|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section
II: COC Core Requirement
2.5 The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide
research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic
review of programs and services that OFF-SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS The institution demonstrates initiated processes that will enable it to engage in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. The institution’s processes have been strengthened greatly over the past four years and the institution documents a commitment to continuing improvement of its processes and the use of their results. However, the institution is still developing those processes and has not yet compiled results that may be used to document continuing improvements. The institution needs to document that it has attained results from its institutional effectiveness efforts and used the results for continuous improvements. JUDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE Compliance. NARRATIVE/JUSTIFICATION FOR JUDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE Texas A&M International University engages in university-wide planning and evaluation processes that are integrated and continuous as well as based on the Institutional Mission. The University's planning and evaluation processes are in line with the Institutional Mission. Contributions are made by a broad spectrum of members of the University community. The main components of the process are illustrated below:
To complete the process, each department re-evaluates their goals, identifies resources needed for the following cycle and communicates these needs to the appropriate department head for inclusion in the budgeting process. Integral to the process is the University Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan Committee, appointed by the President, represents a wide variety of constituents from the institution. Members of the committee charged with developing the 2001-2005 Strategic Plan are listed in the following table.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name |
Title |
Michelle Alexander |
Vice President for Institutional Development and Committee Co-Chair |
Dr. Norma Cantu |
Professor of English |
Sonia Casasnovas |
Director of Grant Resources and Strategic Plan Editor |
Dr. Faridoun Farrokh |
Professor of English and Associate Provost |
Jose Garcia |
Vice President for Finance and Administration |
Yolanda Garcia |
Director of Student Counseling |
Sara Gutierrez |
Classified Staff Advisory Council Chair |
Dr. Juan Homero Hinojosa |
Associate Professor of Physics and Dean, College of Science and Technology |
Dr. J. Charles Jennett |
President |
Dr. Ray M. Keck, III |
Associate Professor of Spanish, and Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs |
Dr. John Kohl |
Professor of Management and Dean, |
Barbara Lunce |
University Registrar |
Elizabeth N. Martinez |
Director of Human Resources |
Jose Moctezuma |
Director of Budget, Payroll and Grants |
Betty Momayezi |
Executive Director of Student Life |
Dr. Jerry Thompson |
Professor of History and Dean, |
Mary Treviño |
Associate Vice President of Student Services |
Dr. Rosa Maria Vida |
Professor of Educational Administration and Dean, College of Education |
Lakshmana Viswanath |
Director of Computer and Telecommunication Services |
Rodney Webb |
Director of the Killam Library |
This group developed the internal process and time line for completing the University's 2001-2005 Strategic Plan. The process incorporated all areas and allowed all members of the University community the opportunity to review the document and provide suggestions and comments. The Strategic Planning process served to focus planning efforts, guide decision-making, and establish indicators for assessing the quality and direction of the work of the institution.
Through this planning process, the University identified goals and priorities to provide educational access and excellence for the population of the service area and beyond. Long-term goals were clustered into six categories, with goals stated as follows:
The University measures the outcomes of these identified goals each year. The following table is an example of what has been accomplished and where we are now (2005):
Goal |
Outcome |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
|
I |
Percent of facilities completed and available for occupancy |
Projected | 60% |
80% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Actual | 60% |
80% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
||
I |
Percent of funding received for Phase IV |
Projected | ------ |
100% |
------ |
------ |
------ |
| Actual | ------ |
100% |
------ |
------ |
------ |
||
I |
Amount of funds expended for library resources in support of current and new degree programs, faculty research, and public service programs (in thousands) |
Projected | $789.1 |
$849.8 |
$915.8 |
$987.8 |
$1066.2 |
| Actual | $737.4 | $854.8 | $858.0 | $1,056.2 | $904.7 | ||
I |
Amount of funds expended for continued library automation (in thousands) |
Projected | $122 |
$129 |
$136 |
$140 |
$145 |
| Actual | $68 |
$139 |
$70 |
$66 |
$56 |
||
I |
Percent of external support received for areas of prioritized and identified need |
Projected | 30% |
35% |
40% |
45% |
50% |
| Actual | 64% |
65% |
31% |
31% |
|||
I |
Percent of publicized University events |
Projected | 80% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Actual | 80% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
