in .doc format

APPENDIX E Assessment Progress Report (To be submitted to IFT’s Higher Education Review Board By August 31 of each year after being granted IFT Approval/Re-approval Status) If your program proposed a learning assessment plan in your initial or re-approval application, completing the Assessment Progress Report template will be straightforward. The Assessment Progress Report entails specifying the program outcome(s) or course learning outcome(s) that were assessed and the methods that were used to assess them each year after initial approval or re-approval. The other two components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed, and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or student learning. The Assessment Progress Report template is shown below.

ASSESSMENT PROGRESS PREPORT (2012 - 2013 ACADEMIC YEARS)

Food Science Program: University of Arkansas Name of coordinator: Jean-François Meullenet Title: Professor and Head E-mail: [email protected]

Faculty who participated in the development or approval of this Assessment Progress Report (please list all): Kristen Gibson, Andy Proctor, Terry Siebenmorgen, Ya-Jane Wang, Han-Seok Seo, Navam Hettiarachchy

I. PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) OR COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME(S) THAT WERE ASSESSED IN THE 2012-2013 ACADEMIC YEARS, METHODS USED, AND KEY FINDINGS List the outcomes that were assessed, the methods that were used to assess each outcome, and summarize key findings. Attach all relevant rubrics. Add more boxes if more than three outcomes were assessed. The first set of boxes provides an example of course learning outcomes, assessment techniques, and summary of key findings.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Method(s) of Assessment

Program Learning Outcome and Course Learning Outcome: FDSC 4754: Engineering Principles of Food Engineering Outcome 4.2: Student applies the principles of food processing and engineering to various food industry operations 1. Homework sets (10) were provided to students throughout the semester to practice concepts discussed during lectures 2. Unit exams (3) were used to test students’ comprehension and ability to apply concepts in each of the 4 technical areas (Mass and energy balances, drying; Heat transfer; Fluid flow; Refrigeration and cooling/freezing). The unit exams comprised both essay (approximately 20% of each exam) and mathematical problem-solving questions; the exams were given during lab sessions, allowing ample time to complete the exam. Due to timing, Unit 3 and 4 material was combined into a single exam, given as Exam 3. 1

3. All students completed a final exam covering the four units of the course. The final exam was constructed to test the ability of the students to solve food industry related problems. 1. The average grade attained on homework sets accounted for as much as 15% of the weighted average score in the class. Most students performed satisfactorily on the homework sets, although many failed to turn in various sets and thus did not take advantage of earning the full 15 percentage points toward their semester grade. 2. Average scores on the Unit Exams were 76%, 80%, 93% on Exams 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These averages, as well as the range of test scores, are presented in Figure 1. The data shows a clear improvement in average test score from Exam 1 to 3. This is typically the case in

Summary of Key Findings

teaching this course and could be due to more easily understood material in the later units (students historically have a difficult time with mass and energy balances, which is a core of the Unit 1 material), or perhaps an increasingly better understanding of the type of exam given. This latter explanation is countered by the fact that the previous year’s exam for a unit was always distributed several days prior to an exam date; this was implemented to help ensure that students were directly aware of the type of questions and the format of the exam that they were about to take. Figure 1 also indicates the range of scores for each exam. The range decreased greatly on Exam 3; again, this may be due to the same reasons stated above for the average scores increasing; this will be further discussed below. However, in general the ranges indicate a wide disparity in student performance, thus posing a teaching challenge. It is the collective opinion of the instructor/teaching assistants that the low-score mode represents students who are unprepared in mathematics. A subsequent analysis is being planned to investigate the correlation of overall, weighted-average course percentages of students to various measures of mathematical ability, including ACT Math Score and performance in math classes. Based on the results of this analysis, the faculty will determine what steps could be taken to improve mathematics skills and competencies in food processing and engineering. 2

3. Final exam questions were prepared to test understanding of material in each unit and were designed to test overall, “take-away” comprehension of topics. The performance of the students on the final exam, categorized by unit, is presented in Figure 2. Interestingly, the mean of the three unit exam score averages was 81% and the average score on the Final was 83%. This is taken to perhaps mean that the general, average performance/understanding of the material as indicated by the unit exam scores was similar to that as indicated by the average score on the final. The histograms of scores for the final somewhat mirrored the performance on the respective unit exams. The frequency distributions of the unit material on the final were just as, and perhaps more, bimodal as those for the unit exams. This seems to point to some characteristic lacking in students’ preparation for the class. Student performance was again poorest on the first unit material. This indicates that further attention should be given to improving the teaching of Unit 1 material.

