AQIP Action Projects

Action Project Directory created in 2002

An overt commitment to continuous improvement

At least three active action projects Each Action Project is related to one

of the AQIP categories

Initiating an Action Project• Why is it a priority?• How will units and people be

involved?• What changes/improvements do you

hope will result? • How long will it take?• How will you monitor progress?• What will success look like?

Outcome measures

Annual Action Project Updates What was accomplished in the past

year? How were people involved? What are the next steps? What effective practices emerged? What are the challenges?

Receive feedback from a reviewer

UW-Stout’s Current Projects Prepare students for a global society

and workforce (2007) Prepare students to be ethical

leaders (2009) Updating UW-Stout’s mission, vision

and values (2009)

UW-Stout’s Retired Projects• Assessment of student learning and E-scholar program (2002)

• Improving graduate education (2002)• Leadership development (2002)• Expanding and updating the academic

program array (2005)• First year experience (2005)• Improving the effectiveness of internal

communication (2007)• Polytechnic initiative (2007)• Reaching new markets through online and

hybrid courses and programs (2007)

University Priorities for 2009 Enrollment Management Experiential Learning Sustainability Diversity

AQIP’s database searchable by:

Institution State Title AQIP Category

http://www.aqip.org/

AQIP Web Site

Planning and Review CommitteePRC

A Faculty Senate standing committee Reviews academic programs

approximately every 7 years Acts upon program status reports Reviews new program proposals –

Entitlement to Plan

PRC Program Review Process• Survey students, faculty and program committee

• Program Director Self Study and presentation

• Consultant Report• Dean’s Response• Recommendations forwarded to Faculty

Senate • Recommendations reported to UW

System annually

Assessment in the Major

An annual assessment of student learning outcomes related to program objectives

Submitted by the program director to the Provost’s Office

Systematic effort and progress on improving student learning outcomes

Direct Measures

Standardized tests/exams Locally developed tests Course-embedded

assessments Capstone projects Papers, essays Portfolios and e-portfolios

Indirect Measures

Graduation rates Placement rates Student , alumni and

employer follow-up surveys Exit interviews ACT scores

General Education Assessment Assessment of student learning

outcomes related to general education objectives

ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Five tests

writing skills mathematics reading critical thinking science reasoning

Critical Thinking - 2009

Exam taken by 100 juniors and seniors

Not statistically different than national average

Not statistically different than 2006

On the horizon

A possible switch from CAAP to ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)

GE Senior Level Assessment Also know as GESLA Survey sent to half the seniors (90+

credits) Response rate 32% (202 students)

GESLA Results 2008

Category Averages

3.15

3.21

3.27

3.28

3.31

3.31

3.37

3.47

3.52

1 2 3 4 5

Health and Physical Education

Humanities and the Arts

Analytic Reasoning

Listen Effectively

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Write Effectively

Speak Present Ideas Effectively

Natural Sciences

Technology

1=lowest possible rating 5=highest possible rating

Course-embedded Assessment• Annual assessment at the course level– Single course sections and multiple course

sections

• Assessment methods: – Quizzes, exams, projects, reports– Looking for direct assessment

• Submitted to the Provost’s Office• Reviewed by the GE assessment

subcommittee

GE assessment form

1. General Education category2. General Education objectives3. Methodology4. Results5. Reflection

Improvements to instrument and methodology

Refining the course and improving student learning

Educational Support Unit Review Committee

• Examine units in relation to the following criteria: – centrality to UW-Stout’s mission – demand or need for services – quality of services

• Explore unit response to a continuously changing environment by: – Identifying and reviewing rationale for new projects,

services or initiatives since the last review. – Identifying discontinued services or initiatives since the

last review.

• Foster increased communication and understanding within the unit being reviewed.

ESURC Process

• Survey stakeholders• Self-study and presentation• ESURC Report and presentation• Unit’s Response• Presented to CAC• New in 2008 – Annual Reports

ESURC Reports