4. The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent ...

SACS/COC Fifth-Year Interim Report, Part III. 

4. The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the 

extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides 

evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in 

the following areas: (Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1): 3.3.1.1. 

educational programs, to include student learning outcomes. 

Compliance 

Non-compliance 

Narrative: 

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) maintains a university-wide commitment to outcomes 

assessment and continuous improvement of student learning for all undergraduate, graduate, 

certificate, and professional degree programs. The VCU Office of Assessment, which reports to the Vice 

Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs, provides university-wide leadership in student learning 

outcomes assessment. The Director of Assessment provides leadership, expertise, and support for 

assessment of academic programs, which includes aligning VCU’s assessment activities with external 

accrediting requirements related to student learning outcomes. The Office of Assessment works closely 

with VCU’s Office of the Vice Provost for Instruction, VCU’s Center for Institutional Effectiveness, and 

the individual academic units. 

This section begins with a brief history of VCU’s engagement in student learning outcomes assessment. 

Following this brief history are sections on VCU’s current student learning outcomes assessment 

activities and practices, the results of our most recent outcomes assessments, and plans for continuous 

improvement of student learning outcomes assessment at VCU. 

History of Commitment 

The VCU commitment to assessment is clearly articulated in our Quality Enhancement Guide: 

“… a systematic process of gathering and interpreting information to discover if a program is 

meeting established objectives and then of using that information to enhance the program” and 

an acknowledgement that “assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic.” 

As set forth in the Quality Enhancement Guide, three fundamental questions for improving student 

learning have been: 

 

 

 

What are we trying to do 

How well are we doing it 

How are we using what we discover to improve what we will do in the future 

VCU’s original framework for ongoing assessment was to write expected outcomes or objectives, 

establish criteria for success through measures and target achievement levels, assess performance of 

Virginia Commonwealth University P a g e | 1


students, view assessment results or findings, and effect improvements in student learning through 

specific actions. Faculty received support in creating, implementing, and monitoring assessment plans 

through workshops, instructional materials, and the WEAVE database. WEAVE provided a structured 

framework and static repository for assessment plans and assessment results for both student learning 

outcomes and administrative unit effectiveness. 

In March 2003, VCU implemented the assessment management software WEAVEonline TM , a centralized, 

dynamic web-based tool. In August 2003, 100% of VCU’s then 218 academic programs (degrees plus 

some concentrations) had mission statements, outcomes/objectives, and measures for student learning. 

Further, 99% of the academic programs had entered findings and 86% had documented action plans to 

improve student learning outcomes. The 86% of programs showing action plans was higher than 

expected because action plans were required only when targets were unmet or partially met; programs 

opted to document action plans even for achieved targets. During this time, VCU began to license the 

software solution. In May 2006, Centrieva Corporation acquired WEAVEonline. While VCU continued its 

use of the WEAVEonline product for ongoing assessment of academic and administrative performance, 

VCU also suffered the loss of key staff in this spin-off. 

The Interim Associate Vice Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs and then Vice Provost for Academic 

and Faculty Affairs fulfilled the mandatory assessment responsibilities until a permanent director was 

appointed in 2007. Several institutional effectiveness personnel assisted with the assessment 

responsibilities with a focus on the mandatory SCHEV (State Council of Higher Education for Virginia) 

reporting requirements regarding core competency assessment. Departmental/unit student learning 

outcomes assessments were addressed, but not optimally. Individual units were requested to report on 

student learning outcomes assessment as part of the annual report. After a national search, a Director 

of Assessment joined VCU in the Summer 2007, and in Fall 2007 a VCU web specialist joined the team. 

The new Director of Assessment, Dr. R. Stephen RiCharde, made several enhancements to the 

assessment process to ensure that VCU complied with federal, regional, and state requirements and to 

enhance the culture of assessment: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Assessment Council became a standing committee that met monthly during the academic 

year; 

Individual consultations for improving student learning assessment plans occurred on both the 

Monroe Park and the MCV campuses; 

Periodic WEAVEonline how-to workshops were conducted on both campuses; 

An audit strategy, including key audit elements and an audit timeline, was developed for the 

systematic review of student learning assessment plans; 

All student learning assessment plans for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years were 

audited by the Director; 

Assessment plan audit feedback was provided to the Assessment Council and all academic 

programs. 



The Assessment Council and the Office of Assessment monitored developments in public policy and 

changes in the requirements of accrediting bodies, reviewed the results of the assessment plan audits, 

and shared leadership in establishing the commitment to student learning outcomes assessment at VCU. 

The Assessment Council was the liaison between the Office of Assessment and the individual academic 

degree programs. 

Audits of the academic assessment plans have been a priority. The student learning outcomes 

assessment plan audits consist of periodic reviews of the goals, outcomes or objectives, measures and 

targets, findings, and use of findings, with a particular focus on programs’ documentation of continuous 

improvement. The audit results were summarized in date-stamped scorecards that convey two levels of 

information: 

 

 

a color-coded visual display of the overall quality of each key assessment element (goals, 

outcomes or objectives, measures and findings, and evidence of continuous improvement) with 

ratings of compliance, needs work, or non-compliance; and 

for each key element rated as needs work, a notation that represents how to improve that 

portion of the plan (e.g., NSO = non-specific outcomes or outcomes that are too broadly stated). 

In addition to the scorecard audit summary, the Assessment Council members and the responsible 

faculty liaisons receive a code key that explains the audit codes and a 5-page document that coaches 

them on how to improve the audited assessment plan. The first audits of all student learning 

assessment plans were in November 2008 for the 2007-2008 academic year. Audits were performed 

again in February, May, and August 2009. A detailed discussion of the results of these audits, the trends 

that emerged, and VCU’s plans to address the results are in the Assessment Plan Audits and Analysis 

section, below. 

The Director of Assessment accepted a position at another university and separated on April 30, 2009. 

In spite of this loss, VCU was fortunate in three regards. First, the Assessment Director in VCU’s School 

of Education, who was also a member of VCU’s Assessment Council, agreed to provide leadership on an 

interim basis. Second, the former Director of Assessment agreed to provide support on a part-time 

consulting basis. Third, our web specialist in the Office of Assessment, who worked closely with the 

Director of Assessment and the VCU user community, continued to provide WEAVEonline support. This 

combination of effort was a critical bridge while the search for a new director was underway. 

Current Commitment 

The current assessment team was assembled in Summer 2009 by Dr. Laura Moriarty, Vice Provost for 

Academic and Faculty Affairs. Kathleen Ingram, J.D., Ph.D., an associate professor in the Department of 

Psychology at VCU, was appointed Interim Director of Assessment. A faculty member in the Department 

of Psychology since 1995, Dr. Ingram has a strong background in research methods, measurement, and 

statistics. Having twice served as Interim Director of VCU’s Counseling Psychology Program, she gained 

substantial experience in assessment and accreditation processes for a graduate program that is 

accredited by the American Psychological Association and has been ranked in the top five nationally. 

Linda Birtley, M.A., M.L.I.S., a Senior Research Associate, was appointed Assessment Project Manager. A 



faculty member in the VCU Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory since 2001, Ms. Birtley brought 

expertise in research methods, program evaluation, and systems. Most recently, she was the VCU 

Principal Investigator for the Supreme Court of Virginia’s statewide judicial performance evaluation 

program. Gaurav Gupta, M.B.B.S., a web services specialist at the VCU Center for Teaching Excellence, 

has served as the assessment team’s Information Technology Analyst since November 2007. Mr. Gupta 

is one of the VCU administrators for WEAVEonline and serves as the contact person for Centrieva's 

WEAVEonline software developer. Mr. Gupta has expertise in web development, management of web 

applications, data management and processing, basic statistics, and documentation and training. 

