Announcements & Meetings

12:30–1:50 p.m., DL1-EGG701

Attendance: Marisol Bazile, Amy Bravo, Felicia Bruno, Ray Carney, Cecilia Dong, Kathleen Gill, Penisse Gomillion, Mindy Haar, Kristina Haase, Mark Hampton, Dongsei Kim, Linda Matthews, Radoslaw Nowak, Janel Owens, Raddy Ramos, Monika Rohde, Giovanni Santamaria, Richard Shameer, Dawn Tennenbaum, Vanessa Vacchiano, and Katherine Zuliani.

Kathleen Gill, Director of Research, Assessment and Decision Support, served as moderator for the meeting. Discussed were the plans to change the Institutional Assessment Plan to a newly created Continuous Program Improvement (“CPI”) process in which both academic and administrative units undergo an New York Institute of Technology program review every four years. This review process will focus on continuous improvement efforts. For 2018-19, twenty-five (25) programs will be reviewed.

The committee consented to the following vision to guide its ongoing efforts. The CPI Committee:

• Serves as a team committed to the mission of continuously improving New York Tech
• Is a supportive, collaborative community committed to frank, but safe discussions about needed improvements
• Seeks to develop relationships across functional areas and advance the understanding of how academic and administrative units operate and why
• Will support a culture of engagement, inclusivity, and the pursuit of quality

A formal proposed name change from Assessment Committee to the Continuous Program Improvement (CPI) Committee will be formally presented to the Academic Senate in October 2018 with approval via vote expected in December 2018.

On Wednesday, August 29th, New York Institute of Technology will host its Assessment Day for faculty and staff to communicate the new CPI process to the New York Tech community.

12:45–2:10 p.m., DL2-MA706

The Assessment Committee met for its fourth meeting of the academic year on April 12th, 2018. Twelve of twenty-five members attended or sent a representative. The committee agenda was to discuss a draft Annual Assessment Committee Report to the Academic Senate that combined reporting for AY 2015-2016 and AY 2016-2017.

Dr. Kathleen Gill, the Director of Research, Assessment & Decision Support, reviewed highlights of the combined two-year assessment report that included the following:

• 96% and 100% of academic programs and global campuses submitted Assessment Reports for AY 2015-2016 and AY 2016-2017, respectively.
• While the new program assessment evaluation rubric applied to the AY 2016- 2017 reports was effective in detailing criteria for assessment reporting, there were significant variations in ratings by criteria when rated by multiple reviewers.
• The Assessment Committee would benefit from opportunities to develop a consistent understanding of report criteria. It will be important to develop a consistent membership body that can be engaged in the ongoing improvement of New York Institute of Technology assessment processes over time.
• Ratings for AY 2015-2016 and AY 2016-2017 are available in the two-year report. However, the question of consistent inter-rater reliability calls the ratings into question – the application of the evaluation rubric needs to be more carefully vetted before conclusions can be drawn based on the summative ratings.

A final version of the two-year assessment report will be submitted to the Academic Senate prior to its May 2018 meeting.

Dr. Gill also communicated to the committee that the Constitution Committee of the Academic Senate took the initial step of approving the proposed Assessment Committee name change and revised charge. It was not necessary to formally change the membership. New members will be added as subcommittee members. The proposal to reconstitute the Assessment Committee as the Continuous Program Improvement (CPI) Committee will undergo the formal governance procedures for approval in fall 2018.

12:45–2:10 p.m., DL2-MA706

Attendance: Nada Anid; Babek Beheshti; Steve Billis; Kathleen Gill; Mark Hampton; Michael Izady; Ellen Katz; Joerg Leheste; Rakesh Mittal; Noreen O’Brien; Christian Pongratz; Dan Quigley; Megyn Shea; Larry Silverstein; Vanessa Vacchiano; Tao Zhang.

The Assessment Committee met for its third meeting of the academic year on March 1st, 2018. Fifteen of twenty-five members attended or sent a representative.

The committee agenda included:

• Proposed Continuous Program Improvement (CPI) Process
• Academic CPI Report Template
• Proposed Changes to Assessment Committee
• Sample Academic CPI Schedule

Dr. Kathleen Gill, the Director of Research, Assessment & Decision Support, guided members through a draft report template and proposed timeline for the Academic CPI process. A suggestion was made to make it better align it with the New York Institute of Technology budget year to allow critical needs identified through the CPI process to be included in school-level budget requests.