3

OUTCOME MEASURED

Program learning outcome: Outcome 4.1: Applies and incorporates the principles of Food Science in practical, real-world situations and problems such as those encountered in Product Development. 1. FDSC 4713 Food Product and Process Development: A problem solving question integrating class and laboratory materials and concepts covered in other food science courses is included in one of the exams (implemented Spring 2013). Problem: This is a problem solving question integrating all the materials learned in the class integrating the lab and the other food science courses. As you know obesity is a major concern in the US. Over 30% of school children are obese. There is a demand for low calorie, nutrient and fiber dense food products to target this market. You are challenged to prepare a tasty lunch meal that is aimed at reducing obesity in this school population. Response to this question should not be your team project.

Method(s) of Assessment

Summary of Key Findings

A. 1. Name your product (1 point) 2. Justify the selection of the raw materials for your product (2 points). List each ingredients and write their functionalities in your product (4 points) B. Write the process and product description in details and include packaging (3 points) C. Give the following information of this product. 1. Write the nutrient interactions that can take place during processing (5 points), the problems and challenges you anticipate (3 points), and your practical approach in finding viable solutions (3 points). D. Include the following information of your product. 1. labeling (2 points), 2. claims (2 points) , quality assurance including safety (3 points), and shelf life (3 points). List the criteria that you will use to evaluate your product quality ( points 4) E. Describe the strategies you will use for marketing and promoting this product (3 points) F. Discuss the impact and future potential of your product (2 points) 24 students took the test question. Scores ranged from 11 to 39, with an average 30.25. 2/3 of the students scored 30 or above while 3 students scored below a 25. Further analysis of the students that performed poorly on this assignment reveals that in all but one case, the students had had a limited number of Food Science courses prior to taking the capstone course. Although, FDSC 4713 is our capstone course and is ideally taken at the student’s last semester, course rotations make it that some students have to take the course earlier in their college career. This is because Food Science courses have had to be taught every other year because of teaching budget constraints. This clearly illustrates the need for the food science department to establish a course rotation that allows students to progress through a logical course sequence. As a result, all food science core courses have been approved for being taught every year which should greatly improve the quality of the education within our program.

4

II. ACTIONS BEING TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE RESEARCH FINDINGS In the space below, interpret the above research findings in light of program expectations for student achievement. Discuss the meaning of the learning assessment findings in relation to desired student proficiency. Describe how these findings were used, or are being used to improve student learning (very important). If changes are being made to courses or the food science program, summarize these changes. If lessons were learned during implementation of the learning assessment, and changes will be made to future assessments as a result, discuss here. (Sometimes an assessment does not go exactly as planned and it is not possible to draw conclusions reliably. If this occurred, describe what happened and what will be done in the future to remedy it.)

We have explained the actions we have taken based on our preliminary research findings for the couple of outcomes we assessed in 2012-2013 in the “Summary of Key Findings” sections. To summarize: 1. We are further investigating the root cause of some of our students’ lack of quantitative skills. This seems to hinder student learning in Food Engineering. However, it is likely that the same students struggle in other classes that are relatively math intensive. Based on the findings, the food science faculty will propose some remedial actions. This will likely result in implementing changes in several of our courses to provide our students with an opportunity to further develop their quantitative skills. 2. We have started collecting assessment data on program outcome 4.1. The results showed a significant proportion of students not performing satisfactorily on a problem solving exercise. Our research revealed that students not performing did not have some of the necessary background in food science. As a result of this research and our program 10-year review, we have implemented significant changes in our course scheduling so that students are able to take food science courses in a sequence deemed appropriate by our faculty. Based on the 2012 feedback received by IFT, the Food Science faculty redefined program goals and outcomes for the undergraduate degree in food science so that the direct assessment of our outcomes is facilitated. As a result, we are considering that we are starting the process of assessment of our program at ground zero and we have developed the following 5 year plan for the development of our undergraduate program assessment plan. Program Goals and Outcomes: UA Food Science Undergraduate Curriculum (revised July 2013) Program Goal 1: Graduates can demonstrate and apply knowledge of the core competencies in food chemistry and analysis. Outcome 1.1: Understands the chemistry involved in the properties and reactions of various foods and its components. Outcome 1.2: Understands and applies the principles behind analytical techniques associated with food. Outcome 1.3: Expresses competence in ability and understanding of food chemistry and analysis methods. Program Goal 2: Graduates understand and apply knowledge pertaining to the microbiology of relevant microorganisms in food systems. Outcome 2.1: Demonstrates ability to identify the causes of food spoilage and predict the specific microorganisms that can spoil a given food when prepared, processed, and stored under given conditions. Outcome 2.2: Demonstrates ability to identify important pathogens, the conditions under which they grow, related detection techniques, and methods for inactivation and control. Outcome 2.3: Demonstrates knowledge of food preservation techniques to reduce and/or inhibit the growth of microorganisms. 5

