Triennial Undergraduate Assessment Cycle

The University Student Learning Assessment Committee (USLAC) has revised the assessment reporting process to a triennial cycle. This process is intended to create a more meaningful assessment cycle that allows academic programs to act on their findings and overcome the limitations noticed with the annual cycle. The revised cycle is intended to overcome these challenges: 

Limited data: USLAC noticed in many reports, programs were only reporting one semester of data, typically the spring semester when the report was due. Report findings could have benefitted from more semesters of data. Even with multiple semesters of data, small programs, in particular, were challenged to gather a large enough dataset to provide reliable information each year. 

Lack of time to implement changes and determine impact: In the annual report, academic programs identify action steps or opportunities to advance student learning based on their findings. To close the assessment loop, programs would report in their next annual report on the impact of changes. With an annual cycle, programs lacked sufficient time to design and implement changes and to measure the impact of those changes. 

Workload on academic program: While the annual reporting of fewer objectives was intended to reduce workload for academic programs, compared to reporting on all objectives each year, the annual submission of a full report with data, reflection, action steps, and closing the loop data created a constant level of work, increasing the potential for assessment fatigue.  

Provision of feedback to academic programs: As the number of annual reports submitted grew, USLAC became concerned that they would not be able to provide meaningful and helpful feedback to each academic program in a timeline manner. 

What is the new triennial undergraduate assessment reporting process?

To be most impactful assessment needs to be continuous and used to impact learning. While USLAC seeks to reduce assessment workload, it also prioritized maintaining a continuous process that provides an opportunity for meaningful change. As such, the triennial cycle includes one year of full reporting, followed by 2 years of active work toward improving student outcomes. 

UConn Assessment Reporting process

 

Some faculty have found it easier to visualize this cycle as a 6-year cycle. An example of looking at the assessment process as a 6-year cycle:

Program Q has 6 learning objectives (objectives 1-6) and 4 key performance indicators (KPI 1-4). They have chosen to plan their assessment activities as such:

reporting_process_2

Year One: Assessment Report

During the first year of the cycle, at the end of the spring semester, academic programs will report on half of their learning objectives and half of their key performance indicators. Programs have the option to report on more or less than half of their objectives per report if they have an odd number of objectives or have identified groupings of objectives that are best measured together, as long as all objectives are measured across two Year 1 reports.

For example:

  • Program X has 5 program-level learning objectives. They have opted to report on 2 objectives for their first Year 1 report and on 3 objectives for their next Year 1 report
  • Program Z has 9 program-level learning objectives. With the annual reporting process, Program Z had been reporting on 3 learning objectives each year because they identified 3 themes for their objectives with 3 objectives fitting into each theme. They have opted to report on 6 objectives for their first Year 1 report and 3 objectives for the next Year 1 report.

Each Year 1 report will include:

  • Quantitative and/or qualitative data for at least 3 years and analysis of the data for half of the objectives,
  • Quantitative and/or qualitative data for at least 3 years and analysis of the data for half of the key performance indicators,
  • A reflection statement about the results, and
  • Potential action steps based on those findings.

The annual report is submitted to USLAC, which will review the reports and provide feedback and suggestions to each program.

Year Two: Action plan

Based on the Year 1 report, the academic program will define action tasks to advance student learning and submit this in the Year 2 Action Plan. These tasks are developed by the program based on their Year 1 report findings and feedback from USLAC. This brief document will include:

  • Planned action tasks
  • Planned process for completing action tasks
  • Defining deliverable that will be developed

Year 2 action plans are submitted to USLAC at the end of the academic year and reviewed by the Office of Academic Program Assessment with a summary provided to USLAC.

What is an action task?

Action tasks will vary significantly by academic program, based on their Year 1 findings. During the original annual assessment process, academic programs identified different aspects they planned to address. Some of these included:

  • Designing assessment measures more strongly aligned to program learning objectives
  • Creating a rubric to be used across multiple courses in the major
  • Revising program learning objectives to better align with the program’s intended curriculum
  • Designing course modules or other experiences that reinforce knowledge and skills for a particular objective
  • Re-mapping the courses and assessment measures to the objectives
  • Creating co-curricular experiences that would provide data on student learning
  • Develop assessment measures to assess student learning in experiential settings
  • Re-sequencing courses in the curriculum

This is not an exhaustive list, only representing some of the activities noted in annual assessment reports.

Year Three: Action Summary

After submitting the Year 2 Action Plan, the academic program will undertake the steps identified in its action plan during the third year of the cycle. At the end of the academic year, the academic program will submit a brief document:

  • Summarizing action task activities
  • Submitting any deliverables created through these activities
  • Defining how the impact of action tasks will be measured in the Year 1 Assessment Report when those objectives are next assessed.

Year 3 Action Summaries are submitted to USLAC and reviewed by the Office of Academic Program Assessment with a summary provided to USLAC.

Why this change is important?

assessment_cycleThe new process increases UConn’s focus on the “Apply” step of the assessment cycle. It prioritizes identifying and implementing changes, followed by measuring their impact. As colleagues at James Madison University describe it, this process promotes a “weigh pig, feed pig, weigh pig” approach by assessing, intervening, and re-assessing.

Re-assessing the impact of interventions is referred to as closing the loop. Closing the loop takes assessment activities a step further, by examining if implemented changes created an impact on student success. To close the loop, programs use assessment information to inform action but also to come back, examine, and document whether the action led to improved student learning. With UConn’s new process, the Year 1 Assessment Report, representing the initial weighing of the pig, provides information on how well students achieve the intended objectives. Based on those findings, the academic program defines how to strengthen student learning (Year 2 Action Plan) and implements those changes (Year 3 Action Summary), thereby feeding the pig. For their next Year 1 report on those objectives, the program is closing the loop (re-weighing the pig) by measuring the impact of the changes.