Winona State University

Office of Assessment

1995 NCA Assessment Plan:
Phase Three Activities

1995-2000

Phase Three Activities (1995-2000) will include the following:

• Analysis and refinement of university level indicators -- (ongoing, as data becomes available)

Office of Institutional Research; Long Range Planning and Assessment Committee

• Identification of critical process indicators -- (by 1997)

Office of Institutional Research; Long Range Planning and Assessment

Committee

• Modification of Quality Process Model based upon critical indicator analysis

(ongoing, as data becomes available)

Office of Institutional Research; Long Range Planning and Assessment Committee

• Continue development of department level assessment plans (all departments

actively engaged by June, 1997).

• Support department level data collection

(ongoing)

Administration, Office of Institutional Research, Quality Coordinator

• Analysis and revision of department level indicators

(ongoing)

• Identify an official coordinator of assessment activities and a systematic plan for coordinating university assessment efforts.

(by 1996)

• Establish university-wide guidelines which will assist departments in aligning department level indicators to university mission, goals, and Quality Process Model.

(by December, 1996)

Long Range Planning and Assessment, Assessment Coordinator

While Winona State has completed the first two phases of the assessment plan, there is still much that needs to be accomplished. The three major foci of phase three will be (1) to refine the university level indicator base by identifying the critical indicators, (2) have the remaining academic and nonacademic departments begin the development of their own assessment plans and (3) coordinate the university-level and department level assessment activities.

Evaluative Criteria 3: How does the plan demonstrate the likelihood that the assessment program will lead to institutional improvement when it is implemented?

During the next three years data collection and analysis on the 250 indicators from the Quality Assurance and Assessment Plan will continue. As data is gathered and analyzed, some indicators will emerge as more useful and valid than others. Based on continuing analysis and discussion of the results, the university level data base will continue to be refined. As critical indicators and key elements of baseline data are more clearly defined, benchmarks will be established for these data elements. Based on this set of critical indicator results, processes will be studied and improved. By the year 2000, it is hoped that a reliable and valid set of all university indicators will be in place and benchmarks will be established. Such a set of baseline indicators and quality benchmarks will enable the university to continue to improve and insure that a high quality education is available to its students well into the 21st century.

At the present time, thirty three academic and nonacademic programs, departments and units are actively engaged in the development of department level goals and indicators. All departments will be engaged in this process by June, 1997. In order to assist departments that have not yet started the process those departments that are already working on assessment plans will be paired in mentoring relationships with those who are new to assessment. It is critical, at this juncture, that we capitalize on existing knowledge and progress so that each individual area or unit is not put in the position of 'reinventing' assessment. The mentoring relationships will help reduce some of the unnecessary duplication of effort, as will continuing to sponsor workshops and mini-conferences focusing on assessment related topics. Attendance at assessment related conferences will continue to be encouraged.

Evaluative Criteria 4: Is the time line for assessment program appropriate and realistic?

Winona State University views assessment as an ongoing process--employing the principles of continuous improvement. Our experience over the past six years would lead us to believe that our timelines are both appropriate and reasonable to our goal of having a comprehensive, completely integrated and fully operational assessment program in place by the year 2000.

Evaluative Criteria 5: Does the plan provide for appropriate administration of the assessment program

To this point, administration of the assessment program has been divided between the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Office of Institutional research, and two faculty who have been given release time to work on assessment related activities. During phase three, a more centralized approach will be needed and the administration of the program will have to be addressed more carefully. An Assessment Coordinator will have to be appointed to facilitate and document the activities and impact of both the university level and department level assessment efforts. Specifically, this position will be responsible for acting as a resource to academic and nonacademic units in all phases of their assessment process, developing a resource center of assessment related material, monitoring the assessment program in light of the university's principles and guidelines for assessment, serving on university committees charged with assessment-related issues, and reporting the progress on the assessment plans to both internal and external audiences.