||
II |
Percentage of students who apply and are accepted |
Projected | 49% |
53% |
53% |
55% |
58% |
| Actual | 49.5% | 55.1% | 62.4% | 62.4% | |||
II |
Percentage of accepted students who enroll |
Projected | 57% |
60% |
62% |
65% |
68% |
| Actual | 67.4% |
63.1% |
59.5% |
62% |
|||
II |
Percentage of increase in financial aid available and provided to students |
Projected | 5% |
5% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
| Actual | 88.73% |
41.66% |
1.35% |
3.7% |
|||
II |
Retention rate of first-time, full-time, degree seeking freshmen students after one academic year |
Projected | 63% |
65% |
67% |
67% |
70% |
| Actual | 66% |
64% |
67% |
63% |
|||
II |
Percent of students involved in extracurricular activities |
Projected | 5% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
| Actual | 18.2% | 15.7% | 16.2% | 15.8% | |||
II |
Pass rate of state education ExCET exam |
Projected | 75% |
77% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
| Actual | 66% |
72% |
87% |
84% |
|||
II |
Percent of education classes containing ExCET proficiencies |
Projected | 100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Actual | 100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
||
II |
State licensure pass rate of Nursing graduates |
Projected | 90% |
95% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Actual | 86% |
100% | 92% |
94% |
|||
II |
Percent of nursing classes containing nursing exam proficiencies |
Projected | 100% | 100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
| Actual | 100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
||
II |
Number of degree proposals approved for implementation |
Projected | 3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Actual | 4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||
II |
Number of joint programs approved for implementation |
Projected | 1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Actual | 0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|||
II |
Number of distance learning courses |
Projected | 5 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
10 |
| Actual | 0 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
22 |
||
II |
Number of degree programs with additional accreditation |
Projected | 2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
| Actual | 0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
|||
II |
Fall semester 12th class day enrollment |
Projected | 3575 |
3790 |
4020 |
4260 |
4473 |
| Actual | 3372 |
3724 |
4078 |
4269 |
|||
II |
Fall semester 12th class day semester credit hours generated |
Projected | 31530 |
34868 |
36100 |
38400 |
40257 |
| Actual | 32455 |
36726 |
39770 |
42503 |
|||
IV |
External/sponsored research funds as a percent of state appropriations |
Projected | 3% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
| Actual | .85% |
.54% |
.71% |
.19% |
|||
IV |
Percent increase in funding for operation of institutes and centers |
Projected | 5% |
5% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
| Actual | 4.8% | -5.9% | 30.1% | 8.7% | |||
IV |
Number of contacts/meetings among TAMIU, Texas and Mexican librarians |
Projected | 2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
| Actual | 4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
||
IV |
Number of collaborative projects and grants |
Projected | 6 |
8 |
8 |
10 |
10 |
| Actual | 32 |
30 |
11 |
40 |
26 |
||
VI |
Percent of procurement and contracts awarded to HUBs |
Projected | 40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
40% |
| Actual | 14.41% | 8.98% | 25.72% | 37.19% | |||
Planning and evaluation initiatives currently underway at the University include revision of the Institutional Mission and the 2006-2010 Strategic Plan. The Institutional Mission is scheduled to be reviewed at The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents meeting on March 24, 2005. The Strategic Plan is currently being updated and should be completed by the end of March 2005. Members of the committee charged with developing the 2006-2010 Strategic Plan are listed in the following table:
Name |
Title |
Dr. Susan Baker |
Professor of Nursing and Director of the Dr. F.M. Canseco School of Nursing |
Dr. Mohamed A. Ben-Ruwin |
Associate Professor of Political Science and President of the Faculty Senate |
Dr. Jeff Brown |
Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Graduate Studies |
Dr. Jeff Cass |
Associate Professor of English and Associate Provost |
Dr. Tom Corti |
Vice President for Student Affairs |
Ron Eichorst |
Comptroller |
Jose Garcia |
Vice President for Finance & Administration |
Dr. Steven Garippa |
Director of Athletics |
Leebrian Gaskins |
Interim Associate Vice President for Information Technology |
Dr. Humberto Gonzalez |
Associate Professor of Education and Dean, College of Education |
Dr. Terence P. Hannigan |
Director of Student Counseling Services |
Steve Harmon |
Director of Public Affairs and Information Services |
Candy Hein |
Vice President for Institutional Advancement |
Cristina Hernandez |
Director of Grant Resources |
Dr. Ray M. Keck, III |
Professor of Spanish and University President |
Dr. Dan Jones |
Professor of English and Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs |
Fred Juarez |
Director of Budget, Payroll, Grants & Contracts |
Elizabeth N. Martinez |
Associate Vice President for Administration |
Veronica G. Martinez |
Director of Institutional Effectiveness |
