Oregon Institute of Technology

Academic Institutional Assessment Process

Institutional Assessment Tasks and Responsibilities

The institution is continually assessed for effectiveness according to the Institutional
Assessment Plan adopted by the Assessment Executive Committee as appointed and charged by
the Provost’s Office. The Plan, summarized in the Annual Institutional Assessment Report is
updated annually by the committee and rolled out to programmatic faculty at Convocation in Fall
before classes begin. The plan encompasses a Template for Programmatic Assessment and a
Process for Assessment of broad Institutional Learning Outcomes. At the conclusion of the
academic year, the Program Assessment Report Template and ISLO Process are adjusted
considering feedback from faculty, evaluation of the contents of the submitted reports and
updated state and accreditation standards. The current Template and Process documents are
posted on the Office of Academic Assessment Website at https://www.oit.edu/academic-
excellence. Changes resulting from this feedback are documented in the Annual Institutional
Assessment Report as well.
Faculty are responsible for reporting student performance on course outcomes to the program.
Program Chairs and Assessment Coordinators are responsible for reporting on program
outcomes and developing program level action plans and needs assessments based on course
performance and other criteria utilizing the Program Assessment Report Template. Program data
is reported to the Office of Academic Excellence. Deans ensure that all programs submit reports.
Institution-wide trends are examined by the Assessment Committee and ISLO sub committees
within the Office of Academic Excellence according to the ISLO Process. The Annual
Institutional Assessment Report written by Assessment committee summarizes the actions and
needs identified through the assessment processes and is submitted to the University
Accreditation Committee (UAC) where non-academic Department Vice Presidents use this
data to allocate resources to the academic departments. The following year’s assessment reports
summarize the success of actions taken in the previous year and whether resources were
provided in the Close the Loops section of the Program reports. The Annual Institutional
Assessment Report also evaluates the success of the processes utilized and highlights the
necessary changes.
Fig 1. Institutional Assessment Process Responsibilities

The Continuous Assessment Cycle

Measurement of programmatic and institutional outcomes are split among 3 parts of the cycle of
assessment (Plan, Assess and Act). Each year all faculty are involved in planning for assessment
of a particular outcome, collecting and analyzing data for assessment of a different outcome, and
carrying out actions based on assessment of the rest of the outcomes. In this way the curriculum
and the institution are continually adapting and changing to the needs of their students.
Fig 2. Three Year Cycle of Institutional Learning Outcomes

ISLO Three Year Academic

Assessment Cycle (Student Success)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Plan Plan Plan

Communication, Teamwork, Diverse Perspectives Inquiry & Analysis includes
Ethical Reasoning including Cultural problem solving & Info literacy,
Sensitivity & Global critical analysis & logical thinking
Quantitative Literacy & Reasoning
Awareness
PLAN: Course Selections. Assignment Design, Rubric Design. (Program Planning report due start of winter quarter,
feedback given by spring term).
 Assess Assess Assess
Inquiry & Analysis includes Communication, Diverse Perspectives
problem solving & Info literacy, Teamwork, Ethical including Cultural
critical analysis & logical Reasoning Sensitivity & Global
thinking Collect Awareness
Quantitative Literacy &
Reasoning (FALL & WINTER) Collect
Collect Analyze (FALL & WINTER)
(FALL & WINTER) (SPRING) Analyze (SPRING)
Analyze (SPRING)
ASSESS: Direct Measures- (circle) Faculty Grades (Rubric), Standardized Tests, Exams, Pre and Post Test
Designs, Competency-Based Demonstrations, Portfolios Indirect Measures-(circle) Faculty Grades-
DFW, Surveys &Reflections, Course Evaluations, Graduation Rates, Retention Rates.
Program Collect and Analyze Report due at the end of spring term and feedback given by fall term.
Act Act Act
Diverse Perspectives Inquiry & Analysis includes Communication,
including Cultural problem solving & Info Teamwork, Ethical
Sensitivity & literacy, critical analysis & Reasoning
logical thinking
Global Awareness
Quantitative Literacy & Reasoning

Act: Close loops, make improvements and re-measure Engage campus (professional development)

Leadership of Academic Assessment Efforts

It is imperative that the assessment of institutional effectiveness is an inclusive process that
involves the entire campus community. The Assessment Committee is responsible for
developing, reviewing, and implementing the institutional assessment plan. Standards laid down
by NWCCU, particularly their rubrics for assessment processes (http://www.nwccu.org/tools-
resources/evaluators/forms-guidelines/ ) help guide all involved with assessment to fulfill
increasing state and federal mandates, which hold institutions of higher education accountable
for student learning and continuous improvement.