A discussion ensued concerning the current charge and membership of the Assessment Committee. Given the transition toward a CPI process that would encompass both academic and administrative units, the committee’s current charge and membership will need to evolve to reflect this. The committee unanimously accepted the following motion:

• That the CPI framework, with the associated academic and administrative reporting templates and four-year cycle process, be adopted;
• That the current committee’s charge, name, and membership be reconsidered;
• That the Constitution Committee be assigned the task of reviewing the current Assessment Committee charge, name, and membership to align with current Middle States expectations and New York Institute of Technology planning needs; and
• That the Constitution Committee undertake this review with input from a democratic representation of all units, both academic and non-academic.

Dr. Gill will forward the motion to the Academic Senate President for the Constitution Committee’s consideration.

12:30–1:50 p.m., DL2-MA706

Attendance: Christian Pongratz; Ellen Katz; Jess Boronico; Laihan Luo; Laurence Silverstein; Maria Perbellini; Mark Hampton; Michael Izady; Nabi Sertac Artan; Dan Quigley; Rakesh Mittal; Shifang Li; Steven Billis; Susanna Kung-Lau; Tao Zhang.

The committee agenda included:
 

• Understand why a new conception of "assessment" is necessary at New York Tech.
• Discuss a new assessment framework—continuous program improvement (CPI)—that addresses overall program health, relevance, and viability, and that works for administrative, as well as academic programs.
• Discuss the timeline and process for rolling out the new framework.

Led by Dr. Mark Hampton, the Vice President for Research, Assessment & Decision Support (RADS), members had great discussion, and suggestions that positioned New York Institute of Technology to move forward to transform the current PLO assessment practice into a new framework that focuses on holistic continuous improvement at all levels and all areas as an institution. Detailed implementation plan will be worked out with each constituent in spring of 2019, taking into consideration of all professional accreditation cycles.

Please find the meeting presentation here.

12:30–1:50 p.m., DL2-MA706

Attendance: Joerg Leheste, Kathleen Gill, Laihan Luo, Laurence Silverstein, Jeffrey Riven (On behalf of Maria Perbellini), Mark Hampton, Michael Izady, Nada Anid, Patricia Burlaud, Dan Quigley, Rakesh Mittal, Shifang Li, Susanna Kung-Lau, Nabi Sertac Artan, Jason Rosenblum.

The committee agenda included:
 

• Assessment Committee Mission
• Status of June 2017 Reports
• Information Literacy Initiative
• Middle States Accreditation Expectations
• 2017 Institutional Improvement Survey
• Proposal to change New York Institute of Technology assessment practice and process

Members reviewed the Assessment Committee's mission which was written in 2008 based on the previous version of Middle States accreditation standards, and agreed that it needs an update that reflects the new Middle States standards. Director of Research, Assessment and Decision Support, Kathleen Gill, discussed her initial review of the June 2017 annual reports indicating that a number of reports need to provide additional information. Committee members agreed to participate in a full review of the reports using the evaluation rubric and Research, Assessment and Decision Support will collect the results and communicate feedback to academic department on behalf of the Assessment Committee.

Information literacy is one of the New York Institute of Technology's institutional educational goals across disciplines and degree levels. Since the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) has recently refined (2016) information literacy in six frameworks, and recommends to implement the new framework by piloting it in selected academic units, Research, Assessment and Decision Support and Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) teamed with librarians to develop workshops for selected faculty members from each of academic schools starting April, 26th, 2017. As of October, 12, 2017, 16 faculty members have attended the one-day workshop and these faculty members are in the process of revising their assignments to reflect the new framework, and are expected to collect preliminary assessment results in AY17–18.

In response to the Middle States expectation for institutional continuous improvement, and the results from 2017 New York Institute of Technology Institutional Improvement Survey, the Assessment Committee recommended that the current N practice of assessing students learning needs to be put in the context of overall program assessment. The committee will discuss a proposed model for assessing overall program effectiveness at the next committee meeting. It will further discuss how New York Tech can phase the implementation of program effectiveness assessment across all program/units, while respecting established accreditation cycles in the next committee meeting.

12:30–1:50 p.m., DL2-MA706

Attendance: David Jackson, Fang Li, Francine Glazer, Jim Simon, John Kappenberg, Joo-Kwang Yun, Kathleen Gill, Laihan Luo, Laurence Silverstein, Lou Reinisch, Mark Hampton, Patricia Burlaud, Rakesh Mittal, Shifang Li, Steven Billis, Susan Neville, Youjeong Kim.

The committee agenda included:
 

• Report on March 31 Assessment Submissions
• Evaluation Rubric and Program Assessment Report Guide to PLOs
• AY17-18 General Education Assessment: Information literacy assessment
• Assessment Day – August 30, 2017 planning

Dr. Kathleen Gill reported that 85% of our programs have submitted AY16-17 program level assessment plan with corresponding measuring tools, although some programs need a follow-up meeting to discuss the measurement plan. To improve outcomes of students learning and achievement, members suggested that learning outcome assessment should be understood in the context of overall program evaluation, and overall students' experiences in New York Institute of Technology, including core curriculum. The committee raised concerns about sufficient student remediation, faculty engagement in the core, and connections between assessment and curriculum change, particularly if there are resource allocation implications. These factors could be lessening educational effectiveness at New York Tech.

