St. Cloud State University

Core Component 3A:
The organization's goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible.

Goals for Undergraduate and Graduate Education

St. Cloud State University has developed 27 goals for undergraduate education in three broad areas: (1) Excellence in Teaching and Learning; (2) Scholarship, Creative and Artistic Endeavors and Research, and (3) Service and Collaborative Working Relationships. Integrated within those goals are student learning outcomes:

• Knowledge of the social, intellectual, and artistic foundations of culture and history.
• Skills needed for productive and responsible living including creativity and creative thinking, problem solving, communication, and self-understanding.
• Sensitivity and respect for the values of a diverse society and multicultural world and a concern for individual worth and human rights.
• Understanding of the application of technology and scientific methods.
• Skills necessary for critical evaluation of information, technology, and methodology.
• Understanding of ethical behavior in personal, professional, and public life.
• Understanding of a citizen’s responsibilities to others, to society, and to the environment.

The goals of graduate study at St. Cloud State University are as follows:

• To increase the professional skills and academic competence of students who show promise of making important contributions to their profession.
• To prepare students for further graduate study.
• To meet the specialized needs of students whose educational or career goals can best be served by programs that provide advanced study in two or more related disciplines.
• To foster an attitude of intellectual inquiry and to develop research skills that may be applied in a professional context.

Scope of Assessment: Learning Goals and Outcomes

The movement toward a culture of assessment and accountability involves a major shift for all members of the campus community. The most common example is the paradigm shift that faculty make from “what I want to teach” to “what do I want my students to know and be able to do.” This shift involves faculty working together to determine course outcomes (student learning outcomes) based on program outcomes that are often driven by professional standards and accreditation expectations. This cycle of assessment at the course level mirrors the work at the institutional level and represents a major shift for our campus. These efforts will be accomplished through a strong commitment at the institutional level as well as ongoing professional development related to assessment and accountability.

Assessment and Accountability Structure

Like all institutions of higher education, St. Cloud State University has a long history of assessment of student learning using a variety of measures. The trend toward accrediting bodies and state agencies requiring strong assessment systems within programs and using data for decision-making has been a catalyst for change. St. Cloud State University has a full-time Assessment Director who is responsible for all academic assessment activities at the institutional level. The Assessment Director is Chair of the Assessment Steering Committee (ASC) comprised of the Directors of Assessment at the college level and Student Life and Development. One of the first steps the ASC took to begin their focused work related to assessment and accountability was to work with all department and programs to develop or reexamine mission statements. A clear program mission is essential in the development of student learning outcomes.

The second step in the assessment process initiated by the committee was to ensure that colleges and divisions had assessment plans in place. Some accrediting bodies such as National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) require such plans and, in fact, now require full assessment systems, rather than assessment plans. Faculty members and division leaders have initiated efforts to ensure that programs have assessment plans with clear student learning outcomes, indirect and direct assessment measures, and a system for using data from assessments to improve programs. A movement exists in some colleges (i.e., College of Education) toward the establishment of transition points or benchmarks that provide clear indicators for students of their progress in their academic study based on performance assessment results. Students will clearly understand the expectations within a program and not be allowed to advance through a program without demonstrating the necessary knowledge, skills, or professional dispositions at each transition point or benchmark.

A review of the data from the annual assessment reports revealed that assessment activities are occurring in all departments. In 2000, just over half of the undergraduate academic programs had identified student learning outcomes. Findings from the University Assessment Report published in spring 2006 indicated approximately 93 percent of the academic programs at St. Cloud State University had identified learning goals and outcomes with three of the five colleges having 100 percent of their learning outcomes complete. In addition, Learning Resources and Technology Services (LRTS), has 100 percent of their learning outcomes identified. The identification of student learning outcomes aligned with the mission of the program and/or department is one of the initial steps in determining what students know and are able to do and proved to be a significant and valuable learning experience for the campus. The shift to a focus on student learning is important in understanding the dynamics of teaching and the impact of pedagogy and curriculum offerings. Because this work represents a process, rather than an event, the work will continue over many years.

The ASC also initiated implementation of an assessment system at the program level with direct and indirect assessment measures as well as systems for collecting data and using the results of assessment for program improvement. This effort represents the heart of the assessment system and is an ongoing effort. The development of assessment instruments with rubrics and scoring criteria that are fair, accurate, and free of bias will take years of work and ongoing analysis of data. The assessment efforts within the College of Education clearly serve as a model for our campus. All programs within the college have transition points with clearly identified assessments that are part of the program and college assessment system. Data are collected within the transition points from both external sources (i.e., state and national exams, employer surveys, cooperating teacher surveys) and internal sources (internship evaluation forms, course assessments) and these data are used in a systematic way to improve teaching effectiveness, curricula offerings, and support services.

