The University identifies expected outcomes and performance objectives for its academic programs and its administrative support units, assesses achievement of the outcomes and objectives, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results.

Strategies for Identifying and Assessing Outcomes for Educational Programs and Support Services

Assessment at the University is on-going and conducted by both self-assessment and by review by professional agencies. Under the leadership of the University President, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness educates and guides academic and support units in their assessment efforts and coordinates and directs assessment activities. Assessment by administrative and educational support units is designed to improve processes and services, assessment by academic units to improve student learning outcomes. Assessment and evaluation by professional and learned societies ensure that curricula meet the program requirements of these agencies.

The overall assessment process is outlined below:

University of Louisiana (ULS) Strategic Plan

From a global perspective, the University is assessed and evaluated based on legislative mandates with regard to annual budgeting requests, which is the mechanism by which all University units – both support and academic – are funded. The Louisiana Government Performance and Accountability Act (HB 2476 of 1997) mandates performance-based budgeting in the Executive Branch of Louisiana State Government. To be in compliance with Act 1465 of 1997, all state agencies, including the Board of Regents, the Board of Supervisors

As a ULS institution, McNeese is required to identify educational objectives which are in accordance with Louisiana Board of Regents Master Plan for Post Secondary Education: 2001 to justify allocating the state’s resources for higher education. The McNeese State University Strategic Plan (2005-06-2009-10) outlines the University’s goals, objectives, and projections for a ten-year period. The University reports its progress in achieving its strategic planning goals in a quarterly report, which is reviewed by the University of Louisiana System and the Office of Planning and Budget.

McNeese State University supports the goals and objectives specified in the strategic plan, but the driving force behind institutional effectiveness at McNeese is the University’s mission, four core values, and twenty institutional goals. The mission, core values, and goals were developed over time with input from faculty, staff, students, and alumni. Academic, administrative, and support units identify learning outcomes and performance objectives that support the institutional goals and that link to the Five-Year Strategic Plan.

Master Plan/Progress Report

The annual Master Plan/Progress Report documents the planning and assessment processes for all administrative, support, and academic units on campus. The institutional mission and core values form the foundation on which academic learning outcomes and administrative support performance objectives are based. Assessments are conducted annually to demonstrate the following:

• Ways in which a program or unit supports the institutional mission and goals;

• Strategies by which a program or unit accomplishes its own mission;

• Plans for continuous improvement based on assessment of outcomes;

• Modifications to programs or services a result of the assessment.

The Master Plan/Progress Report documents the ways in which the planning and assessment cycle have been integrated into programs and units and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results. The process for global assessment across campus is outlined below.

Levels of Assessment

Assessment is conducted at various levels across the campus. The list below identifies these levels and the documentation required at each level:

• Level I assessment is demonstrated in the Strategic Plan, which meets the requirements set by the ULS system. Level I assessment is conducted through the quarterly LAPAS report submitted to the ULS Board.

• Level II assessment is demonstrated through division-level and college-level master plans and progress reports, the athletics plan, and the internal audit plan. Level II assessment may include enrollment data, retention data, college meeting notes, annual performance reviews, faculty evaluations, and outside constituent surveys.

• Level III assessment is demonstrated in the departmental and administrative support unit master plan/progress reports. Level III assessments may include enrollment information, grade distributions, Student Opinion Survey results, employer surveys, exit interviews, alumni surveys, student focus group feedback, and student interviews.

• Level IV assessment is demonstrated in the academic program plans. Assessment tools for Level IV also include Student Evaluation of Instruction results, Student Opinion Survey results, employer surveys, exit interviews, alumni surveys, student focus group feedback, and student interviews. These data are reflected in master plans/progress reports.

