Yearly Assessment:
Beginning in 2000, academic and administrative units (i.e., administrative and educational support units) began participating in yearly assessments. As part of this process, departments and units submit Assessment Plans whereby they: (1) reference guiding documents such as CNU’s Mission and Vision and the unit’s goals, (2) articulate three or more intended outcomes that result from its services, (3) provide two means of assessing each intended outcome, and (4) state criteria by which to evaluate the degree to which the intended outcomes were achieved. For academic departments, outcomes are stated in terms of what a student is expected to know, think, or do. For administrative units, the framing of outcomes varies, reflecting the diversity of the functions of these departments. After departments and units collect data throughout the year, they submit Assessment Records where assessment results are compared against stated criteria. Each department interprets whether or not the intended outcomes have been achieved and often provides a description of factors that influenced the results. Academic departments and administrative units take part in this process. Units with mature assessment processes often provide longitudinal data, insightful interpretation of results, and descriptions of how the department used assessment results for improvement. In the spring of 2007 both Assessment Plans and Records are to be submitted via an electronic submission system. Click here to access the new Online Submission System.
It is this last point—use of assessment results for improvement—that is the ultimate goal of CNU’s assessment processes. Several examples are listed below:
- The Social Work program discovered that students in internships were rated low or were not rated at all on several core internship areas by their internship supervisors. For example, 8 out of 23 internship supervisors rated the item “use of groups in practice” as not applicable. Further research revealed that many internship sites were not offering certain experiences to students that CNU requires. As a result, the Social Work program initiated a more extensive training session for internship sites to explain expectations regarding experiences for interns.
- Residence Life often has to balance issues of safety and convenience. Prior to 2003, a CNU residential student visiting a friend at another CNU residence hall had to sign in as a guest. Seen as too restrictive, this policy was removed in 2003; however, there was concern that students would feel less safe. But longitudinal survey results (below) revealed students did not report a decrease of feeling safe. In fact, they reported feeling safer. In sum, easing the policy on visitation among residence hall students had no negative impact on safety but increased the ease with which friends could see each other.
| 12) I feel safe in the residence hall. |
|
S Agree |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
S Disagree |
Fall 02 |
52.52 |
38.07 |
5.71 |
2.35 |
0.78 |
Fall 03 |
57.63 |
34.74 |
5.48 |
1.35 |
0.51 |
Fall 04 |
63.15 |
31.93 |
2.94 |
1.03 |
0.24 |
Fall 05 |
64.6 |
31 |
3.4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
- In 2003-2004, the Philosophy and Religious Studies department noted that fewer than 10% of seniors passed their senior theses with distinction. The next year, a department faculty member created and distributed a “thesis handbook.” With this extra guidance, students performed markedly better – 47% passed with distinction in 2004-2005.
The University Assessment and Evaluation Committee (Description)
To facilitate the assessment process at CNU, the Student Assessment Committee was established in 2000. This committee helps guide academic and administrative units by providing feedback on Assessment Records to assessment liaisons. Liaisons are persons designated by a unit who coordinate assessment within their units and interface with the Student Assessment Committee.
Effective 2005-2006, the committee was renamed the University Assessment and Evaluation Committee (UAEC) to reflect the breadth of assessment activities. The UAEC is composed of 11 members appointed by the Provost. The members include: the Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation, five faculty members, and five administrators. Trained on the UAEC Assessment Review Form, each committee member rates units’ Assessment Records on specific elements: congruency to guiding documents including Vision 2010; CNU’s Strategic Plan; statement of outcomes; criteria used to determine success; methodology, results, and interpretation and use of results; and the degree to which departments have implemented the suggestions provided by past UAEC evaluations. Copies of the UAEC reviews of Assessment Records are sent to respective department chairs and assessment liaisons. The Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accrediation meets with the department liaisons to discuss the evaluation ratings and improve future assessment. Thus, CNU’s yearly assessment process is systematic and improving. With input from executive officers, department liaisons, UAEC members, and interested faculty, over the last six years the following changes have been implemented: assessment training for liaisons, revisions of reporting forms, reformulation of committee structure, update of committee charge, rater training of UAEC members and more communication between the Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation and academic departments and administrative units.