Ninety-one percent of the academic programs at the undergraduate level have initiated efforts to develop assessment plans. The College of Science and Engineering, College of Education, and Learning Resources and Technology Services have 100 percent of their assessment plans complete. The College of Fine Arts and Humanities has virtually all of their assessment plans in place (93%); while the College of Social Science has 71 percent of its assessment plans completed with five programs still needing to be addressed. Within undergraduate programs (88%), multiple data sources have been identified to assess student achievement of learning outcomes and a full cycle of assessment and system of accountability for student learning has been implemented by many programs (78%). Finally, the Division of Student Life and Development has established its own assessment committee and has developed a proposed assessment plan.

Assessment of General Education

The General Education Program at St. Cloud State University is under major revision to reflect current best practice. Significant resources have been dedicated to this effort to ensure that the General Education Program is mission-driven and includes a strong assessment infrastructure. A Director of General Education was hired fall 2006 to focus on the development of an assessment system that is clearly tied to the mission. To date, the mission has been developed and accepted by the campus community and the program outcomes are being proposed for consideration. The campus community is committed to a strong assessment framework as part of the General Education Program.

St. Cloud State University recognizes that assessment of student learning in General Education and the development of a clearly delineated and comprehensive General Education assessment system are future challenges for the University. In response to this challenge, a General Education Assessment Director will be hired this academic year to direct the assessment efforts. A holistic General Education Assessment System will allow us to aggregate assessment data across campus. At this time, model assessment systems from universities across the country have been examined, a plan has been approved, and the use of a national assessment instrument [Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency and/or Collegiate Learning Assessment] is being considered.

Although the initial assessment efforts (1988) at the institutional level focused primarily on undergraduate programs, graduate programs are now expected to develop assessment systems within their programs as well. Assessment within graduate programs has followed the development of assessment systems at the undergraduate level. Faculty within programs have developed or are developing systems based on the requirements of accrediting bodies and the goals outlined for graduate education in the discipline. Each graduate program is expected to develop an assessment system that includes programmatic learning outcomes, direct and indirect measures, collection of data, and data use strategies. Two examples provide good illustrations of the progress being made in relation to assessment: the Master’s Degree in Higher Education Administration and the Master’s Degree in School Counseling. Both programs have developed an assessment system with clear transition points whereby students must demonstrate proficiencies related to clearly defined learning outcomes. Data from performance measures are then aggregated and faculty are piloting a database system whereby student performance will be tracked as they progress in their studies. Both programs engage in follow-up studies of graduates to improve program performance. Clearly, the shift to using data has impacted the program in terms of refinement of curriculum, use of different teaching strategies, and recruitment and support efforts. (Program documents available in Resource Room)

Eighty-five percent of graduate programs have developed or are in the process of developing their learning outcomes and 83 percent of programs have developed or are in the process of developing both learning outcomes and an assessment plan, representing the first step in moving toward a system of using performance data to improve teaching and learning. Thirty-five percent of programs have collected or are in the process of collecting and aggregating assessment data. Other programs are working to identify direct and indirect measures for their learning outcomes and to formulate data collection strategies. Finally, to strengthen the assessment efforts at the graduate level, the School of Graduate Studies has hired a Director of Graduate Student Services, charged with developing a system for the comprehensive assessment of graduate education at St. Cloud State University.

Student Life and Development Assessment

As the campus has engaged in this cultural shift, accountability has also emerged as a high priority in Student Life and Development (SLD) as they begin to work in a system of data-driven decision-making. In 2004-2005, the SLD Assessment Committee conducted an audit of the assessment activities in each department followed by a retreat dedicated to assessment. The collected assessment information assisted departments in the division in identifying best practices as well as serving as a tool in helping staff gain a greater understanding of various types of assessment activities. Results of this work will be discussed later in the Criterion.

With the recent hiring of a new Vice President for Student Life and Development, department directors focused their fall 2006 retreat on the identification of action items for the next three years that will assist in achieving the vision and mission of Student Life and Development. Staff members within the division have sponsored community forums during fall semester 2006 to review existing action items and recommend additional ones. A number of these action items focus on assessment activities, including the development of stated learning outcomes for the division.

