UMA Strategic Plan - History and Context for Key Goal 2
Key Goal 2: Maintain and improve institutional effectiveness through embedded assessment and planning in all areas of the University.
After five years of studying and attempting to develop and implement Outcomes-based Assessment within every unit of UMA certain critical issues became evident. The primary concern was getting all faculty and staff to appreciate the importance of developing a culture of assessment. The "allied health" programs (Nursing, Dental, Vet Tech and Med Lab Tech) have long been engaged in learning outcomes assessment as required by their national accrediting agencies. However, outside of those fields few faculty knew of or understood the concept. Even faculty who historically have been engaged in programmatic outcomes assessment (Art, Architecture and Music) needed to understand that they were already doing it, and what primarily had to be added was the documenting of their activities. In 2005-06 the faculty, en masse, began to understand and appreciate how academic outcomes assessment could improve the quality of their programs and personal teaching. Faculty need to follow through with what they have started. Additionally, the University needs to insure that other units understand and implement outcomes-based assessment to improve institutional effectiveness.
A second critical component of change embedded within outcomes-based assessment is the need to redress the System's mandated process of Program Review. Since its inception at the System level, Program Review has been tied to program elimination. The Provost's five-year effort to break the linkage between Program Review and Program Elimination as well as refocus Program Review as an outcomes driven process for teaching/learning effectiveness seems to be bearing fruit on campus and at the System. The December 2005 Implementation Report for the UMS Strategic Plan's Direction 1, supports the move to an outcomes based review. At a spring 2006 meeting of the seven universities' Chief Academic Officers with the Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs agreement was reached to petition the Board of Trustees to remove Program Review from the Administrative Procedures Manual article on Program Approval, Suspension, Elimination, and Review. In turn, a new article in the Manual would be created, which focuses on learning outcomes assessment.
Another critical flaw in the current Program Review process is simply that the reports serve little to no function. They rarely impact the budgeting process or institutional priority setting. Pedagogy is not a serious factor within the reports, rather enrollments and program costs are central. These reports usually end-up on University and System shelves unread and without impact. It became evident that if Program Reviews were to be revitalized they needed to not only focus on pedagogy, but influence the decision making process of the University.
UMA has no planning calendar or clear process. Therefore, as needs are identified within the school there is no assurance that those needs will/can even be considered for correction. By happenstance, needs may or may not coincide with the budget building process. Further, there is no mechanism or forum that allows for open discussion for setting priorities across the various units of the university.
As a result of the above considerations, Key Goal #2 was formulated to correct the inherent problems in the University's current practices of assessment, planning, and budgeting.