Skip to Main Content

Assessment of Student Learning
Annual Reports Section 10 (Assessment)

Department and Program Assessment

At UW there is considerable variation in how assessment has progressed in the departments/units and colleges. Most departments are beyond the development of student learning outcomes at this point. Many are the process of collecting and analyzing data while others have progressed to the final steps of the assessment process - using data to make decisions that lead to improvements in learning.

Programs are defined as each individual academic program offered by a department or unit. This includes majors, minors, bachelor's degree programs (including concentrations), master's degree programs, doctoral degree programs and certificate programs. When developing departmental assessment plans, there is an expectation that each program will be addressed individually. In other words, there can not be a single assessment plan and strategy that applies to all programs within a department. If there is, then the department has failed to differentiate the distinct learning outcomes for each program.

In addition to clearly stated learning outcomes for each program, departments need to identify what evidence/data will be collected to assess each learning outcome. Evidence can be both direct and indirect. Direct evidence includes the examination of student work while indirect evidence includes student opinions or perspective, for example. A good assessment plan will include both types of evidence.

After a department has successfully collected and compiled its data, faculty should discuss and interpret the data. The final step is to make changes that are informed by your assessment process, which hopefully will lead to improvements in student learning. In the end, the department may amend its learning outcomes or change certain aspects of the assessment process itself.

Of course, any good assessment process is well documented. As part of the documentation process, department chairs/heads provide a summary of the department's assessment activities for the year as part of their annual report. Section 10 of the report specifically addresses assessment. Since 2005, the University Assessment Coordinators have asked that chairs answer a specific set of assessment questions. The University Assessment Coordinators then review each annual report and provide specific feedback to each department on how assessment can be improved in the upcoming year.

At the end of the 2009-2010 academic year, departments and programs were asked to identify the status of each of their degree programs with regard to assessment, using definitions for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 programs. Tier 1 programs are those that serve as an assessment model for the rest of the university. Tier 3 programs are those still in the beginning stages of assessment and/or are still struggling with assessment. Tier 2 programs are those in between. The University Assessment Coordinators then reviewed how each program was rated by the chair or head and either affirmed or changed the rating. For the 2010-2011 annual reports, departments were asked to focus on one degree program of their choosing and respond to the annual report for that particular tier program. Instead of answering a more general, standard set of assessment questions, departments now answer a tailored set of questions specific to the tier program the department is focusing on. By summer 2012, the university will collect and post examples of completed assessment projects from various Tier 1 and Tier 2 programs from every college.

DIRECTIONS FOR CHAIRS/HEADS FOR 2011-12 ANNUAL REPORT (SECTION 10):


Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs

Tier 3 Programs

Other Helpful Information for All Programs

Footer Navigation