In Fall 2009, the assessment team took several steps to maintain continuity in and strengthen the 

assessment process at VCU. Key examples of the assessment team’s efforts in Fall 2009 include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Requiring assessment plans for all degree-granting certificate programs; 

Auditing the program listing in WEAVEonline to ensure that all degree-granting programs were 

listed and had assessment plans, and ensuring that the listing was user-oriented; 

Enhancing the analysis section of the assessment plans by adding three questions focused on 

continuous improvement: 

1. How were the assessment results communicated to your faculty 

2. How did the faculty review the results for the purpose of improving student learning 

outcomes 

3. What changes, if any, were made to improve student learning outcomes 

Creating a related accreditation standards cross-walk to capture standards set by external 

accrediting bodies; 

Updating VCU’s WEAVEonline Quick Start Guide; 

Creating a worksheet for preparing an assessment plan in a Word file, from which information 

can be copied and pasted into WEAVEonline; 

Posting additional resources on the Office of Assessment website, including examples of scoring 

rubrics; 

Conducting detailed reviews of assessment plans and holding face-to-face meetings with 

representatives from more than 50 academic programs on the Monroe Park and MCV 

campuses; these meetings ranged from individual consultations to a session with all department 

chairs and associate deans from one of the university’s schools; 

Working directly with representatives from nine programs newly approved by SCHEV, to 

educate them about assessment and to help them develop assessment plans; 

Chairing two Assessment Council meetings and communicating regularly about the status of 

assessment plans; 

Conducting five one-hour WEAVEonline workshops for faculty, administrators, and staff on five 

different dates, which included a review of assessment of student learning; 

Representing the Office of Assessment on the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 

and reviewing proposals for undergraduate curriculum revisions; 



 

 

Attending the Voluntary Systems of Accountability (VSA) Learning Outcomes Workshops, 

Colonial Academic Alliance Assessment Symposium (represented by Dr. Moriarty, Vice Provost 

for Academic and Faculty Affairs), the Virginia Assessment Group Conference, and the 2009 

Annual Meeting of the SACS Commission on Colleges; and 

Coordinating with Dr. RiCharde on the final set of scorecard reviews to be conducted in 

November and December 2009 for the 2008-2009 academic cycle. 

Assessment Plan Audits and Analysis 

External and internal reviews of VCU’s degree programs’ student learning assessment plans and reports 

were conducted November 2009 through January 2010 and the results of the reviews are presented 

below. The external review was conducted by Dr. RiCharde, VCU’s former Director of Assessment. Dr. 

RiCharde was asked to review each assessment plan, using the same level of scrutiny he applied during 

his tenure at VCU, and to report his findings on a new set of audit scorecards utilizing the same coding 

and color schemes as he used previously so that ‘before’ and ‘after’ snapshots could be compared. (The 

audit scorecard was described in the section History of Commitment, above.) The internal review was 

conducted by Dr. Ingram and Ms. Birtley in the VCU Office of Assessment. 

The external and internal reviews were based upon the programs’ assessment plans and reporting as 

shown in WEAVEonline. [We are aware that some entries might have been unintentionally overwritten 

when faculty accessed the previous version of WEAVEonline to update their information. We are also 

aware that certain changes made to plans in WEAVEonline cause historical information to not carry 

forward (e.g., changing an achievement target for a particular measure causes findings from previous 

years to lose their association with that same measure; therefore, those historical findings do not 

appear in the current cycle report nor do they appear on the Detailed Assessment Report). Finally, 

faculty could have updated their plans while the reviews were underway.] 

The review results are presented in two main subsections, below. First, there is a unit-by-unit summary 

level analysis that includes examples drawn from the reporting by individual programs within the units. 

In addition, the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 audit scorecards are attached for each unit. Second, there is 

an illustration of three tiers of performance – upper, middle, and lower – in student learning outcomes 

assessment at VCU. Examples within each performance tier are described and the related Detailed 

Assessment Reports entered by programs in WEAVEonline are attached. 

The internal and external reviews indicate that all programs except two bachelor’s degrees and a 

handful of certificate programs meet VCU’s threshold for student learning outcomes assessment. 

Several units have assessment plans for concentration areas or tracks, so the total number of 

assessment plans exceeds the number of degrees awarded by VCU. 

1. Unit-By-Unit Analysis 

School of Allied Health 

The School of Allied Health has 20 degree programs. Dr. Alexander Tartaglia, Associate Dean, represents 

the School of Allied Health on the VCU Assessment Council. All of the Allied Health degree programs 



have current student learning outcomes assessment plans in WEAVEonline, as required by VCU. In 

addition, 11 of the degree programs also met, at the most recent review, the corresponding related 

accreditation standards for outcomes assessment set forth by their respective national accrediting 

bodies: Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (Standards A. 5.3, A.5.5, A.5.6), 

Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc. (Standards 311, 312, 313), Commission on Accreditation 

in Physical Therapy Education (Standard P-2), Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management 

Education (Standard II.A.3), Council on Rehabilitation Education (Section C.1-10), Joint Review 

Committee on Education in Nuclear Medicine Technology (Standard VI), Joint Review Committee on 

Education in Radiologic Technology (Standard 1.4), National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory 

Sciences (Standards 15-18), and The Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs 

(Standard IV, Criteria D3 a-e). 

Our external consultant’s review of student learning assessment by these programs shows that 

collectively, the faculty reports demonstrate that student learning goals, objectives, measures, and 

targets are defined for all programs, and that the findings for academic year 2008-2009 are posted for 

all programs (see School of Allied Health scorecard). Overall, the programs have solid assessment plans 

in place. Areas for improvement for a few programs include: specifying learning objectives more 

clearly, improving measures by relying less on grades as outcomes and/or relying less on indirect 

measures such as student and employer feedback, and addressing the reliability/validity of the measure 

being used and inter-rater reliability. 

The School of Allied Health’s performance in assessment is strong overall. There is some variation in the 

strength of 20 degree programs’ assessment plans, as noted by external and internal reviews, and 

examples are provided here. The Nurse Anesthesia, D.N.A.P. program shows well-written goals and 

objectives, findings recorded and considered for 2008-2009, and a commitment to the assessment 

process: 

The DNAP Program is relatively new, having been approved by SCHEV in 2007. Substantial effort 

has gone into developing a comprehensive assessment plan and now that students are starting to 

progress through the Program, the faculty plan to gather assessment data on a continuous basis 

and to monitor the findings, making changes as needed. The faculty did not identify a need to 

make any changes based on the findings from the 2008-2009 cycle. The DNAP Program exceeded 

all established student objectives. 

The Nurse Anesthesia, M.S.N.A. faculty have a strong assessment plan and process, and are integrating 

curriculum mapping. The Program notes in its review: 

The Program exceeded all student learning objectives during this current cycle. Substantial effort 

has gone into curricular mapping during this cycle and into further developing our assessment 

plan. 

The requirements of discipline-related external accrediting bodies are particularly helpful to the 

programs in Allied Health when the standards specify the measurement of competency areas. In some 

instances, the related standards emphasize program achievements and this, in turn, influences the 



faculty to write objectives that are reflective of programmatic issues rather than student learning 

outcomes. The Health Administration, M.H.A. and M.S.H.A. programs’ plans have a good foundation 

from which to work, and can enhance their plans by clearly distinguishing the desired programmatic 

activities and outcomes from their student learning outcomes. For example, an objective stated in the 

M.H.A. program assessment plan illustrates programmatic goals rather than learning outcomes: 

MHA students will be placed in paying 12-month residencies for the third-year experiential 

learning component of the Program. 

Although residency placement is a prerequisite for important student learning outcomes, it is not a 

student learning objective in and of itself. The clear separation of student learning outcomes from 

related program activities and from program outcomes will facilitate better measurement of student 

learning and less reliance on course grades, student self-reports, placement data, and employer 

feedback. 

School of the Arts 

The School of the Arts offers 25 degrees. Programs in the School met, in their most recent reviews, the 

accreditation standards for assessment of student learning established by the Council for Interior Design 

(CIDA; Standard 12), National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD; Standard II.L.1.b.4), 

National Association of Schools of Dance (NASD; Standard II.L.1.b.4), National Association of Schools of 

Music (NASM; Standard II.L.1.b.4), National Association of Schools of Theatre (NAST; Standard II.L.1.b.4), 

and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE; Standard 2). The School has one 

representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Dr. Christina Lindholm, Associate Dean for 

Undergraduate Studies. A number of degree programs in the School, particularly the Music, B.M. and 

the Fine Arts, M.F.A., have created assessment plans for concentrations within the degree. In addition, 

faculty have created separate assessment plans for the Monroe Park and Qatar campuses for four 

degree programs (Design, M.F.A., Fashion, B.F.A., Graphic Design, B.F.A., Interior Design, B.F.A.). 

According to our external consultant, all programs in the School of the Arts meet or exceed VCU’s 

threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see School of the Arts scorecard). 

The quality of assessment in the School of the Arts has varied across programs. A strength is that most 

programs have well developed student learning objective statements. This pattern reflects 

improvement in the School for the 2008-2009 cycle, during which a number of programs increased the 

specificity of their student learning objectives and eliminated programmatic objectives from their 

assessment plans. 

Measurement poses a difficult challenge for assessment in the School of the Arts. Some faculty in the 

School believe that assessment in the arts is inherently subjective and, therefore, not amenable to 

traditional measurement approaches. This perspective is reflected in the assessment report for the 

Kinetic Imaging, B.F.A. program, which states, “Multiple readers, rubrics, inter-rater/reviewer reliability 

do not really apply to studio art programs.” Indeed, the most common problem in the School is an overreliance 

on measures that are indirect, not clearly described, or lack evidence of reliability. In addition, 

some measures have non-specific achievement targets, and findings are sometimes vague or missing. 