Program Review:
Academic programs participate in a more comprehensive Program Review. Each program conducts a self study and produces documentation and a report that is reviewed by the Undergraduate Program Review Committee (PRC). In this year-long and comprehensive process, departments reflect upon and analyze all facets of their operation including, but not limited to: relationship to university mission, unit mission, goals, teaching, scholarship, service, enrollment, retention, graduation rate, budgetary efficiency, input from alumni, and student learning outcomes assessment. Essential to these analyses is consideration of the degree to which departmental goals are accomplished. Other parties to this process are the Dean, and the Provost. Program Review Guidelines were recently updated to include a description, purposes, process, timelines, and responsibilities of department under review.
Beginning in 1982, the Program Review process has long been an important component of institutional effectiveness at CNU. Indeed, many departments have undergone four program reviews (a five to six-year reporting cycle), the Program Review Calendar is set so that three departments are reviewed each year.
Perhaps the most important aspect of program review is that results are used. In other words, decisions are made, actions undertaken, goals reconsidered, and resources allocated, all to improve departments based upon findings of program review. The academic deans play an important role. Considering the results of department’s program review and the recommendations of the program review committee, each dean sets up an action agenda for the department to accomplish prior to the next program review. The intent of the action agenda is to help the department reach its goals. Each year, every department reports on its progress on the action agenda via its Annual Report to the Dean. Changes within departments that were influenced by program review include: curricular modifications, additional resources, changes of goals, and improved assessment. Note: graduate programs take part in a similar process (see Graduate Program Review Policy).
Additionally, several academic programs at the university (i.e., Luter School of Business, Master’s of Arts and Teaching Program, Engineering, Music) also report on their effectiveness to relevant external governing bodies, adding to the rigorous oversight of their academic programs.
Liberal Learning Assessment (old)
The assessment of the current General Education curriculum is multi-faceted, combining information obtained from direct measures of student learning such as standardized tests and performance assessments and from indirect measures, namely standardized surveys (see table below). The choice of assessment methods was also influenced by the State Council on Higher Education in Virginia, which mandates direct assessments of student learning for six core competencies: written communications, technology/information literacy, mathematical/quantitative reasoning, scientific reasoning, oral communication, and critical thinking. All six of these state-mandated competencies are encompassed within the General Education competencies at CNU. In other words, the assessment of CNU’s General Education also serves to satisfy state requirements.
General Education Competencies for CNU & Instruments Used to Assess Them: Click on Links for Details, Results, and Analysis |
Note: Reflects General Education Curriculum 1994 through Spring 2006 - will be replaced in Fall 2006 with new curriculum and new objectives |
|
|
|
|
General Education Competencies for CNU |
Direct Measures* |
NSSE ** |
IDEA*** |
1. The ability to communicate with words and numbers. |
x, ( written communication, oral communication, quantitative reasoning) |
x |
x |
2. The ability to analyze, interpret, and think
clearly. |
x, ( critical thinking) |
x |
x |
3. An understanding
of how science
operates and the nature
and role of science in society. |
x ( scientific reasoning) |
|
|
4. A global perspective of
the world’s history, cultures and societies. |
|
x |
|
5. An understanding of the human condition and the significance of the individual. |
|
x |
x |
6. An understanding and practice of health and wellness. |
|
x |
|
7. The ability to use information technology for research and communication. |
x ( technology literacy) |
x |
x |
* Direct measures include: (1) performance assessment of writing, (2) performance assessment of oral communication, (3) quantitative reasoning exam, (4) Critical Thinking CAAP, (5) scientific reasoning exam, and (6) Smartforce assessment of technology |
** National Survey of Student Engagement |
***IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction |
In addition to these direct measures of student learning, the National Survey of Student Engagement and the IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction have been used as indirect measures. These tools help CNU examine its General Education with a different lens, that of students’ perceptions. An examination of NSSE and IDEA items relative to CNU’s General Education Competencies revealed that one or more NSSE items loaded on six of the seven Competencies, and IDEA items loaded on four of the Competencies. In other words, these items can be used for indicators of success for these Competencies.
One can make inferences about CNU graduates based upon the results of these various assessments. Some of the highlights are:
Direct Measures:
- The vast majority of students met or exceeded CNU-defined competency levels in General Education.
- Through pre-post design, CNU provided evidence that students make substantial gains in written communication and oral communication as a result of the CNU experience.
Indirect Measures:
- CNU seniors tended to rate their experiences with General Education more favorably than freshmen (from NSSE).
- The 2001 and 2005 CNU cohorts’ responded similarly except that the 2005 CNU students reported greater civic responsibility (i.e., voting) and e-mail use, but less interaction and understanding of people different than they (from NSSE).
