| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
Outcomes Assessment is the means by which the university’s programs and departments hold themselves accountable to their own aspirations. The SACSCOC principles of accreditation offer helpful guidance with regard to the scope and nature of the university’s assessment efforts.
Academic programs and services maintain student learning objectives that describe the knowledge, skills, and attitudes/responsibilities/dispositions their graduates will demonstrate upon program completion. Academic and student services identify outcomes of their work that support student success. Section 8 of the 2018 SACSCOC principles articulates the following requirements:
...
Particularly important in the SACSCOC language above is the requirement that programs “[provide] evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of … results.” The PACE process and the tools of SPOL are designed to scaffold this work and support departments in maintaining relevant data and documenting their efforts.
Administrative departments must likewise articulate the expected outcomes of administrative support services. Section 7 of the 2018 SACSCOC principles articulates the following requirements:
...
It is worth noting that the SACSCOC principles do not here require that administrative departments provide evidence of seeking improvement. Administrative support services may find success in having articulated articulating standards of performance/service (outcomes) and consistently achieving them.
See Appendix 1 for lists of EMU’s academic programs and services and its administrative departments as identified for PACE assessment purposes.
Likewise, administrative departments may demonstrate compliance with SACSCOC expectations for outcomes assessment via well-designed planning objectives with clear outcomes (via PACE planning) and/or performance-focused outcomes (via PACE assessment).
See Appendix 1 for lists of EMU’s academic programs and services and its administrative departments as identified for PACE assessment purposes.
Assessment Timeline and Data Collection Cycles
...
- Fall Semester - Collection of data from fall courses/activities as per program/department assessment cycle requirements; survey administration per university survey calendar
- Spring Semester - Collection of data from fall courses/activities as per program/department assessment cycle requirements; survey administration per university survey calendar
- April - September - Window for data analysis and outcomes assessment reporting in SPOL
- Summer - Collection of data from summer courses/activities as needed
- August - September - Develop assessment follow-up planning objectives for upcoming year to seek improvement in student learning on the basis of assessment findings
Special Considerations
It is important to note that academic programs and services and administrative departments need not collect and analyze data for each of its outcomes every year. A program/department may develop a multi-year (ideally 2-4 year) cycle over which it assesses each of its outcomes. Such a cycle allows for data collection over multiple years, and allows programs/departments to provide more focused attention on a subset of their outcomes in any given year. Beginning with the rollout of the updated academic program review cycle in 2020-21, academic programs are expected to have collected and analyzed data for each student learning outcome at least twice between each program review. See below for further details on program review.
Further, in order to ensure the sustainability and validity of assessment, small academic programs may opt to extend assessment data collection over several years in order to achieve adequate sample sizes to support analysis. Programs that opt for this approach should collect data for all outcomes each year, but may still focus on analysis of results for a subset of student learning outcomes each year.
PACE - Executive Reporting
...
In addition to the PACE process, all academic programs that do not undergo an external accreditation review are reviewed on a six-year cycle (adapted as-needed to specific program considerations). See Appendix 2 for more details on the review process. See the Program Review Cycle for details on when each program is reviewed. This comprehensive review is conducted by a faculty task force, overseen by the provost council and includes consideration of:
...
Appendix 1 - EMU Planning Units and Programs for PACE
...
Applied Social Sciences
BA Global Development
BA Global Studies
BA Peacebuilding
BA Peacebuilding & Development
BA Social Work
BA Sociology
Business & Leadership
AA Business Administration
BA Economics
BA International Business
BA Recreation & Sport Management
BS Accounting
BS Business Administration
BS Leadership and Organizational Management
BS Leadership and Organizational Management Aviation
BS Marketing
BS Organizational Leadership
Education
AA Educ.: Para-Professional
Teaching Endorsements: Early/Primary Education Licensure, Secondary Education Licensure, All-Grade Education, Special Education
...
Academic Success Center
Athletics
Career Services
Library
Student Life
...
Appendix 2 - Academic Program Review Process Details
Basic Structure:
- Review cycle: review each program approximately every six years (program review cycle). The cycle is adapted to address specific program considerations as needed. This review is intended only for programs that don’t go through review by an external accrediting body.
- Cost: $500 + reimbursement of expenses to two (or more, if a program cluster has several disparate programs that require experts from different discipline areas) external reviewers.
- Loading: The program director will receive 1+ load hour release to complete the self-study report, host the campus visit, and complete the response report. The internal consultant will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or release time).
- Typical Review Schedule:
- March of year preceding review: Deans notify program directors of upcoming review.
- May of year preceding review: Programs up for review meet with their respective dean to outline tasks and timeline, review available data, determine the key questions for reviewers to address, and submit names of potential external reviewers.
- July: Deans select and contact consultants (typically two external and one internal per program cluster).
- August-December: Program cluster self-study completed and sent to consultants. (Likely, much of the self-study could be compiled from PACE reports.)
- February or March: Consultants visit campus and review programs. Review should include feedback solicited from current students and alumni; when appropriate, a focus group of practitioners of the field would be formed to provide additional feedback.
- April: Consultants’ report due.
- May: Program cluster reads and responds to consultants’ report; the response will likely include an action plan (including budget implications and timeline for any proposed new initiatives) that can be incorporated into the PACE process.
- September of year following review: Program cluster meets with their dean to discuss the action plan and other follow-up items.
