Educational Support and Administrative Areas Assessment

Areas that are not directly a part of the academic program (co-curricular and student support areas, as well as other administrative offices) will also assess the effectiveness of their functions and activities, a formal process we refer to as Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness (IE). (Areas that work directly with students may have student learning goals as well, informed by the College's Institutional Level Goals for Student Learning.  Conversely, academic departments and programs have effectiveness goals that are not directly related to student learning.)  Our effectiveness in each area of the College contributes to its overall success.  The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that assessment occurs in these areas lies with the President's Staff member in charge of the division in which the unit is situated. Below is our template for reporting on assessment work in support and administrative areas.  Just as in the academic areas, assessment in these areas must begin with a careful articulation of what it is trying to accomplish.  This begins with statements of the unit's purpose and Primary Areas of Responsibility, and within each of those areas, statements of Ideal Results (what success looks like).   Generally, our reporting cycle begins in the summer and ends in the next summer so that work can be completed in time to inform budget discussions.  Leaders of administrative and co-curricular units should submit their reports via upload to their designated Google folder for IE reporting, to which members of their supervisory chain, as well as the IE Assessment team (the AVP for Institutional Effectiveness and the Director, Institutional Studies & Assessment) also have access.  These assessment materials may also be referenced or shared for purposes such as external reviews or support of an accreditation review.

Template

At the beginning of each assessment cycle, the team in a functional area (department, office, committee, working group, etc.) reviews its Primary Areas of Responsibility and Ideal Results for each, ensuring that they are in alignment with College mission, and appropriate division goals, committee charges, etc.  The scope of assessment for the cycle should be clarified - on which areas will the team focus, and what evidence should be collected.   (This is informed by the previous cycle, and over time, all Primary Areas of Responsibility should be evaluated.)  At the end of the cycle, the team reviews the evidence, determines how well it is achieving desired results, and identifies any changes needed for the next cycle.  This work should be documented and summarized by responding to each of the following questions. 

• What Primary Area of Responsbility and Ideal Results have you assessed this year?
• What evidence did you gather? 
• What did you discover when you examined the evidence?
• What changes to your operations will you make as a result of this work, and what resource implications are there?
• What plans have you made for assessment during the coming cycle?

Each unit is required to attach as an appendix its full set of Primary Areas of Responsibility and Ideal Results.  Summaries of evidence may be included in the report's body or appendices. (More detailed records should be kept internally.)

Support

The AVP for Institutional Effectiveness and Director, Institutional Studies & Assessment comprise the IE Assessment team.  They manage the reporting cycle, offer training, and may provide advisory and consultative support to administrative departments in designing their assessment process and conducting assessment projects.  In some cases the Institutional Effectiveness, Research & Assessment Office may be able to assist in gathering evidence. 

Institutional Level

Please see examples of some of the institutional level work in areas outside of individual academic departments and programs in "Institutional Measures and Activities."

Special Note

Assessment of goals and objectives in the functional areas of the College should not be confused with Performance Assessments of employees.  These processes differ significantly in terms of focus and purpose.