²ÝÁñÉçÇø

The Mission of the Office of Educational Assessment is to:

• Develop and refine structures and processes for the collection, management, analysis, and application of educational assessment data (using a quality improvement framework – plan, implement, review, and improve).
• Collaborate with faculty and directors of co-curricular programs to develop strategies for effective assessment at the program and institutional levels.
• Consult with programs, including GE, to help implement, revise and/or update assessment plans.
• Assist programs governed by discipline specific external accreditation to articulate evidence of the use of assessment data to improve teaching and learning.
• Provide consultation for review and analysis of assessment data.
• Communicate the most current information on best practices in assessment to the University community.
• Communicate the most up-to-date assessment requirements (currently Standard 14) by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
• Synthesize and demonstrate evidence of a sustained and organized approach to educational assessment at the ²ÝÁñÉçÇø to stakeholders and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
• Plan and provide opportunities for continuing education about best practices in assessment.

The goal of assessment of student learning at the ²ÝÁñÉçÇø is the development and transformation of the individual student, who is a member of a community dedicated to excellence in the freedom of inquiry in the Catholic, Jesuit tradition. Educational assessment at the ²ÝÁñÉçÇø applies methods of inquiry to collect information on student learning experiences and uses this information for the continuous improvement of teaching and learning.

The Office of Educational Assessment (OEA) comprises a director, a member of the full-time faculty, and five faculty fellows representing the 3 colleges at the ²ÝÁñÉçÇø. The OEA reports to the Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment.

• EAAC, IAC, and Faculty Senate
• The Office of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness for communication to the Board of Trustees, MSCHE, and other internal and external stakeholders
• The Provost and Associate Provost, to apprise academic leadership of assessment activities, their application, and
• Students, faculty, staff and others by way of internal communications and the OEA website 

10. Develop and communicate resources and programming to support best practices in student learning assessment, conveying these to the University community via means that include the OEA website, . 

11. Coordinate specific duties related to the assessment of the General Education Program, as described below. 

General Education Assessment Coordinator

Under the leadership of the Co-Coordinators of General Education Assessment, the OEA will oversee a regular GE assessment cycle. The GE assessment coordinators will: 

1. Maintain an internally available dashboard of assessment results and how evidence is used for program improvement and decision-making.
2. Promote best practices in GE assessment through information sharing, the annual Intersession Institute, and summer workshops.
3. Routinely communicate and collaborate with the GE program coordinator and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. 

7.      Educational Assessment Advisory Committee

In support of these efforts, the Educational Assessment Advisory Committee (EAAC) will: 

1. Advise the Director/s of the OEA on the impact and effectiveness of OEA processes. Regularly review the Comprehensive Plan and other core assessment materials to ensure they are current, understood, and appropriately promulgated. 

2. Serve as a liaison between the OEA and Faculty Senate and Student Government. 

3. Consider and monitor the state of assessment at the University, including reflection on the sufficiency of evidence of student learning assessment to ensure attainment of our broader assessment goals, and MSCHE standards. 

4. Review assessment results, including institutional assessment materials such as student survey data, to identify, consider, and make recommendations related to indirect measures of student learning.

Appendix B: Assessment Brief: A Guide for Using Results for Program Improvement

Student learning assessment is all about determining essential student learning outcomes – what we want students to know or be able to do as a result of their learning – and how well they are meeting those goals. To help illustrate this process, visuals such as the one below is commonly used:

The fourth phase of assessment planning – using results - is often referred to as “closing the loop.” Taking the time to review, discuss, and reflect on assessment results is an important part of supporting continuous improvement in our programs.  To facilitate this process, it is essential to share assessment findings amongst faculty, as well as others involved in academic leadership – department chairs, college curriculum and assessment committees, deans, and governance groups.  Sample questions to guide the review of assessment results:

• Do the results suggest the need to pay more particular attention to the predisposition and life experiences of the learner? What changes might be made? How and when will they be made? How and when will the effects of these changes be assessed?
• What did the assessment results indicate about the level of achievement of the student learning outcomes?
• Do the results suggest areas where improvements or changes should be made within the program, its curriculum, or its courses? Or, are there outcomes that we can celebrate – which describe success?
• Do results describe or connect to broader learning goals, such as those at the program level and/or institutional learning outcomes or other goals?