The committee reports to the Provost. The Assessment Committee is comprised of the Chair;
Vice Provost (ex officio); Associate Vice Provost of Academic Excellence; at least one faculty
member from each college and campus; and at least one faculty member from Online Learning.
Other membership includes the ISLO subcommittees divided by assessment cycle (plan, assess,
act), department chairs, and/or faculty designated by each academic department for a specified
term to assist with assessment. The Provost appoints one faculty member to serve as Chair of the
Assessment Committee for a three-year term.

ISLO Sub committees are charged by the Provost’s office in conjunction with recommendations
from the Assessment Committee with either planning for assessment of their particular assigned
outcome, analyzing the data collected on their particular outcome, or facilitating university-wide
actions on their particular outcomes. Subcommittees have 3 members each are as follows:
1. Communication, Teamwork, Ethical Reasoning (CTER),
2. Diverse Perspectives/Cultural Sensitivity & Global Awareness (DP)
3. Quantitative Literacy, Inquiry & Analysis (QLIA)

Liaison with Other Campus Bodies

A representative from the Assessment Committee is a member of the Curriculum Planning
Commission (CPC). In this role, the representative reads all curriculum proposals, attends CPC
meetings, and provides an assessment perspective to the work of CPC. The representative
ensures that appropriate assessment questions are included in all coursework proposals.

At least one representative from the Assessment Committee serves on the General Education
Advisory Council (GEAC). Communication between the Assessment committee and this
committee must be bi-directional. Representatives from the assessment committee ensure that
assessment in general education is prioritized within processes and that ISLO definitions are
consistent with state mandated standards for general education.

A representative from the Assessment Committee serves on the Commission on College

Teaching (CCT). The representative provides assessment results and recommended actions for
continuous improvement as they pertain to faculty professional development.

A representative from the Diverse Perspectives ISLO subcommittee should be in close contact
with or on the Diversity, Inclusion, and Cultural Engagement (DICE) steering committee.
DICE work guides assessment work related to standards of equitable curriculum delivery and
measurements on the Diverse Perspectives ISLO. Assessment work provides data to the DICE
office identifying equity gaps and actions related to the closure of those gaps.

The online representative member should be in contact with Online Learning Advisory
Council (OLAC) to ensure that best practices for online education are being assessed similarly
to in person programs.

The Associate Vice Provost of Academic Excellence or a representative serves as a member of

the Institutional Accreditation Team, ensuring that academic assessment efforts are aligned in
support of institutional accreditation reporting activity. This member ensures that the year end
Assessment report is distributed to this team and that University resource allocation is guided by
assessment needs.

Communication of Assessment Matters

Systematic and broad communication on assessment matters is important to the assessment
process. As such, communication avenues should be continually improved upon.

The Office of Academic Excellence maintains a webpage with current information and
assessment practices and annual institutional summary assessment reports at
https://www.oit.edu/academic-excellence Linked to this webpage are accompanying pages where
departmental outcomes and program assessment reports are published for public consumption.
Office of Academic Excellence webpage contains links to data from Office of Institutional
Research, General Education standards, Commission on College Teaching, DICE and the
definitions of Institutional Outcomes.

The Office of Academic Excellence maintains a Teams drive which contains a record of
Agendas and Meetings for the committee, grades and feedback sent to departments regarding
assessment reports, trainings and requests for actions from faculty.

Resources for Assessment

Report Contents
All associate and bachelor’s level programs are required to submit a programmatic assessment
report. Within the program report should be listed the program mission and how it aligns with
the mission of the institution, program specific learning outcomes (PSLO) and how they are
justified by accrediting bodies or requirements from industry, a scaffolded curriculum map, the
process the program used to collect data used for assessment including direct (student work
product) and indirect (perspective) sources of data, and faculty interpretations and actions taken
or planned because of this data.
Required data points for consideration in evaluation of program quality:
• Graduation rate: 4-6 years post entry to the academic institution
• Post-graduation success: percent of students finding employment or pursuing
advanced education in the field of choice after graduation
• Retention: one year post entry to the program
• Persistence: rate students stay in the program each term
• DFWI: percent of enrolled students receiving a grade of D, F, Withdraw, or
Incomplete in a course
• Disaggregated data: student data that is categorized by specific populations.
Available populations are Race, Gender, Pell Grant recipient, First Generation
attending college
• PSLO: student performance on program specific outcomes
• ISLO: student performance on institutionally recognized outcomes