Assessment Oversight

Annual master plans/progress reports are submitted to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness for review and evaluation. The IE Director communicates with persons preparing master plans to clarify expectations and improve the effectiveness of the assessment process. Ultimate responsibility for program and unit plan oversight and evaluation follows:

• Division plans - President

• College or unit plans - Vice President or Chief Information Technology Officer

• Department plans - College Dean

• Program plans - Department Head

Responsibility for tasks that emerge as a result of the Master Plan/Progress Report falls to the individual overseeing a particular program or unit. Such tasks include the following:

• Preparing the plan;

• Tracking the data;

• Warehousing the data;

• Planning for improvement;

• Implementing changes.

Budget implications which may occur as a result of an individual Master Plan/Progress Report are acted on by the division overseeing that program or unit. For example, the Departments of Mathematics and English and Foreign Languages have incorporated mandatory criterion-referenced exams as a part of their assessments of students’ mastery of general education requirements fostered in Math 113: College Algebra and English 102: Freshman Composition. Costs of aggregating data are borne by those units, and budgets are adjusted accordingly.

Master Plan/Progress Report Process

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness is the gatekeeper for all master plan/progress report submissions throughout the various stages of development. Prior to 2005, each academic college and department and each administrative support unit submitted an annual Master Plan/Progress Report. These documents provided appropriate assessment tools for support units and academic programs. Unit-level assessment examines services provided by administrative support units. Program-level assessment evaluates student learning within a specific program and on completion of the program.

Prior to 2005, these plans were reviewed by the IE Office; however, they were not individually assessed by a review committee before approval by the IE Office. In 2005, two significant changes in reporting were instituted. The IE Office began a systematic reorganization of master plan/progress reports across campus. Prior to the reorganization, each unit was given license to develop their master plans/progress reports as it deemed appropriate. Before instituting the new process for reporting, the IE Office conducted informational seminars and workshops across campus to ensure that individuals who collected data and prepared master plans/progress reports understood the new requirements and the changes in the assessment process. The Master Plan/Progress Report reorganization mandated the following improvements:

• A template was created to ensure consistency across programs and units;

• An institutional summary section was included;

• Separate Master Plan/Progress Reports were required for individual programs within each department. Prior to 2005, department reports incorporated program performance indicators in a single department/program report;

• Performance indicators or benchmarks were added to provide a tool by which to judge success;

• Performance objectives were added to administrative support units to ensure that units focused on specific objectives during a designated period;

• Student learning outcomes were added to academic programs to ensure that programs focused on student achievement as a measurable program outcome;

• First-year benchmarks were incorporated in the measured outcome/objective section to allow units to establish their own benchmarks against which future progress would be measured.

In addition to redesigning the master plan/progress report preparation process, the IE Office recommended that a campus committee be developed to evaluate and coordinate master plans and progress reports. To that end, the McNeese Assessment Team (MAT) was established in the Spring 2005. Appointed by the President, committee members represent a wide range of campus constituents. The committee is comprised, at minimum, of one representative from each college, several administrative unit representatives, and the Director of Institutional Research. At its inception, the MAT was charged with the following responsibilities: “The responsibility of the McNeese Assessment Team is to assist academic and non-academic units in understanding the concept of assessment, incorporating assessment methodologies into learning outcomes and objectives, and planning for continuous improvement. The MAT will be responsible for reviewing and evaluating individual Master Plans/Progress Reports as well as other processes to ensure that assessment and continuous improvement are key components of the unit” (Letter of Appointment from the President, March 10, 2005).

In order to ensure that unit plans are evaluated in a systematic and timely way, the IE Office, in conjunction with the MAT, has developed a five-year assessment cycle. The MAT is divided into three teams. Each team is charged with reviewing and evaluating approximately ten plans per year. The rotation cycle allows for the review of all Master Plan/Progress Reports within a five-year period. The team reviews the program or unit plans to determine the following:

• Does the unit mission support the University mission and link to institutional goals?

• Are learning outcomes and performance objectives clarified?

• Are assessment methods appropriate?

• Have performance indicators been identified?

• Are outcomes and objectives quantifiably measure?

• Are plans for continuous improvement specified? .