Appendix C: The Evolution of the Comprehensive Plan

Following the University’s Periodic Review, in November 2013, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) issued a warning expressing concerns with the University’s compliance with its Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning (now Standard V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment). The University responded by creating a more visible and coherent infrastructure, namely the faculty-led Office of Educational Assessment (OEA). The Office operates under the supervision of the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and is closely aligned with the offices of Planning & Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Reporting and Data Analytics. Presently it is staffed by two faculty Co-Directors and Faculty Fellows. The Educational Assessment Advisory Committee (EAAC) counsels the OEA.^[1] 

In considering a more effective approach to learning assessment processes, The OEA undertook an analysis of structures and processes already in place in AY 2014-15. Data for the analysis included college and University documents, as well as formal and informal conversations with those involved in assessment at all levels. From this analysis, the OEA concluded the following: 

• Existing assessment structures and processes operated in silos.
• Evidence of student learning was inconsistently reported and communicated.
• Program improvement was infrequently driven by evidence.
• Program assessment was more limited and inconsistent across programs that do not have external, professional accreditation requirements. 

This analysis, coupled with guidance and input from Academic Affairs leadership, the Faculty Senate, and other stakeholders, guided the Office of Educational Assessment in preparing new Comprehensive Plan for Student Learning to outline a new, systematic approach to student learning assessment for the University. The Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Assessment Advisory Committee and Faculty Senate in early 2016, and has guided our efforts since that time.  

Following the University’s MSCHE Self-Study in 2019, the OEA began discussions with the AAC (now, EACC) and other stakeholders to identify opportunities to further improve student learning assessment processes, including opportunities for the refinement and renewal of the Comprehensive Plan. Adding to this reflection were findings from a 2022 audit of the OEA, and review of updated MSCHE accreditation standards and evidence expectations. An updated plan document was presented to the EAAC in November 2023. 

[1] First named the Assessment Advisory Committee (AAC), renamed in 2023 to more clearly communicate its role in educational assessment activities.

[2] As of October 2023, the University is in the midst of a multi-phase review of the general education curriculum. The general education assessment framework remains in place, though may adjust based upon the outcomes of that process.

^[3]  A framework describing core tenets and approaches to education and learning in the Jesuit tradition. See: Duminuco, V. J. (Ed.) (2000). The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum: 400^th anniversary perspectives (1^st ed.). Fordham University Press: NY, NY.

^[4] Witek, D. and Grettano, T. (2016). Revising for metaliteracy: Flexible course design to support social media pedagogy. In T. E. Jacobson and T. P. Mackey (Eds.), Metaliteracy in practice (pp. 1-22). Chicago, IL: Neal-Schuman. (Citation is on page 5)

^[5] “Our Core, Our Community, Our Commitments.” 2020. See: described in our planning model, each college, division, and department (including academic departments) outline goals in support of the strategic plan. Assessment results, including program learning assessment, may be used to inform goal setting and help monitor progression and outcomes.

[6] See “Assessment Roles and Responsibilities at The ²ÝÁñÉçÇø” document for additional details.

^[7] These activities, however, do not preclude programs or individual faculty members from conducting assessment at the course level for their own interest, curriculum development, or to align with expectations of disciplinary (specialty) accreditation. Dean’s Offices consult with the OEA on determining any scheduling/cycle changes appropriate for departments within their respective college.

^[9] For the Library’s long-standing assessment of information literacy, including their present plan and results, see:

[1] Non-learning focused Student Life departments also engage in non-educational evaluation as part of departmental and divisional planning and institutional effectiveness processes.

Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs:  Provides administrative oversight and support for a campus-wide program of educational assessment. Works closely with the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, academic deans, and the Director(s) of the Office of Educational Assessment, to make available to faculty a variety of opportunities to develop, implement, and evaluate student learning. Collaborates with these leaders to monitor assessment activities across academic units.

Associate Provost for Academic Affairs: Reporting to the Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, provides managerial oversight for student learning assessment and institutional assessment activities. Supervises the operations of the Office of Educational Assessment, Planning & Institutional Effectiveness, and Institutional Reporting & Data Analytics.

Assistant Provost for Planning & Institutional Effectiveness: Reporting to the Associate Provost, leads institutional planning, institutional assessment and effectiveness activities, and a variety of related compliance activities. Serves as the University’s Middle States Accreditation Liaison Officer, and, in this capacity, as a guide and resource to internal groups in understanding and conforming to Middle States expectations and requirements for institutional assessment and the assessment of student learning. Responsible for the coordination and official submission of all Middle States reporting and documentation.

Office of Educational Assessment: The Office of Educational Assessment provides oversight and coordination of the development of a campus-wide culture of assessment at The ²ÝÁñÉçÇø.  It provides support for developing faculty and staff expertise in the measurement and analysis of student learning outcomes, program learning outcomes, and institutional learning outcomes. In consultation with faculty, departments, school/colleges, the office provides direction and consultation for analyzing and reporting assessment results. The office provides resources to faculty and staff for the effective assessment of the student learning experience and the promotion of best practices in assessment. The OEA is comprised of a Director/Co-Directors, a General Education Assessment coordinator, and faculty assessment fellows representing the different colleges.

Director/Co-Directors, Office of Educational Assessment: Reporting to the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, the Director of the Office of Educational Assessment leads the OEA and is responsible for the implementation of learning assessment activities at the University, including those outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for Student Learning Assessment. The Director/Co-Director provides leadership in support of the needs of school/colleges for evaluation activities in each school/college to assess evidence of student learning, program quality and effectiveness, and the student learning experience. The Director/Co-Director promotes best practices in assessment and supports other departments within the University in developing and implementing assessment strategies and promulgating the results and implications of various student learning assessment projects. Consults with faculty and staff on developing and implementing assessment plans and reports, developing appropriate student learning outcomes, and choosing effective approaches and measurement instruments. Reports to the Office of the Provost on the plans and activities of the OEA, the overall state of educational assessment, assessment reporting and analysis, and related initiatives.

Coordinator, General Education Assessment: Reporting to the OEA director/co-directors, the GEA Coordinator reports provides leadership for the assessment, coordination, and improvement of the General Education curriculum to support the needs of colleges and programs conducting assessment activities for student learning, program quality and effectiveness, and the student learning experience. The GEA Coordinator takes responsibility for informing other departments within the University of results and implications of various student learning assessment projects related to the General Education Program. In addition, the coordinator assists faculty and staff in planning, designing, implementing, analyzing, and reporting University-wide general education assessment efforts. Responsibilities include planning, locating, or developing tools to assess student learning outcomes and GE Program evaluation needs; providing opportunities for faculty and staff to learn and share methodologies and results; assisting University offices and its leadership in ensuring that results of student learning outcomes assessment are used effectively for program improvement; and producing periodic reports on the results of GE assessment. In addition, the GEA Coordinator reports findings to members of the University community to improve the assessment of student learning across the GE Program.

Faculty Assessment Fellows: Facilitate assessment activity between and amongst faculty.  In specific connection to their home college, Fellows support student learning assessment and collaborate with deans, department chairs and program directors to assure development of learning outcomes and plans, and timely reporting and end of semester/academic year program reports. Introduce and encourage student learning assessment activities, as well as:

• Support faculty development, in collaboration with CTE and Academic Departments, to promote faculty participation in Assessment.
• Advise faculty, departments, and colleges on assessment procedures and methods.
• Assist departments and programs to complete the assessment process (close the loop) to maintain and improve the student learning experience.
• Review of institutional and program level learning assessment reports.
• In addition to above OEA responsibilities, Fellows may also serve as members of their home college’s curricular/assessment committee.

