Auburn University offers degrees at the baccalaureate, master’s, education specialist, and doctoral levels as well as certificates for undergraduate and graduate students . Programs are offered predominantly on-campus in a traditional classroom-based setting. (During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, faculty were given the flexibility of adjusting the setting.) Auburn also offers certain degrees in a distance format or mixed-methods format and offers one joint degree with Auburn University in Montgomery. For all educational programs, Auburn University employs an annual student learning outcome assessment cycle that is in compliance with SACSCOC Standard 8.2.a.

Assessment Process

The institution’s assessment cycle requires programs to first identify a set of student learning outcomes. Auburn defines the term student learning outcome as clearly articulated and widely communicated statements describing the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities that all students completing an educational program should achieve. As faculty identify the student learning outcomes for their educational program, they must also align each of their student learning outcomes with a required experience within the curriculum. Doing so ensures that all program graduates have been given opportunities to develop and master the specific knowledge and skills laid out from the learning outcomes. Auburn encourages faculty to visually represent this alignment between outcomes and required experiences through a curriculum map. Exemplary curriculum maps will display all student learning outcomes, their alignment to the curriculum, and the extent to which each outcome is developed .

Next, program faculty are expected to identify a set of measures by which they can systematically assess the extent to which student learning outcomes are being achieved, making use of direct measures and sound reasoning. The measures should align with the student learning outcomes both in the level of learning required (as indicated by the outcome’s verb) and in the content described within the outcome. After using these measures to assess student learning, the program should analyze the data and apply a consistent process whereby results are communicated to all degree program faculty. An exemplary assessment cycle includes a review of the program’s assessment results aligned with specific student learning outcomes, and a review of past data that encourages programs to make decisions based on trends rather than a singular cohort of students. Once the results are reported, program faculty provide a written interpretation of the data that goes beyond the reported results and discusses factors that may have influenced results according to each of the student learning outcomes.

The final component of Auburn University’s annual assessment cycle is for programs to provide evidence that their assessment results have been discussed and to act upon those results in a purposeful and thoughtful manner to improve student learning. In this final section, programs are provided guidance to formulate and implement a plan to improve student learning based on the last cycle of assessment. Programs should also have a reassessment plan in place. These plans must be in direct response to student performance on at least one student learning outcome.

Documentation of these activities to promote student achievement takes the form of an annual report submitted, via email or Box, to the Office of Academic Insight (formerly the Office of Academic Assessment, a centralized office reporting to the Office of the Provost) between April 18 ^th and July 1 ^st. This extended submission timeline is intended to accommodate faculty on both 9- and 12-month appointments.

In keeping with the cycle described above, each educational program report addresses five key components, each defined on the Auburn University Quality of Assessment Rubric:

• Student learning outcomes. “Clearly articulated and widely communicated statements describing all of the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities that all students completing an educational program should achieve.”
• Curriculum map. “A matrix that represents visually the alignment between program student learning outcomes and required courses/experiences.”
• Assessment methodology. “Systematic measurement of extent to which student learning outcomes are being achieved, making use of direct measures and sound reasoning.” 
• Assessment results. “Assessment results reported in relation to the student learning outcomes and communicated with program faculty.”
• Use of results. “Evidence that assessment results have been discussed, interpreted, and acted upon, as appropriate.”

A significant focus of Auburn University’s assessment process is the alignment of each of the five components with each program’s indicated student learning outcomes.

From 2004 to 2015, academic degree program assessment was supported by Auburn’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. In July 2015, Auburn established a separate Office of Academic Assessment to provide dedicated assessment support to faculty responsible for educational programs. The Office of Academic Assessment was initially staffed by two full-time professional staff, a director and a specialist. Office leadership worked closely with faculty and administrators to create an open dialogue about ways in which assessment quality could be improved. After 2015, the office began to implement a meta-assessment approach to program assessment of student learning. Through this office, faculty are provided instructions for filing assessment reports, examples of exemplary reports, resources for program assessment and professional development, and answers to frequently asked questions. In addition, the office provides specialized training both in person and through a Canvas course for all new assessment coordinators each year. Other professional development opportunities throughout the year are focused on developing student learning outcomes, developing curriculum maps, and accessing and using student learning data more efficiently.

