning. The program, in place since 1989-90, is dedicated to helping faculty in individual academic units evaluate their curricula, plan improvements where necessary, and evaluate the effects of the changes.

In academic year 1987-88, academic units developed formal statements of knowledge and skills goals for undergraduate majors, which are now published in the catalog (both print and electronic). The unit assessment summaries also are linked to them. Each year, faculty in schools, colleges, and departments implement assessment plans reported in previous years. They may modify their programs, goals, and assessment processes as necessary, based on formal assessments, student satisfaction data, retention and completion data, placement rates, and other information.

Academic units use varying methods of assessment. For example, the writing program collects representative samples of students' initial and final essays for evaluation by a panel of instructors and outside experts. Engineering, computer science, mathematics, and sociology compare their majors' performance on nationally standardized exams with national norms. History annually selects 15 percent of the papers submitted by senior majors in upper-division courses for evaluation by three-member subcommittees of the department's undergraduate studies committee. Journalism interns are rated by their supervisors, who are working professionals in the field.

Departments often make changes in curricula and teaching based on assessment results. For example, chemistry/biochemistry added more experiments and hands-on experiences to lower-division courses and increased the number of majors doing independent study research projects by 60 percent. Theatre and dance revised the sequence of courses in theatre history and dramatic literature and now emphasizes these areas in the senior seminar. Classics added more sight-reading exercises in introductory Latin and Greek courses. As a result, translation grades in those courses rose noticeably. Mathematics added a required upper-division course in modern algebra. Sociology strengthened methods and statistics skills with a three-semester course sequence.

Learning Assessment at the Graduate Level

All students awarded doctoral degrees complete comprehensive examinations before admission to candidacy and write dissertations signed by no fewer than two faculty members. They take a public oral examination conducted by at least five individuals, including at least three faculty members and one individual from outside the major department. These requirements ensure that degree recipients meet Graduate School goals that include demonstration of proficiency in a broad subject of learning and an ability to critically evaluate work in the field, as well as making a significant original contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Most students awarded master’s degrees complete theses signed by at least two faculty members. All pass a comprehensive examination given by three faculty members. As noted above, these requirements ensure that student learning is monitored by faculty on an ongoing basis in all departments.

Other Components

Another component of assessment is the examination of student persistence and completion rates, placement rates, after-graduation performance, and student satisfaction. The campus’s longest standing student survey is the Faculty Course Questionnaire (FCQ), discussed earlier in this chapter.

Enrollment managers use information on freshmen entering since 1980, and transfers and graduate-level students entering since 1988, to monitor persistence and graduation rates. These rates are compared over time and with other public research institutions with similar students. Much of this information is shared via a web site on retention and graduation rates.

A dip in undergraduate persistence rates in 1992 prompted significant campus efforts to improve programs for freshmen and transfers in their first year, increase financial aid, and improve programs for undergraduates in departments and colleges. Persistence rates have increased since 1996, but nevertheless remain the focus of serious campus attention.

In addition to campuswide analyses, CU-Boulder also monitors persistence of various sub-populations in order to improve programs. Examples include engineering students (the College of Engineering and Applied Science has its own enrollment management team), athletes (used in NCAA certification), arts and sciences students granted admission provisionally, transfers, ethnic minorities, women, students with lower or higher than predicted grade point averages, and students in particular majors.

Placement rates (including success both in further formal education and in employment) are monitored through surveys of graduating students and alumni. Campuswide information on placement rates comes from biennial surveys of seniors and of bachelor’s recipients four years out, both conducted regularly for almost ten years. The alumni surveys also examine after-graduation performance issues, such as how alumni judge their preparation in various skill areas.

Program-specific information also comes from graduating students and alumni. Programs undergoing academic program review (every seven years) receive assistance in surveying recent alumni (graduates for the last seven years) with questionnaires customized for the program. Some programs, such as law, regularly survey alumni on their own, and the Graduate School surveys students receiving degrees. After-graduation performance also is assessed through feedback from employers via surveys and advisory boards.