Scores are derived from a rubric which is designed to provide feedback to each unit and establish a baseline for future assessment. When a department or unit plan is identified as one which needs improvement, the IE Director and/or a MAT member meet(s) with individuals responsible for preparing the master plan/progress report and they collaboratively work to revise the plans. The IE Office submits an annual report to the University President summarizing MAT findings and IE efforts to ensure continuous improvement.

Academic Program Review

The University maintains the highest academic program quality possible and ensures that each program achieves its stated objectives and student learning outcomes through its process for academic program review. Annual Master Plan/Progress Reports ensure that student learning outcomes are being achieved, documented, and reported. In addition to the annual program

• External program review by learned societies and professional agencies. • Periodic self-evaluation and review according to MSU policy.

Periodic self-evaluation can be effected in the following ways:

• Non-accredited undergraduate programs use accreditation criteria outlined by an appropriate accrediting agency. For example, foreign language programs evaluate their curricula using American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) standards.

• Non-accredited undergraduate programs for which no accrediting agency exists use the MSU Undergraduate Academic Program Self-Evaluation format beginning in the 2006-07 academic year. Faculty members develop a program review and submit to faculty from other institutions or experts in the field for review.

• Non-accredited graduate programs began program self-evaluation according to criteria developed by the Graduate Council during 2006-07 academic year.

Undergraduate and graduate academic program coordinators are responsible for program development, program review and evaluation, including identifying appropriate external reviewers.

General Education Assessment

The Louisiana Board of Regents directed a comprehensive study of undergraduate education in 1984 and engaged a Statewide Task Force on General Education and an out-of-state Review Committee to study and make recommendations on General Education requirements. The Board approved a policy on Statewide General Education Requirements at its April 26, 2001, meeting. The policy regarding statewide general education requirements specifies that undergraduate program completers demonstrate master of the following competencies:

• Communicate effectively in oral and written English;

• Read with comprehension;

• Reason abstractly and think critically;

• Understand numerical data and statistics;

• Understand the scientific method;

• Be familiar with key technological and informational applications;

• Learn independently;

• Recognize and appreciate cultural diversity;

• Understand the nature and value of the fine and performing arts;

• Develop a personal value system while retaining a tolerance for others;

• Understand the American political and economic system.

The Louisiana Board of Regents directed each institution to employ appropriate testing procedures to measure the effectiveness of its general education program. In October 2002, the University Vice President of Academic Affairs created a task force to examine general education core competencies and the University’s plan for measuring them. The task force duties were as follows:

• Review the general education requirements to develop a list of courses that met the Regents’ mandate;

• Ensure that all goals were covered by at least one of the courses in each degree plan;

• Ensure that content of the courses actually met goals.

The task force was also asked to examine the purposes of mid-point assessment currently in place. The University identifies purposes of its Midpoint Assessment of Academic Performance (MAAP) as follows:

• Measure educational development of students in core academic areas after the completion of the general education curriculum;

• Determine the readiness of students for beginning junior-level course work;

• Identify weaknesses and strengths of the general education curriculum at McNeese State University for use in decision making regarding the general education core;

• Provide students soon after the mid-point of their college career with concrete information on which to base their decisions regarding careers and educational goals. (University Catalog, 59)

All students enrolled in a four-year degree program must take the MAAP when they have earned between 48-80 credit hours. Students who have earned 80 semester hours without completing the assessment exam are not allowed to enroll in 300/400 level courses. The MAAP is administered each fall and spring semester through the testing office. Information regarding testing dates, times, and places is published on the University website and in the fall and spring class schedules.

After careful consideration of its charge to examine the mid-point assessment process, the task force made the following observations on October 8, 2003, in its report to the Vice President of Academic Affairs:

• The exam scores on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) should not be used as a tool to measure individual student performance, but as a tool to measure the performance of the aggregate student population because (a) the exam does not incorporate all of the state-mandated competencies; and (b) because many students take the CAAP before they have completed their general education requirements.