B. J. Mathieu |
Executive Director of Development |
Betty Momayezi |
Executive Director of Student Life |
Dr. Nasser Momayezi |
Professor of Political Science and Dean, College of Arts and Sciences |
Mario Peña |
University Webmaster |
Sandra Peña |
Director of Human Resources |
Minita Ramirez |
Executive Director of Enrollment Services |
Oscar Reyna |
University Registrar |
Dr. Jacky So |
Professor of Finance and Dean, College of Business Administration |
Mary Treviño |
Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs |
David VerMilyea |
Director of International Student Services |
Dr. Frances Waters |
Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Administration and Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences |
Rodney Webb |
Director of Killam Library |
Institutional Effectiveness has always been an important part of the University culture; however, prior to the creation of a designated department, this responsibility was assigned to the Special Assistant to the President. Unfortunately, because of tremendous change and growth, there were not enough opportunities to dedicate a concerted effort to this process. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness was therefore established as a campus based initiative in Fall 2000 and has become an integral part of the University's administrative structure. This department serves as the cornerstone for the assessment and evaluation processes across campus by providing services and resources for the assessment of academic programs and administrative and educational support units through the use of national and locally developed surveys, instruments, and examinations.
In an effort to establish a comprehensive and uniform assessment process across the institution, Dr. James Nichols and Karen Nichols of Institutional Effectiveness Associates were invited to visit the campus in June 2002 to present workshops on implementing assessment and institutional effectiveness activities. The entire campus community benefited from these workshops because they established a sense of understanding of the importance of conducting assessment activities on a consistent basis, documenting these activities, and using the data to implement change and improvements. The report templates provided by the Nichols allowed the institution to develop and implement its own model for a uniform reporting process.
The University has implemented an institution-wide process of assessment and evaluation that engages all degree programs, administrative, and educational support units. In July 2002, the University Assessment Committee (UAC) was established by the University President with a charge of reviewing outcomes and measurements of each academic program and administrative and educational support unit and assisting them in initiating and using the assessment process effectively. The UAC consists of fourteen faculty and administrators from all colleges/school and divisions.
University Assessment Committee Members
|
|
| Dr. Carol Waters |
Committee Chair, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Administration, Associate Dean of College of Arts and Sciences |
| Dr. Ron Anderson | Associate Professor of Education, College of Education |
| Dr. Susan Baker | Professor of Nursing, Director of Dr. F.M. Canseco School of Nursing |
| Dr. Jeffrey Cass | Associate Professor of English, College of Arts and Sciences Associate Provost |
| Conchita Hickey | Executive Director, |
| Dr. Ned Kock | Associate Professor of International Business, College of Business Administration Interim Chair, Department of Management Information Systems and Decision Science |
| Dr. Juan Lira | Regents Professor of Education, College of Education, Chair, Department of Curriculum and Instruction |
| Veronica Martinez | Director of Institutional Effectiveness |
| Betty Momayezi | Executive Director of Student Life |
| Dr. Dan Mott | Associate Professor of Zoology, College of Arts and Sciences Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Chair, Department of Biology and Chemistry |
| Dr. Bonnie Rudolph | Associate Professor of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences Director of Counseling Psychology |
| Dr. Chen-Han Sung | Professor of Mathematics, College of Arts and Sciences Chair, Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences |
| Mary Treviño | Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Director of Title V Program |
| Rodney Webb | Director of Killam Library |
The four subcommittees to the UAC allow members the time and ability to review the reports, give expertise to a specific area. The four subcommittees include:
Subcommittee 1: Degree Programs of the College of Arts and Sciences; as well as General Education.
Subcommittee 2: Degree Programs of the College of Business Administration, the College of Education and the Canseco School of Nursing.
Subcommittee 3: Administrative Support Units which include the divisions of Academic Affairs, Finance and Administration, Student Affairs, Institutional Advancement, Public Affairs, Special Programs and research centers such as the Center for the Study of Western Hemispheric Trade and the Texas Center for Border Economics and Enterprise Development.
Subcommittee 4: Educational Support Units which include the Killam Library, the division of International Programs, and the division of Programs for Academic Support and Enrichment (Developmental Studies, Testing, Writing Center, etc.)
