Yearly Assessment:

Beginning in 2000, academic and administrative units (i.e., administrative and educational support units) began participating in yearly assessments.  As part of this process, departments and units submit Assessment Plans whereby they:  (1) reference guiding documents such as CNU’s Mission and Vision and the unit’s goals, (2) articulate three or more intended outcomes that result from its services, (3) provide two means of assessing each intended outcome, and (4) state criteria by which to evaluate the degree to which the intended outcomes were achieved.  For academic departments, outcomes are stated in terms of what a student is expected to know, think, or do.  For administrative units, the framing of outcomes varies, reflecting the diversity of the functions of these departments.  After departments and units collect data throughout the year, they submit Assessment Records where assessment results are compared against stated criteria.  Each department interprets whether or not the intended outcomes have been achieved and often provides a description of factors that influenced the results.  Academic departments and administrative units take part in this process. Units with mature assessment processes often provide longitudinal data, insightful interpretation of results, and descriptions of how the department used assessment results for improvement.  In the spring of 2007 both Assessment Plans and Records are to be submitted via an electronic submission system.  Click here to access the new Online Submission System.

It is this last point—use of assessment results for improvement—that is the ultimate goal of CNU’s assessment processes.  Several examples are listed below: 

The University Assessment and Evaluation Committee (Description)

To facilitate the assessment process at CNU, the Student Assessment Committee was established in 2000. This committee helps guide academic and administrative units by providing feedback on Assessment Records to assessment liaisons. Liaisons are persons designated by a unit who coordinate assessment within their units and interface with the Student Assessment Committee.

Effective 2005-2006, the committee was renamed the University Assessment and Evaluation Committee (UAEC) to reflect the breadth of assessment activities.  The UAEC is composed of 11 members appointed by the Provost. The members include: the Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation, five faculty members, and five administrators.  Trained on the UAEC Assessment Review Form, each committee member rates units’ Assessment Records on specific elements:  congruency to guiding documents including Vision 2010; CNU’s Strategic Plan; statement of outcomes; criteria used to determine success; methodology, results, and interpretation and use of results; and the degree to which departments have implemented the suggestions provided by past UAEC evaluations.  Copies of the UAEC reviews of Assessment Records are sent to respective department chairs and assessment liaisons.  The Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accrediation meets with the department liaisons to discuss the evaluation ratings and improve future assessment.  Thus, CNU’s yearly assessment process is systematic and improving.  With input from executive officers, department liaisons, UAEC members, and interested faculty, over the last six years the following changes have been implemented: assessment training for liaisons, revisions of reporting forms, reformulation of committee structure, update of committee charge, rater training of UAEC members and more communication between the Director of Assessment, Evaluation, and Accreditation and academic departments and administrative units.

Program Review:

Academic programs participate in a more comprehensive Program Review.  Each program conducts a self study and produces documentation and a report that is reviewed by the Undergraduate Program Review Committee (PRC).  In this year-long and comprehensive process, departments reflect upon and analyze all facets of their operation including, but not limited to:  relationship to university mission, unit mission, goals, teaching, scholarship, service, enrollment, retention, graduation rate, budgetary efficiency, input from alumni, and student learning outcomes assessment.  Essential to these analyses is consideration of the degree to which departmental goals are accomplished.  Other parties to this process are the Dean, and the Provost.  Program Review Guidelines were recently updated to include a description, purposes, process, timelines, and responsibilities of department under review.

Beginning in 1982, the Program Review process has long been an important component of institutional effectiveness at CNU.  Indeed, many departments have undergone four program reviews (a five to six-year reporting cycle), the Program Review Calendar is set so that three departments are reviewed each year.

Perhaps the most important aspect of program review is that results are used.  In other words, decisions are made, actions undertaken, goals reconsidered, and resources allocated, all to improve departments based upon findings of program review.  The academic deans play an important role. Considering the results of department’s program review and the recommendations of the program review committee, each dean sets up an action agenda for the department to accomplish prior to the next program review.  The intent of the action agenda is to help the department reach its goals.  Each year, every department reports on its progress on the action agenda via its Annual Report to the Dean. Changes within departments that were influenced by program review include:  curricular modifications, additional resources, changes of goals, and improved assessment.  Note:  graduate programs take part in a similar process (see Graduate Program Review Policy).