Program Goal 3: Graduates are competent in both the principles and application of food processing and engineering concepts. Outcome 3.1: Understands the principles and current practices of processing techniques and the effects of processing parameters on product quality. Outcome 3.2: Applies principles of food processing and engineering to various food industry operations. Program Goal 4: Graduates are able to apply the principles of Food Science to identify, define, and analyze technical problems and develop solutions to these problems. Outcome 4.1: Applies and incorporates the principles of Food Science in practical, real-world situations and problems such as those encountered in Product Development. Outcome 4.2: Formulates effective solutions to technical problems related to the food industry. Outcome 4.3: Critically evaluate reports/information related to food quantitative analytical skills including the application of statistical principles. Outcome 4.4: Understands the basic principles of sensory analysis. Outcome 4.5: Proficient in government laws and regulations required for the manufacture and sale of food products. Program Goal 5: Graduates have basic skills essential for employment. Outcome 5.1: Demonstrates the ability to work independently as well as to work cooperatively in teams. Outcome 5.2: Understands the importance of and is committed to professional integrity and ethical values within the workplace. Outcome 5.3: Demonstrates ability to work and/or interact with individuals from diverse cultures. Program Goal 6: Graduates are effective communicators. Outcome 6.1: Demonstrates ability to write clear and concise technical reports and research articles. Outcome 6.2: Able to research scientific and nonscientific information and interpret content and quality of the literature in the field. Outcome 6.3: Delivers clear and concise technical presentations. Outcome 6.4: Demonstrates ability to clearly communicate scientific principles and data to lay audiences. Outcome 6.5: Demonstrates effective listening skills as well as ability to accept constructive criticisms. For 2013-2014 the food science faculty has the following plan to further develop its assessment plan. Outcome 1.3: Expresses competence in ability and understanding of food chemistry and analysis methods. Methods: Student performance on a problem solving laboratory exercise will be used to measure achievement of this outcome. Tasks will be designed to assess the ability to select appropriate analytical methods for specific food products and use them effectively to show understanding of food chemistry the chemical principles of analytical methods. Direct Measures: 1. FDSC 4114 Food Analysis: A laboratory problem solving exercise will integrate all materials learned in class and lab and the food chemistry course, including quantitative and qualitative skills, in the form of a class project. Students will conduct nutritional analysis of a specific food product to measure fat, protein, carbohydrate, dietary fiber, vitamin C and calcium content for labeling purposes. Each student will then make an oral 5-10 minute Powerpoint presentation justifying the selection of the methods used and showing the nutritional content on a serving 6

size basis. In addition, each student will submit a written summary report that includes a concise presentation of the final results and the calculations showing how they were obtained from the laboratory data. The following will be evaluated based on the presentation and written summary report. Rubric I. Validity of method selection 0-25 points

Data Reliability 0-25 points

Validity and clarity of calculations 0-25 points

Overall understanding 0-25 points

Rubric II. Novice

Intermediate

Expert

Method selection and Laboratory skills

Some of the methods employed are appropriate but some mistakes are made either in the use of methodology or the implementation of the testing methodology

Most of the methods used are appropriate and are for the most part well executed. Some of the methods used may not be the best choice or some minor details of the methodology incorrectly implemented

The methods used are what would be recommended by a professional. The methods are correctly implemented and the student understands why experimental procedures are what they are.