Membership in the University Assessment Committee is staggered and rotated on a two-year cycle to allow opportunities for other faculty and administrators to participate and learn about the assessment process. The UAC meets regularly during the fall and spring semesters and on an as-needed basis during the summer to review and discuss all issues pertinent to the University assessment process. (UAC Minutes)
The Organizational Chart reflects the current structure and reporting pattern of the University. The assessment process is in accord with this structure.
A uniform assessment reporting process and template allows for the efficient use of time, information, and resources. Informational sessions are conducted with all employees involved in the assessment process to explain the format and report submission process. Academic programs submit their assessment plans each semester; while administrative and educational support units submit their plans on an annual (September to August) basis. At the beginning of the academic year, all academic departments meet and review their educational programs. Faculty members of each department lead the assessment efforts in their areas. In a similar fashion, all administrative and educational support units review and revise their assessment procedures. All assessment plans are in line with the Institutional Mission as well as the college/school and department unit mission.
From the initial implementation of the uniform assessment reporting process to the present time, a great deal of progress has been made in the development of effective assessment plans. The UAC has worked diligently to provide guidance and leadership to the University community and to foster a better understanding and appreciation of the importance of the assessment process. Each year, the UAC reviews the effectiveness of the assessment process and the templates used for reporting, and makes modifications and improvements to the process as needed.
The current method for submitting assessment plans is outlined below:
The IE web page now serves as the central repository of all assessment materials, including forms, plans, and reports. This approch provides the opportunity to learn about assessment methods and instruments used by other University departments. The Assessment Plan Reporting Process illustrated in the chart below:

A timeline is distributed by the UAC to the University community with specific information on the activity and the due date. A sample of the timeline is provided below:
Texas A&M International University
University Assessment Committee (UAC)
Fiscal Year 2005 Assessment Plans Timeline
Academic Reports
| Fall 2004 Semester | |||
| Preliminary Plans |
By October 15, 2004 | ||
| Objectives (3 minimum) Means of Assessment (1 or 2 per objective) Criteria for Success (Benchmark) |
|||
| Review of plans by UAC Subcommittees | October 20 to 28, 2004 | ||
UAC Subcommittees Feedback to UAC |
By October 29, 2004 | ||
| Revised Plan from Departments Submitted to UAC Subcommittees |
By November 15, 2004 | ||
| Final Plan Submitted to UAC | By January 31, 2005 | ||
Summary of Data |
|||
| UAC Reviews Final Plans | First week of February 2005 | ||
| Spring 2005 Semester | |||
| Preliminary Plans | By March 15, 2005 | ||
Objectives (3 minimum) |
|||
| Review of plans by UAC Subcommittees | March 22 to 29, 2005 | ||
| UAC Subcommittees Feedback to UAC and Departments |
By March 30, 2005 | ||
| Revised Plan from Departments Submitted to UAC Subcommittees |
By April 15, 2005 | ||
| Final Plan Submitted to UAC | By September 15, 2005 | ||
Summary of Data |
|||
| UAC Reviews Final Plans | Last week of September 2005 | ||
| Administrative/Educational Support Units | |||
| Fiscal Year 2004-2005 | |||
| Preliminary Plans | By October 15, 2004 | ||
Objectives (3 minimum) |
|||
| Review of plans by UAC Subcommittees | October 20 to 28, 2004 | ||
| UAC Subcommittees Feedback to UAC and Departments | By October 29, 2004 | ||
| Revised Plan from Departments Submitted to UAC Subcommittees | By November 15, 2004 | ||
| Final Plan | By September 15, 2005 | ||
Summary of Data |
|||
| UAC Reviews Final Plans | Last week of September 2005 | ||
The University, through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, provides resources for assessment of programs and services. Resources are provided in a variety of formats such as: the purchase and processing of standardized examinations and surveys; assistance with the cost of mailing and collection of departmental surveys; and the development and collection of locally developed surveys.