In working with faculty in the School of the Arts in the coming months to strengthen their measures, the 

Office of Assessment will build on a known strength: The assessment reports demonstrate that there 

are numerous existing opportunities to assess student learning objectives in the School of the Arts 

through critiques, juried competitions, exhibitions, presentations, performances and recitals, portfolio 

reviews, and capstone projects. Thus, where scoring rubrics are not already in place, the Office of 

Assessment will encourage faculty in the School to articulate their criteria for evaluating these key 

student work products. Those criteria will be used to develop and implement rubrics. The next step will 

be to incorporate multiple raters, where possible, and to evaluate inter-rater reliability. 

Although measurement is a challenge for the School overall, programs in Art Education and in Music 

have strong assessment plans with solid measures. In the Music, B.A., program, for example, one of the 

measures includes a series of four juried proficiency exams to demonstrate performance skills on 

students’ major instruments. As the Music Program notes: 

Jury exams are conducted before a panel of multiple music faculty (minimum of two) who are 

specialists in the student's area of performance. Scores are averaged among all jurors. A minimum 

threshold standard must be met to pass each level jury. Students who do not pass at least one 

level in a two-semester sequence are not permitted to continue as music majors. Level 

requirements are detailed in documents accompanying or included within the Applied Music 

syllabi for each student. Each area faculty (Winds, Voice, etc.) regularly reviews and coordinates 

the level requirement details (with some variance by instrument within departmental guidelines) 

to address technical skills, repertory, sight-reading, rehearsal skills, keyboard competency, 

ensemble approaches, and ultimately students’ expressiveness and artistry. 

Faculty in the School are strongly committed to continuous improvement of student learning. The 

Communication Arts, B.F.A. program, in reflecting on its findings for 2008-2009, describes this 

dedication to enhancing student learning: 

It is in the nature of the creative process and the work that we improve on a continuous basis. We 

are rarely completely satisfied. The fundamental impulse that motivates and energizes our 

research and inquiries is the need to create at the highest level possible. Therefore, improvement 

in drawing, painting, digital and other media as well as verbal and written skills to communicate 

ideas has to take place on a continuous basis. 

A number of programs have implemented changes to promote continuous improvement of student 

learning. For example, the Music, M.M. – Education track reported that “course sequencing was 

established to help students master certain skills in preparation for follow-up work in years two and 

three.” The Dance and Choreography, B.F.A. program stated that it “plans to initiate a system of juries 

during the 2009/2010 academic year that will include departmental-level examinations/evaluations 

every semester for every level of modern dance technique.” In addition, the Music, B.M. – Performance 

track described curricular and advising changes that were implemented to enhance student learning: 

More upper level, restricted electives were added to the curriculum (and correspondingly, the 

number of these electives offered was dramatically increased). Important courses were added to 



several tracks (vocal pedagogy to voice performance, a 2 nd semester of piano pedagogy and piano 

literature to piano performance. Increased advisor training was implemented to improve the 

efficacy of advising for student learning & overall success. 

School of Business 

The School of Business offers 22 degrees. The business and accounting programs in the School met the 

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AASCB) accreditation standards for assessment of 

student learning (Standard 15) at their most recent reviews. In addition, the Information Systems, B.S. 

program met the accreditation standards for student learning outcomes of the Accreditation Board for 

Engineering and Technology (Standards 3 and 4) at its most recent review. The School has one 

representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Dr. Carolyn Norman, Associate Professor. A number of 

degree programs in the School, particularly the Business B.S. and M.S. degrees, have created assessment 

plans for concentrations within the degree. Two certificate programs (Business Administration, postbaccalaureate 

certificate; International Management Studies, undergraduate certificate, offered by the 

School of Business and the School of World Studies) and one bachelor’s program (Real Estate, B.S.) are 

among the handful of programs at VCU that have not yet entered an assessment plan in WEAVEonline. 

However, as noted in previous sections, 2008-2009 was the first year in which plans were requested for 

certificate programs. In addition, the B.S. in Real Estate is a new, spin-off program from the B.S. in 

Business (receiving SCHEV approval in 2009). According to our external consultant, all programs in the 

School of Business that have entered an assessment report in WEAVEonline meet or exceed VCU’s 

threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see School of Business scorecard). 

Overall, the School of Business has performed well in assessment. For most programs, student learning 

outcomes are clearly defined, and the statements reflect important knowledge, skills, and values in the 

field of study. Though some programs have not reported a complete set of assessment findings in 

WEAVEonline each year, the majority of programs are providing detailed findings on a regular basis. 

For measures of student learning, most programs in the School of Business rely heavily on course-based 

work products such as case analysis assignments. Many programs also make some use of embedded 

examination questions. In the School of Business, with rare exceptions, these course work products and 

examinations are evaluated by the instructor, rather than by multiple raters. Although our external 

consultant correctly observed that assessment in the School of Business could be strengthened by using 

multiple raters for rubric-based scoring and by evaluating inter-rater reliability, that approach is not 

required by the AASCB, which views it as acceptable for the instructor to serve as the sole evaluator of a 

classroom assignment to assess student learning outcomes if the assignment is rated according to 

criteria and standards agreed upon by the faculty. On the Assessment Resource Center page of its 

website, the AASCB clarifies that the instructor can be responsible for assessment of a “program 

learning objective” within his or her class: 

Classroom assignments or exercises can provide useful valid data for program assessment if they 

are rated or graded using criteria and standards established by the faculty (using a rubric, for 

example). While the professor of the course in which the assignment is made may rate it for both 

program and course purposes, this is not required. The professor’s minimum obligation is to make 



the assignment part of the course requirements, collect it, and make it available for program 

assessment. Some schools using classroom-based assessment have the rating done by the course 

professor, others by an outside rater, and still others by a faculty committee. What is important is 

that the assignment is rated according to the criteria and standards agreed upon by the faculty, 

and that the rater(s) is/are qualified. (See AACSB website, Assessment Resource Center, 

Frequently Asked Questions, p. 3, downloaded 1/22/10.) 

Among the programs in the School of Business that rely on classroom assignments as indicators of 

student learning, most programs provide clear descriptions of the evaluation criteria. Some programs 

could improve their assessment reports by uploading their scoring rubrics in WEAVEonline. 

As a result of using classroom-based work products from a variety of courses as the primary indicators of 

student learning, a large number of faculty in the School of Business are directly involved in collecting 

and interpreting assessment data, and the assessment reports reflect that the faculty are engaging in 

thoughtful analysis about particular student learning outcomes and are implementing steps to promote 

continuous improvement. For example, the Accounting, B.S. program reported having updated an 

assignment in its ACCT 306 (Cost Accounting) course: 

[T]he database assignment used to assess student learning of technology will be revised [in] the 

next reporting cycle to make the assignment more challenging. This change reflects the fact that 

students are now more familiar with MS Access and have used this software (even if only on a 

limited basis) at their places of employment. 

The Business, M.S. program – Global Marketing Management concentration provides another example 

of continuous improvement. The program noted that the achievement target was not met in 2008-2009 

for a measure of organization of written communication, and reported on steps to improve student 

learning: 

Faculty will monitor prerequisites, as it is important for students to have at least one marketing 

class and some international experience in order to have a group of students that are able to add 

meaningful input to the marketing study. This will be verified by both the Department Chair and 

Adjunct Professor using transcripts and work resumes. Professor will collect a sample of each 

student’s written work early in the course so as to determine individual deficits early and refine 

instruction accordingly. Further attention will be given to clarifying project deliverables, since the 

company of interest differs each semester. Students will be asked to find and present a group of 

resources that they will use for the project. Then, they will be expected to prepare a summary on 

the value of each of those resources. . . . Faculty members will also strive to increase student 

awareness and understanding of the use and limitations of information sources and methods 

when formulating research proposals. 

College of Humanities and Sciences 

The College of Humanities and Sciences has 66 degree programs. Dr. Catherine Ingrassia, Executive 

Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Affairs, represents the College on the VCU Assessment 



Council. Of the 66 degree programs in the College, eight programs have external accreditation 

standards that are related to student learning outcomes and each of these programs met certification 

standards during the last review. The outside accrediting bodies, some of which accredit more than one 

program in the College, are: Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications 

(Standard 9), American Academy of Forensic Sciences Education Programs Accreditation Commission 

(Standard 3.2), American Chemical Society (Standard 7.7), American Psychological Association (Standard 

F.1), National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (Standard 1.9), and Planning 

Accreditation Board of the American Planning Association (Standard 2.2). 