Educational Assessment Advisory Committee:[1] Chaired by the OEA director/co-directors, the Educational Assessment Advisory Committee serves to develop and enrich effective assessment of the student learning experience at The ²ÝÁñÉçÇø. Members include: Faculty Fellows, assessment staff from CAS, KSOM, PCPS and Library, including Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, and representatives from the CTE, Institutional Reporting, Student Affairs, and faculty representatives with experience in assessment from CAS, KSOM, and PCPS. The committee collaborates with and makes recommendations to the OEA to support ongoing systems of assessment, including development, implementation, and maintenance of the plan for assessment of the student learning experience.

Dean’s Group: Chaired by the Provost and comprised of the Provost, Associate Provost, and Deans. In addition to other academic responsibilities, provides a forum for discussion of assessment activities and results amongst the colleges.  

Dean CAS:  Responsible for the leadership of assessment activities within the CAS, including the development, maintenance, and implementation of the CAS assessment plan and related activities. Sets expectations for annual cycles of assessment reporting at the course, department/program, and college levels, and communicates those expectations to individual faculty, department chairs, and others.  Reports to the OEA and Office of the Provost on college-level learning assessment activities and their application for improvement. Oversees the Academic Program Review for all of our programs, which includes a review of the development and implementation of program assessment plans.

Associate Dean CAS:  The Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences. The function of this role is to assure a close relationship between assessment at the program and College levels, Academic Program Review, and program development. The Associate Dean serves on the Assessment Advisory Committee and reports directly to the Dean.

CAS Dean’s Conference: To assure a broad-based review of programs and a fuller understanding of assessment practices, assessment in The College of Arts and Sciences includes consultation and input from the College's two governance bodies: the Dean's Conference and the Curriculum and Assessment Committee. The Dean's Conference includes all department chairs in the College, as well as the Dean, the Associate Dean, and the Assistant Deans. The Dean's Conference meets regularly throughout the academic year—ordinarily once each month in addition to occasional meetings of smaller disciplinary groups—to advise the Dean on a wide range of issues affecting the College. In addition, at its final meeting of the Fall semester (ordinarily in December), the Dean's Conference reviews the results of assessment at the College-level, according to the sequence and structure outlined in the "College of Arts and Sciences Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Structure," and provides feedback to the departments through the minutes of these meetings. Department Chairs also consult with their Department faculty, as needed, on issues raised by College-level assessment.

CAS Curriculum and Assessment Committee: The College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum and Assessment Committee facilitates curriculum and program development in the College. This Committee will attend to the curriculum as a matter of ongoing deliberation, focusing not only on specific proposals but also on the continuous development of the curriculum as a whole, including the development of new programs. While department and program faculty have primary responsibility and authority for the assessment of student learning at the program level, the Curriculum and Assessment Committee also reviews and provides feedback on this assessment and Academic Program Review. Each fall and spring semester, the Curriculum and Assessment Committee reviews the results of College-level assessment, according to the sequence and structure outlined in the “College of Arts and Sciences Student Learning Outcomes and Assessment Structure” and provides feedback to the departments. The members of the Curriculum and Assessment Committee also consult with the College faculty, as needed, on issues raised by College-level assessment.

Dean PCPS:  Responsible for the leadership of assessment activities within the PCPS, including the development, maintenance, and implementation of the PCPS assessment plan and related activities. Sets expectations for annual cycles of assessment reporting at the course, department/program, and college levels, and communicates those expectations to individual faculty, department chairs, and others.  Reports to the OEA and Office of the Provost on college-level learning assessment activities and their application for improvement. With other college deans, collaborates with Provost to monitor assessment activities across academic units.