• Lack of student motivation to perform well on the CAAP results in scores that do not adequately reflect student competencies. Students are not motivated to succeed on the CAAP for several reasons: (a) scores do not affect grade point averages; (b) scores are not placed on the permanent record; (c) there is no cutoff score for pass or fail.

• Despite its shortcomings, CAAP was determined the best tool to provide comprehensive institutional reports because (a) it shows internal comparisons and user norms; (b) provides individual student reports; and (c) is affordable.

• The CAAP should continue as the tool used to assess general education competencies.

In its efforts to ensure that general education assessment is continuous, in 2005, the University reorganized the general education task force into the Council for General Education Assessment. This group is charged with periodic review of the following:

• Courses which satisfy general education competencies;

• Pass rates;

• Withdrawal rates;

• Annual review of standardized test results.

Because of exigent circumstances brought about by the severe impact on the campus by Hurricane Rita, the Council for General Education Assessment was unable to address General Education issues to any great degree in the Fall 2005. Resuming its important work during the Spring 2006, the Council has completed the following tasks:

• Revised the mission statement for general education;

• Recast the Board of Regents competencies in terms of student learning outcomes;

• Codified the current assessment methods;

• Defined outcomes measures.

The revised mission statement follows:

General Education at McNeese State University provides a broad-based liberal educational experience and incorporates the goals of the Statewide General Education Requirements as established by the Board of Regents in an effort to ensure that all graduates have attained the appropriate competencies. (Revised April 11, 2006)

The Council has carefully reviewed general education assessment tools and recommended the ETS Academic Profile-Standard Form (AP-SF) as the University’s mid-point assessment tool. The AP-SF tests a broader range of competencies than its predecessor, includes a writing competency component, and can be administered electronically, an option which not only simplifies the administration of the exam, but also provides a more rapid feedback than the traditional paper/pencil format.

Assessment Training

In-house training has been conducted regularly since Spring 2005 by the IE Office. Workshops attended by deans, department heads, program coordinators, unit supervisors, and staff have provided an overview of the SACS reaffirmation project, the change from the former SACS criteria to the new Principles of Accreditation, the QEP, and the assessment process. Workshops include PowerPoint presentations, handouts, and discussions to share ideas and methodologies for conducting assessment and for implementing assessment results into programs and services.

In 2005, the IE Office, with assistance from the MAT, prepared a handbook for assessment. The 2005-06 Assessment Handbook is based on best practices in higher education and draws from the experiences the MAT members have had in working with outside accrediting agencies. The 2005-06 Assessment Handbook is posted on the MSU website. University constituents were notified by campus ListServe of its availability.

In addition to periodic and ongoing training in assessment, the University has benefited from outside consultants in an effort to improve institutional effectiveness and assessment strategies. The list below reflects the efforts made to improve assessment through the use of outside consultants:

• September 2004: Deans, department heads, program coordinators, and unit supervisors met with a consultant to address incorporation of student learning outcomes and performance objectives into the annual master plan/progress report. Academic units also addressed the incorporation of student learning outcomes into curricula and syllabi.

• March 2006: A follow-up consult reviewed progress on issues addressed in September 2004 training sessions.

• Spring 2006: Burton College of Education sponsored a workshop presented by an outside consultant on course-embedded assessment. Faculty and members of the MAT participated.

• Fall 2006: Deans, department heads, program coordinators, executive staff, and other key personnel will participate in a two-day workshop in an effort to align institutional goals and strategies with the Quality Enhancement Plan.

Student Opinion Survey

The University first administered the ACT Student Opinion Survey (SOS) in 1999 through funding provided by the Louisiana Board of Regents. The survey was administered by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness on an annual basis during the spring semesters and continued through the year 2005. Due to Hurricane Rita in September 2005, the Board of Regents discontinued funding. Funding has been reinstated and the survey will be conducted during the Fall 2006 semester.

The SOS questions explore current students’ satisfaction with programs, services, and other aspects of their college experience and compare results with national norms. McNeese added twenty questions to the survey to ascertain attitudes toward advising and technology. Survey results are disseminated by the Institutional Research Office (IR) at the Academic Advisory Council meetings and beginning in 2006 via the IR website. Academic programs and administrative support units use survey results to determine their effectiveness and reflect survey results in their annual master plans/progress reports.

