I. The Charge

Foundational to our commitment to quality is a responsibility to measure the outcomes of the Seattle Pacific University educational experience. Continual self-assessment and self-improvement are the keys to assuring that we provide education that is financially viable, cost effective, and of the highest possible quality in the critical areas of academic content and character and Christian formation. Therefore, the goals of assessment at Seattle Pacific are simply to improve and ensure the quality of our work and to provide a richer experience for each entering class of students. Assessing student satisfaction of their educational experience will enable us to better understand how to provide educational programs that will attract and retain students as well as foster learning. Learning outcomes are assessed to gauge the effectiveness and integrity of our educational objectives in the formation of Christian character. Other goals include University-wide collaboration in both collecting and reporting data.

Additionally, many universities are implementing outcomes assessment activities in response to pressures from legislatures, accrediting bodies, and students for validation of the quality of the educational programs and clearer signals about the value they add to students and society. The recent NASC review requires us to implement an outcomes assessment process in order to maintain our regional accreditation. Thus, given the importance of outcomes measurement, an Outcomes Coordinating Committee should be created that will report to the Office of the Provost. The committee will serve as an oversight body that coordinates all assessment efforts on campus, gathers data from all available University sources, synthesizes that data, recommends new approaches to measurement, and presents reports and recommendations. Responsibility for acting on assessment results rests with the VP’s, directors, deans, and various committees (Ex., UPEC, GPEC, and AARC). The committee should reflect a broad range of faculty, staff and program managers with interest and expertise in assessment.

II. Proposed budget

Proper funding will be important for the committee to function. Consolidating existing survey budgets under this committee may be one way to establish its coordinating and approving role. Additional items include:

1. Common Curriculum study: $2000/year for two years;
2. Campus public relations activities; i.e., meetings, publications: $1000;
3. Books, surveys, materials: $1000;
4. Travel to assessment meetings: $3000 (to be used by committee);
5. Consultations: $1000; and
6. Internal research and record keeping--student labor etc: $1000.

III. Outcomes Taxonomy and Assessment Strategy

As a community of learners, Seattle Pacific University seeks to educate and prepare students for service and leadership. We are committed to evangelical Christian faith and values, and to excellence in teaching and scholarship for the intellectual, personal and spiritual growth of students. Both, undergraduate and graduate education at Seattle Pacific aim to educate students whose lives exhibit wisdom, competence and Christian character. While participating in the tradition of liberal learning and professional education, we understand that all learning flows from and is motivated by love: God’s love for humankind and creation and human love for God. This is the distinctive that sets SPU apart from other universities. Recognizing that not all students who attend the university are professedly Christian, the objectives of higher education motivated by love of God, include objectives that are informational, formational, and transformational. Therefore, although it is useful to provide lists of outcomes that describe attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills, we recognize that all outcomes are interrelated, generated by the desire to increase our love for God. In this understanding, our learning becomes the medium through which we are enabled to manifest our love for our neighbor, our self, and creation. The outcomes to which we aspire include (see Appendix A):

Love of God
-Continuous growth toward a mature Christian faith
-Increasing ability to make life decisions informed by faith
-Increasing intellectual, moral, and spiritual discernment

Love of Neighbor
-Increasing commitment to community service, leadership and civic responsibility
-Ability to relate and respond to human diversity
-Ability to develop and maintain commitments
-Increasing commitment to grace and justice

Love of Self
-Development of a mature self-understanding
-Development of a meaningful life purpose and vocation
-Development of personal integrity and self-discipline
-Ability to take initiative—to set and meet goals
-Ability to take responsibility for physical and emotional well-being

Love of Creation
-Cultivation of a global and historical perspective
-Commitment to the health of the environment
-Ability to respond to change—social, personal, environmental
-Ability to appreciate, analyze and discern aesthetic values

Love of Learning, Wisdom and Truth
-Ability to use a breadth and depth of knowledge in the liberal arts and sciences and professional disciplines.

Learning Abilities
-Ability to think creatively and critically—analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and apply
-Ability to learn and work collaboratively
-Ability to access, understand and critically evaluate information sources and technology
-Ability to communicate with versatility in written and oral forms
-Ability to reason quantitatively—investigate, define problems, select methodology, collect data, interpret and apply findings

IV. Proposed Strategy for Assessing Outcomes (see Appendix B)

This proposal attempts to organize a comprehensive approach to assessing satisfaction with the educational experience. It does not propose changes to the current course-based assessment of student achievement of learning outcomes, nor does it address the assessment of other University objectives regarding faculty qualifications, faculty instructional performance, scholarship, service, enrollment or University operations. Thus, it is only a component of a more inclusive assessment schema, especially strategies for assessing student achievement of learning outcomes that still need to be developed. Nonetheless, it should make substantial contribution to the current plans of UPEC and GPEC to implement periodic program reviews.

