Full-time/part time status IRPE Departmental profile Visiting Departmental Records Tenure status IRPE Departmental profile Graduate faculty status Graduate School 2. Average age by rank IRPE Departmental profile (Program Review Data Elements and Sources for Self-Study, continued) Data Element Data Source Faculty Profile 1. Headcount by: Gender IRPE Departmental profile Ethnicity IRPE Departmental profile Full-time/part time status IRPE Departmental profile Visiting Departmental Records Tenure status IRPE Departmental profile Graduate faculty status Graduate School 2. Average age by rank IRPE Departmental profile 3. Average salary by rank IRPE Departmental profile 4. Number of new faculty hired Departmental Records 5. Number of faculty departures Departmental Records 6. History of use of GTAs as classroom instructors Headcount in Dept. Profile; list of classes taught in Faculty Workload Summary 7. Teaching load credit history Faculty Workload Reports 8. Results of student evaluations Departmental Records 9. Number of doctoral program core faculty in the prior year 18 Characteristics Report 10. Doctoral program core faculty publications: Three-year average of the number of discipline-related refereed papers/publications, books/book chapters, juried creative/performance accomplishments, and notices of discoveries file/patents issued per core faculty member 18 Characteristics Report 11. Doctoral program core faculty teaching load: Total number of semester credit hours in organized teaching courses taught per academic year by core faculty divided by the number of core faculty 18 Characteristics Report for doctoral programs only 12. Faculty Diversity: Core faculty by ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Other) and gender 18 Characteristics Report for doctoral programs only 13. Doctoral program core faculty external grants: Three-year average of the number of core faculty receiving external funds, average external funds per faculty, and total external funds per program 18 Characteristics Report -- doctoral programs only
Intended Student Learning Outcome Method of Assessment Criterion for Success Results of Assessment (Achieved; Partially achieved; Unachieved) Sample 1: Graduates of the Latin Language minor option will demonstrate their ability to analyze the grammatical construction of unedited Classical Latin. A test that includes the identification and grammatical explanation of Latin words and constructions in context. A successful outcome will be 80% of Latin Language minors successfully identifying and explaining seven of ten grammatical items. Unachieved Sample 2: Students completing the B.S program in Architecture will be able to explain and diagram the parti – the organizing thought or decision that informs the design and choice of approach – for the project. Final senior studio project assessed by rubric (Research and Analysis section) The School of Architecture intends that 70% of the students completing the B.S. program in Architecture will have received assessments of very good or exceptional for the research and analysis criteria. Achieved Sample 3: Students will be able to effectively communicate his/her role and purpose clearly in an interview, group, organization and/or community meeting. Students were assessed by their field instructors during their final evaluation using the eight items in the section "Student will learn and be able to demonstrate effective communication skills." This item was assessed using a five point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 1 "Does not meet expectations" to 5 "Greatly exceeds expectation." At least 85% of students were to be rated at a level 3 or higher. Partially achieved Please note the above examples are for demonstration purposes only and do not reflect actual results of assessment. Once the above information is summarized or listed in a table, describe what the results of the assessment mean to their respective program(s). Consider the following questions: For outcomes that were not achieved or partially achieved, what was faculty consensus on what that meant about student knowledge, skill or ability in that particular area? What changes were made based on the results of assessment information? Were the unachieved or partially achieved outcomes reassessed after changes were implemented? If so, what were the findings from the re-assessment? Did student learning improve? For outcomes that were achieved, were the results expected or a surprise? Were faculty pleased with students’ level of performance for achieved outcomes or would they prefer to see the criterion of success increased for the particular outcome(s)? Did the assessments reveal any issues with assessment methodology? If so, what changes were made to improve methodology?