Student Health Services, a division within Student Life and Development, provides an example of using assessment to drive decision-making. The National College Health Assessment was implemented to assess and benchmark programs and services. Based on these results and the benchmarking activities with the Healthy Campus 2010 goals, a number of ongoing initiatives were created to focus on student health, from a holistic perspective. Based on the data results, examples of initiatives implemented include:

• Application for grant funding for psychiatric consultation services. This grant was received and renewed this academic year due to demand and utilization.
• Nurse practitioners from Student Health Services (SHS) and staff members from Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) presented information regarding college student depression to groups on campus including deans, various academic and university departments.
• A Psychological Issues Group, a group that was formed to focus on student health issues, hosted two “Campus Roundtable Discussions on Mental Health” sessions.

Participation in the HLC Academy for Assessment of Student Learning

St. Cloud State University applied for and has been accepted into the first cohort of the HLC Academy for Assessment of Student Learning. This represents a four-year commitment by the university to focus on assessment efforts with guidance from HLC and other institutional members of the cohort. Three goals have been developed:

• St. Cloud State University will have sustained institutional commitment for the assessment of student learning in all programs and support services that is clearly defined, carefully enacted, data-based, valued by all stakeholders, and used to enhance and strengthen our strategic plan for academic distinction.
• St. Cloud State University will ensure that all academic programs will regularly assess and document student learning based on intended learning outcomes for those programs, and will take action based on that analysis to confirm or improve student learning.
• St. Cloud State University will have a distinctive, mission-based and assessable General Education Program that integrates a rich liberal education with a variety of academic/professional programs that reinforces key learning outcomes across each student’s total college experience.

Finally, the movement toward using data to improve teaching and student learning is an ongoing initiative at the college level. Systems such as a schedule of follow-up studies of graduates based on professional standards or best practice must be established and used to make decisions as modeled in the College of Education. Clearly, we have pockets of excellence related to systematic assessment; but we need to continue our efforts to ensure that assessment is the hallmark of every program within all colleges on campus. There is a need for data management systems to be established to enable colleges to effectively evaluate the quality of graduates and the impact of the teaching and learning process.

Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures

As discussed under Core Component 2A, the institution uses a variety of assessment measures for both undergraduate and graduate programs. These include, but are not limited to, employer surveys, alumni surveys, exit surveys measuring student satisfaction with the program, follow-up surveys, course embedded measures, and student self-assessments. External norm-referenced instruments used at the institutional level include the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Higher Education Research Institute Faculty Survey (HERI), ACT Survey, and the American College Health Survey. Internal surveys at the institutional level include a Senior Exit Survey, Faculty and Staff Survey, Alumni Survey, and the LR&TS Survey. These surveys are becoming increasingly more valuable as the institution moves to using data to drive decision-making.

Academic departments and programs at St. Cloud State University have collected, and are continuing to collect and maintain evidence of, students achieving operationally-defined goals and outcomes from both external and internal sources. The Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders in the College of Fine Arts and Humanities, as an example, utilizes client satisfaction surveys and parent/caregiver satisfaction surveys. Indirect methods of assessing student learning also include perceptual measures that ask students to evaluate their perceived mastery of the learning outcomes at the conclusion of each course or program. The College of Education, for example, engages in extensive follow-up studies with students, cooperating teachers, and employers and aggregates such data at the college and program levels for use by faculty and students.

Over the years, St. Cloud State University graduates have successfully passed standardized national examinations. For example, for the second consecutive year, the St. Cloud State University Nursing Program was the only program in the state where all students (100%) passed the required national exam. Over the past three years, our accounting students also score in the top five in the nation in their performance on the required national exam. (Documents available in Resource Room)

Assessment of student learning is also evidenced through direct performance measures such as situational observations, formative tests, and summative examinations. Indirect measures, such as perceptual or opinion surveys either from current students, alumni, or employers; or via salary and/or placement data from students placed in, or who have obtained, jobs, are also used. Course level assessment measures reflect traditional forms of assessments often described as “blue book exams,” formative and summative exams, mid-terms, quizzes, research papers, projects, clinical observations, and so on. Faculty members also use spontaneous writing evaluations, listening comprehension evaluations, oral interviews, class participation, and the like to determine student learning. As expected, performance measures are determined by individual faculty members; however, it is expected that faculty members align the performance measures with course outcomes and program standards and/or professional competencies. A quality indicator for any well-managed instructional program is the extent of alignment between outcomes, assessments, and curricula.