- Compared to the selected peer group, CNU seniors compared favorably to peer's seniors and CNU freshmen less favorably to peer's freshmen (from NSSE).
- Students at CNU rated progress toward General Education objectives similarly to the national comparison group (from IDEA)
In sum, the preponderance of evidence suggests that students are competent in the various components of General Education and that their level of proficiency improved as they progressed through the General Education Curriculum.
Liberal Learning Core, The New Curriculum (Fall 2006):
The competencies for the Liberal Learning Core (implementation in Fall 2006) are specified in the Foundations of Liberal Learning and in the objectives for the courses within the Liberal Learning Core.
Foundations and Principles of Liberal Learning
The program of study at Christopher Newport University invites students to participate in a rich, multi-faceted tradition of intellectual exploration grounded in the common principles of liberal learning. Our ultimate aim is to produce empowered, informed, and responsible learners, whose key intellectual and personal attributes are enumerated below. All coursework at CNU--whether in the Liberal Learning Core, in the major, or in the advanced program of integrated study--seeks to develop, reinforce, and advance student aptitude in these primary domains.
Goals of Liberal Learning
To be empowered intellectually and practically, CNU students should be able to:
- effectively communicate orally, visually, in writing
- demonstrate communicative competency in a second language
- solve problems using quantitative and qualitative tools
- interpret and evaluate information from a variety of sources
- understand and work with diverse groups
- transform knowledge and beliefs into action
- engage in the creative process and cultivate one's imaginative powers
- develop the habits of mind that are part of a lifelong pursuit of knowledge
To be aware of the world in which they exist, CNU students should seek to understand:
- the historical and philosophical traditions that have shaped the world
- the interrelations within and among global and cross-cultural communities
- the means of modeling the natural, social, and technical worlds
- the principles and histories of liberal democracies
- the depth of knowledge that allows one to make a significant contribution to society
- [the variety of] ways of using appropriate media to present knowledge gained from the synthesis of critical research and critical thinking.
To be responsible for the world in which they exist, CNU students should value:
- intellectual honesty, social justice, and the discernment of the ethical consequences of actions
- active participation as an ethical and engaged citizen of a diverse society
- an understanding of one's self [and] recognition of the complex identities of others, their histories, and their cultures
- their own physical and emotional well being
The Core contains courses that meet specific objectives, and every department at CNU is expected to offer courses that address the Foundations of Liberal Learning. To ensure that the Core meets the specified objectives, every course goes through a rigorous approval process that involves faculty from several committees: Faculty Council on Liberal Learning and Academic Life, Department Chairs in the College of Liberal Arts and Science and the School of Business, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Faculty Senate and the Provost. When departments submit a course for the Liberal Learning Core, the submission requires a proposal form from the Council, a New Course Proposal Form (if it is a new course) and a syllabus. Reviewers use these documents and the appropriate objectives to approve a course for the Core. The first-year seminars also have a special Proposal Form.
The Core objectives make possible an organized assessment of the Core. The plan for the assessment will be implemented over several years to comprehensively and accurately assess the program. Every year the Council will determine how to assess three or four different parts of the Core. By staggering the development of the assessment tools and the actual assessments, assessment and evaluation of the Core becomes manageable. The assessment plan contains five parts with feedback between parts: Writing Objectives, Scale Development & Piloting (Fall 2006-Spring 2008); Testing & Data Collection (Fall 2007-Spring 2010); Analysis & Reporting (Spring & Fall 2010); Interpretation & Decision Making (Fall 2010-Fall 2011); Implementing Change & Objective Reevaluation (Fall 2011 – Spring 2012). This plan was influenced by the General Education assessments at Alverno College, Truman State University, and James Madison University—all nationally recognized for the General Education assessment. By Spring 2012, the Council will have completed one cycle of the assessment of the Core. The assessment will dovetail with SCHEV Core Competency assessments.
Student Assessments
Assessment is an important aspect of CNU’s focus on students, their learning and development. To understand better what students learn and to satisfy mandates from the state of Virginia and our regional accreditor, CNU conducts assessment of all incoming freshmen on various general education areas during Getting Started Week. This year, critical thinking, scientific and quantitative reasoning, and oral communication competencies will be assessed. All incoming freshmen will also be administered a survey to find out about specific attitudes toward honor, service, identity, and other important characteristics.
In two years, when freshmen are juniors, they will be tested again on the same assessments to determine how much they have changed/grown. Or, looked at another way, the junior level assessment will help CNU determine the degree to which CNU has added value to their experiences. This is one example of how we put students first. Because we place a high value on this process, participation is required and monitored. Those who miss required sessions will have the opportunity to attend make-up sessions or will not be allowed to register for classes during the next term.