CU-Boulder employs a regular cycle of student satisfaction surveys at the campus, department, and course level. The results are used by enrollment managers in the examination of student learning outcomes, by faculty, by students themselves, and by units throughout the campus. Biennial senior surveys, conducted regularly since 1990, tap student satisfaction with both academic and nonacademic services. Each school and college, plus the 22 largest majors (covering 70 percent of all seniors), is sampled independently. Schools, colleges, and major programs receive a customized report in which their results are compared over time and to other units. Reports include transcribed student comments as well as quantitative displays.

Actions taken as a result of assessment include: anthropology puts more emphasis on student clubs and career advising; accounting reviews how student comments on curriculum have changed over time; biology continues efforts to put advising information on the Web.

Service units (e.g., registration and counseling) receive similar information. The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs has used this information to focus improvement efforts.

An undergraduate survey, introduced in 1997, utilizes the ACT student opinion survey tool, thereby allowing comparison of CU-Boulder results with those at a group of public research universities nationwide. It too covers both academic and nonacademic areas and will be repeated every two years. Schools and colleges receive customized reports for discipline groups (e.g., social sciences) and by student class level. The academic affairs division has used these results to identify problem areas.

Service areas such as Career Services receive not only aggregate results but transcribed comments and lists of students (with their permission) mentioning needed improvements in a service. Some service areas did phone interviews or focus groups with these students to obtain more detailed information for improvement.

CU-Boulder also regularly surveys undergraduates of color about the campus climate for diversity (last collected in fall 1998). Individual units such as residence halls, financial aid, registrar, counseling, and academic departments also collect student satisfaction data via surveys, focus groups, and advisory boards. These efforts allow a level of detail not attainable at the campuswide level and are critical for improvement efforts.

Plans for Enhancement

New budget processes may include the use of department, school, and college performance indicators in determining internal budget allocations. These indicators are expected to include the use of student-learning assessments and student satisfaction measures. This plan provides an opportunity to offer meaningful incentives and rewards for departments to engage in true assessment, to make use of results, and to focus on program-level activities.

Also, the increasing availability of information from peer institutions about activities and outcomes at a department level presents an opportunity to measure departments against similar units elsewhere.

Issues for Further Review

While the Boulder campus has a long history of assessment activity, a number of issues may warrant further review, including:

• Administrative structure. The campus may wish to consider forming campuswide oversight committees for assessment of courses, assessment in undergraduate majors or general education, or for guiding survey use and design. In addition, a collegewide committee in arts and sciences could receive and examine undergraduate assessment reports from all departments in the college.

• Reporting cycle. In 1997, the cycle for department reports on undergraduate assessment efforts was changed from one to two years, with the expectation that each department would engage in assessment (but not reporting) in both years of the cycle. This has caused some confusion and difficulties in continuity, tracking, funding, and reporting.

• Varying implementation and use. There are wide variations in the level of commitment to and use of assessment of student learning and satisfaction, particularly in general education areas not the responsibility of one department, such as critical thinking.

• Dependence on external requirements for motivation. Many faculty think of "assessment" as something required by the state of Colorado, and/or by accreditation requirements, rather than as something useful to their own endeavors. Campus processes for undergraduate assessment and Graduate School surveys have tended to reinforce this perception, which leads to a focus on reporting instead of use.

Education School Ranks Among the Best

The School of Education is highly regarded across the country for its faculty's productivity in scholarly work — in spite of its small size. In 1998, the school's graduate program was ranked 15th among 225 colleges of education by U.S. News & World Report. Also, citations from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) from 1991 to 1996 indicate strong faculty research productivity and impact on the field.

CU Violence Center Works toward Safe Communities, Schools

In 1999, CU-Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence joined with The Colorado Trust and Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar in a new $1 million initiative to assist schools and communities in safe school planning. The center will provide any of Colorado's 1,500 schools with information, practical planning tools, and technical assistance to address their unique safety needs.