In this subsection, the state of assessment is addressed separately, below, for three schools within the 

College: School of Government and Public Affairs, School of Mass Communications, and School of World 

Studies. This subsection begins with a review of assessment for the programs that are not associated 

with these three schools. 

College. All but three of the degree programs that should have assessment plans in WEAVEonline have 

them currently in place. One of the three that does not have a plan in WEAVEonline is an 

interdisciplinary bachelor’s degree program and the other two are certificate programs that are jointly 

administered with other VCU units (School of Business and School of Social Work) and for which 

assessment plans were not required by VCU until 2008-2009. Of the degree programs that do have 

assessment plans, a few programs have created assessment plans for concentration areas within the 

degree. For example, the Psychology, Ph.D. program has three separate student learning outcomes 

assessment plans for the concentrations in Biopsychology, Developmental Psychology, and Social 

Psychology, and the Statistical Sciences and Operations Research Department has separate assessment 

plans for Mathematical Sciences, B.S. and Mathematical Sciences, M.S. concentrations in operations 

research and in statistics. Also, new programs that are now enrolling students have developed 

assessment plans (i.e., Chemical Biology, Ph.D., Health Psychology, Ph.D., Nanoscience and 

Nanotechnology, Ph.D., and Systems Modeling and Analysis, Ph.D.). 

All of the programs, with the exception of the three mentioned in the preceding paragraph, have 

student learning objectives and measures. For the 2008-2009 reporting cycle, due to a change in the 

WEAVEonline assessment plan structure, the writing of goals was required for the first time. Of all the 

programs in the College, there are only two programs that still need to write goal statements. The 

external review shows a fairly even split between programs that have very solid student assessment 

work underway and programs with plans that are in need of assistance to improve their assessment 

strategies (see College of Humanities and Sciences scorecard). For the programs needing assistance in 

further developing their plans, the areas of focus will be specifying the student learning objectives more 

clearly, refining or developing more direct measures and setting appropriate targets, and ensuring that 

inter-rater reliability is measured, whenever appropriate. 

The English, B.A. assessment plan, for example, shows very well-written student learning objectives, 

good measures, and thoughtful responses about how the assessment results can be used to improve 

student learning: 



We will continue to improve not only the way we assess the students’ work, but also the work 

itself. Especially in the case of ENGL 301 [entry] students, our department needs to coordinate to 

make learning objectives a top priority. In ENGL 490 [capstone] classes, we feel that our students 

are expressing themselves with a great deal of clarity and substance; it is our ENGL 301 [entry] 

students who may need additional instruction. 

The Biology, B.S. is an example of a degree program assessment plan whose assessment plan is in need 

of work. This program’s plan does not yet have a goal statement. One student learning objective is 

broadly stated (“Students will be able to think critically and analytically from their exposure to research 

and scholarship”) and the other is not a student learning objective (“Students participating in a 

volunteer or work experience … will use VCU`s urban environment to assess their career plans”). Lack of 

clarity and specificity in the student learning objectives led to inappropriate measures of student 

learning (e.g., “Count the number of opportunities that students have to participate in research, 

volunteer service and service learning projects”). 

There are two other observations about the College’s student learning assessment plans in 

WEAVEonline. The first is that even though many programs have good foundations from which to work, 

it is difficult to conduct a detailed evaluation of plans’ strengths and weaknesses because supporting 

documentation is not uploaded into WEAVEonline. For example, the Chemistry, M.S. has a broadly 

stated objective of “Demonstrate expertise (breadth and depth) in chemistry” which is measured by 

“Scores earned on subject-area proficiency exams (American Chemical Society standardized exams in 

Analytical, Inorganic, Organic, and Physical Chemistry).” Part of the Office of Assessment’s future work 

with the College will include attention to the supporting documentation. 

The second observation is that while the VCU assessment requirements favor the use of direct measures 

for student learning outcomes, in some instances programs’ discipline-specific accrediting bodies 

recommend the use of indirect measures (and these indirect measures are sometimes geared toward 

programmatic outcomes). For example, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences recommends exit 

interviews, employer satisfaction surveys, and job placement rates. VCU assessment also discourages 

an over- or singular reliance on grades as measures of student learning. Faculty in the Forensic Science, 

B.S. program had received feedback about their reliance on grades for measuring student learning 

outcomes. In their response to an analysis question in 2008-2009, they note the need to revisit their 

VCU assessment plan: 

With specific regards to the department’s WEAVE measures, the grade based assessment of 

student outcomes does not really allow for an understanding of student cognitive abilities and, as 

a result, is not very useful for the individual faculty or department. Therefore, objectives and 

measures will be refined. 

As with other academic units within VCU, the Office of Assessment needs to be cognizant of the 

influence of the accrediting bodies on student outcomes measurement and work constructively with the 

departments, considering their frame of reference and understanding their need to meet multiple 

expectations. In addition, the Office of Assessment will revisit the College’s number of representatives 



on the VCU Assessment Council, in consultation with Dr. Ingrassia, in order to arrive at representation 

more commensurate with the number of programs within the College. 

L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. The Wilder School of Government and Public 

Affairs has 25 degree programs and is represented on the VCU Assessment Council by Dr. Catherine 

Ingrassia. The academic areas within the School include criminal justice, homeland security and 

emergency preparedness, political science, public administration, sociology, and urban planning. Of the 

25 degree programs offered within Government and Public Affairs, there are one doctoral degree 

program, five master’s degree programs, seven bachelor’s degree programs, and twelve certificate 

programs. All of the degree-granting programs have assessment plans in WEAVEonline except four 

certificate programs, two that are still serving students (Applied Social Research and Urban 

Revitalization) and two that are no longer enrolling students (Planning Information Systems and Public 

Safety). As noted in the introduction to this section, 2008-2009 is the first year that assessment plans 

for certificate programs were required. VCU did not require these plans for programs that were no 

longer enrolling students. The Public Administration program and the Urban Planning program also met 

related accreditation standards on student performance during their most recent reviews by the 

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (Standard 2.2) and Planning 

Accreditation Board of the American Planning Association (Standard 1.9). 

Collectively, the programs’ 2008-2009 assessment plans improved since the prior year. The external 

consultant’s review of student learning assessment by the non-certificate programs shows that there 

are student learning goals, objectives, and measures for all programs, although there is variability in the 

strength and execution of the programs’ plans (see Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs 

section of the College’s scorecard). A majority of the programs’ plans have well-written goals and 

objectives, but a few have student learning objectives that are not clearly specified. The majority of the 

assessment plans would benefit from additional work to improve their measures. This work primarily 

includes developing scoring rubrics and addressing inter-rater reliability when there are multiple raters 

of papers or presentations. All except three programs reported findings for 2008–2009. A few 

programs show gaps in consistent reporting of their assessment findings over the last eight years. All of 

the certificate programs, except two, set a foundation from which to build their assessment of student 

learning outcomes beginning with the 2009–2010 academic year. 

Some programs within the School are consistently high performers in assessment and some are poised 

to be so. The Urban Planning master’s degree (M.U.R.P.) has a very well-written, tightly framed plan in 

which the student learning objectives map to the American Planning Association’s accreditation 

performance criteria for students entering professional planning practice. The assessment plans for the 

Sociology, B.S. and the Sociology, M.S. were completely redesigned this year for implementation with 

the 2009-2010 academic year. But there are also programs struggling with their assessment plans. For 

example, the Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, M.A. program has very well-defined 

student learning objectives, but has not posted any findings since academic year 2004-2005. Their 

assessment report indicates that “The program is developing an assessment plan that will be 

implemented for the 2009-2010 academic year.” The Public Administration, M.P.A. program’s 

assessment plan shows 13 objectives. Of the thirteen, two are student learning objectives and the 



others are programmatic. The findings for the objectives were reported to the National Association of 

Schools of Public Affairs and Administration as part of the program’s self-study but were not recorded in 

WEAVEonline for the 2008–2009 cycle. The faculty also note in their VCU assessment report that: 

Faculty have moved forward in the following respects: (1) streamlining and consolidation of 

program concentrations; (2) curriculum assessment to respond to student needs; (3) changes to 

course syllabi/content to enhance student learning and satisfy standards for accreditation (ie., 

certain skill sets). 

The VCU Office of Assessment will work with the School of Government and Public Affairs to ensure that 

all of its program representatives have the tools for working with their respective faculty on conducting 

solid student learning outcomes assessment. 

School of Mass Communications. The School of Mass Communications offers the B.S. and M.S. degrees. 

The B.S. degree met the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 

accreditation standards for assessment of student learning (Standard 9) at its most recent review. The 

School is represented on the VCU Assessment Council by Dr. Catherine Ingrassia. According to our 

external consultant’s review, the assessment reports for all programs in the School of Mass 

Communications meet or exceed VCU’s threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see 

School of Mass Communications section of the College’s scorecard). 