Fig 3. Contents of Program Academic Assessment Reports

Reports also contain faculty interpretations of the data, action plans based on these
interpretations and look back of actions implemented to evaluate the success of these plans a
process called “close the loop”.
The reports are submitted and stored with the Office of Academic Excellence and published to
the program’s assessment webpage. If contents of the report are missing, programs are given the
opportunity to correct and resubmit the necessary information.

Sources of Data
Student perspective is utilized broadly across the institution. Every course is assigned an end of
course survey administered by IDEA. Faculty have direct access to the results of these surveys
for all of their courses. Faculty report these data in their Annual Performance Evaluations (APE).
Training on how to access and interpret this data is conducted by CCT during their annual OTET
Workshop.
The Office of Academic Excellence conducts a Student Exit Survey for every department on
their graduating seniors through Qualtrics. Questions asked of these students cover student
perspective on their education’s impact on their performance of Programmatic Outcomes and
their post graduation success. This data is provided to programs for use in writing their program
assessment reports in summer.
The Office of Institutional Research Provides head count data on graduation, attrition, and
retention rates by term, department, and college. This data is shared with programs and
available on the OIR website at https://www.oit.edu/institutional-research Additionally, OIR data
dashboards that report student achievement data are readily available to faculty online through
faculty resources page on the universe’s intranet TECHweb.
External evaluation of programs is conducted by participation of Professional Advisory Boards
and Accreditation for individual programs.
Table 1. Accredited Programs

Program Accrediting Body

Dental Hygiene Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA)
EMS Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs
(CAAHEP)
Diagnostic Commission of Accreditation for Respiratory Care (COARC)
Medical
Sonography
Polysomnographic Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs
Technology (CAAHEP)
MLS National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Science (NAACLS)
Civil Engineering Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET
Electrical Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET
Engineering
 Electronics Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET
Engineering
Technology
Geomatics Applied and Natural Sciences Accreditation Commission of ABET
Renewable Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET
Energy
Engineering
Computer SET Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET
Mechanical Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET
Engineering (ME)
MET Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET

Manufacturing Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) of ABET

Engineering
Technology
Management International Accreditation Council for Business Education (IACBE)

Tools
The institution has created dashboards for each faculty member to review their courses. The OIR
data dashboards report student achievement data and are readily available to faculty online
through faculty resources webpage on the universe’s intranet TECHweb with faculty log-in
credentials. Dashboards are maintained by the Office of Institutional Research also contain data
disaggregated data by race, gender, first generation college attendance, Pell Grant recipient
status, and full or part time status. Such data included in the dashboards is 6-Year Graduation
data, Retention for one year, and Dropped Failed Withdrew or Incomplete (DFWI) by term.
Faculty report review of this data in program assessment reports and in Course Learning
Outcomes (CLO) Worksheets due at the end of each term.

The CLO Worksheets were created by the Office of Academic Assessment and allow faculty a
place to enter assessment data based on course work performance that can then be summarized
by the chair of the department. Using the CLO worksheets, faculty determine which
programmatic and institutional outcomes their specific coursework pertains to. Faculty enter
performance targets for assignments and course work. The program determines a standard of
success to mean the number of students performing acceptably on the outcome that indicates the
outcome is met for the course. Faculty determine student success to be the student’s work
product compared to the rubric for the outcome on the assignment. The Program Assessment
Handbook expected to be published in 2022-23 academic year clarifies definitions for faculty on
each of these measures of success.
Outcomes
The Strategic plan for the Institution is published on the University Website at
https://www.oit.edu/about/strategic-plan and reads as follows:
“Oregon Institute of Technology (“Oregon Tech”), Oregon’s public polytechnic university, offers innovative, professionally-focused
undergraduate and graduate degree programs in the areas of engineering, health, business, technology, and applied arts and sciences.
To foster student and graduate success, the university provides a hands-on, project-based learning environment and emphasizes
innovation, scholarship, and applied research. With a commitment to diversity and leadership development, Oregon Tech offers
statewide educational opportunities and technical expertise to meet current and emerging needs of Oregonians as well as other national
and international constituents.”

