1

.

2011 Resource Guide for Approval and Re-Approval of Undergraduate Food Science Programs

2

Table of Contents Section 1. Background, Purpose and Scope of Resource Guide ................................................................ 1 Section 2. Rationale for Assessment in Approval and Re-Approval Guidelines .......................................... 2 Section 3. Higher Education Review Board (HERB) ................................................................................... 4 Section 4. Undergraduate Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science (2011 Revision) ................ 4 Section 5. Procedure for applying for Initial Approval .................................................................................. 8 Section 6. Review Process and Criteria for Evaluation of Applications ....................................................... 9 Section 7. Annual Requirements for Maintaining Approval ....................................................................... 11 Section 8. Procedure for applying for 5-Year Re-approval ........................................................................ 12 Section 9. Training in Best Practices in Outcomes and Assessment ........................................................ 12 References ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix A. Request for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology ........ 14 Appendix B. Application for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology .... 17 Appendix C. Template for Curriculum Map ............................................................................................... 22 Appendix D. Template for Coverage of IFT Core Competencies .............................................................. 23 Appendix E. Assessment Progress Report ............................................................................................... 24 Appendix F. Application for 5-Year Re-Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology .................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix G. Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports .......................................................... 32

1

“Knowing has shifted from being able to remember and repeat information to being able to find and use it… The role of content must be to drive the development of lifelong learning skills, thinking abilities, and communication skills crucial to students’ success – content is not an end in itself.”

From Issues to Consider: Helping Students Change, NEA Advocate, October, 2008. Section 1. Background, Purpose and Scope of Resource Guide The primary goal of the Institute of Food Technologist’s (IFT) Education Standards is to enhance excellence in food science education. Outcome-based measures of student learning are used heavily in this process. The use of learning outcomes follows a general trend in academia towards a greater focus on student learning rather than simply on knowledge in course content. Development of a comprehensive set of course learning outcomes and well-designed tools for assessing how students have met these outcomes has been shown to lead to improved learning. These standards are valuable as a guide for: colleges and universities to evaluate existing food science programs or establish new programs, students to select approved food science programs, and for government and industry to realize the basic standards of professional competence for the graduates of approved food science programs. This guide provides a general overview of what an IFT program approval requires and its relationship to re-approvals. It also explains the two key features of the program review process addressed in this guide: outcomes-based assessment of student learning and evidence-based claims and decision-making based on assessment results. Combined, these two features 1) shifts program improvement from a traditional input-based model to an outcomes-based model, 2) improves the quality of student learning by shifting the focus from conducting an effective program appraisal to using the results effectively, and 3) facilitates the integration of program-level evaluations with departmental missions and goals. IFT first established minimum standards for undergraduate curricula in food science in 1966, and over the years, these standards have evolved significantly. IFT reviews the minimum standards for approval of food science programs about every ten years. The major changes in the recent revision (2001) were the addition of outcomes-based measures of student learning. Another goal of the 2001 Standards was to provide significant flexibility so that each program can best utilize the resources available to them. In a move away from IFT approval based on specific courses, the Standards allowed each program to design a curriculum that best suits its needs as long as the required learning outcomes are met. In the 2001 Guidelines, a three-part approach was chosen as being most flexible, while maintaining the rigor of the previous minimum standards. In the first part, specific content areas and accompanying competencies were defined. Each of the content areas must have been met for a program to qualify as an IFT-approved program. The second part required that specific learning outcomes be written for each food science course and an assessment program be developed to measure how well students met those learning outcomes. Programmatic outcomes and assessment were also required. The third part required that a formal program be put in place for curricular improvement based on the results of the assessment data. As in the past, only students attending universities with IFT-approved programs were eligible for IFT scholarships. In the 2011 Guidelines, IFT has kept the same Education Standards for food science programs as in the past. However, the new guide contains 1) one document containing all the necessary information