Additionally, several academic programs at the university (i.e., Luter School of Business, Master’s of Arts and Teaching Program, Engineering, Music) also report on their effectiveness to relevant external governing bodies, adding to the rigorous oversight of their academic programs.

Liberal Learning Assessment (old)

The assessment of the current General Education curriculum is multi-faceted, combining information obtained from direct measures of student learning such as standardized tests and performance assessments and from indirect measures, namely standardized surveys (see table below).  The choice of assessment methods was also influenced by the State Council on Higher Education in Virginia, which mandates direct assessments of student learning for six core competencies:  written communications, technology/information literacy, mathematical/quantitative reasoning, scientific reasoning, oral communication, and critical thinking.  All six of these state-mandated competencies are encompassed within the General Education competencies at CNU.  In other words, the assessment of CNU’s General Education also serves to satisfy state requirements.

In addition to these direct measures of student learning, the National Survey of Student Engagement and the IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction have been used as indirect measures.  These tools help CNU examine its General Education with a different lens, that of students’ perceptions.  An examination of NSSE and IDEA items relative to CNU’s General Education Competencies revealed that one or more NSSE items loaded on six of the seven Competencies, and IDEA items loaded on four of the Competencies.  In other words, these items can be used for indicators of success for these Competencies.

One can make inferences about CNU graduates based upon the results of these various assessments.  Some of the highlights are:

Direct Measures:

Indirect Measures:

In sum, the preponderance of evidence suggests that students are competent in the various components of General Education and that their level of proficiency improved as they progressed through the General Education Curriculum.

Liberal Learning Core, The New Curriculum (Fall 2006):

The competencies for the Liberal Learning Core (implementation in Fall 2006) are specified in the Foundations of Liberal Learning and in the objectives for the courses within the Liberal Learning Core.

Foundations and Principles of Liberal Learning

The program of study at Christopher Newport University invites students to participate in a rich, multi-faceted tradition of intellectual exploration grounded in the common principles of liberal learning.  Our ultimate aim is to produce empowered, informed, and responsible learners, whose key intellectual and personal attributes are enumerated below.  All coursework at CNU--whether in the Liberal Learning Core, in the major, or in the advanced program of integrated study--seeks to develop, reinforce, and advance student aptitude in these primary domains.

Goals of Liberal Learning

To be empowered intellectually and practically, CNU students should be able to:

To be aware of the world in which they exist, CNU students should seek to understand:

To be responsible for the world in which they exist, CNU students should value:

The Core contains courses that meet specific objectives, and every department at CNU is expected to offer courses that address the Foundations of Liberal Learning.  To ensure that the Core meets the specified objectives, every course goes through a rigorous approval process that involves faculty from several committees:  Faculty Council on Liberal Learning and Academic Life, Department Chairs in the College of Liberal Arts and Science and the School of Business, the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Faculty Senate and the Provost.  When departments submit a course for the Liberal Learning Core, the submission requires a proposal form from the Council, a New Course Proposal Form (if it is a new course) and a syllabus.  Reviewers use these documents and the appropriate objectives to approve a course for the Core.  The first-year seminars also have a special Proposal Form.

The Core objectives make possible an organized assessment of the Core.  The plan for the assessment will be implemented over several years to comprehensively and accurately assess the program.  Every year the Council will determine how to assess three or four different parts of the Core.  By staggering the development of the assessment tools and the actual assessments, assessment and evaluation of the Core becomes manageable.  The assessment plan contains five parts with feedback between parts: Writing Objectives, Scale Development & Piloting (Fall 2006-Spring 2008); Testing & Data Collection (Fall 2007-Spring 2010); Analysis & Reporting (Spring & Fall 2010); Interpretation & Decision Making (Fall 2010-Fall 2011); Implementing Change & Objective Reevaluation (Fall 2011 – Spring 2012).  This plan was influenced by the General Education assessments at Alverno College, Truman State University, and James Madison University—all nationally recognized for the General Education assessment.  By Spring 2012, the Council will have completed one cycle of the assessment of the Core. The assessment will dovetail with SCHEV Core Competency assessments.