With regard to the AY17-18 general education assessment, members agreed to the proposed selection of information literacy. A related follow-up meeting is scheduled to create a detailed plan. For the Assessment Day, August 30, members concurred to use the day to mobilize faculty in the process of Middle States accreditation self-study and engage faculty in the discussion of assessment for overall institutional improvement.

12:30–1:50 p.m., DL2-MA706

Attendance: David Jackson, Jim Simon, Joerg Leheste, Kathleen Gill, Laurence Silverstein, Mark Hampton, Patricia Burlaud, Rakesh Mittal, Shifang Li, Steven Billis, and Youjeong Kim.

Led by Dr. Kathleen Gill, Research, Assessment & Decision Support, committee members had a very engaged discussion regarding draft templates and instructions intended to communicate the New York Tech assessment expectations for June 2017. The committee discussed the following supporting Program Learning Outcomes (LO) and Curriculum Matrix (M) update.

Three draft templates:
 

• Institutional and Program Learning Goal Alignment
• Annual Program Assessment Report
• Annual General Education Assessment Report

Members concurred with each of the deliverable items for June 2017. In addition, the committee discussed a draft evaluation rubric for review of June 2017 reports. The committee commended the rubric for clarifying assessment expectations and recommended that it be used as a guideline for academic leaders. This rubric will be shared with Deans and Chairs in the next week. Finally, members provided thoughtful recommendations about the proposed process of evaluating the annual reports.

1:30–2:30 p.m., Via Zoom

Attendance: David Jackson, Elizabeth Donaldson, Fang Li, James Simon, James Wiesenfeld, Jason Rosenblum, Joerg Leheste, John Kappenberg, Joo-Kwang Yun, Kathy Gill, Maria Perbellini, Nada Anid, Patricia Burlaud, Rakesh Mittal, Shifang Li, Susanna Kung-Lau.

The assessment committee meeting was led by Dr. Kathleen Gill, Research, Assessment & Decision Support. Members started with a review of a document outlining the assessment expectations for June 2017 reporting. Members then vetted the new goal alignment template, an updated annual assessment template, as well as instructions and google forms that can be used to facilitate the assessment process. Reporting expectations for June 2017, include:
 

1. Updated Statement of Program Learning Goals and Curriculum Matrix
2. Institutional and Program Learning Goal Alignment
3. Annual Program Assessment Report (including both learning and achievement outcomes)
4. Annual General Educational Assessment Report (oral communication)

12:45–2:10 p.m., DL 2 (OW), Room 706 (MA)

Attendance: Babak Dastgheib-Beheshti, David Jackson, Fang Li, James Wiesenfeld, John Kappenberg, Joo-Kwang Yun, Laihan Luo, Laurence Silverstein, Maria Perbellini, Mark Hampton, Patricia Burlaud, Rakesh Mittal, Sheri Kelleher, Shifang Li, Steven Billis, Wenjia LI, Fran Glazer, Lou Rennisch.

The assessment committee meeting was led by Dr. Mark Hampton, VP, Research, Assessment & Decision Support. Members shared their evaluation of the academic program's annual assessment reports (AY15-16): Some programs had well executed assessment activities with comprehensive assessment data, and data analysis informed action for improving students learning, whiles others had none or missed information about important components of outcome assessment. In general, the quality vary.

To get every academic program on the same page and improve quality of the assessment reports in New York Institute of Technology, committee members worked together to draft a rubric that clarify the criteria and expectations for the annual report. Members had engaged discussion about the specifics of each element in the rubric. This rubric will be finalized by the Office of Research, Assessment & Decision Support, and will be used to evaluate academic program's annual report for the year of 16-17.

Attendees: David Jackson, Fang Li, James Wiesenfeld, Jim Simon, Joerg leheste, John Kappenberg, Joo-Kwang Yun, Kathleen Gill, Laurence Silverstein, Maria Perbellini, Mark Hampton, Patricia Burlaud, Rakesh Mittal, Sheri Kelleher, Shifang Li, Susan Neville, Tao Zhang, Lou Reinish, Babak Beheshti.

This was the first assessment committee meeting in 2016–2017 academic year, and it was led by the new leadership in Research, Assessment and Decision Support: Vice president, Dr. Mark Hampton, and Director ofResearch, Assessment and Decision Support, Dr. Kathy Gill.