Some of the major assessment initiatives for academic programs include the use of standardized examinations, such as:
In lieu of national or local testing, some degree programs have developed a capstone course or other types of instruments to measure their students’ success. The following chart illustrates some of the instruments used by disciplines and their use of results:
Discipline |
Standardized |
Locally Developed Exam |
Other |
Use of |
Accounting |
Course Exam |
Recommendation by the faculty that a required lab be added in accounting applications and taken concurrently with the first intermediate financial accounting course. |
||
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree |
California Critical Thinking Skills Test |
Test results indicated that a more defined substantive area focus was necessary. Curriculum changes reflecting new content emphasis have been initiated. |
||
Biology |
Embedded questions in major course final exam |
Curriculum revised and new lab exercises added. |
||
Business Administration |
ETS Major Field Test in Business |
Course Final Exam |
As part of exam, writing assignment is randomly selected and evaluated by faculty committee with emphasis on clarity, style, and grammar. Corrective actions taken if necessary. |
|
Chemistry |
Embedded questions in major course final exam |
Research Presentations |
Curriculum revised. Biochemistry I, Physical Chemistry II, and Inorganic Chemistry were added as required courses. |
|
Criminal Justice |
Locally developed comprehensive exam for graduate students |
To strengthen student writing and critical thinking skills, the CRIJ 5303 course was modified to include two new writing assignments. |
||
Curriculum and Instruction |
Locally developed comprehensive exam for graduate students |
Graduates completing the program scored high on the exams; however, to improve program two minors, Special Education and Early Childhood Education, have been added to allow for more flexibility in the program. |
||
Early Childhood Education Reading |
TExES Exam |
Benchmark met for Domain I (Designing Instruction and Assessment to Promote Student Learning); however, data indicated below average scores on Domain III (Implementing Effective, Responsive Instruction, and Assessment). Additional focus will now be given to that domain. |
||
Educational Administration |
TExES Exam |
After review of the results, faculty decided to increase the field and course activities that help students apply their knowledge about school community leadership and increase research activities. |
||
English |
Analytical Rubric |
Sub scores on rubric identified two areas of concern – Organizing and Developing Ideas. Increased emphasis on the writing process began Fall 2004. |
||
English with Grades 8 to 12 Certification |
TExES Exam |
Score reports suggested that some students were testing poorly in areas related to reading instruction; therefore, a new text (Teaching Reading in High School English Classes) was added to the course. |
||
Finance |
Objective Test developed by department faculty |
Recommendation that labs be added to the investments and bank management course to address learning deficiencies. |
||
Fitness and Sports with All-Level Certification |
TExES Exam |
Based on students not meeting the 70% criteria, all students must complete all program courses before taking the exam. The weakest area identified was Domain I (Promoting Learner’s Physical Development). |
||
General Education |
CAAP Exam |
University Writing Assessment; Common Course Examination in College Algebra |
Results for all three areas: Reading, Writing, and Math were analyzed and implementations were made in the areas of tutoring and early intervention. |
|
History and History with Grades 8 to 12 Certification |
ACAT Exam; TExES Exam |
Graduating Senior Survey; Post-Graduate Survey |
Degree plan was revised as of the 2003-2004 University Catalog by creating two new courses to place particular emphasis on chronological courses. |
|
Information Systems |
Objective Test developed by department faculty |
Capstone course |
Test administered as part of capstone course. Of five general areas, only one area, Networking Concepts, did not meet the benchmark. New faculty with expertise in the area of networking are joining the department. |
|
International Banking |
Objective Test developed by department faculty |
Only International Finance met the benchmark. Course in international banking is being reviewed for content and coverage. |
||
Mathematics and Mathematics with Grades 8 to 12 Certification |
ETS Major Field Test and TExES Exam |
Due to continuing low scores on these exams, a variable credit review course will be offered each semester. |
||
Master of Business Administration |
ETS Major Field Test |
Major area of concern was the students' desire for greater accessibility to computer resources. Scheduling is being reviewed to accommodate greater accessibility to computing facilities. |
||
Nursing |
NCLEX/RN; HESI (Health Education Systems Incorporated) Exit Exam |
Capstone course; pre-graduate and post-graduate surveys |
Modified score required to pass institutional Exit Exam in nursing; revised capstone review course; revised testing format to reflect new test item format for NCLEX/RN. |
|
Political Science |
ACAT Exam |
Restructured the program to include a capstone seminar, PSCI 4351. |
||
Professional Accountancy |
Objective test developed by department faculty |
The areas of code of conduct and taxation did not meet the benchmark. The courses in accounting ethics and taxation will be reviewed. |
||
Psychology |
ACAT Exam |
A lab course, PSYC 3102, was added to enhance PSYC 3302, Research Methods. Instituted reviews and mini-workshops by faculty teaching in the discipline. |
||
School Counseling |
TExES Exam |
Emphasis was placed on Domain II (Planning and Implementing the Developmental Guidance and Counseling Programs). All first-time test takers passed this domain. |
||
Social Studies with Grades 8 to 12 Certification |
TExES Exam |
Graduating Senior Survey; Post-Graduate Survey |
More focused attention will be directed at student performance in the SOST 4392 course aimed at determining subject areas of weakness in order to develop appropriate remedial measures. |
|
Spanish |
Analytical Rubric for Research Papers |