Assistant Dean of Assessment, Finance and Communications, PCPS: Aids departments in gathering data and developing alumni surveys electronically on employment.   Publishes assessment data to the web and directs licensure results to the University’s consumer index page.

PCPS Dean’s Conference: The monthly PCPS dean’s conference includes department chairs and program directors where assessment information is shared.  The PCPS dean’s conference reviews the results of the assessment information from the PCPS Board of Visitors. 

PCPS Curriculum and Assessment Committee: Reviews PCPS program curricular maps, which include specific direct and indirect strategies for assessing mastery of learning competencies, in order to ensure high quality, academically rigorous learning experiences for all PCPS students. Verifies that programmatic student learning outcome assessment activities are taking place and consult with the program about how its plan (rationale and method) may be strengthened and improved. Provides a structured forum for faculty from all PCPS programs to discuss best practices, what works and what doesn’t work, and for showcasing examples of closing the loop in actually using assessment data to improve student learning.

Dean KSOM: Responsible for the leadership of assessment activities within the KSOM, including the development, maintenance, and implementation of the KSOM assessment plan and related activities. Sets expectations for annual cycles of assessment reporting at the course, department/program, and college levels, and communicates those expectations to individual faculty, department chairs, and others.  Reports to the OEA and Office of the Provost on college-level learning assessment activities and their application for improvement. With other college deans, collaborates with Provost to monitor assessment activities across academic units.

KSOM Assessment Committee: chaired by a member of the KSOM faculty and comprised of faculty and the Dean and Associate Dean of the college, the committee coordinates the college-wide assessment process and collection, documentation, review, and communication of assessment data and information to faculty, staff, and students.

Dean Library and Library Faculty: The Weinberg Memorial Library, under the administrative leadership of the Dean of the Library in collaboration with the Library Faculty, supports the development of information literacy in ²ÝÁñÉçÇø students at all levels of study. This is accomplished through collaboration with course faculty to integrate information literacy student learning outcomes into their courses. The Library contributes to students' formation and development toward University institutional learning outcomes through an outcomes-based approach to assessing information literacy instruction sessions and through Library programming and activities in all functional areas of the Library. In addition, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education is integrated into the Library’s Information Literacy Program.

Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (FSCC): A standing committee of the Faculty Senate, responsible for the review of all proposed changes to curriculum, including new courses and programs.

Conference Committee on Curriculum (CCC):  A standing committee of the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, primarily responsible for the implementation and oversight of the general education curriculum, and the assignment of general education attributes.

Academic Department Chairs and Program Directors: Provide leadership within the department and/or program for the development of student learning outcomes for their programs (some of which are in support of general education program learning outcomes, and/or institutional learning goals) and a program assessment plan. Oversee the implementation of the program assessment plan, and department/program reporting of assessment activities as guided by their department/program, college, or other assessment plans. 

Individual Faculty: Responsible for the development of learning outcomes for courses, some of which are in support of program learning outcomes, general education outcomes, and or institutional learning outcomes, and the inclusion of those outcomes on all course syllabi, as required by the Faculty Handbook.  Administer course embedded assessment of learning outcomes, and reporting of assessment activities as guided by their department/program, college, or other assessment plans.

Office of Institutional Reporting and Data Analytics: Provides data and technical support for institutional studies and surveys, including those that provide indirect evidence of student learning of institutional learning outcomes, and the operational needs of the OEA. Provides support to the Assistant Provost for Planning & Institutional Effectiveness for annual reporting of planning and institutional effectiveness measures, including those within the University’s strategic plan.

Student Life: The Director of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution serves as a support for assessment efforts within the Division of Student Life. Each department within the Division is responsible for its own assessment, but the Director helps to support these efforts while focusing on increasing communication, clarity, and collaboration.

[1]Renamed from the Assessment Advisory Committee (AAC) in 2023 to better reflect the educational assessment focus of the group and distinguish from the peer Institutional Assessment Committee.