Meeting agenda:
 

• Introductions
• Assessment Committee Duties per Academic Senate Constitution
• Assessment Committee Mission
• Middle States Standard V – Educational Effectiveness Assessment
• Higher Education Landscape
• Assessment at New York Tech

Attendees: David Cirela, David Jackson, Elaine Dellavecchia, Eleni Nikitopoulos, Francine Glazer, Frank Mruk, Harriet Arnone, John Kappenberg, Karen Vahey, Linda Matthews, Lisa Sparacino, Lou Reinisch, Maureen Cardoza, Monika Schueren, Nader Vossoughian, Niharika Nath, Olena Zhadko, Patricia Burlaud, Radoslaw Nowak, Ranja Roy, Steven Billis, Susan Neville, Susanna Kung-Lau, Shifang Li.

The committee is working to develop an assessment strategy to measure students' acquisition of New York Institute of Technology's newly adopted institution-level learning goals. During the session, committee members:
 

• Reflected on a report from National Institute for Learning Outcome Assessment: "Catalyzing Assignment Design Activity on Your Campus: Lessons from NILOA's Assignment Library Initiative."
• Reflected on New York Tech's own experiences with using course embedded assignments for core learning outcome assessment during the 2010–2011 academic year, and lessons learned from those activities.
• Reviewed two assignments in the DQP assignments library to understand which essential features characterize an assignment that will work for assessment purposes.
• Proposed several options to work with the submitted HIEP assignments, which have great potential to become valid instruments to assess New York Institute of Technology's institutional learning goals.

Please see presentation attached »

Attendees: H. ARNONE, P. CHUTE, F. MRUK, N. ANID, J. SIMON, J. BORONICO, B.BEHESHTI, K. VAHEY, D. CIRELLA, P. BURLAUD, F. GLAZER,M. SCHUEREN; N. NATH, E. NIKITOPOULUS, R. ROY, S. SILVERMAN, E. DELLAVECCHIA, S. NEVILLE, J. KAPPENBERG, V. SOTIROPOULOS. S, LI.

This is the first meeting for 2015-16 academic year. The meeting's agenda included: (1) Reviewing committee mission and meeting schedule; (2) Reviewing the committee's evaluation criteria for assessment processes; and (3) Reviewing samples of 2014-2015 assessment reports from academic programs based on the criteria.

View details in the committee presentation.

12:45 p.m. – 02:10 p.m. in DL-2/706

Attendance: David Cirella,Elaine Dellavecchia, Eleni Nikitopoulos, Francine Glazer, Frank Mruk, Harriet Arnone, James Simon, John Kappenberg, Karen Vahey, Lisa Sparacino, Maureen Cardoza, Monika Schueren, Nader Vossoughian, Niharika Nath, Olena Zhadko, Ranja Roy, Stan Silverman, Steven Billis, Susan Neville, Ellen Katz, Shifang Li

In this meeting, committee members reviewed, discussed, and provided recommendations for the 2014-2015 annual report to the academic senate, the draft of New York Institute of Technology educational goals, and the 2016 Assessment Day agenda.

Attendees: H. ARNONE, P. CHUTE, F. MRUK, N. ANID, J. SIMON, J. BORONICO, B.BEHESHTI, K. VAHEY, D. CIRELLA, P. BURLAUD, F. GLAZER,M. SCHUEREN; N. NATH, E. NIKITOPOULUS, R. ROY, S. SILVERMAN, E. DELLAVECCHIA, S. NEVILLE, J. KAPPENBERG, V. SOTIROPOULOS. S, LI.

This is the first meeting for 2015-16 academic year. The meeting's agenda included: (1) Reviewing committee mission and meeting schedule; (2) Reviewing the committee's evaluation criteria for assessment processes; and (3) Reviewing samples of 2014-2015 assessment reports from academic programs based on the criteria.

View details in the committee presentation.

Attendees: Amy Bravo; Dan Quigley; Danny Catalano; David Cirella; Eleni Nikitopoulos; Ellen Katz; Fran Glazer; Francy Magee; Hattie Arnone; Jea Ahn; Lisa Sparacino; Mathew Ford; Monika Schueren; Nada Anid; Niharaka Nath; Olena Zhadko; Paolo Gasti; Patricia Burlaud; Patty Wongpakdee; Ranja Roy; Rich Simpson; Shifang Li; Steve Billis; Sue Neville; Veneta Sotiropoulos.

In this meeting, members reviewed and discussed in detail about the proposed “process” that can be implemented to define New York Institute of Technology educational goals, which include who should be involved, what steps to take, and what methods etc. to involve the entire university in the defining process.

View details in the committee presentation.