The attached exhibit presents an overview of how outcomes might conceivably be assessed, the University’s stakeholders whose input needs to be considered, data collection tools to be used, and those in the University who will be responsible for responding to the results produced by the assessment process.

The strategy, which should be phased in over the next two-three years, calls for systematically gathering input from the various stakeholders about the educational program. This input will be used to assess our effectiveness. The results will be distributed to the university community and used for developing action plans to improve the quality of the educational programs and university services. The information will also serve as evidence of our commitment to quality to prospective students, faculty, and external reviewers (NASC, et al.).

Methodology

Outcomes data of various kinds are important to the ongoing efforts of the university processes and operations concerned with student recruitment, student services, student success and persistence to graduation, alumni relations, and institutional advancement. Multiple methodologies will need to be employed including cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of both quantitative and qualitative data. Much of the assessment data will be collected through surveys (both SPU surveys as well as nationally normed instruments such as UCLA, PACE, & CCCU surveys). Given the limitations of survey data, qualitative methods (such as interviews, focus groups, writing samples, student portfolio’s, etc.) will also be utilized, particularly to measure more abstract outcomes related to such items as character development or spiritual discernment.

Data Collection Processes

Many assessment surveys are already conducted by different parts of the University. The following is a synopsis of tools needing to be revised or developed:

Entry Survey
New survey of incoming student (freshman and transfers) expectations and self-assessment of competency re: educational objectives conducted in new University Seminar courses for freshman and at Premier for transfers. (OA Team, Student Success Strategies Team, and Dir. FR Year devise this instrument.)

Student Experience Survey (Formerly, Student Life Survey)
Remove educational outcome items and continue current survey process. Survey the whole student population (undergraduate and graduate) except those receiving the Exit survey (see below). (OA Team devises this instrument with input from OCL and Directors.)

Sophomore Survey
New survey. Assesses common learning (CORE) program.

Senior Survey (exit survey)
Student Satisfaction Survey plus modules on common learning objectives, other educational objectives, and job placement. Preferably administered in capstone courses. (OA Team devises this instrument with input from the academic units.)

Alumni Survey
SPU Bachelor’s Degree Recipient Study is re-titled to be an Alumni Survey sent 1yr post graduation for all graduates and repeated 5yrs post graduation (10 yrs post graduation may be advisable). Repeats exit survey content and updates placement/further education information. Other Development and alumni solicitations and data base updates are coordinated with this effort.

Focus Groups
Structured group interviews conducted by any office or academic unit for special information gathering needs. Many offices already use this methodology. Broader use is recommended. Some training may be required.

Parent Survey
New survey. This is a sampling of the parents of new, continuing and just exiting undergraduate students. (OA Team, Enrollment, OCL, and OIR devise this instrument.)

Faculty/Staff Survey
New survey. Annual faculty survey done in Spring. Includes outcome achievement and student quality perceptions, faculty morale, and other specific concerns. (Provost, OA Team and Faculty Council devise this instrument.)

Employer/Recruiter/Internship Survey
New survey of employers. New focus group with recruiters at Career Fair or similar events and follow-up survey. Revise intern evaluation form used by CDC. (OA Team and CDC devise this instrument.)

Standardized Tests
Use of standardized disciplinary tests from ETS and other sources to measure knowledge, problem solving, skills, etc. is possible, but is probably too prescriptive and is not recommended for implementation. Rather, reliance upon the assessment of student performance in courses will continue. This recommendation relies upon program review and other processes to assure that the learning outcomes become infused into courses and that meaningful performance assessment occurs. Further development of this assessment aspect is needed. Tracking of average scores of our graduates on graduate admission tests (GRE, GMAT, LSAT, MCAT, etc.) should be done.

Student Portfolio
This will require longitudinally gathering student work samples in the common learning curriculum. Copies of their papers in freshman, sophomore, junior seminars and their capstone courses would be a start. These could be collected into CD-ROM format or on ZIP drives. Portfolios present a special problem in data collection and in summary assessment. This element should be implement-ed after most of the other, more easily implemented elements are in place.

Admit Survey
This survey of admitted students should continue as is. It is not part of the educational plan assessment since it addresses marketing concerns for offices reporting to the VP for University Relations (Dean of Enrollment, Student Success Strategies Team).

Program Review
Periodic program review is underway by UPEC and GPEC.

Persistence & Graduation Rates
Currently monitored by AARC and the VP for University Relations. Results to be integrated with outcome assessment summary reports.

V. Outcome Assessment Implementation Timeline

Components of the assessment strategy already exist and can be brought into a more comprehensive system relatively quickly and easily. A proposed time-line is attached.

Appendix A

SPU Outcomes Schematic
(Diagram under construction)

Appendix B