It is structured using the guiding values of: Student success, respect, service, excellence,
integrity, Diversity Equity and Inclusion, Accountability and Confidence into four pillars.
• Commitment to Student Success
• Commitment to Innovation
• Commitment to Community
• Commitment to Institutional Excellence

This strategic plan informs the Academic Master plan published on the University Website at
https://www.oit.edu/provost which has a mission that reads as follows:

“Through a sense of community, collaboration and innovative degree programs, Oregon Tech Academic Affairs provides applied
hands-on learning from teacher-scholars who develop life-long learners and tomorrow’s leaders.”

Through the values of Professional Ethics, Inclusivity, Transparency, Accountability, Forward-

thinking, Respect, and Excellence. The Academic master plan sets forth charges the academic
community will act on in the areas of on fiscal responsibility, Institutional Success Indicators,
and Opportunities for Research and Industry Collaboration.

Success of the work on these initiatives from the missions are measured through student success
on both the Institutional Success Indicators of Retention and Persistence, Graduation Rates,
Employment Rates, DFWI, and closing of equity gaps and student performance on academic
learning outcomes.

Academic learning outcomes are categorized as follows:

a. Course Student Learning Outcomes (CLO) – Student learning outcomes limited to
the course subject only. Students achieve them by specifically attaining a faculty
member’s success criteria for each learning outcome (not completing a course.)
b. Program Student Learning Outcomes (PSLO) – Learning outcomes students
achieve by completing requirements of the degree program. Program learning
outcomes are defined by program faculty and or program accreditation agencies, if
any. Achievement of the program learning outcomes are typically demonstrated by
what students can do.
c. Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (ISLO) – Student learning outcomes
students achieve by completing degree requirements. Institutional Student Learning
Outcomes are broad learning outcomes; they are not major specific but are
consistently integrated and assessed in program courses university wide throughout a
student’s learning experience at the institution.
Program and Institutional Outcomes are assessed at three levels as follows:
a. Foundational – introduction to the concept
b. Practice - performance within programmatic coursework that builds on foundational
knowledge
c. Capstone – synthesis of knowledge from multiple areas in coursework in application
of professional level practice

While CLO are set by faculty, and PSLO are set by programs, Oregon Tech's Institutional
Student Learning Outcomes (ISLOs) are set by the Office of Academic Excellence to ensure that
they support Oregon Tech's institutional mission and strategic goals. The outcomes and
associated criteria reflect the rigorous applied nature of Oregon Tech's degree programs. In depth
definitions on acceptable performance on these outcomes are published at
https://www.oit.edu/academic-excellence/GEAC/essential-studies/Institutional-student-learning-
outcome

Oregon Tech students will:

• communicate effectively orally and in writing;
• engage in a process of inquiry and analysis; including problem-
solving & information literacy, critical analysis & logical thinking
• make and defend reasonable ethical judgments;
• collaborate effectively in teams or groups;
• demonstrate quantitative literacy & reasoning;
• explore diverse perspectives, including cultural sensitivity &
global awareness.

Review Process
Each program submitting a report also delegates an individual faculty member to review other
department reports. At minimum, program reports are read by two faculty graders. Faculty
graders are given training on a grading rubric updated by the Assessment Committee for this
purpose. The contents of the rubric evaluate program reports for items specified in Fig 3. Graders
return individualized feedback to the department chair. Once feedback is received, programs may
choose to submit changes to the report for second review to the Office of Academic Excellence
or approve the posting of the report to the external assessment webpage for their department.
Fig 4. Program Assessment Report Rubric

