返回首页
 【公告】 1. 本网即日起只接受电子邮箱投稿,不便之处,请谅解! 2. 所有文章的评论功能暂时关闭,主要是不堪广告骚扰。需要讨论的,可到本网留言专区 
学界动态 |  好汉反剽 |  社科论丛 |  校园文化 |  好汉教苑 |  好汉哲学 |  学习方法 |  心灵抚慰 |  好汉人生 |  好汉管理 |  学术服务 |  好汉网主 |  说好汉网 |   English  |  学术商城 |  学术交友 |  访客留言 |  世界天气 |  万年日历 |  学术吧台 |  各国会议 |  在线聊天 |  设为首页 |  加入收藏 | 

好汉网主 好汉网主
Criterion Four: Assessment
时间:2009/11/20 23:04:02,点击:0

Southeast Missouri State University documents the academic achievement of its students through a multi-component assessment program.  Analysis of the direct and indirect indicators gathered in assessment activities documents that students have mastery of the level of knowledge appropriate to the degree attained and efficiency in the skills and competencies essential for college educated adults.

The assessment program at Southeast Missouri State University significantly pre-dates the mandate by NCA , growing out of commitments dating from 1967, when the University’s Office of Institutional Research was founded.  From the middle to late 1970’s, the University collected information relating to student academic achievement and institutional effectiveness.  Assessment activities increased gradually in the early to middle 1980’s.  In November 1984, the Board of Regents approved a graduation requirement that all students must pass a writing proficiency test after completing 75 credit hours.  From 1985 on, the University’s involvement in assessment grew rapidly.  Assessment of student achievement received a formal focus in 1986, when an outcomes assessment task force, including representatives from the community, faculty, and students, was charged with developing an institutional outcomes assessment plan.  The Board of Regents approved the plan in May 1987 (see exhibits).

From 1986 through 1990, the Office of the Provost initiated a variety of assessment activities.  In spring 1990, the University Planning Committee published a document, Institutional Goals and Objectives for 1990 1995, which formally acknowledged an institutional planning goal of implementing a systematic plan of assessment for all University programs.  In summer 1990, the position of Director of Assessment was created in the Office of the Provost.  From 1990 through 1993, the Director of Assessment identified areas for improvement in assessment of the major and general education, offered workshops on assessment, assisted departmental assessment efforts, published a campus assessment newsletter (Accent on Assessment), and developed a statement of Student Assessment Principles (see exhibits). The University Assessment Review Committee was appointed in spring 1993 to evaluate and revise the University’s assessment plan and develop a revised assessment plan for the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (see exhibits). This plan was accepted by NCA in 1994 without stipulations.  A review of departmental assessment activities was conducted in fall 1993.  An Inventory of Departmental Assessment Activities, 1993 94 (see exhibits), was developed and reported, along with the results of the interviews, to the University Assessment Review Committee.
 
The University Assessment Review Committee’s recommendations acknowledged certain ongoing activities in departments and colleges as valid components of assessment and focused attention on the need for further development and refinement of procedures for assessing academic programs and the general learning environment.  Between 1994-96 each department filed a revised assessment plan that was reviewed and approved by the University Assessment Review Committee (UARC) (see exhibits).  Since 1994 departments have reported assessment information and activities in Annual Departmental Reports as part of the regular planning and departmental review process.

In 1999 the committee approved assessment plans for Student Services departments in the areas of Enrollment Management and Student Development.

全文:点击下载浏览该文件2009112023327895

分享到新浪微博+ 分享到QQ空间+ 分享到腾讯微博+ 分享到人人网+ 分享到开心网+ 分享到百度搜藏+ 分享到淘宝+ 分享到网易微博+ 分享到Facebook脸谱网+ 分享到Facebook推特网+ 【打印】【关闭
上一篇: Critical Thinking: A Literature Rev..
下一篇: Critical Thinking Indicators
相关评论

我要评论
查看所有评论内容
评论内容