Data Reliability

The data is unreliable and poorly represented orally and/or in writing

Most of the data is reliable and adequately presented orally and in writing

Clarity of Calculations

How the final data was calculated is not clearly shown Understanding of the principles of each analysis is not shown

How the final data was calculated is clearly shown for the most part Some understanding of the principles of each analysis is clearly shown

The data analysis is correct and appropriate methods are employed. The data is effectively presented orally and in writing How the final data was calculated is very clearly shown Excellent understanding of the principles of each analysis is clearly shown

Overall understanding

Criteria: an average rating of 80% comprehension for the entire class with at least 20% of the class demonstrating 90% or higher comprehension and ability will indicate satisfactory achievement. Outcome 4.1: Applies and incorporates the principles of Food Science in practical, real-world situations and problems such as those encountered in Product Development. Methods: Student performance on exam essay questions designed to apply food science principles to solve food industry related problems and issues will be used to measure success in achieving this outcome. Questions will be used that will assess application and synthesis of basic concepts to solve problems, data analysis and interpretation skills and creative thinking in the areas of Food Processing, Product Development, Food Analysis and Formulation. 7

Direct Measures: 1. FDSC 3303 Principles of Food Processing: A problem solving question integrating food processing class and laboratory materials will be included in the final exam. 2. FDSC 4114 Food Analysis: A problem solving question related to product reformation, nutritional analysis and labeling will be included in the final exam 3. FDSC 4713 Food Product and Process Development: A problem solving question integrating class and laboratory materials and concepts covered in other food science courses is included in one of the exams (implemented Spring 2013). Rubric I. Identifies key components of the problem 0-25 points

Identifies a viable approach/strategy to solve the problem 0-25 points

Effectively executes the problem solving strategy

Ability to integrate food science principles

0-25 points

0-25 points

Rubric II. Novice Identifies key components of the problem Identifies a viable approach/strategy to solve the problem Effectively executes the problem solving strategy Ability to integrate food science principles

Does not identify key components to analyze the problem correctly Does not identify a practical approach/strategy to solve the problem Has significant problems in executing the problem solving strategy Has significant problems in integrate food science disciplines to solve problems

Intermediate Identifies most of the key issues to be addressed Develops a less than ideal approach/strategy to solve the problem Is effective to some degree in executing the problem solving strategy Is effective to some degree integrate food science disciplines to solve the problem

Expert Accurately identifies all the key issues to be addressed Develops a viable approach/strategy to solve the problem Effectively executes the problem solving strategy Effectively integrate food science disciplines to solve the problem

Criteria: an average rating of 80% performance for the entire class with at least 20% of the class demonstrating 90% or higher performance and ability will indicate satisfactory achievement. Outcome 4.3: Critically evaluate reports/information related to food quantitative analytical skills including the application of statistical principles. Methods: Student performance on laboratory exercise reports and exams will be used to evaluate the achievement of this outcome. Questions will be designed to check student ability for analyzing the data on the basis of statistical principles in the laboratory exercise reports and exams. Direct Measures: A grading rubric will be designed. Sensory Evaluation of Food (FDSC 4413/44101): Laboratory exercise and group project reports will be used to determine that students can analyze and interpret the data obtained in the sensory evaluation of food. In addition, 8

data collected in 2013 will be further expanded in Engineering Principles of Food Processing (FDSC 4754). Criteria: An average rating of 80% comprehension for the entire class with at least one-fifth of the class demonstrating 90% or higher comprehension will indicate satisfactory achievement of this outcome. Outcome 4.4: Understands the basic principles of sensory analysis. Methods: Achievement of this program outcome will be assessed through a group project assigned to groups of 3 students at the beginning of the senior fall semester. Direct Measures: Group Project Report Rubric Example of Group Projects: A LED lamp company hires you to conduct a research project. The company wants to know whether the lighting source in a restaurant can influence consumers’ food perception. Your group is charged with designing a study that would answer this question. As a group, you may decide to conduct a single or a series of experiments. You will then conduct the experiment(s), analyze and interpret the data, and provide robust conclusions. You will be asked to provide an individual A4 12-15 page report and make a 20 min group presentation to the class. The report should be written according to the guideline of the “Journal of Sensory Studies” (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ pdf/JSS_manuscript_style_guide.pdf) Novice Intermediate Advanced Expert (0% to 40%) (60%) (80%) (100% of max points) Statement of • Statement of the • Statement of the • Statement of the • State of the the Problem problem is omitted problem is problem is clearly problem is clearly or inaccurate. described, but not described, but and completely (10-points) clearly articulated. some key details described. are omitted. Experimental Design (10-points)

• The series of methods proposed or employed do not fully and correctly answer the question.