Overall, the School of Mass Communications is currently performing well in assessment. Two programs 

made substantial improvements to their assessment plans during the 2008-2009 cycle. The B.S. 

program started reporting findings on a standardized test of knowledge (to be administered in first-year 

classes and again in the capstone course) and provided detailed findings for portfolio reviews. The M.S. 

faculty created separate assessment plans for three tracks: Brandcenter (advertising), Multimedia 

Journalism, and Strategic Public Relations. The Brandcenter track in advertising refined its student 

learning objectives, eliminated several measures that were not providing meaningful data, and 

enhanced the quality of portfolio reviews. Both the M.S. Multimedia Journalism track, which enrolled its 

first students in June 2008, and the M.S. Strategic Public Relations track have well-defined student 

learning objectives and strong measures. 

Programs in the School have taken steps to promote continuous improvement in student learning. For 

example, based on findings from student portfolio reviews, the M.S. Brandcenter advertising track 

implemented a new training workshop for students in the Art Direction concentration: 

Even though we did not have an official rubric in place during 2008-2009, the faculty discussed the 

level of work from the student portfolio reviews. Based on that discussion, the faculty decided that 

the first-year art direction students needed additional training in design and typography. The 

Brandcenter implemented a 6-day workshop before the start of school for art directors to focus on 

these things. The workshop was taught by Judd Burnette, VP, Designer/ Art Director at The Martin 

Agency. 



School of World Studies. The School of World Studies offers three degrees at the bachelor’s level: 

Anthropology, B.S., Foreign Language, B.A, and Religious Studies, B.A. In addition, the School offers 

three undergraduate certificates: International Management Studies (offered by the School of World 

Studies and the School of Business), International Social Justice Studies (offered by the School of World 

Studies and the School of Social Work), and Spanish-English Translation and Interpretation. The School 

is represented on the VCU Assessment Council by Dr. Catherine Ingrassia. The Foreign Language, B.A. 

faculty created separate assessment plans for four tracks: French, German, Spanish, and World Film 

Studies. According to our external consultant, all programs in the School of World Studies that have 

entered an assessment plan in WEAVEonline meet or exceed VCU’s threshold requirements for 

assessing student learning (see School of World Studies section of the College’s scorecard). The School 

does not yet have assessment plans in WEAVEonline for the two interdisciplinary certificate programs. 

However, as noted in previous sections, 2008-2009 is the first year that VCU required assessment plans 

for certificate programs. 

Overall, the School of World Studies has performed well in assessment. Some programs could improve 

by providing reliability and validity evidence for their measures. Two programs made substantial 

improvements in their assessment plans in the 2008-2009 cycle, either by revising their student learning 

objectives and eliminating weak measures (Anthropology, B.S.) or by implementing a portfolio review as 

a new measure (Foreign Language, B.A. – World Film Studies track). 

The Foreign Language, B.A. – French track, which has been hampered by faculty health issues, 

retirements, and reassignments in the past several years, demonstrated a renewed commitment to 

assessment. The program report documents implementation of e-portfolios: 

Two of four tenured faculty gave workshops for other faculty on the use of eportfolios through 

assessment. Speakers from outside VCU also provided advice on how to assess language skills 

using e-portfolios. A Spanish colleague also assisted, showing how she used e-portfolios in the 

Spanish capstone course. . . . Workshops on language portfolios included the use of "can do" 

statements that demonstrate both what a student can do now and what his or her future 

communication goals are. The e-portfolios also allow for student reflections on cultural 

competence, future goals in the area of cultural competence, and strategies on how to improve 

both language skills and cultural competence. 

The Foreign Language, B.A. – World Film Studies track provides another example of continuous 

improvement. After reviewing assessment data about faculty reviews of students’ oral presentations, 

the faculty decided to record the presentations on video, rather than audio. The faculty noted that this 

recording format has the added advantage of allowing them to assess students’ non-verbal 

communication “but more importantly allowing students to self-critique their non-verbal skills during 

oral presentations.” 

School of Dentistry 

The School of Dentistry has three degree programs and each program has representation on the VCU 

Assessment Council: Dr. Ellen Byrne, Senior Associate Dean, represents the Dentistry, D.D.S. program, 



Dr. Laurie Carter, Director of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, represents the Dentistry, M.S.D. program, 

and Ms. Kim Isringhausen, M.P.H., Director of Dental Hygiene and Preceptorship Programs, represents 

the Dental Hygiene, B.S. program. The D.D.S. and M.S.D. programs have external accrediting bodies and 

both met their external accreditation standards related to student learning. The Dentistry, D.D.S. met 

the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s related standard (Standard 2-25) on student competencies 

and the Dentistry, M.S.D. met the Commission on Dental Accreditation’s related standards (Standard 1 

and Standard 1.3) on outcomes assessment and measurement of student achievement in their most 

recent reviews. 

The three Dentistry programs have complete and up-to-date assessment plans with well-written goals, 

objectives, measures, targets, and findings. The external review of the plans shows that the three 

programs’ plans are strong and each program has shown assessment plan improvements since the 

2007–2008 assessment reporting cycle (see School of Dentistry scorecard). The B.S. reporting shows 

that the assessment results are used for continuous improvement. For example, the faculty report that 

they “identified evaluation mechanisms by levels of assessment (novice, beginner, competent)” and tied 

these to their courses and competency documents. The M.S.D. plan shows that faculty will focus on the 

need for multiple reviewers and inter-rater reliability. The D.D.S. uses both direct measures (e.g., board 

exams) and indirect measures (faculty survey, graduate surveys) to assess student learning outcomes. 

The Office of Assessment’s future work with the School of Dentistry will focus on clearly separating 

programmatic outcomes from student learning outcomes and developing additional direct measures for 

student learning in the B.S. and M.S.D. programs. 

School of Education 

The School of Education offers 20 degrees. Programs in the School met, in their most recent reviews, 

the standards for assessment of student learning established by the National Council for the 

Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE; Standards 1 and 2), Council for Accreditation of Counseling 

and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; Section I.AA), and the Commission on Accreditation of 

Athletic Training Education (CAATE; Sections H1, H2, and H3). The School has one representative on the 

VCU Assessment Council, Dr. Susan McKelvey, Director of Assessment, School of Education. A number 

of degree programs in the School, particularly the Secondary Education, M.T. and the Special Education, 

M.Ed., have created assessment plans for concentrations within the degree. According to our external 

consultant, all programs in the School of Education meet or exceed VCU’s threshold requirements for 

assessing student learning (see School of Education scorecard). 

The School of Education has committed substantial resources to assessment. The School has its own 

Office of Assessment, which is staffed by Dr. McKelvey and Mr. David Spivey, who serves as Data 

Manager. In addition to assessment reporting in WEAVEonline, all programs in the School that are 

accredited by NCATE make extensive use of rGrade TM to support their accreditation activities. rGrade is 

a web-based assessment system that allows faculty to embed rubrics at the course level, receive 

uploaded assignments from individual students, and use the rubrics to grade assignments online. In 

addition, rGrade houses data from standardized tests (e.g., PRAXIS I and II, and the Virginia Reading 

Assessment) and from measures that are not course-based (e.g., clinical evaluations, comprehensive 



exams). Data in rGrade can be aggregated for assessment purposes, and the aggregated data can be 

used to generate reports. For the 2008-2009 cycle, most programs in the School of Education have 

uploaded documents into the WEAVEonline document repository, including program data reports, 

summaries of standardized test results, and department-level spreadsheets describing the use of 

assessment findings for continuous improvement. 

The School of Education’s performance in assessment is quite strong overall. Nearly all of its programs 

have well-defined student learning objectives and effective measures, are consistently reporting 

detailed findings, and are using their findings for continuous improvement. A number of programs 

made noteworthy changes to strengthen their objectives and measures during the 2008-2009 cycle, 

particularly programs in the Educational Leadership Department and the Health and Human 

Performance Department. Currently, a few programs in the School could improve their assessment 

plans by increasing the specificity of their objectives and/or by providing evidence of inter-rater 

reliability for some of their measures. 

Based on their assessment findings, programs in the School have made a number of changes to enhance 

student learning. For example, in their 2008-2009 Department Use of Assessment Data document, the 

Teaching and Learning Department faculty reported on a finding for their reading programs and 

described a change that the programs had implemented: 

Lower overall scores on the philosophy of read[ing] paper on IRA [International Reading 

Association] Standard 1.3 on language and literacy. . . Action Taken: A required chapter on 

language acquisition was added to the reading foundations course. 

