Project: Assessment Culture
Version 1.0 - Review
Please comment on anything that is omitted or incomplete in the project status, dates and summary field. Enter N/A if not applicable.
Check for accuracy and completeness against the original Project Declaration. Are the right metrics or measures included for each goal? If not, what revisions to the metrics/measures would you suggest that the institution consider?
The update is complete and appears to be accurate.
Has the institution acted in meaningful ways to pursue project success, making progress as anticipated in the original project declaration? If meaningful progress or project success has not been achieved, has the institution made appropriate revisions to the goals or anticipated outcomes for this project? • Are descriptions of resources, organization, concrete results, and reaching milestones included? • Make a statement of global judgment. (i.e. “The institution is making [excellent/good/satisfactory/acceptable/slow/ casual/no] progress in this action project.”).
OU is making slow progress on this project. This project is now anticipated to be completed almost one-year behind schedule. Considering that this project was designed to address a "significant opportunity for expanding a culture of assessment among our faculty," being behind schedule raises concerns. Assessment of student learning is required by the Criteria for Accreditation, and a culture of assessment is critical to meeting these criterion. OU administration and faculty are urged to prioritize this project.
Are the appropriate people involved sufficiently for the nature and scope of the
project?
• Is there sufficient breadth of involvement?
• Are the right people involved? • Emphasize the roles of those who can enhance the impact, success, or effectiveness of the project.
• Tactfully call attention to any people that appear to have been omitted or bypassed.
This project does not seem to have sufficient involvement by faculty. Assessment is a responsibility of faculty, therefore this project should have significant faculty involvement and leadership.
Does the institution show evidence of learning from what it did well?
• Acknowledge any practice that could be replicated internally in future projects.
• Encourage the sharing of best practices with other institutions.
OU has directed grant funds towards assessment activities, has provided resources for faculty, and has highlighted faculty assessment activities. While activities are occurring, it is unclear if any are having a positive impact, or if assessment is occurring.
Does the institution have a realistic understanding of what it needs to address in order to achieve progress and, ultimately, project success? Does it assess its internal and external environments, recognizing the potential forces that could hinder success? Is anything overlooked?
It is not clear if OU faculty understands how critical a culture of assessment is to future accreditation. Assessment has been a requirement for many years, so it seems that OU should be further along in its assessment journey.
Does the institution understand the current status of its project and know how it intends to pursue project success?
OU states that "It is still too early to determine the impact of these projects with confidence." This raises concerns due to the nature of the project, and since the project is behind schedule.
Overall, does the institution demonstrate a good faith effort in its pursuit of continuous quality improvement through this action project? Is there anything of concern that should be brought to the attention of AQIP via your mentor?
OU is exerting effort on this project, but more urgency seems to be needed. The culture of assessment is a critical component to accreditation, and assessment activities must be faculty led. Assessment activities must occur in all academic departments, must be documented, and must lead to documented improvement in student learning.