Program Assessment Report Feedback

2020-21 Assessment Report
Program:
Department Chair:
Program Assessment Report Author:
Well Developed,
Rubric Measure Progressing or Not
included.
Program mission is aligned to University Mission
Educational Objectives Wording is Actionable
PSLO's are justified by Professional Standards
PSLO'S are aligned to ISLO
Curriculum Map: Scaffolding indicates Foundational, Practice, and Capstone
Assessments by course
Assessment Cycle is three years to cover all PSLO and ISLO
Actions taken by programs on assessment during each year of the cycle are
specified
During collection year, courses/assignments are specified that align to PSLO at
FP&C levels
Rubric: Criteria for grading the assignment is described (appendix)
Sample: Number of samples reviewed is specified
Reliability: Reviewer and locations of the assignment are specified
Performance Targets of acceptability are indicated
Results include: Graduation, Retention, Persistence, DFWI, Post Grad Success,
Equity Gaps, PSLO, ISLO
Interpretation: Current results are compared against performance targets
Interpretation: Current results are compared against previous 3 years of data
Interpretation: Current results are compared against University data
Action drivers: Items not meeting performance targets have actions planned
Action drivers: Additional action plans for overall department improvement are
indicated
Action plans: Specifics of accountability and timelines are indicated
Action plans: Actions are linked to budgetary decisions
Faculty discuss trends in the data
Faculty discuss previous action plan success given new data
Faculty discuss the assessment process and make any improvements necessary

Data from submitted reports is tabulated and summarized for reviewers within the Annual
Institutional Assessment Report. Meaningful indicators are identified within the report to assess
the quality of the reports and process. Items on process recorded in the report for the year
include changes to the structure or reporting of assessment committee, actions taken to change
the process, improvements to the tools used in assessment, and trainings provided to the campus
community that support assessment work. Items recorded on quality of reports may change
from year to year, depending on the quality of the reports submitted , however at minimum the
number of programs that submitted reports during the academic year should be reported. Other
program report items included would be % of reports that submitted a particular piece of data
that was previously found to be a gap, such as the % of programs identifying equity gaps or the
% of programs reporting action plans. Additionally, Summarized University Trends data is
recorded in the Annual Institutional Assessment report, items such as University level averages
and trends in institutional level indicators of success (retention, graduation, DFWI) over time and
compared with external sources, trends in program assessment reported gaps and actions, faculty
interpretations of student performance on ISLO, and programmatic requests for University
resources.
Actions the University plans to take based on these data are identified throughout the annual
report for the varying topics of process improvement, faculty education, resource allocation or
other items indicated.

Closing the Loop

The Annual Institutional Assessment Report published in the previous academic year is the guide
for preparing the Report for the following year. The report preparer reads through the actions
planned to be taken and the data reported within the report and compares it against the activities
that occurred during the academic year and the data reported in the new academic year. Both
successes and failures will be reported to the wider academic community on the Assessment
webpage and at the Convocation Assessment session during which faculty are invited to give
interpretations and feedback.
Similarly, in preparation for the year’s program assessment reports, chairs are reminded of the
report submitted in the previous year as a starting point for assessing data collected during the
previous year. Programs are directed to look at actions planned for the academic year, whether
they were implemented and whether students benefitted from those initiatives or not. Programs
report this reflection in the Close the loop sections of their program assessment reports.
Each ISLO committee also prepares their own end of year report in June summarizing the work
done and not done during the academic year. These reports are submitted to the Office of
Academic Excellence and published to the Assessment webpage.

Fig 5. Calendar of Events in the Assessment Process

 • Programs hold program assessment meeting
• Convocation All Campus Training on process
September • Faculty Give Feedback based on data presented from previous year

• Additional trainings in preparation of report submission

• Academic Program Assessment Reports are prepared and submitted
October

• Report graders are assigned

• Report training is developed
November • ISLO committees develop action plans

• Faulty report Fall term data in CLO worksheets and participate in program assessment meetings
December

• Program report graders are trained

• Reports begin to be graded and data tabulated
January

• ISLO actions begin to be implemented

• Assessment Committee makes changes to program template and/or process for next year
February

• Feedback is given to programs on their submitted assessment reports which are published to external website
• Faculty report Winter term data in CLO worksheets and participate in program assessment meetings.
March

• Needs assessments are submitted to UAC committee

• Additional faculty trainings on assessment process are developed based on report summary data
April

• UAC response to needs assessment is presented to faculty

• ISLO committees write summary reports.
May

• Assessment committee writes Annual Assessment report

• Faculty enter CLO data for spring term
June

• Student exit data is tabulated and sent to program chairs

July

• Chairs or Program coordinators plan for Program Assessment meeting

• Assessment Committee plans for assessment data presentation at Convocations
August

This process is written by the Assessment Committee and sent to the Director and Provost for approval.
Review of this process should occur at regular intervals and changes made as gaps are identified.

___________________ _____________

Author Date

______________________ ____________

VP Research and Academic Affairs Date

_______________________ ___________

Provost Date