To complete the cycle of assessment, data must be used to improve teaching effectiveness, modify curricula, and make improvements at the course, program, department, college, and institutional levels. Therefore, serious questions must be asked: How are results being used to improve teaching effectiveness? How are data being used by programs and colleges? Are budgetary decisions tied to assessment? Although it is noteworthy for our university to have a diverse array of multiple data sources at the course, program, unit, and institutional level, to demonstrate a full cycle of assessment and true accountability for student learning, evidence must exist that describes decisions, including budgetary decisions, and improvements made based on results from data collected and analyzed. Increasingly, there are examples of decisions being made that are linked to planning results as described in Criterion One. As cases in point, the following highlight examples of data-analysis decision-making and planning at St. Cloud State University at the program and college levels that provide students with an enhanced opportunity to learn.

• As a result of follow-up studies of students and cooperating teachers, the Departments of Special Education and Teacher Development added coursework (SPED 440) related to teaching English Language Learners (ELL).
• In the Herberger College of Business, additional financial support was provided for graduate assistantships and tutoring in the Write Place and Math Tutoring Center due to evidence suggesting a decline in writing and problem-solving skills among incoming students.
• Based on data related to advising, the Herberger College of Business created an Office of Undergraduate Programs to improve pre-business student advising.
• The staff in the Center for Student Organizations and Leadership Development (CSOLD) created several student initiatives and programs based on results from assessment data. In fall 2002, the department only offered one leadership retreat per semester for students to gain leadership skills. Data from surveys and focus groups indicated that students wanted to gain practical leadership skills in an ongoing setting and environment. As a result, the Husky Leadership Series, now in its third year of existence, was developed to enhance leadership skills and abilities of St. Cloud State University students.
• Based on data collected on students’ interviewing skills, the Career Services Center added more information to presentations on interviewing and purchased Interview Stream, an electronic mock interview system, to assist students in enhancing and developing their interview skills through recorded practice interview sessions.
• Based on data collected in the Educational Administration Program, students indicated they preferred off-campus cohorts to pursue additional licensures. As a result, since 2001, 10 off-campus cohorts were offered to over 100 students throughout the State.

Evaluation of Core Component 3A

The campus community is moving toward the goal of establishing a culture of assessment and accountability. To accomplish this goal, assessment must be the hallmark of all of our programs and must clearly reflect our university mission of excellence in teaching and learning.

Strengths: St. Cloud State University is working to build an infrastructure of assessment and accountability. The fact that we are the most accredited institution in the MnSCU System speaks to the level of importance that is placed on external review and ongoing self-study to meet the expectations of accountability in higher education. The university has invested in the assessment process through a commitment of personnel (University Assessment Director, College Assessment Directors, Assistant Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness, Director of Graduate Student Services, Director of General Education, support staff) and a commitment of resources for professional development, participation in the Higher Learning Commission Assessment Academy, development of General Education assessment, and the implementation of assessment and accountability activities. Assessment initiatives have grown from an institutional conceptualization to implementation at the college, program, and course level to improve student learning. The institution can affirm the existence of student learning goals and outcomes for most programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and assessment plans are in place for many programs. Finally, the use of data to drive decision-making is becoming a common expectation at all levels whereby conversations and decisions about assessment and accountability have become amalgamated within the fabric of thought, values, and actions among the campus community.

Initiatives in Progress: The most exciting and most promising initiative on our campus is the invitation for St. Cloud State University to join the HLC Assessment Academy. This opportunity will allow the campus community to work in a systematic framework to continue to strengthen the assessment and accountability infrastructure. In addition, participating in the HLC Assessment Academy will allow the campus to continue to develop the assessment system for the General Education Program that is currently being revised.

Future Challenges: St. Cloud State University needs to continue to focus on strengthening the assessment infrastructure in terms of ongoing work at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Efforts should focus on the refinement of the assessment systems at the program level, specifically in the development of assessment measures of student learning and the systematic use of data to improve teaching effectiveness and student learning.

Critical to the development of a culture where assessment is integrated into the decision-making process, there is a need to provide additional resources (i.e., software, training, and support) for faculty and staff related to the development and maintenance of data systems. These data management systems should provide easily accessible data, and sufficient data, to be used in program evaluation and improvement.

Finally, there has been a call to increase the recognition of faculty service to the university as evidenced by the extensive assessment committee work assumed by faculty.