In some cases, in an effort to improve student learning, programs in the School have updated their 

curriculum and have improved their assessment measures. For example, the Adult Learning, M.Ed. 

program described the implementation of a new course and the development of several new rubrics: 

Based on different sources of data, program faculty have realized the need for another 

modification in the M.Ed. in Adult Learning curriculum: replacement of one of the three foundation 

courses (EDUS 661, Educational Evaluation: Models and Designs) with a new Adult Learning core 

course, Adult Literacy and Diversity. . . . Additionally, in an effort to foster continuous program 

improvement, seven rubrics (written communication, reflective practice, oral presentations, 

classroom participation, information competency, development as an adult learning professional, 

and team collaboration) were developed for the rGrade system to evaluate student progress each 

semester. Because these rubrics are new this year, we will be collecting evidence to establish 

reliability and validity, including inter-rater reliability on a larger number of evaluators. 

The Counselor Education, M.Ed. program provides another example of continuous improvement in the 

curriculum and the assessment process. The program also outlined changes that it implemented in 

supervisor training and in instructional materials: 

After reviewing data, the Counselor Education Department decided to implement a supervision 

course and expand the number of internship and practicum supervisors receiving training, as well 



as develop a clinical handbook. The Department also made substantive changes to items on the 

Clinical Evaluation Continuum evaluations. 

School of Engineering 

The School of Engineering has 13 degree programs. Five undergraduate programs met accreditation 

standards for assessment of student learning established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and 

Technology (ABET) Engineering Accreditation Commission (Criteria 2, 3, and 4) at their most recent 

reviews: Biomedical Engineering, B.S.; Chemical and Life Science Engineering, B.S.; Computer 

Engineering, B.S.; Electrical Engineering, B.S.; and Mechanical Engineering, B.S. In addition, the 

Computer Science, B.S. program met the accreditation standards for assessment of student learning 

established by the ABET Computing Accreditation Commission (Criteria 2, 3, and 4) at its most recent 

review. The School has one representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Dr. Stephanie Adams, 

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies. According to our external consultant, all programs in the 

School of Engineering meet or exceed VCU’s threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see 

School of Engineering scorecard). 

For most programs, student learning objectives are clearly defined, and the statements reflect 

important knowledge, skills, and values in the field of study. During the most recent ABET Engineering 

Accreditation Commission (EAC) general review, evaluators determined that the Computer Engineering, 

B.S. and Electrical Engineering, B.S. programs were in compliance with the ABET EAC criteria for 

assessing student learning, but commented that the student learning outcomes for both programs 

should be written to encompass ABET EAC a-k criteria. In their 2008-2009 WEAVEonline reports, both 

programs revised their student learning outcomes to map directly onto the ABET EAC a-k criteria. More 

than half of the programs in the School made noteworthy improvements in the 2008-2009 cycle by 

increasing the specificity of their student learning objectives. For several programs, additional work on 

student learning objectives is desirable. 

Measurement continues to be a challenge for some programs in the School, particularly at the 

undergraduate level. The primary measurement difficulties for the undergraduate programs are the use 

of course grades, an over-reliance on indirect measures, and a lack of evidence of inter-rater reliability 

for measures with multiple raters. In contrast, all of the M.S. and Ph.D. programs improved their 

measures in 2008-2009 by eliminating course grades and/or adding stronger measures (e.g., 

comprehensive examination performance, number of peer-reviewed publications and conference 

presentations, portfolio evaluation, thesis/dissertation review). Some of the graduate programs will 

benefit from creating rubrics and evaluating inter-rater reliability for those measures. 

All programs in the School of Engineering reported assessment findings for 2008-2009, with the 

exception of one newly approved program (Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, M.S., which enrolled 

its first students in Fall 2009). 

Programs in the School have taken steps to promote continuous improvement in student learning. For 

example, the Electrical Engineering, B.S. program implemented a number of changes in existing courses 

and also added a new course. The program notes the following improvements: 



Expanded the role of hands-on learning through labs. Streamlined the Capstone Design process to 

allow for better metrics of success and better project management techniques. . . . . By adding 

EGRE 337 [Electrical and Computer Engineering: Signals and Systems II] in the semester between 

EGRE 335 [Signals and Systems I] and EGRE 336 [Introduction to Communication Systems], we 

improved student preparation for EGRE 336. Similar improvements on student preparedness are 

being investigated. 

The Mechanical Engineering, B.S. program provides another example of continuous improvement. In 

addition to the ABET EAC a-k criteria, the program had specified a student learning objective related to 

knowledge of basic business principles important to the profession. Data collected over a period of 

several years suggested that this objective was not being fully met. The program now reports that it is 

making a change to the curriculum to help students improve their business skills: 

A new management course is being developed specifically for engineering students. A pilot course 

is planned for Spring 2010. This course will likely replace the more general MGMT 319 

Organizational Behavior course currently taken by ME students. 

Three graduate degree programs (Computer Science, M.S., Engineering, M.S., and Mechanical and 

Nuclear Engineering, M.S.) are implementing a portfolio review in 2009-2010 for non-thesis master’s 

students. The quality of the portfolio will be assessed using a rubric that has been developed. The 

report for the Engineering, M.S. program describes the portfolio and how it will be evaluated: 

The student will compile a portfolio consisting of projects and assignments from classes 

completed. Each class will have one element that the student can use in her/his portfolio. The 

performance review is conducted by the faculty advisor in conjunction with faculty participating in 

the program and/or members of the Advisory Committee affording a means of measuring interrater/reviewer 

reliability. 

Graduate Studies 

The School of Graduate Studies awards the Interdisciplinary Studies, M.I.S. and is represented on the 

VCU Assessment Council by Dr. Sherry Sandkam, Associate Dean, Graduate School. The external 

consultant’s review of the assessment plan (see Graduate Studies scorecard) shows continued high 

performance in the execution of the plan and use of findings. The plan has well-articulated goals and 

objectives, and appropriate direct measures with established targets and rubrics. Multiple raters score 

student products and the findings have been recorded annually since academic year 2002–2003. In 

addition, the use of action plans and the clear, thoughtful responses to the analysis questions in 

WEAVEonline demonstrate a commitment to the continuous improvement of the M.I.S. program for 

student learning and the continuous improvement of the assessment methodology for measuring 

student learning. 

Life Sciences 

VCU Life Sciences offers eight degrees – four in Environmental Studies (B.S., M.Envs., M.S., postbaccalaureate 

undergraduate certificate), three in Bioinformatics (B.S., M.Bin., M.S.), and one in 



Integrative Life Sciences (Ph.D.). VCU Life Sciences has one representative on the Assessment Council, 

Dr. Herschell Emery, Director, Undergraduate Curricula. According to our external consultant, all 

programs in VCU Life Sciences that have entered an assessment plan in WEAVEonline meet or exceed 

the university’s threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see VCU Life Sciences scorecard). 

VCU Life Sciences does not yet have an assessment plan in WEAVEonline for the certificate program in 

Environmental Sciences. However, as noted in previous sections, 2008-2009 is the first year that VCU 

required assessment plans for certificate programs. 

Overall, programs in VCU Life Sciences made improvements in their assessment plans during the 2008- 

2009 cycle and are performing reasonably well. For example, the Environmental Studies, B.S. program 

increased the specificity of its student learning objectives and replaced weaker measures with direct, 

rubric-based measures. In addition, all three Bioinformatics programs streamlined their student 

learning objectives (reducing them from 20 or more to five or six) and strengthened their measures. 

Further work is needed to improve measures in a few programs. The Integrative Sciences, Ph.D. could 

strengthen its assessment plan by using scoring rubrics and providing evidence of inter-rater reliability 

for the comprehensive exam and the dissertation and by eliminating measures that are based on course 

grades. 

In its report for 2008-2009, the Bioinformatics, B.S. program discussed the impetus for overhauling its 

assessment approach. The program recognized that its previous assessment plan “proved inadequate 

and unwieldy” and that improving the effectiveness of its assessment scheme “will lead ultimately to 

improved learning outcomes.” The program described a new measure to assess students’ skills in the 

capstone course: 

Biennial assessment of seniors’ skill levels as demonstrated in the capstone course (BNFO 420 

“Applications of Bioinformatics”). The assessment team will include a minimum of two qualified 

individuals (course instructors, program faculty, graduate teaching assistant) and will focus 

assessment on each student’s final written project presentation and on the corresponding oral 

presentation which includes an opportunity for the team to ask follow-up questions of students. 

The Committee will review the presentations (both written and oral) following the elements 

described in the attached rubrics affording a means of inter-rater reviewer reliability. Student 

performance will be assessed to be exemplary, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. 