Evaluation Team: The evaluation team will typically consist of two external consultants within the discipline(s) of the program cluster to be reviewed, and one internal consultant. Ideally, one external reviewer will be from an institution that is comparable to EMU and a second reviewer will be from an “aspirational” institution. The internal consultant will typically be a tenured faculty member from a different program cluster; the internal consultant will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or a dean’s hour). The program cluster should contact nominees for the evaluation team prior to submitting names to determine interest and availability. The program cluster should submit the names of at least three potential external reviewers, along with vitae, to the dean, with additional comments or a ranking if desired.
Outline of Undergraduate Program Self-study Report
A. Academic Program
...
- List the majors and minors (if undergraduate) or programs and certificates (if graduate).
- Provide the program cluster’s mission statement.
- Describe how the program supports the mission of the university.
...
- Note how courses in program cluster majors are interwoven with general education requirements.
- Discuss courses offered as “service courses” for the liberal arts curriculum, and note the typical enrollments in these courses. [IR will provide summarized data for recent years regarding service course enrollments.]
- Describe how the program interacts with other majors.
...
For the purposes of institutional effectiveness work, EMU organizes its academic programs, academic and student services, and administrative support services into planning units and academic programs. The configuration of these programs and units largely aligns with the university's Organizational Chart. However, in some cases--due to uniqueness in focus or scope of impact--organizational units are excluded from PACE processes. For example, PACE processes exclude academic and public service centers that (a) do not have associated academic programs, and (b) have a small scope of influence within the university as evaluated by considerations such as direct impact on student-facing educational activities, external focus, fiscal footprint, and/or governance.
The tables below outline the organizational units (i.e., academic programs, academic and student services, and administrative services) that are incorporated into the PACE processes.
| Undergraduate Planning Units and Academic Programs | ||
| Biology & Chemistry AS Health Science BS Biochemistry BS Biology BS Chemistry BS Clinical Lab Science BS Environmental Science Nursing BS Nursing BS RN to BS Nursing Mathematical Sciences BS Computer Science BS Engineering BS Mathematics Psychology BS Psychology Visual and Communication Arts BA Art BA Digital Media and Communication BA Photography | Bible, Religion & Theology | Applied Social Sciences |
| Graduate Planning Units and Academic Programs | ||
| Doctor of Nursing Practice MS Biomedicine MS Nursing | Eastern Mennonite Seminary MA Church Leadership MA Religion Master of Divinity | Center for Justice & Peacebuilding MA Conflict Transformation MA Restorative Justice MA Transformational Leadership MA Counseling MA Education Organizational & Leadership Studies MA Org. Leadership Master of Bus. Admin. |
| Academic and Student Support Units | Administrative Support Units |
|---|---|
Academic Success Center | Advancement Admissions - Undergraduate Auxiliary Services Business Office EMU at Lancaster Facilities Management Financial Assistance Graduate & Professional Recruitment Human Resources Information Systems Institutional Research Marketing and Communications Registrar's Office Safety and Security Title IX Washington Community Scholars' Center |
...
Appendix 2 - Academic Program Review Process Details
Basic Structure:
- Review cycle: review each program approximately every six years (program review cycle). The cycle is adapted to address specific program considerations as needed. This review is intended only for programs that don’t go through review by an external accrediting body.
- Cost: $500 + reimbursement of expenses to two (or more, if a program cluster has several disparate programs that require experts from different discipline areas) external reviewers.
- Loading: The program director will receive 1+ load hour release to complete the self-study report, host the campus visit, and complete the response report. The internal peer reviewer will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or release time).
- Typical Review Schedule:
- March of year preceding review: Deans notify program directors of upcoming review. At this point the deans and program director identify a list of benchmark/aspirational programs for which data and curricula will be gathered.
- April-May: IR team and library prepare a packet of data and information based on the benchmark program list.
- May: Programs up for review meet with their respective dean to outline tasks and timeline, review available data, determine the key questions for reviewers to address, and submit names of potential external reviewers..
- July: Deans select and contact peer reviewers (typically two external and one internal per program cluster).
- August-December: Program cluster self-study completed and sent to peer reviewers. (Likely, much of the self-study could be compiled from PACE reports.)
- February or March: Peer reviewers visit campus and review programs. Review should include feedback solicited from current students and alumni; when appropriate, a focus group of practitioners of the field would be formed to provide additional feedback.
- April: Peer reviewer report due.
- May: Program cluster reads and responds to peer review report; the response will likely include an action plan (including budget implications and timeline for any proposed new initiatives) that can be incorporated into the PACE process.
- September of year following review: Program cluster meets with their dean to discuss the action plan and other follow-up items.
Evaluation Team:
The evaluation team will typically consist of two external peer reviewers within the discipline(s) of the program cluster to be reviewed, and one internal peer review. Ideally, one external reviewer will be from an institution that is comparable to EMU and a second reviewer will be from an “aspirational” institution. The internal peer review will typically be a tenured faculty member from a different program cluster; the internal peer reviewer will be offered some measurable reduction in workload during the academic year when the review is conducted (such as release from a committee or a dean’s hour). The program cluster should contact nominees for the evaluation team prior to submitting names to determine interest and availability. The program cluster should submit the names of at least three potential external reviewers, along with vitae, to the dean, with additional comments or a ranking if desired.
The program should also identify an upper-level student currently enrolled in the program to support the work of the evaluation team. The student will assist in gathering input from current students in the program (likely by assisting with focus groups) and will meet with the evaluation team at least once to synthesize student input into the final review report.
| Excerpt | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Outline of Academic Program Self-study ReportA. Academic Program
B. Faculty
|
...
C. Students
D. Resources
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
D. Resources
E. Summary and QuestionsProvide any concluding statements that may be helpful for the review team, along with any specific questions that you would like the team to consider in their evaluation. |
Academic Program Review Process revised and approved by Provost's Council June 29, 2021