Attending: David Cirella, Paolo Gasti, Eleni Nikitopoulous, Vaneta Sotiropoulos, Patty Wongpakdee, Olena Zhadko, Frank Mruk, Nick Bloom, Niharika Nath, Stan Silverman, Dan Quigley, Patricia Burlaud, Monika Schueren, Jea Ahn, Ranja Roy, Bill Palmore, Gioia Ciani, Sue Neville, Ryan Szachacz, Babak Beheshti, Fran Glazer, Shifang Li, Hattie Arnone

The purpose of the meeting was to begin to define a process to meet Middle States' new standard for (Standard 4) which requires institutions (among other things) to set and assess educational goals (for student learning and for achievement) at the institutional level for undergraduate, graduate and professional students. Goals should reflect New York Institute of Technology's mission to provide career oriented education, access to opportunity, and applications-oriented research.

We looked at Cornell University's web site for one example of learning goals: http://learninggoals.cornell.edu/.

We looked at a recent publication from Stevens Institute of Technology for an example of achievement goals: "When it comes time to do the task of defining these goals, the process will certainly include further benchmarking."

Question 1: Should there be separate processes for learning and achievement goals?

• In general, the view was that the processes for deciding on the two kinds of goals be tied together…and they should both end up with a proposal that gets sent to the Academic Senate and Board of Trustees for adoption.
• Eventually we (seemed to) come to the view that the achievement goals should be decided first and that the learning goals should support them (Or maybe the other way around? Or maybe simultaneously? It's not clear. REVISIT ON 4/16.)

Question 2: What is involved in developing student learning goals at the institutional level?

• Reflect on current core outcomes
• (In addition to undergraduate faculty), bring in graduate and professional levels; bring in global faculty
• Make existing goals work for more than undergraduates
• Modify existing goals in other ways as appropriate
• Add new stuff (like professionalism, personal accountability, civic engagement….etc.
• Come up with new set of goals
• Find examples of ways each program demonstrates learning outcomes

QUESTION FOR 4/16: SHOULD THIS BE THIS A FACULTY-ONLY GROUP?

Question 3: What kinds of things should we choose for student achievement goals? How should they connect to the mission?

The committee brainstormed the following examples of institutional goal areas for consideration by a working group:

Career oriented education:

• Employment in the field of study
• Licensure
• Graduate study or further education
• Salary? ROI?
• Prestige of employer
• Leadership in the profession
• Ethics and professionalism

Access to opportunity:

• Global competency?
• Retention/graduation rate
• Engaged body of alumni

Applications-oriented research:

• Experiential learning / research experiences while in school
• Community outreach projects / service learning

Question 4: What categories of people should provide input to the choice of student achievement goals?

• Career services
• Experiential learning
• Alumni
• Alumni Relations
• Graduate-level faculty
• Chairs, deans
• Communication and Marketing
• Enrollment
• External community input
• Board of Trustees

Attendance: Babak Dastgheib-Beheshti; Daniel Quigley; Diamando Afxentiou; Francine Glazer; Frank Mruk; Jeahyeon Ahn; Jess Boronico; Olena Zhadko; Patricia Burlaud; Patricia Chute; Roger Yu; Selene Loughlin; Steven Billis; Anna Silverstein; Anthony Piazza; Carol Dahir; Donald Fizzinoglia; Elaine Brown; Frank Lee; Gioia Ciani; Hui-Yin Hsu; Katherine Williams; Lak Amara; Lawrence Herman; Leslie Schuster; Maria Lapadula; Matthew Chang; Matthias Altwicker; Meryle Kohn; Michael Hadjiargyrou; Mindy Haar; Ranja Roy; Robert Amundsen; Shiang-Kwei Wang; Susan Neville; Terry Nauheim Goodman; Yoshikazu Saito; Zehra Ahmed; Robert Allen; Elaine Dellavecchia; Hattie Arnone; Shifang Li; Linda Matthews.

Through reviewing and discussion of the Middle States new standards (III & V) and other background documents, members of the leadership program have reached the following recommendations:

1. New York Institute of Technology needs to review and define New York Tech educational goals, including both student learning and achievement that support its mission.
2. When defining students' learning goals, the degree level should be taken into consideration, and the Middle States Standard III, DQP & the European Bologna model could be good references. We need institutional (vs. program)-level goals for undergraduate, graduate AND professional students, not just undergraduates.
3. When defining educational goals, the measures should take be into consideration, so that we can get some tangible data to assess to what degree we are achieving our goals.
4. When defining educational goals, all stakeholders' (such as potential employers, alumni...) input should be taken into consideration as well as graduates' impact on stakeholders.

In all likelihood, defining educational goals (and aligning curricula) will have curricular implications, the Leadership Group, on behalf of the Assessment Committee, will request the formation of an ad hoc committee of the Academic Senate to formulate the educational goals (and related measures and processes) required by the new Middle States standards.

The group discussed current core learning outcomes and made the following observations: many are low-level (“understand”); technology, quantitative literacy are not stressed; missing: professionalism, historical perspective, lifelong learning, economics/sustainability; no capstone requirement; co-curricular paths to outcomes, not just courses; delivery mechanisms.

Attending: Bill Palmore, Dan Quigley, David Cirella, Eleni Nikitopoulos, Frank Murk, Jason Van Nest, Jea Ahn, Hattie Arnone, Lisa Sparacino, Mathew Ford, Niharika Nath, Olena Zhadko, Paolo Gasti, Patricia Burlaud, Ranja Roy, Shifang Li, Steve Billis, Stan Silverman, Veneta Sotiropoulos

1. The committee reviewed and discussed members' recommendations for improving assessment at New York Institute of Technology. They agreed to propose the following (and amend the Annual Report to reflect these additions):

• The leadership group should continue its focus on improving the overall quality of assessment at the institution.
• The committee should reflect on the goals, structure, timing, etc. of the twice-yearly “Assessment Days.” Staff will prepare a report summarizing what has been done since the practice was begun in January 2009, what the outcomes were, and what surveys indicate about faculty response. The committee should consider the report and propose changes to the model as appropriate.
• Because assessment planning, data collection and analysis, interpreting results, planning and implementing appropriate changes to improve learning, and follow-up assessment to gauge progress is so complex, programs should consider appointing a member of the faculty to serve as coordinator.
• The Committee should provide feedback to programs on the degree to which their assessment reports from AY2013-14 met the six quality criteria; programs that didn't meet all six criteria should provide explanations and plans for improvement.

Related suggestions for Assessment Days included featuring (1) reports from programs about the improvements they have made over the past several years and (2) an account of how far we have progressed in the area of assessment since 2008.

2. The committee discussed the implications for assessment practice at New York Institute of Technology of the revised Middle States standard relating to assessment (Standard V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment) which will be in effect at the time of our next self-study and reaccreditation:

“Assessment of students' learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution's students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree levels, the institution's mission and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher education.”

In particular, the discussion focused on the first criterion:

“Clearly stated educational goals at the institution and degree/program levels, which are interrelated with one another, with relevant educational experiences and the institution's mission;" (notice educational goal include both students learning outcomes and achievement: key indicators: graduation rate, placement rate, retention rate, certification passing rate etc.).

It was decided that since articulating (and assessing) educational goals (aligned with mission) at the institutional and program levels represents a significant change, the morning (leadership) session on Assessment Day (January 14) will be devoted to the subject.

The 2014-2015 academic year's first assessment committee meeting was held as scheduled on October 16th, 2014.

The committee members reviewed the mission of the New York Institute of Technology assessment committee, and discussed the assessment work of academic departments posted on the Assessment web site for AY13-14.

The committee members also discussed and provided feedback for the activity on August, 2014 Assessment Day, which had a focus on global competency assessment.

Participants: William Palmore, Mathew Ford, Frank Mruk, Eleni Nikitopoulos, David Cirella, Paolo Gasti, Roger Yu, Olena Zhadko, Hattie Arnone, Dan Quigley, Jea Ahn, Kim Kramer-Romero, Monika Schueren, Ryan Szachacz, Ranja Roy, Lisa Sparacino, Elaine Dellavecchia, Gioia Ciani, Selene Loughlin, Shifang Li.

Attending: Veneta Sotiropoulos, Youjeong Kim, Frank Mruk, Jason Van Nest, David Cirella, Paolo Gasti, Fran Glazer, Nick Bloom, Olena Zhadko, Hattie Arnone, Pat Chute, Patty Wongpakdu, Patricia Burlaud, Mike Uttendorfer, Tobi Abramson, Emily Restivo, Jea Ahn, Francy Magee, Shifang Li, Zehra Ahmed, Gioia Ciani, Dan Quigley, Babak Beheshti, Selene Loughlin.

In its role as working group on Standard 14 (Student Learning Outcomes Assessment) for New York Institute of Technology's Periodic Review Report, the committee was asked by the PRR Steering Committee to review and offer comments on the relevant section of the PRR draft document.

The overall organization of the document was discussed and, one section at a time, committee members contributed suggestions:

• Sections 1 & 2. Student Learning Assessment by New York Tech Faculty and Use of Assessment Results to Improve Student Learning Outcomes – suggest we make the link stronger between improved institutional outcomes (e.g., graduation rates, retention) and actions faculty have taken in response to assessment results
• Section 3. External Assessments – committee members supplied some specific (missing) information related to program accreditations
• Section 4. Developing an Assessment Culture – Add material about assessment on global campuses; add material on faculty attending assessment workshops off campus; add mention of “house calls” made by assessment coordinator to help faculty design, implement and report on assessments of student learning.

Involving All Stake Holders in the Process of Assessment

On January 15, 2014, the Assessment Day Leadership Program was held on both NY campuses. All deans, associate deans, program chairs, and assessment/accreditation coordinators participated the meeting linked via DL. The purpose was to help academic leaders to share and learn from each other about how to involve stakeholders in the process of program assessment – one of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education's criteria set for meaningful academic program assessment.

Four methods were discussed in depth in the meeting, including:

• Input from current students
• Advisory Boards
• Feedback from internship supervisor
• Alumni/Employer surveys

Participants: Hattie Arnone, Babak.Beheshti, Bonnie Granat, Daniel Quigley, Diamando Afxentiou, Francine Glazer, Frank Mruk, James Murdy, Jess Boronico, Jeahyeon Ahn, John Hyde, Judy DiMaio, Michael Uttendorfer, Nada Anid, Patricia Burlaud, Patricia Chute, Selene Loughlin, Anna Silverstein, Anthony Piazza, Carol Dahir, David Hogsette, Donald Fizzinoglia, Elaine Brown, Frank Lee, Gioia Ciano, Hui-Yin Hsu, Karen Friel, Katherine Williams, Lak Amara, Lawrence Herman, Leslie Schuster, Lisa Runco, Luis Navia, Maria Lapadula, Martha Siegel, Matthias Altwicker, Maya Kroumova, Meryle Kohn, Mindy Haar, Nicholas Bloom, Olena Zhadko, Ranja Roy, Robert Cody, Shiang-Kwei Wang, Shifang Li, Steven Lu, Susan Neville, Terry Nauheim Goodman, Yoshikazu Saito, Zehra Ahmed, Corri Wolf, Emily Restivo, Fang Li, Jason Van Nest, Rajendra Tibrewala, Robert Koenig, Rozina Vavetsi, Stan Silverman, Tobi Abramson, Zennabelle Sewell, Ziqian Dong

Locations: Long Island, HSH-DL1 and New York City, EGGC-701

Please view the discussion notes.

Contact Shifang Li, sli09@nyit.edu for further information.

Attending: Steve Billis, Veneta Sotiropoulos, Patrick Love, Fran Glazer, David Cirella, Youjeong Kim, Olena Zhadko, Frank Mruk, Jason van Nest, Hattie Arnone, Patricia Burlaud, Selene Loughlin, Tobi Abramson, Shifang Li, Francy Magee, Jess Boronico, Sue Neville, Nada Anid, Zahra Ahmed

The purpose of the meeting was to plan for the Leadership Session on the January 15, 2014 Assessment Day.

After reviewing the powerpoint used at last year's session, the committee discussed potential themes. Dean Boronico suggested that the group discuss ways to engage external communities in assessing the quality of student learning (one of the best practice items on the Middle States rubric for assessing assessment processes: “Involve all stakeholders in assessing student learning”). The goal would be to share ways of engaging stakeholders in meaningful ways; the outcome that chairs and deans would develop plans and timetables for improving in this respect in their programs/schools.

Suggestions for discussions/presentation topics on January 15 include: Juries reviewing/commenting on student work; advisory boards; focus groups of employers; various methods for keeping faculty current (roundtables, conferences, other faculty development); alumni surveys, roundtables, exit interviews and surveys with graduating student; feedback from “clients” meeting our students through academic service learning, internships, etc.; doing these things at global locations.

Attendees: Babak Beheshti, Bonnie Granat, Corri Wolf, Dan Quigley, David Circella, Emily Restivo, Francy Magee, Frank Lee, Frank Mruk, Harriet Arnone, Jason Van Nest, Jea Anh, Kristine Prazak, Michael Uttendorfer, Nick Bloom, Olena Zhadko, Paolo Gasti, Pat Chute, Patricia Burlaud, Pat Love, Patty Wongpakdee, Rahmat Shoureshi, Roger Yu, Ryan Szachacz, Selene Loughlin, Shifang Li, Stan Silverman, Steve Billis, Sue Neville, Tobi Abramson.

The Assessment Committee met on October 15^th, 2013, with all members having been assigned several annual assessment reports to read and comments on before the meeting. Members provided: 1) comments on all programs' annual assessment reports including strengths and weakness of assessment activities and improvement plans; 2) reviewed programs' process improvement reports, and 3) clarification for the Summary Report to Academic Senate (12-13 AY) and recommendations for continuous improvement on New York Institute of Technology's learning outcome assessment processes.

