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

SACS/COC Fifth-Year Interim Report, Part III.
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
Virginia Commonwealth University P a g e | 12