1.  There is general anxiety about the workload and meeting the deadline, which could lead to a frantic rush to get something produced and handed in, even if it’s not carefully thought through.

It’s better to take more time and “do it right” than rush something through.  So, if a program anticipates difficulty with completing its plans by May 15^th, they should request an extension without any fear of a penalty.  If a program needs to develop an entirely new assessment plan, then it is most appropriate to spend more time on this process than to meet the May 15^th deadline.

2.  Some programs can provide an assessment plan document, but foresee challenges completing the P-2 form at this time.  Can they submit the document now, and ask for an extension for the P-2?

Yes – in their request for an extension, the program can explain the challenges associated with completing the P-2 by May 15^th, but include their program assessment document to report their progress so far.

3.  Some programs have begun work on P-2’s and/or have already submitted one.  Do these programs also need to submit the separate assessment plan document?

Yes – these programs should supply a document as well, but might apply for an extension if they foresee problems with the deadline.  Note that programs in this category might supply the document at the same time as edits to their P-2, so that they could efficiently complete both items at once.

4.  Many programs already have assessment planning documentation, often gathered for their existing accreditation process(es).  Do these programs need to produce a new/additional assessment plan document?

No – programs that already have a strong, documented assessment plan should just provide their existing plan as not to duplicate efforts.  If there is already a strong assessment plan in place, refer to the "Evaluation of an Assessment Plan Rubric" provided on the CET&L website (http://www.uc.edu/cetl/program-assess.html) to do a final review before submission.

5.  Some of the program assessment plans describe multiple programs at once.  For example, multiple P-2’s exist for programs with tracks, but they might share a common assessment plan document.  Or, a school might have developed a single assessment planning document covering multiple academic majors.  Is it still okay to submit a single assessment plan document, even if it is tied to multiple P-2’s?

Yes – an assessment plan document might cover more than one program, even if multiple P-2’s are involved.

6.  Some programs’ P-1 documents will no longer be accurate with respect to their required courses after this academic year, and it is also possible that their learning outcomes have not been written in such a way that an assessment plan can be built around them.  Should they hand in something now, or wait until it’s possible to modify the P-1 before submitting?

These programs should get an extension to the May 15^th deadline, and make modifications to the P-1 before submitting their P-2 and assessment plan.  The ability to modify the P-1 will become available in April or May, so it will be possible to submit those changes through eCurriculum for review and approval.  It would be better to wait and do this in order to report on accurate information, rather than to forge ahead with a P-2 form and assessment plan written for a defunct curriculum.  Note that CET&L will offer workshops on writing (rewriting) program level outcomes.

7.  There might be a number of programs in a college that have all decided an extension is appropriate for similar reasons.  Is it possible for a college to request an extension for multiple programs at once?

Yes – an associate dean or unit head could provide an explanation of their need for an extension for multiple programs at once.

8.  What is the difference between an assessment plan and the P-2 form?

An assessment plan is a more comprehensive document, and is not a standard form.  The P-2 is a form completed in the eCurriculum system, and is used for all programs.  The P-2 assumes that there is already a strong assessment plan in place and only asks for discrete parts of the assessment plan.

9.  Why does a faculty member, or faculty committee, and/or program director need to oversee the development of an assessment plan?

The faculty determine the academic requirements and learning outcomes of a program.  Only the faculty are able to create a way to measure the successful achievement of students’ learning outcomes, and only the faculty are able to change the curriculum of a program in response to these measurements.  To be accurate and effective, the assessment plan must be faculty-driven.

10.  After completing the assessment plans and submitting the P-2 form, what will happen next year and in future years?

Centrally documenting program assessment plans and P-2 forms ensures better service to our students through this continual improvement process.  Also, it is widely believed that future NHA/HLC accreditation requirements will call for continual monitoring of institutional assessment plans. It is imperative that we anticipate these changes and proactively establish a process that will efficiently and effectively respond.  With these things in mind, it is important that individual programs implement their assessment plans during Academic Year (AY) 2013/14 and be ready to provide meaningful examples of the work produced by students when requested.

We recognize that many programs may still be in the process of documenting their assessment plans and P-2 forms during AY 2013/14, and want to assure those programs that they will receive adequate time to successfully implement their assessment plans. 

We also anticipate that the majority of programs will have implemented their assessment plans by AY 2014/15 and will have begun reflecting on the results.  The successful implementation of these assessment plans will enable us to move forward with our institution’s plan of monitoring each program’s continual improvement, by synthesizing best practices and providing feedback where appropriate.  We envision that this process will likely be scheduled in a way that all programs will be asked on a 3-year rotation basis to:  revisit their P-2 forms for accuracy, provide meaningful examples of the assessments that took place, and describe their continuous program improvement.