Global learning assessment was also discussed. The survey results of the August 28th 2013 Fall Assessment Day (below) were shared with members. A comprehensive report on Global Learning at New York Institute of Technology was set as the goal for the 13-14 AY, and NSSE scores on "global competency" will be used as a supplement to each academic program's direct measure of global learning at New York Tech.

View the meeting presentation.

The Assessment Day was held on both NY campuses. The focus of the Assessment Day was on “global competency,” one of New York Tech's core learning outcomes. 123 undergraduate faculty members participated in the event.

In the morning session, faculty spent time in their own department discussing how global competency should be interpreted and incorporated in the context of their discipline, and how students' global competencies can be assessed in the curriculum. In the afternoon session, faculty across disciplines and staff members from students services gathered together to share practices and strategies they are using in fostering the development of students' global competencies in three Cs: curriculum, co-curriculum, and community. View the presentation.

During the 2013-2014 academic years, faculty from all academic programs will collect students work and evaluate to what extent that New York Institute of Technology students have developed their global competencies, and identify good practices that help global learning. New York Tech's definition of global competency, and two work-forms were provided to facilitate this assessment activities. View the forms and definition

Resources: Additional resources for sharing and promoting global learning are available at the Research, Assessment & Decision Support website, Global Perspective/World View.

The 2012-2013 annual assessment report and plan is due June 30th, 2013.

Please schedule a meeting with your faculty members to discuss the assessment findings for the current academic year, and decide what “actions” you are going to take to improve students learning. Your report and plan for next academic year will be reviewed based on the same set of criteria we used before:

• Did the program identify learning outcomes to assess or do they have a focus of assessment for 12-13 academic year?
• Did the program analyze students' work?
• Did the program come to any conclusions based on analysis of students' work?
• What actions or steps are the programs to take to improve students' learning based on the assessment?
• Are accountability and a timeline specified for the actions or interventions?
• Did the program have an assessment plan for 2013-2014 academic year?

In addition to the annual assessment report, we expect each academic program to submit a follow up report on “Improving the quality of assessment process” as a results of the January 2013, Assessment Day Leadership Program, where each chair and (or) assessment coordinators identified areas to improve.

To Involve All Stakeholders in the Process of Assessment

On Monday, April 8, 2013, SOM held the Executive Council/Business Advisory Board Spring Workshop focusing on student learning outcomes assessment. This well-planned event involved all stakeholder including the SOM Executive Council and Advisory Board and industry partners, student representatives, and faculty, including BSBA core course leaders. The council and board members and industry partners each received small samples of student work – based on their areas of domain expertise – prior to the meeting for their review against a Master Syllabus and its stated course goals. They came prepared with questions and comments.

During the workshop, the council/board members/industry partners joined faculty members and students of the courses being evaluated. The role of the faculty members and the students is to demonstrate how the samples of the assignments link to and are in support of attainment of the course goals. Through the collaborative dialog, the council/board member/industry partner listened to the students and faculty members and provided feedback on how well the various student artifacts achieved the course goals and recommended changes for improvement.

Each year SOM assesses a different program and it is a part of our cyclical assessment progress.

For further information, please contact, Selene Loughlin (slough01@nyit.edu).

The (rescheduled) Assessment Committee met on March 15, 2013. Members reviewed and discussed outcomes from the January Assessment Day morning Leadership Session: (1) Deans' worksheets summarizing the priority areas each program would focus on in order to improve its assessment processes and (2) Survey responses giving feedback on the session provided by attendees. They then worked on refining the format to be used by program chairs when reporting on the specific changes to assessment processes made this year in their programs (as well as reporting on their plans for 2013-2014).

View the revised reporting guide document.

Understand Middle States Commission's Expectation and Improve the Assessment Process

On January 16, 2013, the Assessment Day Leadership Program was held on both NY campuses, linked via DL. The purpose of the program was to help academic leaders understand clearly the Middle States Commission's expectations for program-level student learning outcome assessment and to have those leaders self-identify areas that need to be improved in their own areas to meet the accreditation standard (Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning).

Morning Session

• Self-evaluation of program assessment status based on the PowerPoint Presentation of Middle States Commission's criteria and examples of good practices.
• Participants: All deans, associate deans, program chairs, and assessment/accreditation coordinators.
• Locations: Long Island, Harry Shure Hall, Room 227; New York City, Edward Guiliano Global Center, Room 702

Afternoon Sessions

The afternoon session is for ALL faculty, meeting in their own programs. Department chairs lead faculty members discuss the identified areas that need improvement, and work out concrete, feasible, and timely plans for improvement.

View the PowerPoint Presentation in the morning session.

Please contact Shifang Li, sli09@nyit.edu. for further information.