2

for approval; 2) updated requirements for a program’s approval process; 3) a process for recording program assessment results on an annual basis; and 4) a simple process for re-approval. These changes were made in response to suggestions that the approval process be streamlined, that an application/renewal process be developed that met the needs of programs and IFT, that two approval documents be combined into one, that useful examples of types of assessment be provided, and that all food science courses have skills objectives as well as the more conventional knowledge-based objectives. These new requirements focus on incorporating an outcomes-based analysis of student learning into a program appraisal and integrating the results of program appraisal into a food science program’s overall quality assurance processes. A program’s appraisal is a cyclical process for evaluating and continuously enhancing the quality and currency of food science programs. The evaluation is conducted through a combination of self-evaluation within the food science program, followed by peer-evaluation by members of IFT’s Higher Education Review Board (HERB). It provides an opportunity for a food science program to systematically and comprehensively analyze a wide variety of data about its curricula, its student performance, and the quality of its baccalaureate graduates. The results of this evaluation process can be used to make appropriate changes that are incorporated into the program’s overall quality assurance system. This resource guide is designed to assist food science departments with meeting the new program appraisal expectations within IFT’s revised approval guidelines. This ‘resource’ guide is not designed as a comprehensive instruction manual for how to implement outcomes-based program appraisal. There are many existing resources that serve this purpose (Allen, 2004; Angelo & Cross, 1993; Bresciani, 2006; Bresciani, Zelna & Anderson, 2004; Huba & Freed, 2000; Maki, 2004; Suskie, 2004; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Walvoord, 1998; Walvoord, 2004). Nor is this an instruction manual for how to integrate program appraisal into broader departmental, college, or institutional quality assurance. Instead, it describes some of the key concepts and good practices implicit in an outcomes-based program appraisal process in an effort to assist food science programs with understanding the new IFT guidelines. In addition, food science programs are encouraged to submit samples of their own outcomes-based program appraisal guidelines so IFT’s HERB has a variety of resources to consider and share. If you have a sample to share, please submit it electronically to: knowledge@ift.org.

Section 2. Rationale for Assessment in Approval and Re-Approval Guidelines Definition of Terms Definitions and explanation of common assessment terms used in this document are as follows.

Student Learning Outcomes are statements of what students will be able to do, know, or value as a result of one or more learning activities. Research has shown that learning outcomes enable students to understand better what they can expect to learn, what they are learning, and what they have learned.

Course Learning Outcomes are statements of what students will be able to do, know, or value after successfully completing a particular course. They help instructors more precisely tell students what is expected of them in a particular course.

Program is a sequence of courses, instructional activities, and internships that culminate in a degree or certificate of achievement conferred by a college or university.

Program Outcomes are the general and specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities that students of the program will be able to demonstrate by the time they finish required coursework and internship experiences.

3

The Purpose and Value of Assessment Assessment provides the greatest value to the faculty, administrators, and students within the program being assessed.

It provides a structure to foster continuous improvement that is aligned with departmental and college goals.

Assessment is designed to inform decision making while taking the program’s resources, context, and other sources of evaluative information into consideration.

Assessment can be used to communicate standards, document successes, and identify resource needs.

Assessment can help faculty achieve objectives and avoid unintended consequences. Assessment should not to be used to evaluate an individual faculty member or staff member.

Improvements Made as a Result of Assessment May Include: Developing or refining individual course learning outcomes and identifying appropriate means

for assessing their achievement. Developing or refining program outcomes and identifying appropriate means for assessing their

achievement. Better aligning department, college, and/or institutional goals. Making curricular and other changes to improve student learning. Purchasing new laboratory equipment and/or upgrading facilities. Refining, reorganizing, or refocusing curricula to reflect changes in the discipline or profession. Reorganizing or improving student support systems, including advising, food science clubs, and

student development initiatives to support the academic success of students in the program. Designing needed professional development programs, including programs to help faculty learn

how to develop and assess course learning outcomes, improve pedagogy, and improve curricular cohesion.