2008 Freshmen Assessment
Freshmen are randomly assigned to assessments based on the last 2 digits of their student identification number. Although performance on freshmen assessment will not be reflected in grades or status at CNU, participation is required. More importantly, students need to come prepared to give their best efforts. This is critical in terms of gaining an accurate picture of what CNU students have learned and how they have developed.
The location of the assessment is provided in the Getting Started Week Passport but also provided below:
Date |
Group |
Time |
ID Numbers End In |
Bldg/Room
(campus map) |
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 15-Aug |
Freshmen Football |
10-noon |
00-33 |
WING 126 |
|
|
|
34-66 |
GOSN 219 |
|
|
|
67-99 |
GOSN 111 |
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 19-Aug |
Other Freshmen Athletes |
7-9 pm |
00-25 |
GOSN 202 |
|
|
|
26-50 |
GOSN 206 |
|
|
|
51-75 |
GOSN 218 |
|
|
|
76-99 |
GOSN 219 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, 21-Aug |
50-99 Freshmen; (No PLP, Athletes, or Band Members) |
1:15-3:15 pm |
50,51 |
GOSN 202 |
|
|
|
52,53 |
GOSN 203 |
|
|
|
54,55 |
GOSN 204 |
|
|
|
56,57 |
GOSN 205 |
|
|
|
58,59 |
GOSN 206 |
|
|
|
60,61 |
GOSN 218 |
|
|
|
62,63 |
GOSN 219 |
|
|
|
64,65 |
MCM 202 |
|
|
|
66,67 |
MCM 203 |
|
|
|
68,69 |
MCM 204 |
|
|
|
70,71 |
MCM 212 |
|
|
|
72,73 |
MCM 213 |
|
|
|
74,75 |
MCM 214 |
|
|
|
76,77 |
WING 126 |
|
|
|
78,79 |
WING 203 |
|
|
|
80,81 |
WING 209 |
|
|
|
82,83 |
WING 220 |
|
|
|
84,85 |
WING 221 |
|
|
|
86,87 |
WING 222 |
|
|
|
88,89 |
RATC 100 |
|
|
|
90,91 |
RATC 101 |
|
|
|
92 |
RATC 103 |
|
|
|
93 |
RATC 104 |
|
|
|
94 |
RATC 105 |
|
|
|
95 |
RATC 106 |
|
|
|
96 |
RATC 107 |
|
|
|
87 |
RATC 112 |
|
|
|
98 |
RATC 116 |
|
|
|
99 |
RATC 117 |
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, 22-Aug |
00-49 Freshmen;
All PLP |
1:30-3:30 pm |
00,01 |
GOSN 110 |
|
|
|
02,03 |
GOSN 111 |
|
|
|
04,05 |
GOSN 202 |
|
|
|
06,07 |
GOSN 203 |
|
|
|
08,09 |
GOSN 204 |
|
|
|
10,11 |
GOSN 205 |
|
|
|
12,13 |
GOSN 206 |
|
|
|
14,15 |
GOSN 219 |
|
|
|
16,17 |
MCM 202 |
|
|
|
18,19 |
MCM 203 |
|
|
|
20,21 |
MCM 204 |
|
|
|
22,23 |
MCM 212 |
|
|
|
24,25 |
MCM 213 |
|
|
|
26,27 |
MCM 214 |
|
|
|
28,29 |
WING 103 |
|
|
|
30,31 |
WING 103b |
|
|
|
32,33 |
WING 124 |
|
|
|
34,35 |
WING 126 |
|
|
|
36,37 |
WING 202 |
|
|
|
38,39 |
WING 203 |
|
|
|
40 |
RATC 100 |
|
|
|
41 |
RATC 101 |
|
|
|
42 |
RATC 103 |
|
|
|
43 |
RATC 104 |
|
|
|
44 |
RATC 105 |
|
|
|
45 |
RATC 106 |
|
|
|
46 |
RATC 107 |
|
|
|
47 |
RATC 112 |
|
|
|
48 |
RATC 116 |
|
|
|
49 |
RATC 117 |
|
|
|
PLP 50-62 |
WING 209 |
|
|
|
PLP 63-74 |
WING 220 |
|
|
|
PLP 75-87 |
WING 221 |
|
|
|
PLP 88-99 |
WING 222 |
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 23-Aug |
Band; Makeups (MU) |
3:30-5:30 pm |
Band & MU 00-25 |
GOSN 111 |
|
|
|
Band & MU 26-50 |
GOSN 203 |
|
|
|
Band & MU 51-75 |
GOSN 204 |
|
|
|
Band & MU 76-99 |
GOSN 219 |
Special information about the 2008 Oral Communication Assessment:
Those students randomly selected for the oral communication assessment will be notified at least a day in advance that they will participate in this particular assessment.
