Assessment Matters Newsletter_November 2015 (3)

Assessment Matters
The Assessment Newsletter
November 2015 Vol. 5, No. 4
Published by the University Assessment Council and Office of Institutional Research & Assessment
Effective Use of Rubrics for International Students
By: Jacqueline Olson, EdD, Assessment Coordinator, College of Management and
Technology
Thomas Kohntopp, Ph.D., Core & Lead Faculty, College of Management and
Technology
In the College of Management and Technology, we are focusing our efforts to best
address the needs of our international students in multiple ways, including ensuring
rubrics are assignment-specific, consistent from course to course in a program,
provide the structure of how an assignment will be assessed, and allow for instructor
feedback that will enable the student to continuously improve their performance. In
our courses that have large numbers of international students (i.e., dual-degree
programs with our partner institution, Universidad de Valle de Mexico), we have
simplified the language on the rubrics and broken down the rubric elements that align
to the assignment into manageable chunks while still maintaining the integrity of the
assessment tool and course content.
Students come to class with various experiences and expectations as to how
instructors evaluate assignments. Some may even have encountered the professor
who embraces the, “I know an ‘A’ paper when I see one,” philosophy. In addressing
questions and comments from international students, previous grading experiences
may have completely lacked any degree of objectivity and consistency, where
instructors are all-knowing and pass judgment with little specific feedback to help
students improve. In addition to potential grading standards that may be ill defined,
international students often face language challenges. Well composed rubrics that
directly connect to assignment criteria provide international students, and all
students, with defined grading expectations written with understandable clarity. Using
rubrics with a set format and structure also help in that they tend to reduce time and
effort that a student would otherwise invest searching for relevant information week
to week in rubrics with a different appearance or format. This is especially true for
international students.
From the instructor’s perspective, expertly crafted rubrics make grading and student
feedback less arduous. With international students in class, who may lack extensive
English comprehension, having clearly written criteria as the foundation of feedback
eases a grading burden that some instructors may face. As a best practice, grading
rubrics aid instructor-student communication, which is essential for all students.
Rubrics offer all students an opportunity to better understand what is assessed on
assignments, the weighting of components, and the organization or structure of an
assignment. This is particularly useful for international students who may be
unfamiliar with American expectations of how to organize an academic paper or who
are struggling with understanding what is needed on an assignment.
In this Issue:
 Effective Use of
Rubrics for
International Students
 School of Counseling
CACREP Accreditation
Update
 Blooms Digital
Taxonomy: Moving
Assessment Into the
21st Century
 New graduate course
from the Academic
Skills Center
 Riley College
Transition from
NCATE to CAEP:
Update
 Examining the Impact
of Educational
Roundtables on
Faculty Engagement
 Value and Necessity of
Program Progression
Matrices

Assessment Matters Newsletter | November 2015 page 2
School of Counseling CACREP Accreditation Update
By: Kristin Cannon, PhD, LPC, NCC, Director of Assessment, School of Counseling
The School of Counseling (SoC) recently submitted a self-study to the Council for
Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) for re-
accreditation/accreditation of all five of our counseling programs. This effort reflects a
multi-purpose initiative to reaccredit our oldest counseling program (MS in Clinical
Mental Health Counseling), seek accreditation for two of our newer counseling
programs (MS in Addiction Counseling and MS in School Counseling), and allow for all
of our programs to be placed on the same accreditation cycle, including those that
were recently accredited by CACREP in 2014 (MS in Marriage, Couple, and Family
Counseling and PhD in Counselor Education and Supervision).
As with any accreditation process, this effort has required a substantial response from
leadership and faculty within the SoC as well as additional university partners and
stakeholders. Of particular challenge to this process was the fact that the CACREP
standards were recently revised, with a final published set of standards only made
available in March of 2015. Despite this, members of the SoC have been working
toward this effort for the past year under the guidance and direction of our CACREP
Project Manager, Dr. Stacee Reicherzer, and Senior Director of Accreditation and
Academic Operations, Dr. Kelly Coker.
With the changes to the CACREP standards came a significant and increased focus on
assessment practices, inclusive of how programs assess students’ skill development as
well as student dispositions. Additionally, a higher emphasis was placed on how
programs evaluate overall program functioning. To meet these requirements efforts, a
comprehensive assessment plan was developed by the SoC assessment team and
vetted through leadership and the SoC CAP, to be included in the self-study. This plan
now includes a formal annual review cycle of key program data as well as an on-going
and enhanced review of individual student performance across students’ programs of
study.
Other key projects accomplished through the self-study process include curriculum
mapping of all courses in each program of study, the development of new program and
student learning outcomes, the creation of new comprehensive syllabi for all courses,
the development of new assignment rubrics, changes to curriculum, and course
overhauls, where necessary. Significant efforts were also made to enhance the field
experience curriculum and further refine the assessment practices conducted through
our data management platform, Meditrek.
The self-study was submitted to the CACREP board in early November with the goal of
review and approval for a site visit in summer of 2016. Many thanks are due to our
amazing SoC faculty, coordinators, directors, associate dean, vice president, product
managers, business operations, and partners in OIRA, PSID, and Business Intelligence
for their outstanding efforts and work on this undertaking. We look forward to sharing
an update on progress in upcoming publications of Assessment Matters.

Blooms Digital Taxonomy: Moving Assessment into the 21st
Century
By: Laura Schindler, PhD, Director, Quality Assurance
Sarah Puls-Elvidge, MPA, Director, Quality Assurance
Computers themselves, and software yet to be developed, will revolutionize the way
we learn.
-Steve Jobs
Recent surveys reveal that approximately two thirds of college students use mobile
devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets) for learning and believe that technology helps
them achieve academic outcomes and prepares them for the workforce (Chen,
Seilhamer, Bennett, & Bauer; 2015; Dahlstrom, 2012). Given consistent trends related
to the use and perceived importance of technology for learning, there is an excellent
opportunity to reexamine traditional educational delivery and assessment methods to
better serve the needs of students. In this article, we will examine how the latest
iteration of Bloom’s Taxonomy can be used to breathe new life into traditional
educational assessments. In the paragraphs that follow, we begin by providing a brief
evolution of Bloom’s Taxonomy and how it is used in current Academic Quality and
Accreditation Quality Assurance (QA) reviews. Then we will use Bloom’s Digital
Taxonomy to revise traditional writing-intensive assignments to purposefully
incorporate technology.
In 1956, Dr. Benjamin Bloom published the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(commonly known as Bloom’s Taxonomy) to classify learning and encourage higher-
level thinking. There are three domains of learning within the taxonomy: cognitive
(knowledge), affective (emotions/values), and psychomotor (skills). For the purpose
of this article, we will focus on the cognitive domain, which includes six categories of
cognition ordered from simple to complex (knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation; Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956).
In 2001, the original version of Bloom’s Taxonomy was revised and the cognitive
categories were changed from nouns to verbs (e.g., application to applying) to make
them actionable. In addition, a remembering category was added, and the original
synthesis category was renamed creating and placed at the highest level of the
taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The latest version of Bloom’s Taxonomy
incorporates 21st-century learning by taking technology and digital learning into
consideration. Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy uses the sequence of verbs from Bloom’s
Revised Taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and
creating) and includes digital techniques that can be used to assess learning. For
example, bullet pointing, highlighting, and bookmarking are associated with the
remembering category, while programming, filming, and podcasting are associated
with the creating category (Churches, 2008).
Academic Quality and Accreditation’s QA team conducts comprehensive QA reviews of
Walden academic programs during the Academic Program Review (APR) process.
During the reviews, the QA team uses Bloom’s Taxonomy to recommend
improvements in clarity, measurability, and alignment among weekly objectives,
course goals, and program outcomes. Recently, the team has begun to examine how

Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy can be used to recommend improvements related to the
integration of technology into assignments. Table 1 shows how traditional, writing-
intensive assignments can be transformed using Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. The
alternative assignments require students to use both written and technical skills to
demonstrate the learning specified in the objective. For example, students can use an
educational app, such as Simple Mind+, to create a conceptual map that shows the
relationships between and among the research aims, theoretical framework, and
independent and dependent variables for their dissertation research. The benefits of
this alternative assignment extend well beyond achievement of the desired learning.
For example, one secondary benefit is the development of technological skills that may
be useful in other learning environments and in the workplace. Another benefit is that
the alternative assignment allows for more convenient and portable learning.
Specifically, an educational app can be accessed across various devices (e.g., laptop,
smartphone, and tablet) in a variety of locations, such as on the train when commuting
to and from work.
Table 1.
Learning Objectives, Traditional Assignments, and Proposed Alternative Assignments Using Bloom’s
Digital Taxonomy
Learning
Objective
Traditional Assignment
Alternative Assignment using Bloom’s
Digital Taxonomy
Apply
Maslow’s
Hierarchy of
Needs to the
explanation of
motivation
Describe a scenario from your
life that illustrates two levels of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
and explain how it does so.
Then, explain how Maslow’s
theory may not capture all of
the motivational factors
involved in your behavior.
Using free digital storytelling
software, such as Adobe Voice or
ShowMe Interactive Whiteboard,
create a presentation that depicts how
two or more levels of Maslow’s theory
apply to a scenario in your life. Also,
be sure to address why other levels of
Maslow’s theory many not capture all
of the motivational factors involved in
your behavior. To submit your video,
click on the Assignment–Week 1 link
and then Write Submission. Next click
on the HTML button and paste the
embed code for your video, then click
submit.
Analyze
relationships
among the
research aims,
theoretical
framework,
and
independent
and dependent
variables for
Describe the research aims,
theoretical framework, and
independent and dependent
variables for your dissertation
research study. Then explain
how the research aims and
theoretical framework support
the proposed relationships
between your independent and
dependent variables and the
Using a mind mapping tool, such as
the Mind Meister or Simple Mind+
apps, create a conceptual framework
of your dissertation research study.
The conceptual framework should
visually depict the relationships
among your research aims, theoretical
framework, and independent and
dependent variables. Be sure to show
how your research aims and
theoretical framework support the
proposed relationships between your

dissertation
research
expected outcomes of the study. independent and dependent variables
and the expected outcomes of the
study. Export your conceptual
framework as a PDF file and submit it
to the Week 4 drop box.
Compose
arguments
about political
controversies
Describe the political
controversy you selected. Then,
provide an argument about the
political controversy. Be sure to
include at least three points
advancing your stance on the
controversy.
Create a blog posting about the
political controversy you selected. In
your blog, use text, embedded images
and videos, and web links to convey
your argument about the political
controversy. Be sure to include at
least three points advancing your
stance on the controversy.
The increasing desire among students to integrate technology into learning
experiences provides significant support for Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. The goal in
using the digital taxonomy is not to eliminate traditional, writing-intensive
assignments entirely, but rather to purposefully introduce technology into
assignments where it is reasonable and appropriate. There is still significant value in
requiring students to write traditional papers, particularly in graduate programs
where students need to prepare for completing a thesis or dissertation. However,
there is also value in integrating technological tools in assignments where, for
example, students are required to explain how a theory applies to a scenario
(storytelling software), to show relationships among concepts (mind mapping apps),
or to construct a compelling argument (blogs). Fortunately, there is no shortage of free
educational software and the demand for educational apps, in particular, has increased
worldwide, with nearly a quarter of students in South Africa, India, and the United
States indicating they have purchased educational apps (Mobile Ecosystem Forum,
2014). Therefore, in the realm of digitizing assessments, the saying, “there’s an app for
that” certainly rings true.
References:
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York: Longman.
Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, S. (2015, June). Students’ mobile learning
practices in higher education: A multi-year study. EDUCAUSE Review.
Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-
learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study
Churches, A. (2008). Bloom's digital taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf
Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information
technology, 2012 (Research Report). Retrieved from EDUCAUSE website:
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1208/ERS1208.pdf

Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. B.S. Bloom (Ed.). New York: Longman.
Mobile Ecosystem Forum (2014, April 25). Report shows growth markets driving
update of education apps. Retrieved from
http://www.mobileecosystemforum.com/2014/04/25/report-shows-growth-
markets-driving-uptake-of-education-apps-infographic/
New graduate course from the Academic Skills Center
By: Emily Dahlen, PhD, Associate Director for student Learning, Academic Skills Center
On October 12, the Academic Skills Center launched a revised version of our four week
APA course called Basic APA Style: Citations and References, now WCSS 6200 (quarters;
1.5 credits) and WCSS 6201 (semesters; 1 credit). This course is designed to instill the
foundational APA concepts of proper citations and references. All graduate students
may register for the class via their academic advisor. The schedule is located on the
Academic Skills Center’s website. The course costs $195, not including any applicable
taxes or fees.
Additionally, on January 4, 2016 (semesters) and February 29, 2016 (quarters), the
Academic Skills Center will launch new versions of our graduate writing courses:
Graduate Writing I: Basic Composition Skills (WCSS 6050 – quarters; WCSS 6051 –
semesters), and Graduate Writing II: Intermediate Composition Skills (WCSS 6060 –
quarters; WCSS 6061 – semesters). Graduate Writing I focuses on critical reading and
effective summary; Graduate Writing II emphasizes paraphrasing, synthesizing, and
evaluating main ideas. Each of our graduate writing courses is eight weeks long. The
semester versions of the classes are 1 credit, and the quarter versions are 1.5 credits.
Any graduate student may register for the classes via their academic advisor. The
schedule is located on the Academic Skills Center’s website. Each course costs $195,
not including any applicable taxes or fees.

Riley College Transition from NCATE to CAEP: Update
By: Kate Steffens, PhD, Dean, Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership
Martha Larkin, PhD, Assessment Director, Richard W. Riley College of Education and
Leadership, Teaching, Learning, and Professional Licensure Division
Suzanne Wesson, EdD, Assessment Director, Richard W. Riley College of Education and
Leadership, Teaching, Learning and Professional Licensure Division
Robert Marshall, EdD, Assessment Director, Richard W. Riley College of Education and
Leadership, Higher Education and Adult Learning, Administration and Leadership
Division
Diane Penland, PhD, Assessment Director, Richard W. Riley College of Education and
Leadership, Teaching, Learning and Professional Licensure Division
Debbie Bechtold, PhD, Assessment Director, Richard W. Riley College of Education and
Leadership
As the Riley College prepares for a re-accreditation visit under the new Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, formerly the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)) standards in Fall 2018, we have
undertaken several initiatives to reinforce our infrastructure for collecting, analyzing,
and reporting data with the ultimate goal of producing competent, caring, effective
educators who have a positive impact in their learning communities. With the new
standards still somewhat in flux as CAEP takes into consideration the accessibility of
the evidence required by the standards as well as the capacity of Education
Preparation Providers (EPPs) and CAEP’s own capacity to collect and process this
evidence, developing strategies to address each standard has been a little like trying to
build a house on a moving foundation. Nevertheless, Riley College program leadership
and faculty are meeting the challenges with enthusiasm, a lot hard work, and a focus
on program improvement.
One of the first tasks undertaken after the release of the new standards was the
creation of study groups to review the standards in detail, consider data currently
collected that could serve as evidence for meeting each standard, identify gaps in
evidence, and determine action steps to address these gaps. Action steps resulting
from the work of the study groups prompted a re-examination of our expectations
with respect to student professional dispositions, diversity proficiencies, and
technology proficiencies. Task Force groups consisting of the Dean, faculty
representing programs across the College, and College Assessment Directors reviewed
and updated the dispositions and proficiency expectations to better reflect the
professional skills required by the standards and better prepare students for their
roles as educators. Another important development resulting from recommendations
of the study groups is the creation of the College Recruitment and Selection
Committee. The role of the committee is to review, revise (if needed), and monitor
marketing, recruitment, selection, and retention efforts to ensure the quality and
diversity of our students while still meeting the high standards set by CAEP.
CAEP recognizes that quality of evidence and the efficacy of data are essential to
continuous improvement. In an effort to build the capacity of EPPs to collect data that
provides relevant, actionable information contributing to program improvement,
CAEP has offered to review assessments and rubrics submitted by EPPs prior to
accreditation visits to assist the EPPs in strengthening their measures of student
knowledge and skills. In late Fall 2015, the Riley College will submit assessments from

the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) in Special Education program for review by
CAEP, along with supporting information describing the context of the assessments
(e.g., what they measure, when they are administered, etc.) and processes used to
establish the validity and reliability of the assessments. CAEP also has developed
many resources to assist EPPs in creating valid and reliable assessments. We have
used these resources in several webinars conducted for program directors and faculty
addressing best practices in rubric development and establishing the validity and
reliability of measurements. In addition, we have implemented many of the best
practices CAEP recommends in an internal review of assessments and rubrics
currently being developed for new courses and programs.
The interest and involvement of the Riley College faculty in these initiatives has been
overwhelmingly positive. The study groups, task force groups, committees, and
webinars have been well-attended and have provided opportunities for the faculty to
share experiences, ideas, and recommendations for improving our programs and
increasing the positive student experience. Their dedication, hard work, and
willingness to address the challenges of change are the driving force behind all of these
initiatives.
Examining the Impact of Educational Roundtables on Faculty
Engagement
By: Gilbert Singletary, PhD, JD, MBA, MSW, Program Coordinator, School of Social
Work & Human Services
Debora Rice, PhD, MSW, Core Faculty, School of Social Work & Human Services
Sara Plummer, PhD, MSW, Core Faculty & Assessment Coordinator, School of Social
Work & Human Services
Creating an engaging classroom for our students at Walden is a priority and is
addressed through multiple tools and skills. The faculty members at Walden instill a
sense of community through a consistent presence in the classroom in multiple ways,
and engagement and reciprocity is achieved through various avenues. A strong
learning community “enables participants to quickly establish working relationships,
share ideas openly and honestly, and benefit from the insights of the collective” (Hill,
2002, p. 69). Perry and Edwards (2005) suggested that an instructor can create and
maintain a dynamic and supportive learning environment by creating a Community of
Inquiry (CoI), through the use of three interlocking elements: a social, cognitive, and a
teaching presence. A CoI is focused on “the creation of communities of learners
actively and collaboratively engaged in exploring, creating meaning and confirming
understanding” (Garrison, 2009, p. 352). This is accomplished by establishing a
positive, affirming, and respectful environment while still challenging students to meet
high educational standards (Perry & Edwards). A “physical” and social presence is
achieved through the use of pictures, videos, and the creation of a class café or
“student lounge”. Weekly announcements, “check ins”, and encouraging emails are
sent regularly to build a sense of collaboration amongst the faculty and students.
The use of weekly discussion threads encourages consistent interaction between
students and faculty. Through the use of discussion threads a cognitive presence is
created to help students learn how to critically evaluate complex material, synthesize

complex text, and form hypothesis based on the information presented. In addition,
discussion threads help students evaluate and practice ethical behavior. Faculty
members provide a teaching presence by offering feedback that not only evaluates the
writing and content of the post or assignment, but use the opportunity to teach, affirm,
challenge and influence student learning outcomes.
Many of our faculty members are educated on the best tools to engage students (in
large part due to their attendance in the faculty orientation), and have successfully
demonstrated their commitment to their students’ engagement in the classroom.
However, an informal survey of contributing faculty members in the social work
program revealed that many contributing faculty members are less effective in these
areas. This past year, Walden sent out a survey to faculty and staff in order to obtain
feedback on the areas of engagement and promoting a healthy organization. In an
effort to address the aforementioned goals established by the university, core faculty
members in the social work program worked together by engaging both core and
contributing faculty members in educational “roundtables”. The intent of the
roundtables was three fold:
 To improve the engagement of the contributing faculty in the social work
program by bringing them together to encourage a dialogue on how they each
engage with their students
 To improve the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of faculty by reacquainting
the faculty of the University’s expectations around their presence in the
classroom, grading, etc.
 To improve the student experience by positively impacting the faculty’s use of
engagement skills
Three of the core faculty co-facilitated eight 60 minute roundtables, over two weeks,
using a PowerPoint that shared information on the KPIs and the skills faculty members
can incorporate to best engage their students in the classroom. The roundtables were
viewed as both an educational and social opportunity to engage the faculty in
reminding them of their responsibilities in the classroom, sharing some additional best
practices in creating an engaging classroom, and to build stronger relationships and
connections with contributing faculty. In all, 53 faculty members (both core and
contributing) attended these roundtables.
Using the data obtained from the KPIs and other indicators, the goal moving forward
will be to assess the impact of the “intervention” by using a General Linear Model (e.g.,
comparing pre and post test scores) to assess the effectiveness of the roundtables.
Faculty engagement is being measured in terms of overall participation in the online
classroom, using KPIs, and other classroom / blackboard metrics including when
grades are posted (if within the 7 day requirement), if an instructor responds to the
contact the instructor box within 48 hours, if the instructor responds to two thirds of
the original posts, and if instructor provides qualitative feedback along with
quantitative grades.
Although we have not begun gathering data, we believe it was quite successful as the
discussion was active and the faculty routinely thanked us for the information. Several

participants shared that information would be very helpful to their ability to fulfill the
KPI requirements and better engage their students. It also appeared that the
interaction of having the roundtables themselves seemed to build stronger
relationships and connections with contributing faculty. For example one such email
we received after the roundtable states: Good morning, I just wanted to thank you for a
very helpful and very productive Round Table meeting. I feel more connected and
supported and better prepared.
References:
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. Encyclopedia of
Distance Learning. Retrieved on July 23, 2014 from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sC9Le3jIwzIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA
352&dq=Communities+of+inquiry+in+online+learning.&ots=869iklRb5q&sig
=hRKdp8C1aR7zNkOmLAQ2e-
KoZJE#v=onepage&q=Communities%20of%20inquiry%20in%20online%20le
arning.&f=false
Hill, J. R. (2002). Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: Community building
in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 14(1), 67-86.
Perry, B. & Edwards, M. (April, 2005). Exemplary Online Educators: Creating a
Community of Inquiry, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(2).
Retrieved online on July 23, 2014 from
https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde18/articles/article6.htm.
Value and Necessity of Program Progression Matrices
By: Jacqueline Olson, EdD, Coordinator of Assessment, College of Management and
Technology
Ron Senterfitt, MBA, Coordinator of Institutional Effectiveness and Accreditation,
College of Management and Technology
The College of Management and Technology (CMT) is taking the alignment of learning
outcomes included in each syllabus and is creating a Program Progression Matrix
(PPM) for each program that provides a comprehensive view of where the program
learning outcomes are addressed in the assignments for the courses that make up the
program. The value of creating a PPM for Program Directors is that they can more
easily identify which assignments they want to use for their Learning Outcomes
Report (LORBook) assessments, which past assignments they have used for previous
LORBook cycles, and how well their assignments address their program learning
outcomes.
The work of constructing a PPM is a collaborative effort between the Coordinator for
Assessment, Coordinator for Institutional Effectiveness and Accreditation, as well as
the Program Director. Not only does the PPM provide a comprehensive view for the
Program Director, it also allows accreditation reviewers to quickly see how the

learning outcomes are addressed in the courses and aligns with accreditation
expectations.
How Accreditation Reviewers Use PPMs
CMT has earned specialized accreditation with the Accreditation Council for Business
Schools and Programs (ACBSP), the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET), and the Project Management Institute Global Accreditation
Center. These organizations have many common focuses such as student learning and
continuous improvement. Our specialized accreditors want to see that we have
created program learning outcomes; they want to see the path a student will take to
achieve those outcomes; and they want to see that we are assessing ourselves in order
to continuously improve. The PPM is a simple overview that will help show a reviewer
the path taken to achieve the program learning outcomes, from the assignments to the
program learning outcome. It documents what is taught and when; it can help to
improve program coherence; and it can help reveal gaps in the curriculum.
It is not enough to say our students are achieving the outcomes; we have to assess,
improve where needed, and document it all. The PPM shows the students’ path and the
LORbooks prove through assessment and documentation that faculty members are
guiding students along the right path. The LORbook cycle is an integral and necessary
part of accreditation.
CMT’s Step-by-step Process for Constructing PPMs
After a new course is constructed by PSID, the Coordinator for Assessment uses the
syllabus to complete an alignment between the assignments and the program’s
learning outcomes. This provides the basic framework for the PPM. Depending on the
accreditation needs of each program, the Coordinator for Institutional Effectiveness
and Accreditation works with the Program Director to identify any additional
accreditation outcomes and to label each assignment as Introduced, Practiced, or
Assessed. Typically the Program Director will work with Lead Faculty to complete the
work of identifying the assignments as Introduced, Practiced, and Assessed, and it is
this activity that assists in recognizing gaps and redundancies in the assignments that
align to their program’s learning outcomes. The Coordinator for Institutional
Effectiveness and Accreditation also works with the Program Director to ensure there
is a positive social change alignment to the program’s learning outcomes identified on
the PPM because positive social change is part of Walden’s mission and because
accreditors are stressing social responsibility and ethics more than ever. The Program
Director is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the PPM annually during the
program’s LORBook Cycle, and informing the Coordinator for Assessment of any
course changes to assignments and/or program learning outcomes that will
necessitate changes to the basic framework of the PPM.
Conclusion
While CMT has informally utilized PPMs over the past couple of years, there has not
been a formalized process that provides consistency in format and expectations of use,
as well as fully addresses the accreditation expectations for the program. Currently the

Coordinator for Assessment and Coordinator for Institutional Effectiveness and
Accreditation are in the early stages of working with each Program Director on
updating their PPMs, and they will share examples of PPMs in future Assessment
Matters newsletters.
Assessment Council Members
Name College/Center/Dept Email
Shari Jorissen OIRA shari.jorissen@waldenu.edu
Michelle Burcin CHS-SHS michelle.burcin@waldenu.edu
Leslie Hussey CHS-SoN leslie.hussey@waldenu.edu
Sandra Bever (AC) CHS sandra.bever2@waldenu.edu
Yvonne Doll CMT-SoM yvonne.doll@waldenu.edu
Ron Senterfitt (AC) CMT ronald.senterfitt@waldenu.edu
Jackie Olson (AC) CMT jacqueline.olson@waldenu.edu
John Borton CMT-SoIT john.borton@waldenu.edu
Kristi Cannon (AC) CSBS-SoC kristi.cannon@waldenu.edu
Esther Benoit CSBS-SoC esther.benoit@waldenu.edu
Sara Plummer (AC) CSBS-SoSWHS sara.plummer@waldenu.edu
OPEN CSBS-SoSWHS
George Larkin CSBS-SoPPA george.larkin@waldenu.edu
Lori LaCivita CSBS-SoP lori.lacivita@waldenu.edu
Sandra Harris (AC) CSBS sandra.harris@waldenu.edu
Gary Carson CUGS gary.carson@waldenu.edu
Jon Paulson (AC) CUGS jon.paulson@walden.edu
Robert Marshall (AC) RWRCoEL robert.marshall@waldenu.edu
Suzanne Wesson (AC) RWRCoEL suzanne.wesson@waldenu.edu
Martha Larkin (AC) RWRCoEL martha.larkin@waldenu.edu
Debra Chester RWRCoEL debra.chester@waldenu.edu
Michael Burke RWRCoEL michael.burke@waldenu.edu
Darragh Callahan RWRCoEL darragh.callahan@waldenu.edu
Deborah Bechtold (AC) RWRCoEL deborah.bechtold@waldenu.edu
Lyda Downs CFE lyda.downs@waldenu.edu
Deborah Inman CRQ deborah.inman@waldenu.edu
Emily Dahlen CSS emily.dahlen@waldenu.edu
Monica Hill AQA Quality Assurance monica.hill@laureate.net
Stephanie Hossbach Laureate IT stephanie.hossbach@laureate.net
Susan Subocz PSID susan.subocz@laureate.net
Fun facts:
 86.9% of employers of Walden Alumni are Very satisfied or Satisfied with their
Walden Alumni Employee.
 97.3% of employers of Walden Alumni would hire another Walden graduate.
2015 Employer Survey Results

Assessment Matters Newsletter_November 2015 (3)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Ähnlich wie Assessment Matters Newsletter_November 2015 (3)

Ähnlich wie Assessment Matters Newsletter_November 2015 (3) (20)

Assessment Matters Newsletter_November 2015 (3)