Reorganizing or refocusing resources to advance student learning or specific research agendas.

Developing long- and short-term action plans for modifications and improvements. Distinguishing Features of This Resource Guide Brief explanations follow for the two essential features embedded in the program assessment model discussed in this guide.

Any conclusions drawn during assessment activities are to be informed or described by evidence. That is, all claims about a course and/or program’s strengths, weaknesses, and proposed improvement plans are to be supported by relevant qualitative and/or quantitative evidence. This contrasts, for instance, with program appraisals that are largely descriptive and based on advocacy. Hence, the section of this document (Appendix E) describing the components of an Assessment Progress Report identifies types of evidence useful for answering questions about various aspects of a program’s quality or viability.

Evidence-based assessment includes the ongoing evaluation of how well a program’s students are achieving the Course Learning Outcomes and Program Outcomes. While assessment of Course Learning Outcomes is independent of Program Outcome Assessment and part of ongoing faculty processes for program improvement, program reviews need to incorporate an analysis of a program-wide assessment of student learning. This includes a review of

4

program outcomes; evaluation of the methods employed to assess achievement of these outcomes; analysis and reflection on learning results, graduate placement in the food industry, and other outcomes data (qualitative as well as quantitative) over a multiple-year period. All programs should provide completed matrixes showing how the outcomes are supported and how they are assessed throughout the program and through summative assessments.

Section 3. Higher Education Review Board (HERB) IFT’s Higher Education Review Board was created to assist programs through assessment of learning outcomes, to enhance excellence in food science education; assist programs to gain IFT approval; review approved programs every five years, ensuring that they continue to maintain to these Education Standards; and review the Education Standards at least every ten years, making needed changes as appropriate. The current IFT Education Standards were developed by the 2011 Guidelines Task Force in conjunction with IFT’s Higher Education Review Board, as charged by the Board of Directors of IFT. If a program desires technical assistance in putting together an application, IFT will provide names of volunteers who are familiar with the application and review process and who are willing to work with new and existing programs. HERB will also provide assistance as needed to programs in preparing their review documentation. Requests for assistance should be addressed to the Chair of HERB, who will identify an appropriate committee member as the primary contact person. HERB will also provide examples of classroom activities, example rubrics, and other resources for developing knowledge and skills in the classroom and laboratories.

Section 4. Undergraduate Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science (2011 Revision) Definition of the Field of Study Food Science is the discipline in which the engineering, biological, and physical sciences are used to study the nature of foods, the causes of deterioration, the principles underlying food processing, and the improvement of foods for the consuming public. Food Technology is the application of food science to the selection, preservation, processing, packaging, distribution, and use of safe, nutritious, and wholesome food. In practice, the terms food science and food technology are often used interchangeably. Objectives The primary objective of the educational program of IFT is the professional development of food scientists to the highest degree possible. To this end, IFT has developed these Education Standards to provide assistance to colleges and universities for evaluating the effectiveness of academic selection, guidance, and preparation of undergraduate students. Application of these education standards is intended to promote continued excellence in food science education. Students with the skills designated by these standards will have the foundation for continued professional development. It is the intent of these standards to foster rigorous scientific training and to develop professional skills for students enrolled in a Bachelor of Science food science curriculum.