Groups of 8-10 students will be grouped to a room, and each will present a 3-5 minute speech that will be evaluated by 1 or more faculty members using a standardized rating form.
2008 Oral Communication Assessment—General Directions
- A well structured speech should include an introduction to gain your audience's attention and explain your topic, two or three main points with supporting evidence, and a conclusion to wrap it up.
- The exact presentation topic will no be revealed until the beginning of the assessment session, but it will involve the “Common Reading.” At that point, students will be given 15 minutes to make the speech outline.
- The rubric by which these presentations will be evaluated is provided below:
Oral Communication Rating Form
2008 Oral Communication Rubric:
Rater Name: ________ Student Name: ________ Student ID: _________
|
Part I: Introduction to Oral Presentation
A.
_____ Began presentation while looking at audience naturally. (4pts)
_____ Made some eye contact with audience but seemed somewhat awkward or unnatural. (2.5 pts)
_____ Did not look at audience at start of presentation. (1pt)
B.
_____ Used outstanding attention getter that piqued interest in the topic. (4pts)
_____ Used adequate attention getter that gained some interest in topic. (3pts)
_____ Used marginal attention getter that gained very little interest (2pts).
_____ Used no attention getter (1pt).
C.
_____ Provided a clear thesis and direction of speech (4pts).
_____ Had some ambiguity in thesis or direction of speech (2.5pts).
_____ Had unclear direction or focus of speech (1pt).
|
Part II: Body of Presentation
A.
_____ Body was composed of distinct, logical sections or main points (4pts).
_____ Some sections did not seem to flow in logical and/or effective sequence (2.5pts).
_____ Sections were not logically presented, had rampant disorganization (1pt).
B.
_____ Each section was explained exceptionally well, with rich detail (4pts).
_____ Each section was explained well, with adequate detail (3pts).
_____ Each section had some detail, but important points were absent (2pts).
_____ Each section was not adequately explained (1pt).
C.
_____ Made smooth transitions between each section using appropriate segues (4pts).
_____ Occasionally made smooth transitions between sections (2.5 pts).
_____ Made abrupt transitions or inappropriate segues between sections (1pt).
|
Part III: Conclusion of Presentation
A.
_____ Clearly summarized speech, emphasizing main points (4pts).
_____ Summarized speech’s main points, but may have lacked emphasis or some clarity (3pts).
_____ Gave ambiguous summary of speech’s main points (2pts).
_____ Gave no summary of speech’s main points (1pt).
B.
_____ Strongly reinforced the main idea of speech (4pts).
_____ Moderately reinforced the main idea of speech (3pts).
_____ Weakly reinforced the main idea of speech (2pts).
_____ Main idea of speech was difficult to identify (1pt).
C.
_____ Ended speech with excellent closure (4pts).
_____ Ended speech adequately (3pts).
_____ Ended speech with unusual or inappropriate closing (2pts).
_____ Ended speech abruptly (1pt).
|
Part IV: Delivery of Presentation
A.
_____ Made effective use of eye contact that engaged audience with little use of note cards (4pts).
_____ Used consistent eye contact with some use of note cards (3pts).
_____ Had inconsistent eye contact with dependence on use of note cards (2pts).
_____ Had no eye contact with total dependence on use of note cards (1pt).
B.
_____ Had outstanding volume and articulation of voice that enhance speech (4pts).
_____ Voice was always heard and understood (3pts).
_____ Voice was sometimes difficult to hear or understand (2pts).
_____ Voice was frequently difficult to hear or understand (1pt).
C.
_____ Nonverbal behaviors or gestures augmented the speech’s message (4pts).
_____ Nonverbal behaviors or gestures were consistent with message (3pts).
_____ Nonverbal behaviors or gestures were sometimes distracting or inconsistent (2pts).
_____ Nonverbal behaviors or gestures were absent or constantly distracting (1pt).
|
Note: 4 pts = highly competent, 3 pts = competent, 2pts = emerging, and 1 pt = unsatisfactory
|