Assessment at RU

1. Assessment at RU

2. Executive Council on Assessment • The ECA was created during the self study process in preparation for the 2008 MSCHE accreditation review. • The ECA requests annual assessment reports from all the schools in the university. • These reports are reviewed and a written narrative, based on a simple rubric, is prepared. • The written narrative is returned to the dean.

3. Executive Council on Assessment • The ECA provides a reporting template, the Assessment Checklist, to each school to aid in the preparation of annual assessment reports. • This template provides a mechanism to build institutional cohesion in assessment while honoring the diversity of each of the schools. • In the response to the Periodic Review Report, MSCHE praised our assessment structure and results.

4. Results for AY2011-2012 are reported in the PRR

5. MSCHE and PRR Report 2013 Update • Periodic Review Report: Five years after re-accreditation • From the MSCHE Response: A well-developed mechanism and reporting procedure is in place to ensure that all units progress. • Overall, the process for learning outcomes and institutional assessment seems to be well developed and strong. • Rutgers has developed a very robust and systematic outcomes assessment process, which ensures that all units are included. • We expect that the assessment program will be fully adopted by the newly integrated units.

6. ECA looking forward • Integration of RBHS units into the reporting structure • Professional accreditation covers most of ECA requirements • Work with RBHS is same collegial and collaborative manner as currently established. • Build on work already done to continue and extend a culture of evidence-based assessment. • Anticipate new developments and expectations: learning analytics, accountability, accreditation issues, etc.

7. External Developments: Department of Education • Paying for performance • Promoting innovation and competition • Ensuring student debt remains affordable

8. New Higher Education Ratings System A new ratings system based on such measures as: • Access, such as percentage of students receiving Pell grants • Affordability, such as average tuition, scholarships, and loan debt • Outcomes, such as graduation and transfer rates, graduate earnings, and advanced degrees of college graduates.

9. Goals of Department of Education Proposal The long term goal of the proposal is to base federal student aid to the students of a given institution on the rankings system. From the White House fact sheet: The Administration will seek legislation using this new rating system to transform the way federal aid is awarded to colleges once the ratings are well developed. Students attending high-performing colleges could receive larger Pell Grants and more affordable student loans. 

10. Congressional Action • Re-authorization of Higher Education Opportunity Act • Expansion of compliance requirements on institutions • Revival of interest in a federal unit record data system • Student Right To Know Before You Go Act • Objectives similar to the Obama’s Scorecard Proposal • More information on student salaries (by academic program/major) • Better information on graduation and retention rates • Success of students receiving federal monies (peel grants/veterans benefits)

11. Accrediting Bodies • Regional: Middle State Commission on Higher Education. • Each regional body sets its own standards • All regional bodies are under pressure from the federal government to be ‘tougher’. • These regional bodies have been the driving forces behind more evidence-based learning outcome assessment and more documentation. • Professional: Though most professional bodies have pushed for more evidence of outcomes, many still consider resources and infrastructure heavily.

12. State of New Jersey • Unit record data set (K-20W): ‘cradle to grave’ information • Related to federal efforts – federal money through SLDS grants to states • Focus is to help states make data informed decisions on student learning and outcomes • In NJ, work on unifying NJSMART, SURE, and NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development Data • Focus on completion rates • NGA’s Complete to Compete • Complete College America • Education Delivery Institute’s effort to close achievement gap • Latter two funded by Gates, Ford, and Lumina Foundations among others

13. Higher Education Interest Groups • Gates Foundation: MOOCs and other experimentation in using technology • Lumina Foundation: Creation of “Qualification Frameworks” to measure learning outcomes. • AAU: Particularly active in graduate education: TTD, completion rates, graduate student stipend data, Ph.D. exit survey, etc.

14. Summary on Assessment • Demands for assessment reporting will continue and grow. • Tension between assessment (Evidence we need to know for improvement) and accountability (Evidence we need to report for recognition) will continue.

15. Student Experience in the Research University • Extensive collection of items about student participation in research and creative activities • Administered to students at other participating AAU institutions • Enables benchmarking across AAUs down to program/department level

16. How SERU is Administered • Census of all undergraduates • Includes core module covering academic/personal development, engagement, time use, satisfaction and evaluation of educational experience • Rutgers now has five years of longitudinal data

17. These data can be used to study: • Satisfaction and student wellness • Effort and work habits • Learning gains (self-reported) • Types and degrees of student integration

18. Some Results from SERU 2012 All RU

19. Some Results from SERU 2012 RU All

20. Some Results from SERU 2012 ALL RU