5

Education Standards: Administrative and Physical Organization. The instructional program will preferably be administered by an independent administrative unit, ideally a separate organized department with an identifiable budget, that can adequately sustain a quality academic program. Faculty. The food science faculty will be of a size and competence commensurate with the diversity of courses deemed necessary to meet the desired competencies (must have a minimum of four (4) faculty members with food science degrees). Most faculty members should have earned doctoral degrees; some may have extensive professional experience in lieu of a doctoral degree. It is expected that the food science faculty, in addition to faculty from other departments of the institution, can adequately assist students in learning the skills and competencies outlined in these standards. The fields of faculty specialization must be distributed over the sub-disciplines required for the food science courses. In general, courses will be taught by faculty whose graduate training or recent experience has involved specialization in the area of the course. Where it is not practical to include the entire faculty in a single administrative unit, the college or university administration must define a faculty with the qualifications outlined to perform the necessary functions of supervising, teaching, and guiding the program. Facilities. Teaching laboratories will have up-to-date and adequate facilities and equipment to conduct the chemical, engineering, processing, and microbiological exercises. Pilot-plant facilities will be available to teach principles of unit operations and unit processes involved in food science. Library facilities and holdings concerning food science need to be adequate to support, encourage, and stimulate independent study and research by both students and faculty. Education Standards: Curricular Background Courses For food science students to meet the core competencies, several background courses will be necessary. These will generally include: Chemistry: Two courses in general chemistry followed by one course each in organic chemistry and biochemistry. Analytical chemistry and physical chemistry are recommended. Biological Sciences: One course in biology, and one course in general microbiology that has a laboratory. Nutrition: One course dealing with the basic concepts of human nutrition and the relationship of consumption of foods to health and well-being. Physics and Mathematics: One course in calculus and one in general physics. Statistics: One course. Communications: Two courses, generally taught outside of the food science program, that provide the fundamentals of speaking and writing skills. The choice of background courses for a program will be based on the resources available at the university and any constraints within which the program must operate (e.g., credit hour limitations). The IFT Higher Education Review Board will work with each program to ensure that the courses selected

6

provide the necessary background for students to meet the food science competencies. Food Science Courses: The "Core Competencies in Food Science" (see table below) provide guidelines to prepare students for the B.S. degree in food science. The curricular standards encompass two elements: specific curricular content and desired competencies of student learning. Note that these are minimum competencies, are deliberately broad, and it is expected that each food science program will develop its own set of detailed outcomes for each food science course and for the program as a whole. Each of the “Success Skills” should be incorporated into as many courses as possible, starting simply and then progressing to higher level performance toward the third and fourth years. The term "outcomes" refers to measurable results of learning. Outcomes need to specify the level of learning, based on Bloom's Taxonomy or other similar taxonomic approaches. Each program also will need to develop the assessment tools used to measure the learning outcomes. HERB members will be available to provide assistance in developing specific outcomes and methods of assessment.

Table 1. Core Competencies in Food Science

Core competency Content By the completion of food science program, the student should:

Food Chemistry and analysis

Structure and properties of food components, including water, carbohydrates, protein, lipids, other nutrients and food additives

• Know the chemistry underlying the properties and reactions of various food components

Chemistry of changes occurring during processing, storage and utilization

• Have sufficient knowledge of food chemistry to control reactions in foods.

• Know the major chemical reactions that limit shelf life of foods.

• Use the laboratory techniques common to basic and applied food chemistry.

Principles, methods, and techniques of qualitative and quantitative physical, chemical, and biological analyses of food and food ingredients.

• Know the principles behind analytical techniques associated with food.

• Be able to select the appropriate analytical technique when presented with a practical problem.

• Demonstrate practical proficiency in a food analysis laboratory.

Food safety and microbiology

Pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in foods

• Identify the important pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in foods and the conditions under which they will grow.

• Identify the conditions under which the important pathogens are commonly inactivated, killed or made harmless in foods.

• Utilize laboratory techniques to identify microorganisms in foods.

Beneficial microorganisms in food systems

• Know the principles involving food preservation via fermentation processes.

Influence of the food system on the growth and survival of microorganisms

• Know the role and significance of microbial inactivation, adaptation and environmental factors (i.e., aW, pH, temperature) on growth and response of microorganisms in various environments.

Control of microorganisms • Identify the conditions, including sanitation practices, under which the important

7

pathogens and spoilage microorganisms are commonly inactivated, killed or made harmless in foods.

Food processing and engineering

Characteristics of raw food material

• Know the source and variability of raw food material and their impact on food processing operations.