In 2019, the Office of Academic Assessment applied for and received the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s Excellence in Assessment (EIA) designation. This award recognizes institutions that have developed fully integrated assessment practices that stretch to all corners of the institution. Designees have a proven track-record of using assessment results to guide institutional decision-making and improve student performance. In 2021, the Office of Academic Assessment was rebranded as the Office of Academic Insight, which now houses all program assessment, general education assessment, and will coordinate the upcoming Quality Enhancement Plan. The office is now staffed by six full-time professional staff, four graduate assistants, and one undergraduate student employee.

Educational Degree Program Participation in the Assessment of Student Learning

While any one snapshot of assessment activity differs from the next, it can be fairly stated that all of Auburn’s educational programs have participated in a systematic, ongoing process of assessment of student achievement over time. Periodically, the Office of Institutional Research provides a complete list of all educational programs offered by Auburn University at the current time, in keeping with the Institutional Summary Form included with this CCR. Over the most recent three years (2020, 2021, and 2022), an assessment report of the type just described has been submitted to the Office of Academic Insight for approximately 95 percent of Auburn’s educational programs. In the most recent year (2022), 100 percent of all expected assessment reports were received. The Office of Academic Insight works closely with college leadership (associate deans for academics and instruction) to monitor an expected reports list and contacts for each educational degree program. As new programs are created and/or programs are closed, the Office of Academic Insight communicates with college leadership, the Registrar’s Office, and/or the Office of Institutional Research to confirm these programmatic changes and update an expected report list. In any dynamic university, there are challenges to calculating participation statistics as new educational programs are created, some old ones are closed, and other types of curricular development occur. Previously, special circumstances, such as having no student enrollment or no graduates, meant that some programs did not file full reports each year.

In 2021, a new reporting template was introduced so that each program that falls under these special circumstances will submit a foundational framework for assessment, without reporting new results or new use of results sections. Assessment reports for distance programs with a parallel on-campus program are typically submitted in a single report. Sometimes reports include multiple programs clustered together in other ways that make sense to the faculty members who know those programs best. Despite these challenges to the calculation of participation rates, Auburn University can show holistically a focus on improving student learning through assessment of the extent to which students are learning what faculty intended for them to learn.

Following this narrative, Table 8.2-1 presents a complete census of assessment reports from the most recent three years of assessment reports submitted by the program. The 2022 reports within each of those documents were reviewed in Summer 2022 .

Sample of Educational Program Assessment Procedures and Findings

Although three years of assessment reports are included for all educational degree programs, as supporting evidence for this standard, this narrative highlights 12 programs (one from each academic college) to illustrate the variety of outcomes, measurement strategies, and improvement methods employed across the wide array of colleges, disciplines, and program types at Auburn University.

College of Agriculture: Bachelor of Biosystems Engineering (BBSE) dual program with Samuel Ginn College of Engineering

Undergraduate students in the Biosystems Engineering program receive instruction from within both the College of Agriculture and the College of Engineering. The program itself is accredited by the disciplinary accreditor, ABET, which supplies engineering programs with a standard set of student learning outcomes (1 through 7 ). There are four pathways to the Bachelor of Biosystems Engineering, each with overlapping required courses and specialized courses. All pathways begin with common coverage of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and computing in the freshman year. The junior and senior years of the program contain course experiences that provide most of the preparation for future study and careers in biological engineering-related fields.

All assessment efforts occur using a) the capstone design course, BSEN 3310 Hydraulic Transport in Biological Systems; b) the fundamentals of engineering (FE) examination results; and c) the Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI) survey data. All four pathways culminate in the capstone design course, where students work in teams to complete a major design experience. This major design experience provides the final opportunity for students to gain competence in being able to understand the role of engineering in society, provide leadership in multidisciplinary team environments, and to begin the process of developing professionally. The EBI survey documents student responses to questions on learning outcomes and other questions related to experiences as Auburn University Engineering students. This measure serves mostly as an indirect measure. The FE examination is a nationwide exam taken by Engineering students who are close to graduating, and recent graduates of undergraduate Engineering programs to test their basic knowledge in mathematics, science, and engineering. The test is also the first of two tests that an engineer must pass to be licensed as a Professional Engineer. Previous cycles of assessment data have shown that students in the program are performing at a lower pass rate than the national average. The program is using this data to guide improvements in both instruction and assessment, not limited to refining their review classes, improving overall administration, updating assignments to better reflect expectations, improving rubrics for assessment of poster presentations, and streamlining the design project process to provide more time for individual student attention and feedback on students’ ability to design a system, component, or process.

At least two of the monthly faculty meetings in an academic year include the discussion of assessment data. Two faculty retreats are also held each year, during which assessment results are shared and discussed.

College of Architecture, Design and Construction: Executive Technical Construction Management Graduate Certificate

The Executive Technical Certificate in Construction Management is a distance education program in the McWhorter School of Building Science. All students in the certificate program are full time employees in construction or a related sector. The program was started as part of the ongoing collaboration between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE ) and the McWhorter School since 2009.

The certificate has four student learning outcomes, each of which is related to a skillset for a construction professional. The outcomes are measured using exams, course assignments, research papers, research projects, and a final group project. Because each assessment focuses on a singular outcome or sub-outcome, the program is able to use assignment scores to determine mastery. Annually collected data inform improvements to curriculum and assessment. Program faculty have been focused on lower student performance within the area of mechanical and plumbing systems, as students enter the program with varying levels of background experience. Specifically, the program is using their data to guide learning improvement by incorporating more interactive discussions to deepen understanding of the content, adding content on research methodologies and data collection, and emphasizing library resources. The adjustments have significantly improved the quality of research and writing to the point that several papers have been submitted and accepted to international conferences.

Raymond J. Harbert College of Business: Master of Accountancy

The School of Accountancy is a professional school that offers on-campus and distance options for the Master of Accountancy degree. The mission of the school is to advance the field of accounting and prepare tomorrow’s accounting leaders. Accounting graduates generally pursue licensure to practice accounting (Certified Public Accountant licensure). Both the Harbert College of Business and the School of Accountancy are accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) .

The program’s assessment process is driven strongly by the discipline’s connection to practice, the common body of knowledge for the licensure exam, and the emphasis placed on these drivers by AACSB. In early 2014, the program restructured their approach to assessment because AACSB teams were finding that schools were gathering masses of data on numerous learning outcomes but were doing little with the results. The revised process has received strong positive feedback from the faculty and has been praised during their maintenance of accreditation with AACSB. The program collects direct measures semiannually and indirect measures annually. Direct measures include exam questions and analytical projects and presentations, which are accompanied by well-developed rubrics used by faculty throughout the program. Each outcome is reviewed separately and a plan for continuous improvement is developed. In a recent cycle of results, students struggled with determining what to “query” and how models should be used for future data. Faculty have used their data to guide improvements by adjusting the curriculum to provide for more challenging and complex cases of study focused on improving critical thinking skills, providing more active learning opportunities to improve confidence, adding units that cover current and relevant topics (i.e., Bitcoin), and providing more consistent and specific feedback to students throughout their coursework.

College of Education: Program Evaluation Graduate Certificate

The Program Evaluation Graduate Certificate is housed in the Educational Psychology program within the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology. The certificate is intended to prepare individuals for engagement in program evaluation roles as they earn their doctoral degree in a related area. The focus of the certificate is to combine research and practical application to understand significant issues in program evaluation. The certificate is guided by three learning outcomes that are assessed within three required courses and a proposed practicum experience.

The certificate faculty have developed and implemented a portfolio-based measurement to offer students an authentic assessment opportunity and engage students in the process of self-assessment and reflection in relation to the student learning outcomes. Students are eligible for a portfolio assessment review after they complete all required courses and submit a request to obtain the certificate. Students then submit evidence and artifacts to support mastery of the outcomes. Faculty review a sample of artifacts from students who complete the certificate in the year prior using specific scoring rubrics that were developed for each student learning outcome. After a few cycles of data, it was clear to faculty that students were having the most difficulty developing program logic models. To improve student learning, the faculty have developed a set of criteria questions to improve the quality of logic models by having students develop connections between the various types of models and their application in the field. Additionally, faculty have been developing a practicum experience for students in the certificate.

College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment: Bachelor of Wildlife Ecology & Management

The Bachelor of Science degree program in Wildlife Ecology & Management provides a broad biological education that is specifically designed to meet the needs of students interested in careers involving wildlife ecology, research, management, and conservation. Completion of the Wildlife Ecology & Management degree program satisfies the educational requirements for voluntary certification as an Associate Wildlife Biologist (AWB) or Certified Wildlife Biologist (CWB) by The Wildlife Society. The Pre-Veterinary Medicine concentration of the program exposes students to the basic principles of wildlife management while also preparing them for veterinary school. The minimum requirements for admission into a college of veterinary medicine are incorporated into the first three years of the Pre-Veterinary Medicine concentration. The degree is housed completely on campus.

Assessment in the Wildlife Ecology & Management program is guided by four student learning outcomes, with a fifth outcome for non-Pre-Vet students. Outcomes are assessed using final examinations (short answer, essay, fill in the blank, multiple-choice questions) and a field-based course where students work with multiple faculty members to collect field data, conduct data analyses, and interpret results using structured decision making. The program’s assessment efforts had to pivot during the COVID-19 pandemic, when field experiences were no longer possible in their original form. Lower performance on some student learning outcomes was attributed to a decrease in individualized attention due to class size. The program uses their data to focus on improving student learning by decreasing class sizes and providing more opportunities for students to take required classes.

College of Human Sciences: Doctor of Nutrition

The PhD program in Nutrition provides graduate students the opportunity to engage in intensive study and research in nutritional studies related to diabetes, obesity, and its related complications. Assessment of the four student learning outcomes is composed of three assignments: the preliminary examination, the oral examination/final defense, and graduate level knowledge in a course, which is assessed using a rubric throughout the defense process. Each student is evaluated by at least three faculty members. The program also focuses on oral communication, written communication, and metabolic concepts. Each of these is assessed within the doctoral-level coursework. Students are given multiple opportunities to revise and resubmit their work through a system of consistent and constructive feedback.

Faculty in the program consistently review data after each academic year. In particular, faculty have noted a difference in conceptual understanding among international students. Metabolic concepts are assessed using both a pre- and post-test, which indicates to faculty where to place more emphasis on certain topics within the course. In their focus on improvement of student learning, faculty use the results from the pre-test to guide more intensive review sessions and opportunities to engage more with the concepts, utilizing individual interventions to strengthen understanding.

College of Liberal Arts: Bachelor of Fine Arts in Theatre

The Department of Theatre within the College of Liberal Arts has two degree programs: a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree. The BFA has four degree tracks, which are each reported separately for assessment purposes: Theatre Management (THMN), Theatre Design and Technology, Theatre Performance, and Music Theatre. For brevity purposes, the following discussion focuses only on the THMN track. THMN students have a heavy practicum component, as much of their training derives from practical management experience. The Department of Theatre produces a season of six productions each year, thereby limiting the number of students to whom meaningful practicum work in the form of stage management may be assigned. Traditionally, all students in the program receive one stage management assignment per year, with sophomores serving as assistants and juniors and seniors serving as managers.

Practicum experiences are built on a foundation of lecture/studio coursework and students are assessed through their work on individual productions, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Students are quantitatively assessed through the review of their promptbook, which is portfolio of all aspects of a given production, including plans for production sound and lighting, rehearsal reports, blocking notation, and emergency protocols, among many other aspects. A rubric is used by faculty to assess student performance on this task. Students are qualitatively assessed through the observations of relevant faculty, staff, independent contractors, and peer collaborators. Each of the observers use a program-developed assessment form where students are rated on particular communication components and are given feedback regarding their strengths and opportunities for growth.

Faculty attend an early fall retreat to discuss assessment results and the improvement of student learning. It has been determined that communication skills and collaboration skills are strengths of many of the THMN students. Areas for improvement included opportunities for creative and critical thinking and under-pressure communication. In particular, faculty are guiding students to discover alternative ways to assess each other and themselves, rather than relying on a rubric for all evaluation. Faculty have also been developing more detailed rubrics for the purpose of consistent and constructive feedback on student performance in a variety of roles.

College of Nursing: MSN Nurse Educator and Primary Care Nurse Practitioner

The MSN programs prepare professional nurses to provide patient-centered, culturally competent, evidence-based care for diverse populations in a dynamic health care environment. Auburn University’s College of Nursing offers two MSN options that award the degree of Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) through the main campus. The Nurse Educator (NE) program is a three-semester, full-time program, and the Primary Care Nurse Practitioner (PCNP) program is a six-semester full-time program. Either of these tracks can be completed full-time or part-time. The courses are offered through a distance program as well, with some courses completely distance and some in a hybrid format. The graduate programs in the College of Nursing are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education. The MSN tracks are approved by the Alabama Board of Nursing .

The MSN curriculum focuses on six skill areas: communication and collaboration skills, critical thinking and clinical judgment skills, scholarship for evidence-based practice, clinical prevention and population health skills, diversity skills, and leadership skills. Within those areas, each of the tracks is composed of 10 track-specific learning outcomes. All outcomes are assessed both within course-based assessments and a summative ePortfolio. The program also collects data from external curricular measures, including a competency survey from the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF), a competency survey from the National League for Nursing (NLN), exit and alumni surveys from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), Nurse Practitioner Predictor Exams from the Advanced Practice Education Associates (APEA) and the national exam for the Family Nurse Practitioner Certification through the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) and the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP).

Program faculty engage with their data on a regular basis, determining what factors may have affected results and whether a change in performance warrants action. Assessment within the MSN program is guided by an evaluation committee, regular faculty meetings, and an annual evaluation retreat. Faculty noticed lower presentation scores in the area of improving collaboration and communication within patient care. Improvements within the curriculum have included an increase in module content focused on written communication and implementing more detailed assignment guidelines aimed at giving students the best chance for success. In response to the pandemic, the program spent considerable time modifying and enhancing online instruction. Throughout the curriculum, faculty are focused on providing students with a quality and comprehensive education through a continuous process of curricular and individual improvements.

Harrison College of Pharmacy: Master of Science - Health Outcomes Research and Policy Option – Thesis

The Health Outcomes Research and Policy (HORP) - Thesis is an option within the Master of Science degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences. This option focuses on the studies of the social and behavioral aspects of pharmacy, research to maximize medication-related outcomes, and comparative effectiveness and safety research. The program is guided by five student learning outcomes that are assessed through proposal and final thesis defenses as well as student presentations in the departmental seminar and performance on course projects. Performance on each of the assessments is evaluated using specific rubrics.

The HORP faculty receive all assessment results each June and then attend a faculty retreat in July, where results are discussed and a plan of action to improve student learning is developed. Data from students indicated that there was inconsistency in the quantity and quality of feedback on presentations in the departmental seminar. In focusing on improvements of student learning, the faculty developed a three-step plan to ensure that: consistent feedback was being collected, the students were reviewing feedback with their advisor, and a rubric was revised to give more usable information to the presenter. Performance on one outcome indicated a need to provide more opportunities to engage in systematic review of the literature, and a rubric was developed to give students feedback on their abilities. Last, the program has been working toward mapping content across the departmental courses and evaluating the curriculum for opportunities to strengthen understanding through vertical integration of the content.

College of Sciences and Mathematics: Doctor of Philosophy, Biological Sciences

The PhD in Biological Sciences consists of 40 faculty members with four core areas of research emphasis: Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation; Evolutionary Genetics and Systematics; Physiological Adaptation and Functional Genomics; and Host-Microbial Interactions. Many faculty members in the program are multidisciplinary in their research, spanning two or more of these core areas. These faculty members direct and advise the dissertation research of all PhD students, and they teach in specialty graduate-level courses in the subdisciplines.

Outcomes and measures for the PhD program center around generalized outcomes (i.e., student’s depth and breadth of knowledge of their particular subdiscipline and the ability to communicate their research in written and oral formats to peers). Measurement of the outcomes is obtained using rubrics and quantifying tangible products of publications and presentations in scientific settings, which are composed of departmental presentations, society meetings, and outreach events. The rubrics for student assessment (e.g., preliminary oral exam, final oral exam, seminar, dissertation evaluation) are completed by all faculty members and at least one additional faculty member (and an outside reader for the final defense) to rate the student’s performance. The rubrics are completed independently so that each committee member is unaware of each other’s ratings.

Student performance data are reviewed at the end of each academic year. The faculty have noted an upward trend in scores on quality of scientific communication, and faculty have related that change to more experience with the content and a more comfortable environment due to Zoom formatting. In addition, faculty have seen scores increasing with more reliable assessment instruments. Based on student learning data, faculty have focused their improvement efforts toward developing more detailed rubrics to use throughout the curriculum to help with transparency and consistency in faculty ratings. In addition, these revisions aim to better define potential deficits in individual student performance and highlight areas for development. Low performance in writing quality has led faculty to introduce and reinforce various aspects of the writing process that can be mastered before writing the dissertation. As part of the faculty’s purposeful reflection, the faculty will begin comparing the results of students at the dissertation proposal stage to the results of their final seminar.

College of Veterinary Medicine: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine

The Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) program is a 4-year professional degree program. The Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is one of only 30 accredited programs conferring this degree in North America. The CVM is accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Education (AVMA COE ). To maintain accreditation, the CVM must demonstrate that senior students have gained skills in nine core competencies, but measurement of those competencies is left up to the discretion of the college. The AVMA COE also specifies that 80 percent or more of each college’s graduating senior students must have passed a licensing examination at the time of graduation. The North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) is a national multi-species examination that all veterinarians must pass to obtain licensure to practice in the United States .

The program organizes its learning outcomes based on the nine competencies and each of the categories assessed within the NAVLE. The CVM instituted a comprehensive system of direct assessment of individual student achievement using E*Value educational software. This process involved 13 two-week rotations and many elective rotations involving specific and core direct assessments. Students enter procedures within the system, and faculty review and accept or reject those procedures as being completed competently. For those procedures that have not merited approval, students must repeat the procedure, undergo reassessment, and re-enter the procedure in the system. Each of the nine competencies is also assessed indirectly using multiple questions on each clinical rotation (internal assessors) and during externships/preceptorships (external assessors).

The curriculum committee reviews the data annually based on a standardized SOP (standard operating procedure), and when problem areas are identified, course coordinators must complete a self-assessment within 60 days that describes the planned changes for the next course offering and the names of individuals they recommend for completion of peer course evaluation during the next course offering. The committee itself is composed of two faculty members from each department and two students (one each who has completed year 1 and year 2). Overall curriculum review is on a five-year cycle, focusing on a specific year of the program during each annual year, with the fifth year focused on a holistic curricular review. Due to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, most adjustments to student learning have been made in the area of surgical training within years 1 and 2. Because of the loss of in-person training, these students are further behind in these skills. The faculty have been using data to guide improvements, specifically on regaining these lost skills and strengthening the leadership among faculty and staff in preparation for the NAVLE.

Meta-Assessment to Promote Student Achievement and Enhance Faculty Efforts

Just as faculty members regularly consider evidence of student achievement as they seek to improve Auburn University’s educational programs, so does Auburn promote opportunities to consider how well the university’s assessment procedures themselves are working to examine and enhance student learning. The final section of this narrative will describe how, under the leadership of the Office of Academic Insight, Auburn has established a meta-assessment process to promote student achievement.

From its inception in 2015, the Office of Academic Insight (formerly Office of Academic Assessment) has worked closely with faculty and administrators to create an open dialogue about ways in which assessment quality could be improved. To help improve the quality of assessment on campus and foster a stronger culture of assessment, the first goal of the office was to develop a consistent understanding of what assessment entails and what high quality assessment looks like.

To this end, in 2015, 13 faculty members from across campus met weekly to develop Auburn’s initial Quality of Assessment Rubric. This rubric was designed, first, to articulate sound assessment practice for all academic degree programs and, second, to be used as a framework for assessing the quality of programs’ assessment processes through a peer review system that allows for formative feedback to be delivered to each program. The rubric was frozen after development to allow faculty and Office of Academic Insight leadership to focus on developing stronger assessment processes across campus. In 2021, the rubric was unfrozen and a team of 12 faculty met with the Director of the office again to determine if any changes or clarifications were needed. A few minor changes were made to enhance the user experience and allow for greater consistency across raters. More importantly, to support use of results and learning improvement, two separate elements were created to focus individually on purposeful reflection and action planning. In addition to the revision of the Quality of Assessment Rubric, the faculty team created supplementary guidance as an appendix to the rubric. The formative feedback for the educational program assessment reports is developed during an annual Meta-Assessment Institute.

Each July, the Office of Academic Insight convenes 10-30 faculty and staff members and provides them with extensive assessment training so that they can assess the educational program assessment reports using the Quality of Assessment Rubric and write specific constructive feedback to academic degree programs on the quality of their assessment processes. Participants in the institute receive a stipend. Through the work of these institute participants, each educational program receives a feedback report by October 1 that includes the scores for each element of the Quality of Assessment Rubric as well as high-quality actionable, formative feedback. We acknowledge that the feedback associated below is for a program that does not have exemplary practices. As with many of our programs, the focus is on continuous improvement and providing programs with that actionable, formative feedback.

The Quality of Assessment Rubric includes four levels of quality for each assessment practice assessed: 1-beginning, 2-developing, 3-mature, or 4-exemplary, with exemplary only being assigned to those programs going above and beyond expectations in their assessment processes. Raters are permitted to assign half points (e.g., 2.5 - between developing and mature). Each rater independently assigns scores, and then an adjudication session takes place during which any discrepancies with their faculty partner are discussed and final ratings and feedback are generated. The quantitative feedback is used to produce institution-level reports and overall Quality of Assessment Scores each year. Having no outcomes, communication strategies, curriculum map, measures, results or improvement seeking described results in a score of 1-beginning. If programs are rated above a one but below a three on any element of the rubric, it is likely that those components of the assessment cycle are present but not of the highest quality. Scores of three and four are excellent.

In 2021, the overall average Quality of Assessment Score for all educational programs was 3.21 or between “Mature” and “Exemplary” on the Quality of Assessment Rubric. In 2022, the overall average increased to 3.32. Figure 8.2.a-1 below shows improvement between 2016 and 2022. In 2021, the new elements were added to the Quality of Assessment Rubric, which impacted the average scores. Over the past year, the Office of Academic Insight has met with many programs with lower-than-expected scores on the Action Plan element. Consultations have been focused on breaking down results to identify areas for improvement specifically related to student performance on student learning outcomes. Some consultations have involved discussing programmatic improvements as compared to learning improvements, improving assessment measures (i.e., rubrics), and ensuring that programs develop a process that will provide faculty with meaningful and actionable data.

Office of Academic Insight staff also held multiple department-wide and college-wide sessions to review assessment processes, expectations, and annual report feedback. Within these consultations and through the delivery of professional development, faculty have refocused their assessment efforts on the use of results to fuel a mindset of continuous improvement. Therefore, it can be seen in Figure 8.2.a-1 that the quality of assessment is continuing to improve. Figure 8.2.a-2 shows improvement by charting, by year, the proportion of programs qualifying as beginning, developing, mature, and exemplary (with an average score of 4 across all assessment characteristics assessed). Some programs continue to search for the most efficient and valuable ways to submit their reports, sometimes combining multiple programs into one report, which results in a slight fluctuation in the number of reports submitted each year. Newer programs and any programs rethinking assessment practices will always have a difficult time of reaching mature assessment in the first few years in which they submit reports. Figure 8.2.a-2 shows that overwhelmingly programs have increased the quality of their assessment practices, with almost two-thirds of all programs demonstrating mature assessment practices in 2018 and now 77 percent of all programs demonstrating mature assessment practices.

Figure 8.2.a-1. Overall Quality of Assessment Average Score by Year

Figure 8.2.a-2. Overall Quality of Assessment Maturity by Year

Note: 334 programs submitted assessment reports in 2020, 312 programs submitted assessment reports in 2021, and 375 programs submitted assessment reports in 2022. All programs submitting reports for the Meta-Assessment Institute are included in the graph above.

While the figures above focus on overall rubric scores, results from each annual Meta-Assessment Institute can also be analyzed in detail. Figure 8.2.a-3, below, shows the average score for each rubric element on the revised Quality of Assessment Rubric, capturing features such as how specifically student learning outcomes are stated, how directly they are measured, and how fully the results of those measurements are communicated. This graph shows data from the past seven years, with the exception of the final two elements, which were revised in 2021. Previously there were eleven elements, but now there are 12, spread across five broader categories on the Quality of Assessment Rubric.

Scores from 2021 appear in green, and those from 2022 appear in navy blue. All programs submitting reports are included.

Figure 8.2.a-3. Quality of Assessment Scores by Element

Figure 8.2.a-3 illustrates that the overall quality of assessment has improved since the implementation of the revised rubric. Auburn University’s educational programs, on average, are maintaining mature assessment practices in all but one area, where the average rubric score is still in the developing range. A score of 2-developing does not represent an absence of the desired behavior, but rather an opportunity for growth and reflection, and many programs have been improving the quality of their assessment practices. As an institution, Auburn is maintaining high-quality student learning outcomes and direct measurement strategies, and the average program has begun to implement improvement plans based on the most recent cycle of assessment.

Documentation of Student Achievement Assessment in Auburn University’s Educational Programs

Table 8.2.a-1, below, provides a census of the institution’s current educational programs, tied to the Institutional Summary Form submitted with this report.1 Like that form, the table groups educational programs by college and department. A link to the left of each educational program connects to the assessment reports for the most recent three years for that program. If there is no link, a note in the right-most column provides the reason—most typically that the program is new or has been closed. If the program has no student enrollment or no graduates, that information will be indicated within the linked report.

Conclusion

Auburn University identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results for each of its educational programs.

For all educational programs, Auburn University employs an annual student learning outcome assessment cycle that is in compliance with SACSCOC Standard 8.2.a. The Office of Academic Insight has implemented a process whereby all educational degree programs first identify the set of specific knowledge, skills and dispositions expected of all program graduates. Outcomes are aligned with required experiences within the program’s curriculum, and the program designs measures to assess the extent to which students achieve the desired learning outcomes. Each program has implemented a process whereby faculty meet to discuss results and develop an Action Plan, with formulation, implementation, and reassessment aimed at improving student learning in direct response to the results from the last cycle of assessment. All aspects of the assessment cycle are specifically aligned to each program’s set of student learning outcomes. As Auburn University continues to strive toward consistent and meaningful improvement of student learning, the Office of Academic Insight will shift mature and exemplary programs toward a process of learning improvement. In this shift, the focus will be more heavily on development of strategies that will directly impact student learning.

Table 8.2.a-1: Program Inventory