Spring 2007 - Sacramento State

|Spring 2007 |
|Assessment Plans |
|Student Affairs |
|Compiled by Lori E. Varlotta, |
| |
|Vice President for Student |
|Affairs | [pic]
Spring 2008 Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s the assessment program within
Sacramento State's Division of Student Affairs, for those departments that
had initiated one, focused primarily on student satisfaction and program
improvement. Realizing that the former foci were a bit askew from the
student learning emphasis that was taking center stage in the aftermath of
Learning Reconsidered, the Vice President for Student Affairs redirected
the Division's Assessment Program. The move-from a student
satisfaction/program improvement program to a student learning outcome-
based program-began in October 2005. Two years later, changes are afoot.
Though no "final destination" has been reached, significant progress has
been made. Within the first year of implementation, each Student Affairs director was
first charged with explicitly aligning his/her departmental mission with
those of the Division and the University. Next, directors were asked to
identify the two to three overarching planning goals that would broadly
frame their work during the upcoming years. Finally, directors were
expected to articulate at least one significant student learning outcome
that they would like students who participate in their programs or utilize
their services to achieve. Directors were charged, during year-two of implementation, with developing
instruments and collecting data to measure the learning that occurred.
Working with the Vice President for Student Affairs and/or staff within the
Office of Institutional Research, the directors designed or borrowed
instrument(s) that presumably could measure the student learning outcomes
associated with their respective programs or services. As expected, in
phase-one of data collection, some instruments and assessment approaches
proved to be more reliable than others. Despite the necessary revisions
that needed to be made on several pre and post tests, observed competency
exercises, and emerging rubrics, the leadership team and the directors
celebrated the fact that within a two-year timeframe each department had
laid the rudimentary foundation for evidence-based decision making and
outcome-based assessment. At Sacramento State's Division of Student Affairs, we realize we have much
student-learning- assessment-ground yet to cover. Still, we take great
pride in the direction we have charted for ourselves, as committed Student
Affairs professionals, and in the outcomes our students are likely to
achieve. The following pages detail the emerging assessment plan that each
Department is formulating. If you have general comments or questions about
the document, please send them to studentaffairs@csus.edu. If you have
specific questions about the outcomes associated with a certain program
area, please contact the Director identified as the point person for that
particular department.
Academic Advising Center
As of October 2008 Mission Statement
Note: Departmental mission must be directly aligned with those of the
University and the Division. This statement should include approximately 3-
5 sentences that identifies the name of the department, its primary
functions, modes of delivery and target audience. Mission: The Academic Advising Center offers new student orientation,
mandatory first year advising, and advising on General Education and
graduation requirements for all students. The Center engages students in a
developmental process that helps clarify and implement individual
educational plans consistent with their skills, interests, and values.
Through individual appointments, group advising sessions, and presentations
the professional staff, faculty advisors, and student interns help students
understand the university's academic requirements as well as its policies
and procedures. As a result, students are better prepared to take
responsibility for their education and persist towards a timely graduation. Planning Goals
Note: Planning Goals are broad statements that describe the overarching,
long-range intentions of an administrative unit. Goals are used primarily
for general planning, as the starting point for the development and
refinement of program objectives or student learning outcomes. (UCF
Administrative Handbook, University of Central Florida). Goal 1: Help students take responsibility for their education and persist
toward a timely graduation. Goal 2: Provide comprehensive advising through a three-phase program,
beginning with Orientation. Program Objectives or Student Learning Outcomes
Note: The Objectives or Outcomes can be one of two types: program
objectives or student learning outcomes. The former are related to program
improvement around issues like timeliness, efficiency and participant
satisfaction. The latter addresses what a student learns or how a student
changes by participating in the program or utilizing the service. Both
program objectives and student learning outcomes are measurable statements
that provide evidence as to how well you are reaching your goals. Student Learning Outcome 1 Immediately after participating in comprehensive freshman or transfer
orientation program, eighty-five percent of new Sacramento State students
will demonstrate increased understanding of the University's General
Education requirements, academic standards, and resources available to
assist them. Rationale: As outlined in last year's conclusions, Orientation Leaders
coached students during pre-tests, skewing the data. Because the data
collected during the first year of mandatory orientation did not accurately
reflect student learning, we are repeating this learning objective to
obtain more reliable data. Measures
Note: Measures describe the methodology and timeframe for data collection.
Measures also should identify the population being surveyed and/or tested.
Provide materials such as survey instruments, check lists, focus group
protocols, etc. in an appendix. A random sample of new students are given a pre-test at the beginning of
their orientation program (Appendix A). The percentage of correct
responses on this pre-test helps the orientation coordinators determine
what information to highlight during the program. Immediately after the
program, all students are given the same questions as a post-test to
determine if their knowledge has increased. The Orientation staff expects
that at least 85% of students will be able to correctly answer post-test
questions. Results
Note: Results include a brief narrative of findings, and/or essential
tables or graphs. The results should indicate the extent to which the
program objective or student learning outcome was met. For freshman, the results were split. Students correctly answered six of
the post-test questions (2, 3, 7, 8, and 10) at least 85% of the time.
Students did not correctly answer the other six post-test questions (1, 4,
5, 6, 9, and 11) at least 85% of the time.Orientation Coordinators noted
that the percentage of students who correctly answered each question
improved dramatically for most questions from pre- to post-test. See
Appendix A for pre-test and post-test results. For transfer students, the results were more consistent. Out of the eleven
questions asked, students incorrectly answered only two less than 85% of
the time. Similar to freshman results, transfer students showed significant
improvement between the pre-test and post-test responses on most questions.
See Appendix B for pre-test and post-test results. Conclusions
Note: The conclusion should summarize briefly the collection and analyses
of data. It also should "close the loop" by identifying what decisions
and/or program modifications were made on the basis of these analyses.
Overall, a higher percentage of new students correctly answered post-test
questions vs. pre-test questions. This suggests that orientation programs
help students increase their understanding of General Education, academic
standards and resources available to assist them. The orientation staff
will make changes to program materials emphasizing information for post-
test questions that students did not answer correctly at least 85% of the
time. Student Learning Outcome 2 After participating in an advising session, 70% of students who are
enrolled in preparatory (remedial) classes will demonstrate knowledge of
the consequences of not completing these classes. Rationale: For the 2007 / 2008 academic year interventions will focus on
students who test into college preparatory (remedial) courses. This group
of students has historically needed additional assistance to gain the
essential knowledge to successfully complete their college preparatory
requirements. Measures
Students who were enrolled in a Freshman Seminar or Learning Community were
advised by peer mentors as part of their course (Group 1). If the student
was also enrolled in a preparatory course, they were asked to complete a
test (Appendix C) regarding college preparatory requirements immediately
after their advising session during both fall and spring semesters.
Students completed the test online. Students who were not enrolled in a Freshman Seminar or Learning Community
(Group 2) were advised by staff advisors in the Advising Center. As with
Group 1 students, those who were enrolled in a preparatory course completed
the test immediately after their advising session (Appendix D). For the spring semester (Group 3), all students completed the survey using
a PDA after meeting with an academic advisor in the Advising Center. The test utilized a conditional response format to determ