Principles of food preservation including low and high temperature processes, water activity, etc.

• Know the spoilage and deterioration mechanisms in foods and methods to control deterioration and spoilage.

• Know the principles that make a food product safe for consumption.

Engineering principles including mass and energy balances, thermodynamics, fluid flow, and heat and mass transfer

• Know the transport processes and unit operations in food processing as demonstrated both conceptually and in practical laboratory settings.

• Be able to use the mass and energy balances for a given food process.

• Know the unit operations required to produce a given food product.

Principles of food processing techniques, such as drying, high pressure, aseptic processing, extrusion, etc.

• Know the principles and current practices of processing techniques and the effects of processing parameters on product quality.

Packaging materials and methods

• Know the properties and uses of various packaging materials.

Cleaning and sanitation • Know the basic principles and practices of cleaning and sanitation in food processing operations.

Water and waste management • Know the requirements for water utilization and waste management in food and food processing.

Applied food science Integration and application of food science principles (food chemistry, microbiology, engineering/processing, etc.)

• Be able to apply and incorporate the principles of food science in practical, real-world situations and problems.

Computer skills • Know how to use computers to solve food science problems.

Statistical skills • Be able to apply statistical principles to food science applications.

Quality assurance • Be able to apply the principles of food science to control and assure the quality of food products.

Analytical and affective methods of assessing sensory properties of food utilizing statistical methods

• Know the basic principles of sensory analysis.

Current issues in food science • Be aware of current topics of importance to the food industry.

Food laws and regulations • Know government regulations required for the manufacture and sale of food products.

Success skills (Success skills should be introduced in lower level courses and practiced in as many upper division courses as possible)

Communication skills (i.e., oral and written communication, listening, interviewing, etc.)

• Demonstrate the use and practice of different levels of oral and written communication skills. This includes such skills as writing technical reports, letters and memos; communicating technical information to a non-technical audience; and making formal and informal presentations.

8

Critical thinking/problem solving skills (i.e., creativity, common sense, resourcefulness, scientific reasoning, analytical thinking, etc.)

• Be able to develop a process for solving and preventing reoccurrences of ill-defined problems; know how to use library and internet resources to search for quality information, and solve a problem; and make thoughtful recommendations.

• Apply critical thinking skills to new situations. Professionalism skills (i.e., ethics,

integrity, respect for diversity) • Commit to the highest standards of

professional integrity and ethical values. • Work and/or interact with individuals from

diverse cultures. Life-long learning skills • Explain the skills necessary to continually

educate oneself. Interaction skills (i.e., teamwork,

mentoring, leadership, networking, interpersonal skills, etc.)

• Work effectively with others. • Provide leadership in a variety of situations. • Deal with individual and/or group conflict.

Information acquisition skills (i.e., written and electronic searches, databases, Internet, etc.)

• Independently research scientific and nonscientific information.

• Competently use library resources. Organizational skills (i.e., time

management, project management, etc.)

• Manage time effectively. • Know how to facilitate group projects as well

as be a good team member. • Handle multiple tasks and pressures.

Section 5. Procedure for Applying for Initial Approval Any university wishing to considered for IFT approval, should complete the Request for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology (See APPENDIX A). After request for approval has been made, IFT will provide a date for submitting the Application for Initial Approval. Because HERB has to continue reviewing programs that are currently approved, all requests for Initial Approval will need to be phased into HERB’s current workload. Each department (or appropriate subunit) must submit six (6) copies of the application and supporting materials to IFT’s headquarters office at least 10 weeks prior to the scheduled review date. Any formerly approved program that has not been approved for two years or more will need to submit the Application for Initial Approval. The review process will typically take place at regularly scheduled HERB meetings, typically in March or October of each year. Format. To ensure consistency in program applications and to ensure fair evaluation of all programs, HERB requests that a standard form be used for preparing applications. The Application for Initial Approval can be accessed as a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF form (See APPENDIX B). Be sure to include a Table of Contents with page numbers clearly listed so HERB members can quickly and easily move from section to section as needed. Please keep within the page guidelines stated in the application form. Specific Requirements for IFT Approval Each program must provide the following documentation:

I. Date of application

9

II. Name of person completing application III. Description of Administrative Unit IV. Description of Faculty (Please do not submit full CV’s for each faculty member, but

DO list the university from which each faculty member received his/her terminal degree.)

