麻豆视频APK

Charge / Functions

1. Support, promote, coordinate and otherwise facilitate assessment activities and best practices to advance institutional effectiveness and student learning across the University.
2. Ensure that goals and objectives developed by University programs or units are in alignment with the mission and are used for continuous improvement.
3. Communicate relevant information about assessment activity to all constituencies of 麻豆视频APK University.

Committee Composition

• Two elected faculty members from each college
• One appointed faculty member by the General Education Committee
• One staff representative appointed by the Associate Vice President for Student Life and Success
• One staff representative appointed by the Dean of Student Success
• The Director of Institutional Research
• A representative of the Farley Library appointed by the Director of the Library
• Up to two additional assessment experts appointed by the Provost from University faculty, staff and administration
• Two student representatives
  • One undergraduate student appointed by student government
  • One graduate student selected by the committee

The Faculty co-Chair of the Assessment Committee will be elected by the Committee.

Faculty members serve three-year renewable terms.

Member Expectations

The UAC typically meets once per month. In addition to attending meetings and participating in discussion necessary for fulfillment of the UAC charge (expected of all members), faculty and staff representatives are expected to complete an evaluation of at least three academic program or administrative unit assessment reports per academic year.

To streamline and facilitate familiarity with reviewer expectations:

• Faculty/academic program representatives are asked to review 3-5 academic program assessment reports/reviews (dependent upon complexity); and
• Likewise, staff/administrative unit representatives are asked to review 3-5 administrative unit assessment reports/reviews (dependent upon complexity).

Within those expectations, and to the extent possible, members will only be expected to evaluate reviews/reports of the same type within their academic or administrative domains.

• That is, a single academic program reviewer will only be expected to evaluate either bridge assessment reports or reporting associated with the five-year program review/assessment model.
• Likewise, a single administrative unit program reviewer will only be expected to evaluate either full reviews or annual updates.

These guidelines ensure both familiarity and engagement of UAC members with the review processes supported by the UAC. It also distributes shared responsibility for committee progress, while also limiting, codifying and communicating workload expectations for committee members in advance.

Despite member workload expectations that may surpass those of many other committees, we believe this level of engagement is critical for developing a culture of assessment at 麻豆视频APK.

Committee Members

• Committee Co-Chairs:
  • Mr. Brian Bogert
  • Dr. Chad Stanley