Past Director of Educational Assessment

Email: maryjane.dimattio@scranton.edu

Past Faculty Assessment Fellows

Tara Fay, M.S.
Prof. Fay currently serves as the Laboratory Supervisor for Human Anatomy and Physiology and teaches Human Anatomy and Physiology lecture and laboratory, General Physiology laboratory, and a travel course called Extreme Physiology.  She became interested in using assessment as a tool to help her continually improve her courses and has attended numerous teaching workshops and conferences related to pedagogy and assessment. 

Linda Ledford-Miller, Ph.D.
Dr. Ledford-Miller first became involved with Assessment under the then-CAS Dean Dreisbach. She attended several workshops by external assessment consultants sponsored by the Dean, and subsequently led the Department of World Languages and Cultures in the creation of its Program Assessment Plan for modern language majors, completed in 2008. The Department revised its Assessment Plan in fall 2013. In spring 2014 she collaborated with Dr. Joseph Wilson to begin an Assessment Plan for Classics. Dr. Ledford-Miller was an inaugural Assessment Fellow from November 2013 until Fall of 16, and was an active member of the Monitoring Report Coordinating Committee. Together with colleagues from the MRCC,  she attended a special workshop in Philadelphia on "Creating and Selecting Assessment Tools." She served as co-author of the 2014 Middel States Monitoring Report.

John Deak, Ph.D.
Dr. Deak learned about assessment practices and expectations when co-chairing the committee responsible for drafting the Middle States periodic review report in 2012-2013. He has attended Middle States workshops regarding assessment of student learning, participated in the Intersession 2014 CAS Assessment Pilot, and participated in several assessment related workshops and activities on campus. During his tenure as an assessment champion and fellow, Dr. Deak has assisted faculty and departments in refining their assessment practices and in conveying faculty concerns regarding assessment.

Harry Dammer, Ph.D.
Dr. Dammer has been an advocate for assessment since he developed an assessment plan for Sociology and Criminal Justice Department in 2007. Since that time he has worked on assessment planning and implementation in his Department and also has become active in assessment in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS).  His recent activity with ACJS includes reviewing the assessment procedures of criminal justice programs across the country to determine if they meet accreditation standards.  Dr. Dammer feels strongly that assessment need not be onerous, has improved his own teaching, and has helped his Department focus on improving student learning for all who take Sociology and Criminal Justice classes.

Cyrus P. Olson III., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
Dr. Olsen is Associate Professor of Theology/Religious Studies at The ²ÝÁñÉçÇø, where he has been employed since 2006. A graduate of the at The University of Washington, and Systematic from The University of Oxford, his research and teaching focus on religion and society from 1750-Present.  In addition to his primary academic appointment, Dr. Olsen is also Research Fellow and Network Co-Lead for , and an Affiliate Research Fellow through a at the , a subsidiary of the specializing in Neurology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, located in Cambridge, MA.

Nicholas P. Truncale, M.S.
Prof. Truncale participated in the pilot Intersession Assessment Group in 2014, assessing a GE Natural Science course “It’s Only Rocket Science” he developed. Since then he created a new course, Foundations of Physics and Engineering, which serves as his department’s first year Eloquentia Perfecta (EP) Level I oral communication and digital technology requirement. He assessed all of the EP student learning outcomes earning the course permanent EP status and also presented these assessment results at a physics education conference. He co-authored a physics program review, participated in a departmental student retention study, and “closed the loop” by helping to enact changes based upon the results of the retention study. A Faculty Assessment Fellow since 2014, he currently directs the.

Adam Pratt, Ph.D.
Dr. Pratt joined the OEA in September 2017. As a member of the History Department, he teaches courses on the Age of Jackson, the American Civil War, and Native American History, as well as introductory courses to U.S. history. In addition, he teaches courses on historical research methods for undergraduates. In addition to the OEA, he sits on the General Education Assessment committee, and is a member of the CAS Curriculum and Assessment Committee and the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee.