Authority: Issued by the Chancellor. Changes or exceptions to administrative regulations issued by the Chancellor may only be made by the Chancellor.
History: First Issued: July 8, 2014.
SACSCOC, The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Core Requirement 2.5, Comprehensive Standards 220.127.116.11-5, and Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1
SACSCOC, Resource Manual for the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement
DASA, Office of AssessmentGraduate School, Program Evaluation website
Contact: Senior Vice Provost for Institutional Research and Planning 919-515-6434
The purpose of academic program assessment is to enable the institution to systematically improve the quality of teaching and learning at NC State University. Assessment results inform planning and decision-making and provide a gauge for institutional effectiveness.
NC State is committed to assessment that is meaningful, manageable, efficient, and useful for making academic program decisions at the department level as well as the college and university levels. After such decisions have been made and implemented, the university continues to monitor improvement through regular assessment.
Assessment is mandated by NC State’s accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). For SACSCOC, assessment is the cornerstone of institutional effectiveness, a Core Requirement.
2. APPLICABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The University maintains an assessment plan for each academic program, including all degree programs and certificates recognized on official university transcripts. Each assessment plan describes measurable student learning and program outcomes and appropriate evaluation methods.
The University also requires an annual assessment report for each academic program that provides an update including a summary of recent assessment results, an evaluation of strengths and areas for program improvement based on the results, and a description of decisions made and implemented to address areas for program improvement.
2.2 Responsibility for Assessment and Program Improvement
2.2.1 The Provost is responsible for ensuring that assessment of the university’s effectiveness in fulfilling its instructional mission takes place.
2.2.2 Deans are responsible for ensuring that every academic department and interdisciplinary program outside a department maintains current program assessment plans, implements regular procedures for assessing the effectiveness of programs, and submits annual program assessment reports.
2.2.3 Department heads are responsible for designating a qualified faculty member for each academic program who will coordinate assessment of that program and post an annual assessment report online.
2.2.4 Department heads, deans and the Provost are responsible for ensuring that assessment results are used for program improvement at each level as appropriate.
2.2.5 DASA’s Office of Assessment and the Graduate School are responsible for facilitating the assessment process by providing reporting templates and schedules, by hosting a repository for assessment reports, and by providing workshops and advice on assessment.
2.3 Reporting and Oversight
2.3.1 Department heads will submit an assessment summary to the appropriate dean regarding the quality of the reports, the use of assessment results for program improvement, and any major findings of potential interest to the dean. Directors of interdisciplinary programs will notify the appropriate dean(s) when their reports are ready to be reviewed.
2.3.2 Deans will review assessment summaries and reports and submit to the Provost college-level summaries regarding the quality of the reports, the use of assessment results for program improvement, and any major findings of potential interest to the Provost. The deans will provide a copy to DASA’s Office of Assessment and the Graduate School.
2.3.4 DASA’s Office of Assessment and the Graduate School will prepare an annual university summary that lists the reports received, comments on the overall quality of the reports, and identifies major findings of potential interest to the Provost. If appropriate, they will recommend improvements in the overall university assessment process for academic programs.