• The series of methods proposed or employed fully, but not correctly answer the question.

• The series of methods proposed or employed fully and correctly answer the question, but may fall a little short.

Use of Methodologies (10-points)

• Most of the methods used are inappropriate and many mistakes are made either in the use of methodology or the implementation of the testing methodology.

• Some of the methods employed are appropriate but some mistakes are made either in the use of methodology or the implementation of the testing methodology.

• Most of the methods used are appropriate and are for the most part well executed. • Some of the methods used may not be the best choice or some minor details of the methodology are incorrectly

9

• The series of methods proposed or employed fully and correctly answer the question and minimize the amount of testing required. • The methods used are what would be recommended by a sensory professional. • The methods are correctly implemented and the students understand the reason why experimental

implemented Data Analysis (20-points)

• Knowledge of statistical techniques is deficient.

• Some knowledge of statistical techniques is evident. • Hypotheses are not necessarily stated or understood. • The analysis of the data is not always correct which might lead to erroneous conclusions. • Results are sufficiently described with appropriate formats for text, Tables, or Figures. • Some results are described incorrectly.

• The correct analysis is performed for a particular type of data. • The analysis employed may not be sophisticated or some mistakes in calculations are made.

Description of Results (10-points)

• Most results are described incorrectly and insufficiently with formats of text, Table, or Figure.

Interpretation of Results (10-points)

• Most interpretation of the data analysis is incorrect or omitted.

• Interpretation of the data analysis is sometimes correct but not always. • In some cases, interpretation of the results is not statically based.

• Interpretation is always statistically based and correct. • The interpretation is somewhat superficial and does not always take into account logical next steps or appropriate recommendations.

Discussion (20-points)

• Discussion on the project, in terms of (a) statement of the problem, (b) experimental design, (c) data analysis, (d) results, and (e) application, is very limited.

• Discussion on the project, in terms of (a) statement of the problem, (b) experimental design, (c) data analysis, (d) results, and (e) application, is tried, but needs in more

• Discussion on the project, in terms of (a) statement of the problem, (b) experimental design, (c) data analysis, (d) results, and (e) application, is mostly complete.

10

• Results are sufficiently described with appropriate formats for text, Tables, or Figures. • Most results are described in a correct manner, but need additional clarification.

procedures are used. • The analysis of the data is correct and some sophisticated methods are employed when appropriate.

• Results are sufficiently described with appropriate formats for text, Tables, or Figures. • The data is presented in such a way that it can be effectively presented to nonsensory scientists. • Interpretation of the data is always correct and the interpretation of the data considers limitations of the methods used, potential experimental problems and logical next steps or recommendations • Discussion on the project, in terms of (a) statement of the problem, (b) experimental design, (c) data analysis, (d) results, and (e) application, is efficiently done.

References (10-points)

• None to 2 out of five aspects are discussed.

details. • Three out of five aspects are discussed

• Four out of five aspects are discussed

• Five out of five aspects are discussed

• Few references related to the project are listed throughout the report. • Most references are not correctly listed according to the requirement.

• Many references related to the project are listed throughout the report. • Many mistakes of format are observed throughout the report.

• Most references related to the project are listed throughout the report. • Most references are correctly listed according to the requirement, but some mistakes are done.

• References related to the project are completely listed throughout the report. • References are correctly listed according to the requirement.

Criteria: At least 80% students in the intermediate, advanced and expert categories with at least 10% in the expert category will indicate satisfactory achievement of this outcome. Outcome 6.1: Demonstrates ability to write clear and concise technical reports and research articles. Methods: Student performance on technical papers and reports in class research activities will be used to measure the achievement of this outcome. Three courses have been chosen for this evaluation. Direct Measures: 1. FDSC 4114 Food Analysis: Students will conduct nutritional analysis of a specific food and will be required to submit a written technical summary that includes a concise description of the problem, methods used for analysis, and the final results. 2. FDSC 4122L Food Microbiology: A lab report based on one food microbiology lab class will be assessed. 3. FDSC 4413 Sensory Evaluation of Food: Based on a group project, each student will submit a 10-12 page (double-spaced) research report that includes an introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and references. The following rubric will be used to assess the various technical reports and research papers:

Identifies a specific topic

Support for specific topic

Novice (60% or below)

Intermediate (80%)

Expert (100%)

Difficult to identify or states the obvious but then provides unclear structure

Topic may be unclear or vague; provides little structure for the paper

Topic is clear, insightful and provides logical and sound structure for the paper

Difficult to identify or understand; conflicting ideas are identified but not seriously considered or integrated into the paper

Support for topic is generally clear and appropriate, but wanders occasionally; conflicting ideas are identified but not seriously considered or integrated into the paper

Support for topic is identifiable, reasonable and sounds; conflicting ideas are seriously considered

11

Thoroughness of research

Organization of writing

Writing: mechanics and style

Failure to support statements through evidence; evidence is poorly analyzed, poorly incorporated or incorrect

Evidence is given in support of most points, but some may be inappropriately placed and gaps in logic may exist

Lacks effective organization of ideas with limited transitions or connections; conclusion is confusing, unrelated to the paper topic or nonexistent

Evident organizational pattern with some lapses; a few unclear transitions may exist between major divisions of the paper; conclusion summarizes points but does not provide closure

Many errors in spelling, grammar, paragraph and sentence structure; unclear and confusing

Intermittent errors; clear but not interesting; wordy and redundant

Every point is supported with a least one example from primary resources. Logical organizational pattern; clearly organized ideas with appropriate transitions between major sections of the paper; conclusions briefly summarize results and provides closure Spelling, grammar, paragraph, and sentence structure are correct; clear, active, interesting

Criteria: An average rating of 80% (intermediate) for the entire class with at least 20% of the class demonstrating 90% or higher comprehension (expert) will indicate satisfactory achievement. Planned Uses for Assessment Results The Food Science Curriculum Assessment Committee and course instructors will analyze results of assessment performed in each of the outcomes presented above on an annual basis. Findings will be used to implement course modifications to continuously improve the quality of student knowledge. Cumulative findings will be used as a key component of the program review cycle. Implementation Schedule The data for the identified direct measures will be collected from the assigned faculty each semester the course is taught. During the first year of implementation, attention will be placed on refining the rubrics and assuring that the assignments selected accurately reflect student actual learning. During the second to fourth years, faculty and student discussions will be held to review the results and determine the specific improvements needed. In the fifth year, faculty, students and alumni will meet to appraise the success of the program and produce recommendations for enhancement during the next program cycle. Assessment Plans for 2014-2016 Our faculty felt that collecting data on 5 of our 23 program outcomes was all we could accomplish within the next 12 months. Our intentions are to develop details of an assessment plan for 5 additional program outcomes within the next 12 months and 4-5 each year thereafter until our assessment plan is complete. However, we will learn a lot in the next 12 months about our ability to collect and analyze data and make curricular changes. Resource: Permission to use this form granted by Lisa Kramer [email protected].

12

APPENDIX G Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports

Not yet developed

In development

Developed

Degree to which outcomes are defined and lend themselves to assessment and student learning

There is little or no evidence that outcomes exist for the course or program

Outcomes exist, but are incomplete or do not address all of the desired outcomes for the course or program; or, student learning outcomes exist, but faculty are unable to assess them

Outcomes exist, and lend themselves to assessment

Degree to which assessments address outcomes

There are little or no assessments used to assess course learning outcomes or program outcomes

Assessments exist, and have been communicated to faculty on a regular basis

Degree to which faculty meaningfully discuss students’ achievement of outcomes and make recommendations to act

Faculty discussions about assessments have not yet occurred on a formal basis, or have only been discussed intermittently and in starts There is no evidence that assessment-based discussions have led to action or to any change

Assessments exist, but have not yet been summarized, aggregated or analyzed for communication to faculty; or, assessments are reported only episodically (not regularly) Faculty discussions about assessments have occurred, but only informally and among a few

There is some evidence that assessment-based discussions have led to action or change; or, there is some evidence that recommendations based on assessment-based discussion have been enacted

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that assessment-based discussions have led to action; or, there is ample evidence demonstrating that recommendations based on assessment-based discussions have been enacted

Degree to which discussed actions are implemented in areas such as instruction, curriculum, course learning objectives, etc.

13

Faculty discussions about assessments directly evaluate student learning outcomes and occur on a regular basis