Illustration of Program Review and Analysis in Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies

The 2006 Master Plan/Progress Report submitted by the Department of History for its Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Studies indicates how the review and reflection process yields important information that can lead to program and/or course review. The complete document is attached as a supporting document (2006 Master Plan/Progress Report, 498-502)

The program identifies its mission and its connection to the University mission as follows (passages excerpted from Master Plan/Progress Report):

Academic Program Mission or Purpose:

The Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies provides graduates with a background that emphasizes history and other disciplines in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. The knowledge and skills our graduates learn as students will benefit them as they pursue graduate or professional degrees, employment, and lives as citizens in the communities in which they live.

Institutional Mission Reference:

The Liberal Studies Program supports the university’s mission by:

• Providing a baccalaureate curriculum distinguished by academic excellence.

• Promoting major success.

• Promoting university-community linkages.

• Cultivating skills necessary for critical thinking and effective expression.

• Gaining an understanding of the multicultural global community.

• Developing values of livelong learning, ethical responsibility and civic engagement.

In order to achieve these goals, the program identifies the following outcomes:

• Outcome #1: Graduates will develop competence across a broad spectrum of history courses as well as a wider range of courses from the arts, humanities, and social sciences and will develop an appreciation for the diversity of values and experiences in human history.

• Outcome #2: Graduates will be able to demonstrate skills in critical and analytical thinking, oral presentation, and evaluation of historical literature. Graduates will also be able to demonstrate an ability to apply historical methods through appropriate historical writing and citation.

Assessment tools for these program learning outcomes include course grades, pass rates, admission scores on graduate school entrance examinations, and a student exit survey. Based on the aggregation of these data, the program coordinator noted the following plans for continuous improvement:

Outcome #1:

1. Consider revising the curriculum to require both HIST 101 and 102, plus two upper division (300-400) history electives. This will better prepare majors for the capstone HIST 410 course. The two graduates who earned Ds in HIST 410 had taken no upper level history classes; six of seven others who earned C or better had taken two or more upper level classes and one had taken one class.

2. As one way to move toward eliminating grades as an assessment tool, prepare a departmental norm examination including American history and European history to be administered in the capstone HIST 410 course, and/or use embedded questions on exams in these courses. Evaluate graduate results over a two year period to establish performance indicators.

3. Continue to encourage majors to consider additional international and diversity courses as a way to increase their knowledge and understanding of the wider world.

4. Select and evaluate relevant items from the newly revised History Department Exit Survey.

5. Monitor graduates who have taken the GRE and been admitted to graduate school by way of the new History Department Graduate Exit Interview Form. Note which courses they said were most helpful on the exam and which areas were those where they felt they had little or no background. If warranted, consider changing the curriculum to incorporate one or more courses in these areas and/or recommend these courses to those planning to attend graduate school. Encourage majors who plan to attend law school to follow curriculum recommendations in the Catalog under “Preparation for Law School” as a way to prepare for the LSAT and law school. Note on the new History Department Graduate Exit Interview Form those courses they found helpful on the LSAT and the areas where they felt they had little or no background.

Outcome #2

1. Consider revising the rubrics/objectives for HUMN 201 projects to provide more useful data so that this course can be used as an additional assessment tool.

2. Consider revising the rubrics/objectives for HIST 410 projects to provide more useful data.

3. Review the degree plans of this year’s graduates to see what courses more successful students may have in common and if these courses are absent from the degree plans of those students who were less successful. For instance, two students earned a D in HIST 410 and neither had taken any upper level history classes, whereas all the other students had. Consider revising the curriculum to add one or more upper level history electives to the requirements.

4. Select and evaluate relevant items from the newly revised History Department Exit Survey. Develop performance indicators for these items.