School of Medicine 

The School of Medicine has 30 degree programs, all of which have current student learning outcomes 

assessment plans in WEAVEonline, as required by VCU. In addition, the Medicine, M.D. program also 

meets the Liaison Committee on Medical Education related accreditation standards for student learning 

outcomes (Standards ED-1, ED-1-A, ED-35, and ED-37). The School of Medicine has two representatives 

on the VCU Assessment Council. Ms. Kathleen Kreutzer, Assistant Professor, represents the M.D. 

program and Dr. Jan Chlebowski, Associate Dean for Graduate Education, represents the other 29 

degree programs. Our external consultant’s review of these programs shows that, collectively, the 

faculty reports demonstrate that student learning goals, objectives, measures, and targets are defined 

for all programs, and that findings are being used for program improvement (see School of Medicine 



scorecard). Some of the programs could improve their work around inter-rater reliability and two of the 

certificate programs could refine their student learning objectives. 

The School of Medicine’s performance in assessment is strong overall. There is some variation in the 

strength of the 30 degree programs’ assessment plans, as the following examples illustrate. The Human 

Genetics, Ph.D. shows a well-articulated plan and it provides very thoughtful responses to the analysis 

questions: 

PH.D. students have continued to meet required programmatic benchmarks at levels that have 

met expectations. The implementation of a core course in human and molecular genetics has 

permitted PhD students to focus upon laboratory training related to their area of specialization at 

an earlier point in their training that [sic] was possible previously. The implementation of a policy 

which permits PhD students who performed in the core human and molecular genetics courses to 

prepare a written research proposal in lieu of a written comprehensive examination has permitted 

these students to spend more time thinking about the problem that their dissertation research will 

focus upon and has fostered increased creativity. 

The Medicine, M.D. program’s plan is strong, but could incorporate inter-rater reliability in its scoring of 

student products. This program’s reporting also illustrates the influence of external accrediting bodies 

on curricula and, therefore, student learning outcomes assessment: 

Although our results have been satisfactory for desired outcomes, as mentioned earlier we are reorganizing 

our curriculum with the goal of more interactive teaching, more patient-centered 

learning, and better integration of subject matters. This is in response, in part, to changing 

priorities from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, our accrediting body, as well as the 

Institute of Medicine and the Association of American Medical Colleges. This process began in 

spring of 2008 and will continue until the new curriculum is introduced in 2012. As part of this 

process we are identifying new program objectives as well as outcome measures and assessments 

that reflect the goals of the new curriculum; some of these will be available in the 2009-2010 

cycle. 

The Biochemistry Certificate program has a basic plan in place, but it needs strengthening by clearly 

specifying the learning objectives, the source of evidence for the measures, and how inter-rater 

reliability will be calculated. The six certificate programs in the School of Medicine eventually will be 

consolidated into one interdisciplinary program called the Pre-Medical Health Science Certificate, 

approved by SCHEV. For this new certificate program, the goal and one key learning objective have 

already been reported in WEAVEonline, and further work is planned: 

Because no students were enrolled in 2008-2009, there are no findings for that cycle. After the 

structure of this certificate program is finalized, the assessment plan will be completed. 

Appropriate measures will be identified, and data will be collected after students are enrolled. The 

faculty will implement a process to ensure continuous improvement. 



School of Nursing 

The School of Nursing offers four degrees (B.S., M.S., Ph.D., and post-master’s graduate certificate). The 

B.S., M.S., and post-master’s graduate certificate programs met the National League for Nursing 

Accrediting Commission (NLNAC) accreditation standards for assessment of student learning (Standard 

6) at their most recent review. The School has one representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Dr. 

Janet Younger. Dr. Younger has served for several years on the Council and with her recent retirement 

from VCU, she will be replaced by Dr. D. Patricia Gray, Chair, Department of Adult Health and Nursing 

Systems. According to our external consultant’s review, the assessment reports for all programs except 

the post-master’s certificate demonstrate that student learning goals, objectives, measures, and targets 

are specified and that findings are being used for continuous improvement (see School of Nursing 

scorecard). The assessment plan for the post-master’s graduate certificate is in development and does 

not yet include measures and findings. However, as noted previously, 2008-2009 is the first year that 

VCU required assessment plans for certificate programs. 

Overall, the School of Nursing has performed well in assessment. Student learning outcomes in the 

School are clearly defined, and they reflect important knowledge, skills, and values. Variability in the 

structure of assessment plans and in the approach to measurement in the School depends to some 

extent on whether a program is accredited. In the Nursing, PhD. program, which is not accredited by 

NLNAC, the assessment plan is strong but would be improved by reporting inter-rater reliability for the 

dissertation rubric. 

NLNAC’s requirements have driven assessment efforts in the B.S. and M.S. programs. According to 

NLNAC’s standards and criteria for assessing student learning outcomes, programs must provide 

evidence of achievement in the following outcomes: performance on licensure/certification exams, 

program completion, program satisfaction, and professional/job placement (NLNAC Accreditation 

Manual, 2008; pp. 74, 80). In the Nursing, B.S. program, for example, findings are presented in 

WEAVEonline for preceptor evaluations, national licensing exam results, students’ self-evaluation on 

program learning objectives, and job placement rates. In the B.S. and M.S. programs, a comprehensive 

questionnaire is used for students’ self-evaluation and each item maps directly onto a student learning 

outcome. Although this indirect measure provides useful information, the assessment plans are 

somewhat unwieldy (e.g., 23 student learning outcomes in the B.S. program). The assessment plans in 

the B.S. and M.S. programs would be more meaningful and more manageable if the student learning 

outcomes were written at a higher order level (e.g., therapeutic nursing interventions, communication, 

critical thinking, and values and ethics). The Office of Assessment intends to work with the School of 

Nursing in Spring 2010 to streamline and strengthen the assessment plans for its programs. 

Office of the Vice President for Research: Center for Clinical and Translational Research 

In January 2008, VCU received approval from SCHEV for the Clinical and Translational Sciences M.S. and 

Ph.D. degrees. These programs will not be activated unless the VCU Center for Clinical and Translational 

Research receives funding from a Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. To date, VCU has not 

received funding and no students have been admitted to these programs. Accordingly, the assessment 

plans for these programs are not fully developed (see Office of the Vice President for Research: Center 



for Clinical and Translational Research scorecard). For example, the Ph.D. program specifies several 

student learning outcomes but identifies a “capstone project” – as yet undefined – as the only measure. 

If the Center for Clinical and Translational Research does receive funding to support the M.S. and Ph.D. 

programs, the Office of Assessment will work with program faculty to develop and implement a 

comprehensive assessment plan. 

School of Pharmacy 

The School of Pharmacy offers four degrees – Pharmaceutical Sciences, M.S./M.P.S.; Pharmaceutical 

Sciences, Ph.D.; and Pharmacy, Pharm.D. The Pharm.D. program met the accreditation standards of the 

Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education for assessment of student learning (Standard No. 15) at its 

most recent review. The School has one representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Mr. Jeffrey 

Delafuente, Associate Dean for Professional Education. According to our external consultant, all 

programs in the School of Pharmacy are in compliance with VCU’s requirements for assessing student 

learning (see School of Pharmacy scorecard). 

The Pharmaceutical Sciences programs made substantial improvements in their assessment plans during 

the 2008-2009 cycle. Measures of course assignment completion were eliminated and rubrics were 

developed for key student work products (thesis, comprehensive exams, and dissertation). Reflecting 

on findings for the 2007-2008 cycle, the Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ph.D. program demonstrated that the 

faculty understand the purpose of achievement targets and make appropriate use of findings when 

considering steps to promote continuous improvement: 

This year we had one fail the oral defense and one fail the dissertation. While this is not common, 

these tests are in place for quality control and thus failures sometimes are inevitable to ensure 

quality graduates. Our standards of 90% pass rates are appropriate to allow for failures such as 

these. 

The Pharmacy, Pharm.D. program has a well-defined process for systematic review of student learning. 

The program’s Outcomes and Assessment Committee reviews assessment data annually and determines 

whether student learning outcomes are being met. If necessary, the committee formulates a plan for 

corrective action. Annually, and more often if needed, the committee reports its findings and 

recommendations to the faculty. Recommendations that require faculty approval are presented during 

regularly scheduled faculty meetings. In its assessment report for 2008-2009, the program reported 

that it introduced a new curriculum in August 2008, which will be implemented over three years. In its 

report for the 2008-2009 cycle, the program recognized that careful evaluation of assessment data is 

particularly important during this curricular transition: 

In our assessment, we did not find any outcomes that did not meet our predetermine[d] goals and 

objectives. As we continue implementation of our new curriculum it will be critical to monitor for 

any significant changes in our assessment outcomes data. 