Created a sophomore level introduction to literature course required for all majors to develop a three-tiered system to help students with their writing skills at each level of instruction. |
||
Spanish with Grades 8 to 12 Certification |
TExES Exam |
Since 1998, Spanish students have achieved a 100% pass rate on this exam. |
||
Special Education |
TExES Exam |
Portfolio Defense |
Changes made to the undergraduate curriculum to align the degree to the new domains and standards of the Texas Examination of Educator Standards. |
|
Social Work |
ACAT Exam; State Licensure Exam |
Field Evaluation and Alumni Survey |
Curriculum was modified to support sequential learning; the research text was changed; a research module was added to the field component; students who are doing poorly are called in to see how they can be helped. |
Faculty members review the results of these assessments to recommend and implement changes to the curriculum. The recommendations are discussed at the departmental curriculum committee meetings and continue through the college level curriculum committees. A formal recommendation is submitted for review to the Provost and to the University Curriculum Committee. (UCC Minutes) Upon approval, the recommended changes are implemented and included in the University Catalog.
In addition, administrative and educational support units administer nationally recognized as well as locally developed surveys such as:
Through the combined efforts of the University Assessment Committee, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and all academic and department units, the University established a comprehensive and continuous planning process in 2002 that continues in operation and has become an integral part of each campus entity. Each degree program and administrative, and educational support unit evaluates its performance outcomes and uses those outcomes for continuous improvement.
Assessment of academic programs is conducted every semester with the results being used to improve the programs in the following semester. Some examples of improvements include:
Each administrative and educational support unit conducts assessments on an annual basis with results used to improve services. Some examples of this process include:
All academic, administrative and educational support unit assessment reports may be found on the Office of Institutional Effectiveness web page. To provide an easier identification of use of assessment data, assessment matrices have been compiled that outline the progress and improvements made by degree programs and administrative, and educational support units. The assessments of degree programs are inherently different from those of administrative, and educational support units. In particular, the outcomes of degree programs reflect the expectations of graduates of those programs. The outcomes of administrative and educational support unit assessments are expressed in terms of service and service satisfaction. This difference is directly related to the mission of the administrative and educational support units to provide the resources students and faculty need to accomplish the Institutional Mission. The Assessment Outcomes Matrices provide detailed information on all degree programs and administrative and educational support units and can be found online. (Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Arts and Sciences, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Business Administration, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Education, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Dr. F. M. Canseco School of Nursing, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - General Education, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Athletics, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Administrative Units, Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Educational Support Units)
Establishing the current mode of uniform assessment has been challenging; however, the strong support of the University community and the education and training provided by the University Assessment Committee and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, have allowed for a steadily maturing, collegial process. The process in place at our institution has grown out of our own experiences and works well on our campus. It is a model that can be implemented easily and modified as the need arises, allowing for continued growth and technological advances.
The implementation of a uniform assessment reporting process has been beneficial in a number of ways:
The University’s planning and evaluation processes are constantly undergoing change, in keeping with a rapidly growing institution, an increasing number of degree programs, and administrative reorganization. However, the supportive and effective campus leadership and institutional commitment to these processes allow for continuous improvement and alignment to the mission and goals of the institution
.
| SOURCE |
LOCATION/Special Instructions |
| Institutional Mission | http://www.tamiu.edu/general.shtml#mission |
| 2001-2005 Strategic Plan | http://www.tamiu.edu/strategic_plan.pdf |
| Office of Institutional Effectiveness | http://www.tamiu.edu/adminis/ie/ |
| University Assessment Committee Minutes | http://www.tamiu.edu/adminis/ie/uac/ |
| Online Survey Summaries | http://www.tamiu.edu/adminis/ie/surveys.shtml |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Arts and Sciences | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/coas.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Business Administration | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/coba.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - College of Education | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/coed.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Dr. F. M. Canseco School of Nursing | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/cson.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - General Education | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/gened.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Athletics | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/ath.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Administrative Units | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/admin.pdf |
| Assessment Outcomes Matrix - Educational Support Units | http://www.tamiu.edu/archives/matrix/edusup.pdf |