5. Using the new History Department Graduate Exit Interview Form, evaluate graduate input concerning those courses that they found helpful on the GRE or LSAT and those areas where they felt they lacked adequate background. Use this information to make recommendations to future majors and to consider curriculum changes.

The program has established clear goals, identified multiple assessment tools, gathered and analyzed data, and determined what kinds of changes are necessary in order to improve and facilitate student performance on the program’s identified outcomes.

Program Accreditation

Professional accreditation is a means by which the University ensures that academic programs identify outcomes, assess them, and make improvements based on analysis of their results. McNeese has a long-standing record of achievement in national accreditation of its academic programs as detailed on the Five-Year Assessment Cycle. The list that follows identifies the outside agencies which have accredited or approved McNeese academic programs:

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) – Engineering Accreditation Commission;

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) – Computing Accreditation Commission;

• Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) – Technology Accreditation Commission;

• American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB);

• American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS);

• American Chemical Society (ACS).

• Commission on Accreditation/Approval for Dietetics Education (CADE);

• Computer Science Accreditation Board (CAC);

• Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JCERT);

• National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS);

• National Association of Schools of Music (NASM);

• National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE);

• National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC);

Other agencies that have approved or certified programs include the following:

• American Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance/National Association for Sport and Physical Education

• Association for Childhood Education International

• Council for Exceptional Children

• International Society for Technology Education

• Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

• Louisiana State Board of Nursing

• National Association for the Education of Young Children

• National Collegiate Athletic Association/Athletics Program Certification (NCAA)

• National Council for the Social Studies

• National Council of Teachers of English

• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

• National Science Teachers Association

• Organization of American Kodály Educators

The following program will seek accreditation from its appropriate accrediting agency in the near future:

• Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC).

Evidence of Improvement Based on Analysis of Assessment Data

Improvement to services and academic programs is an on-going process reflected by some of the examples listed below:

• Revision of the process for preparing master plans/progress reports. As a result of review by MAT of master plans/progress reports, individual support and academic units gained a clearer understanding of the data collection and reporting processes. A significant portion of the 2006/07 Master Plans/Progress Reports reflect this new understanding. One hundred-percent of master plans/progress reports now include objectives and student learning outcomes, measures for assessing outcomes, and in many cases, units have already collected data which illustrate measured outcomes; others identify benchmark year data.

• Inception of the McNeese Assessment Team. The development of a campus review team for master plan/progress report preparation will normalize plans across campus, increase units abilities to collect, aggregate, and analyze data, and meet obligations of outside and internal compliance agencies or processes.

• Development of Internal Program Review Process.

Supporting Evidence

McNeese MAT Website

BA Liberal Arts Master Plan

ACT 1465 OF 1997

2001 Master Plan for Post-Secondary Education

University Louisiana System (ULS) Strategic Plan FY 2005-06 to FY 2009-10

McNeese State University (MSU) Strategic Plan FY 2005-06 to FY 2009-10

LAPAS Report-Fiscal Year 2005

LAPAS Report-Fiscal Year 2006

2006 Institutional Summary and Master Plan/Progress Report

2005 Institutional Summary and Master Plan/Progress Report

2004 Master Plan/Progress Report

2003 Master Plan/Progress Report

Assessment Planning Model

Sample of Master Plan Assessment and Use of Results

Master Plan Template Comparison

McNeese Assessment Team

Academic Program Review

Assessment Cycle Five-year Plan Program Unit

2006 Assessment Schedule

APR Evaluation

Graduate Program Standards

General Education Task Force

Board of Regents Policy on Statewide General Education Requirements

Board of Regents Minutes April 26, 2001

Louisiana General Education Matrix

MSU MAAP Registration Information:

ACT CAAP:

ACT MAAP:

ETS Academic Profile

ETS Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAAP):

Assessment Handbook

Assessment Training

2005 Training Schedule

2006 Training Schedule

Student Opinion Survey

Accreditation Status Report

Program Coordinators

List of Degree Completers

Grade Distribution of Select General Education Courses

Board of Regents General Education Requirements