Overview

Athens State University has a systematic, integrated, and on-going outcomes assessment process to evaluate all academic programs, student support services, administrative functions, and community service areas as a fundamental part of its institutional effectiveness process as described under the narrative for Core Requirement 2.5.

This overview and the subsequent narratives for each CS 3.3.1 sub-standard (3.3.1.1; 3.3.1.2; 3.3.1.3; 3.3.1.4; and 3.3.1.5) illustrate the outcomes assessment process and how the University makes use of defined outcomes, the extent to which outcomes are achieved, and the process by which academic programs and administrative support units engage in continuous improvement through the use of results from outcomes assessment.

Outcomes assessment activities conducted by all organizational functions are documented in the Assessment Management Online System (AMOS) via the Consolidated Annual Assessment Plan, which combines the Annual Assessment Plan (AAP), the Annual Assessment Report (AAR), and the Action Plan (AP). Each Consolidated Annual Assessment Plan includes a description of the major organization’s mission, the program purpose, objectives, expected outcomes, assessment methodology, assessment results, extent to which outcomes were/were not met, and proposed corrective actions. Each assessment instrument and the corresponding data are identified by a unique control number and are available to the viewer in a password-protected environment. Each program and organizational unit’s compliance with the assessment cycle as mandated by University policy is also featured in the Consolidated Annual Assessment Plan. Note: The Colleges of Business and Education submit a single assessment plan covering all majors, respectively, while the College of Arts & Sciences, due to the diversity of academic disciplines, submits individual assessment plans for each of its major programs.

Expected outcomes are determined based upon previous assessment results, requirements of accrediting organizations, and pre-determined institutional criteria based on the University’s mission and goals.

For academic programs, student learning outcomes representing the target outcomes in degree programs as identified by the faculty, are measured through evidenced-based student performance assessment instruments that may include degree-specific examinations, research projects, targeted assignments, licensing or certifications, capstone courses, and major field tests. Self-assessment of students’ entering and exiting competencies may be used as a complementary method of evaluation.

Expected outcomes in administrative/support areas focus on two operational areas: program-operational outcomes which reflect the effectiveness (productivity) of the program, and service-delivery outcomes which measure the quality of services provided in terms of the quality/relevance of the service itself (effectiveness), and the efficiency in which the service was delivered. Quality ratings and user satisfaction with the services are measured using organization-specific and university-wide surveys at two points in time: (1) at time of service (Point-of-Service Surveys), and (2) at time of graduation (Graduating Senior Exit Survey). These and all other surveys are coordinated by the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment. Results from all these surveys are shown in each individual Consolidated Assessment Plan.

Program-operational outcomes also apply to the administrative function of academic programs as executed by department chairs, College Deans, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs as stated in the Long Range and Short Range plans.

Assessment findings provide opportunities for faculty and program officers to make determinations of the extent to which the program or office is meeting its goals and to take further action when needed. In instances where there is concern about the reliability of the results, the responsible faculty or officer may delay action until a data pattern can be established. This is of particular relevance given the recent implementation of a systematic assessment process at Athens State, where programs and organizations have completed two full years of data collection and are midway into the third year. In other instances, assessment findings may point to an unrealistic expected outcome in which case adjustments must be made. The systematic assessment process and the availability of assessment results from all degree programs and organizational units across the board have greatly enhanced the University’s ability to monitor its institutional effectiveness.

Since the implementation of the systematic outcomes assessment process in 2007-08, fifty-seven organizational functions, identified for their impact on institutional effectiveness, have documented outcomes assessment activities on record. Three new degree programs in the College of Business were added in 2009-10 for a total of sixty organizational functions. In total, (a) thirty-one degree programs from the College of Arts and Sciences (n=19), College of Business (n=7), and College of Education (n=5); (b) 28 administrative support organizations categorized as student support-academic/extracurricular (n=9), student support-non academic (n=7), and institution operational support (n=12); and (c) the community/public service function are mandated to conduct outcomes assessment. University-wide, compliance with outcomes assessment as mandated by the Athens State University Outcomes Assessment Policy was 87.7% in 2007-08 and 91.2% in 2008-09. All organizational functions have submitted their 2009-10 Annual Assessment Plans (Phase I) and are currently collecting assessment data (Phase II) for this academic year. Annual Assessment Reports and Action Plans for this academic year are due in September 2010.

Evidence of Athens State University’s on-going outcomes assessment and how degree programs and administrative/support organizations have used findings is summarized in the Programs’ Use of Assessment Findings for Continuous Improvement and the Institutional Effectiveness: Continuous Improvement Report
(2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09).