School of Social Work 

The School of Social Work offers the B.S.W., M.S.W., and Ph.D. degrees and an undergraduate certificate 

in International Social Justice Studies. The undergraduate certificate is offered jointly with the School of 

World Studies. The B.S.W. and M.S.W. programs met the accreditation standards of the Council on 

Social Work Education for assessment of student learning (Standards 4.0.1-5) at their most recent 

review. The School of Social Work has one representative on the VCU Assessment Council, Dr. E. 

Delores Dungee-Anderson, M.S.W. Program Director. According to our external consultant’s review, 

three of the four programs in the School of Social Work (B.S.W., M.S.W., and Ph.D.) meet or exceed 

VCU’s threshold requirements for assessing student learning (see School of Social Work scorecard). The 

School of Social Work does not yet have an assessment plan in WEAVEonline for the undergraduate 

certificate program. However, as noted in previous sections, 2008-2009 is the first year that VCU 

required assessment plans for certificate programs. 

The M.S.W. program made noteworthy improvements in its assessment plan in the 2008-2009 cycle by 

eliminating measures that were indirect or obsolete and by increasing the program’s reliance on direct 

measures of student learning. Other examples of continuous improvement include the M.S.W. 

program’s revision of its field instruction evaluation form. The form now correlates with the Council of 

Social Work Education’s most recent (2008) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards and is 

intended “to better identify and/or capture field instruction multidisciplinary variables.” The form is 

being piloted in Fall 2009 with 40 field instruction students and will be used for all field instruction 

students in Spring 2010 after incorporating any indicated modifications from the pilot data. For both 

the B.S.W. and Ph.D. programs, the assessment plans could be improved by evaluating inter-rater 

reliability of some of the measures. The Ph.D. program should include goals in its WEAVEonline plan. 

University College 

The University College awards two degrees, the Health Sciences post-undergraduate certificate and the 

Interdisciplinary Studies, B.I.S. Dr. Seth Sykes, Assistant Dean, represents the University College on the 

VCU Assessment Council. The courses for both degree programs are delivered by faculty from multiple 

academic disciplines and departments. The external review for the bachelor’s degree program shows 

that there is a solid plan in place with a need for improvement in inter-rater reliability for the portfolio 

review (see University College scorecard). In addition, the Office of Assessment will work with faculty to 

develop an additional direct measure to replace the indirect measures in the plan and to ensure that 

data are collected and findings reported for academic year 2009-2010. The assessment plan for the 

certificate was required for the first time in 2008-2009, as noted in previous sections. The Office of 

Assessment will work with the University College to refine the student learning objectives, develop 

direct measures with appropriate targets, and provide guidance in data collection and analysis for 

continuous improvement. 

2. Three Tiers of Quality 

Assessment plans at VCU can be grouped into three tiers based on their quality. In this section, 

examples of programs are provided for each tier and key features of the assessment reports are 

highlighted. The WEAVEonline 2008-2009 Detailed Assessment Reports for these programs are 



attached as supporting documents. Only programs with assessment plans were evaluated for a total of 

253 programs being reviewed with 96 programs falling into the Upper Tier, 103 in the Middle Tier, and 

54 in the Lower Tier. There were two undergraduate and a handful of certificate programs for which 

assessment plans had not been developed at the time of this evaluation. 

Upper Tier 

Assessment plans in this tier are strong in all respects. These plans include good student learning goals, 

objectives, and measures with clear achievement targets. Findings are reported on a consistent basis 

and are used for continuous improvement of student learning. The following are examples of programs 

that have assessment plans in the upper tier: 

 

 

 

History, B.A. (College of Humanities and Sciences): excellent use of analysis questions (e.g., 

noting an issue with inter-rater reliability and indicating that follow-up will occur); included an 

action plan even though no action plans were required (all achievement targets had been met) 

Human Genetics, Ph.D. (School of Medicine): thoughtful responses to analysis questions; rubrics 

uploaded in WEAVEonline for the oral and written candidacy exam, dissertation review, and 

semi-annual student performance review about learning objectives 

Interdisciplinary Studies, M.I.S. (School of Graduate Studies): rubrics uploaded in WEAVEonline; 

clear reporting of findings; excellent use of analysis questions; action plan about forming an 

advisory committee to strengthen the quality of assessment activities and the rigor of the 

program 

Music, B.M. – Education track (School of the Arts): strong measures (based on recital, 

performances, etc.) that are clearly described; excellent integration of related accreditation 

standards in reporting findings; two action plans (to improve student learning related to 

keyboard skills and to review recital prerequisites) 

 

 

Pharmacy, Pharm.D. (School of Pharmacy): although some components of the report do not 

follow the WEAVEonline structure (e.g., one goal includes a measure with an achievement 

target), a very strong plan overall; program has developed its own, 40-page assessment manual 

and uses two excellent rubrics to assess professionalism and the program’s Advanced Pharmacy 

Practice Experience competencies 

Special Education, M.Ed. – Early Childhood Education concentration (School of Education): 

student learning objectives track the NCATE Council for Exceptional Children standards; good 

use of direct measures with rubrics (e.g., externship portfolio, unit plan, environmental 

analysis); clear and detailed findings 

Middle Tier 

Assessment plans in this tier have some clear strengths. However, there is a shortcoming in at least one 

component of the report: student learning goals, objectives, measures, achievement targets, and/or the 



way findings are reported and used for continuous improvement. Assessment plans in this tier need 

some additional work in order to move into the upper tier of quality. The following are examples of 

programs having assessment plans in the middle tier: 

 

 

 

 

Engineering, M.S. (School of Engineering): student learning objectives are well written; some 

good measures (e.g., thesis review, presentations/publications, performance review [for nonthesis 

students] with rubric); eliminated weaker measures (grade point average and course 

completion) in 2008-2009; still need to develop thesis rubric and to ensure that both rubricbased 

measures are implemented in future cycles 

Information Systems, M.S. (School of Business): reasonably well-developed student learning 

objectives; all 13 measures are based on assignments in a particular course (an assessment 

approach that complies with AASCB accreditation standards); all achievement targets are nonspecific 

and all findings are vague; entered findings for 2008-2009, but had not entered them 

since 2005-2006 

Rehabilitation Counseling, M.S. (School of Allied Health Professions): overall strong plan tied to 

the Council on Rehabilitation Education accreditation standards; the same four measures are 

used for each of the seven student learning objectives and it is difficult to determine how the 

measures map specifically to the individual learning objectives because the supporting 

documents are not uploaded in WEAVEonline; some reliance on course grades; findings 

reported annually and discussed by faculty in individual and group settings 

Urban and Regional Studies, B.S. (College of Humanities and Sciences, School of Government 

and Public Affairs): student learning objectives address important knowledge, skills, and values, 

but could be refined/disaggregated for easier measurement; cannot determine how measures 

were validated (uses nine items for entry and exit testing); in last two cycles for which findings 

are reported, no data for entry exam; though all three findings for 2008-2009 show target is 

partially met, no action plans developed; thoughtful responses to analysis questions, 

demonstrating thorough review of findings and curricular changes implemented to improve 

student learning 

Lower Tier 

Assessment plans in this tier have shortcomings that outweigh strengths. Clear improvement is needed 

for plans in this tier. Programs in this tier are of concern to the Office of Assessment and will be 

targeted for future consultation. The following programs are examples of assessment plans in the lower 

tier: 

 

Art History, B.A. (School of the Arts): all objectives are programmatic; in 2008-2009 cycle, 

eliminated the only student learning objective (related to knowledge of history of art) and 

added several programmatic objectives; measures are vague or in development; need rubric for 

internship evaluation; though entered findings for 2008-2009, had not reported findings since 

2004-2005; overall, needs extensive work on objectives, measures, targets, and reporting 



 

Biology, M.S. (College of Humanities and Sciences): no goals; key student learning outcome 

(foundation in biology) is measured by curriculum choices; no findings reported since 2006- 

2007; analysis question response says ‘Results have not yet been received for any of the 

assessments’ – but no indication of why; overall, needs much work on objectives, measures, 

targets, and reporting 

Future Plans 

The detailed internal and external reviews of the student learning outcomes assessment plans and 

reports will be used by of the VCU Office of Assessment to develop a strategy for working with the VCU 

Assessment Council and the individual units to address weaknesses, build on strengths, and share 

knowledge. In addition, the VCU Office of Assessment will focus its efforts in 2010 on developing an 

updated strategic plan for assessment of student learning outcomes at VCU, developing a VCU 

assessment manual, formulating a plan for the stewardship of assessment at the unit level, and refining 

the auditing of student learning outcomes plans and reporting for VCU’s degree programs.

4. The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?