Academic Assessment

The program profile includes three areas: Program Information, Academic Assessment, and Institutional Metrics. Listed under Program Information are Mission & Goals, Credits & Degree Requirements, Concentrations, and Delivery Models. Listed under Academic Assessment are Curriculum Mapping, Student Learning Outcomes, Performance Rubrics, Course Evaluation, and Alumni Success. Listed under Institutional Metrics are Student Enrollment, Student Persistence & Completion, Student & Faculty Demographics, and Financial Analyses.

Below the Program Profile section, an arrow shows the links from sections entitled “Program Review & Reporting” and “Information & Data Utilisation” to the Program Profile. Listed under Program Review & Reporting are Annual Program Review – Cycle of Inquiry, Comprehensive Academic Review, and Specialized Accreditation Review. Listed under Information & Data Utilization are Collaborating with Other Academic Programs; Planning and decision-making for Program, Campus, & University; and Coordinating with Marketing, Admissions, Communications, Advancement, and Operations.

Antioch University is committed to the continuous review of student learning and the improvement of its academic programs. Antioch employs three types of program review: Annual, Comprehensive, and Specialized. The processes and procedures for these reviews are described in the AU Academic Assessment System & Program Review Manual.
Antioch program reviews use a systematic, collaborative inquiry process for the purpose of understanding student learning and improving teaching. Faculty engage in a Cycle of Inquiry:

At Antioch, the Cycle of Inquiry has, at its heart, the central mission of the University, which is to put student learning at the center of all we do. Reflecting on how well we accomplish that mission to enhance and enrich student learning in the best Antiochian tradition is, therefore, an essential element of academic assessment. As the Cycle of Inquiry above illustrates, all questions driving the inquiry are related to the learning mission.
Questions directly related to student learning include such examples as “How well are our students meeting the expectations we have for them? What do we need to keep doing, and what needs to change?” Other questions relating to topics such as the adequacy of facilities, strategies for faculty recruitment and retention, or faculty scholarship will still connect to the enrichment of students’ learning experience. Thus, at Antioch, the evidence used in a cycle of inquiry, plans made, and actions taken will always relate to and be informed by the quality of student learning.
Antioch’s academic assessment system involves ongoing reflection and action, ensuring the quality of student learning and the dynamic health of our academic programs. The following quality criteria are designed to foster consistency of quality practices across the university, as well as flexibility as to how the criteria are implemented:

• • The critical question is addressable through empirical evidence and relates to program-level student learning.
  • Multiple direct and indirect data methods are used to examine the critical question.
  • Results are documented, analyzed, and clearly described.
  • Annual Program Review identifies realistic action steps based on data results that have been or will be taken.
  • Critical Question Worksheet – For identifying an effective cycle of inquiry question and direct/indirect evidence for investigating the question.
  • Cycle of Inquiry Planner – An overview for designing each stage of a cycle of inquiry.

Student learning outcomes (SLOs) are concise statements describing what we want students to know (knowledge), be able to do (skills) and care about (values) as a result of their experience in their academic program. They capture the most important qualities of a graduate of a particular program and/or institution. Antioch has established the following criteria for student learning outcomes and their use at the program level:

• Describe what a student will know, do, and be like at the end of the program.
• Able to be examined through empirical evidence.
• Aligned with the program curriculum.
• Associated with levels of performance (e.g., criteria, rubric).
• Evaluated as part of the academic assessment process.
• Aligned with core attributes and primary sources of evidence.
• Accessible to students and faculty

SLOs are more specific than program goals and more general than course objectives. Student Learning Outcomes are often expressed as action statements that capture the essence of a professional in a given field or discipline. General examples of Student Learning Outcomes are:

1. Students utilize major theoretical approaches when describing economic phenomena. (knowledge)
2. Students use statistical packages to analyze data and interpret results accurately. (skill)
3. Students adhere to the discipline’s professional code of ethics. (value)

A Curriculum Map documents where, in a program of study, evidence of specific student learning outcomes is collected and assessed. There is no expectation that any one course or activity will allow students to demonstrate every program-level learning outcome. Across the curriculum, however, students must be able to demonstrate achievement of all learning outcomes by the time they graduate.

• Defining Mission, Goals, and Student Learning Outcomes
• Writing Student Learning Outcomes
• Curriculum Map Templates
  • Curriculum Map to Course LOs
  • Curriculum Map to PLOs and Core Attributes 
• Curriculum Map Example

An assessment plan identifies specific student learning outcomes to be assessed and who data will be collected about each one. Evidence of student learning can be either direct (products of actual student work such as papers, presentations, test results, portfolios) or indirect (surveys, interviews, focus groups, student self-reflection). Student learning is best informed by using multiple strategies for collecting evidence, prioritizing direct sources of evidence, and examining that evidence as a faculty.
Quality criteria and rubrics help calibrate levels of student performance. Rubrics specify criteria that describe the quality of a student’s reasoning, performance, or work products. They are usually arranged in levels that indicate the degree to which learning standards have been met. The type of rubric used is based on how learning is conceptualized by the program.
Some rubrics are designed to be developmental, with levels indicating growth toward an outcome. Other rubric criteria are evaluative and describe the final assessment and mastery of an outcome. Rubrics can be holistic, looking at a student’s performance as a whole, or analytic, identifying and assessing components of that performance.

• Examples of Direct and Indirect Evidence of Student Learning
• Rubrics, Narrative Evaluations, and Criteria for Student Learning at Antioch University, March 2011
  • Quality Criteria Rubric Worksheet
  • Types of Rubrics (DePaul University)

Protocols for Examination of Student Work (School Reform Initiative)
School Reform Initiative (SRI) is an independent, nonprofit educational organization that promotes professional learning communities. Their work is grounded in the notion that when adults learn together, student success increases. The protocols below are a selection of the structured processes offered by SRI to support productive faculty conversations, build collective understanding, and foster program improvement. They are designed for use by faculty communities of practice at any learning level.

• Atlas – Learning from Student Work
• Atlas – Looking at Data
• Collaborative Assessment Conference
• Tuning Protocol & Guidelines

Academic leadership is essential for conveying the importance of reflective practice and for making effective use of academic review. The annual program review feedback rubric for deans is intended for leadership to evaluate annual program reviews for each academic program and to use the rubric to guide conversations with program faculty (see Appendix C. in the assessment manual and also attached here).

Use of the rubric for reviewing annual program reviews and conversations with program chairs and faculty about their annual program reviews are key steps that are needed to ensure that program faculty voices are heard and that sufficient planning and resources are provided to validate the annual program review findings and needs. This step in the annual program review process is intended to encourage greater leadership and involvement of deans in the annual program review process with programs.

Dean’s Annual Program Review Feedback Rubric

An effective cycle of inquiry links the assessment of student learning to program change. In this step, we acknowledge successful program practices and/or make program changes to student learning outcomes, curriculum, student orientation procedures, course assignments, faculty development, instructional strategies, etc.

Making good use of assessment involves examining the work of students, analyzing the quality of our programs, and making plans for improvement. We document and report assessment results to tell the stories of our programs, reporting to stakeholders within the university as well as to accrediting agencies and associations. Assessment results are reported to the Deans and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Accreditation and Academic Assessment via an Annual Program Review. Programs also participate in comprehensive reviews with other Antioch University programs in like disciplines. This process and the ways that academic assessment can be used for decision-making processes throughout the University are described in the Antioch University Academic Assessment System & Program Review Manual.