V. Description and photos of required facilities VI. Description of curriculum (Course requirements for each curriculum intended to meet the

IFT Education Standards) • Clearly show all course requirements for each curriculum to be approved. • Provide syllabi for all required Food Science courses with clearly identified

knowledge and skills-based measurable student learning outcomes (maximum of two pages).

• Provide a “road map” to document the expected student progress through the curriculum (See APPENDIX C).

VII. Coverage of IFT Core Competencies

• Show where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within the curriculum of required food science courses, with some level of depth or scope using Bloom’s taxonomy or other similar categorization.

• Complete a check list or grid, or equivalent, for competencies within the curriculum (See APPENDIX D).

VIII. Course Learning Outcomes and Assessment (This section is required to document that

student learning outcomes have been established for each required food science course in each curriculum for IFT approval, and how these specific outcomes are assessed) • Document the learning outcomes for each Food Science course required to meet the

competencies. • Describe briefly how students are assessed (using multiple tools) in each course. • Indicate of the level of assessment (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy or other commonly used

taxonomy). Summarize (briefly) results of assessment program to date (if any). IX. Food Science Program Outcomes (Use this section to show how program outcomes for

graduates have been defined and how these specific outcomes are assessed). • Document program outcomes. • Describe how these outcomes are or will be assessed. • Summarize (briefly) results of assessment (if any).

X. Use of Results to Improve Learning (This section shows how the results of outcome

assessment are used to improve student learning through curricular modification). • Describe (briefly) the plan for using data obtained from all assessment activities for

curricular modifications. • Summarize (briefly) results (modifications, etc.) to date (if any).

Section 6. Review Process and Criteria for Evaluation of Applications Review Process. A team of three (3) HERB members will be assigned as the primary reviewers for each program. One Lead Reviewer will be assigned as the primary contact with that program (department) and will be responsible for presenting the document to the rest of the HERB at a regularly scheduled review meeting. This person also will be responsible for obtaining any information deemed necessary to clarify

10

information in the review document. A representative of the program under review should be available (via teleconference) during the HERB meeting to answer questions and address any concerns of HERB members. After an initial period of open discussion with the program representative, HERB will go into closed session if needed to discuss the application and to reach a consensus on what action to take. Feedback will be provided to the program representative once a decision has been reached. A formal letter from IFT will be sent to the Chair/ Head of the department with a summary of the appraisal process and recommendations. Criteria for Evaluation of Applications. Evaluation of each program for approval are based on the following guidelines: Items I – V in Application in APPENDIX B: All facilities and resources meet the minimum requirements.

VI. Description of Curriculum. • All required Background Courses must be clearly detailed, including the course

number, title and credits. If a required Background Course is missing, a program can still be approved as long as they can document where the students are getting the material normally covered in the specified class and that they are assessing appropriate learning outcomes for that background material prior to starting required FS classes with that course as prerequisite. Note: In principle, this means that a program does not have to require, for example, an Organic Chemistry class, as long as the students have learned the material elsewhere (as in a combined General and Organic Chemistry course, or through college preparatory classes, as found in some international programs) and that learning outcomes are being assessed at the point where that knowledge is needed in the FS courses. Clear documentation of both points is needed for IFT approval. This approach puts the burden of proof on the program seeking approval and is consistent with IFT’s commitment to education based on assessment of learning outcomes.

• All required courses of a Food Science curriculum (those used to complete the Competency Grid) are clearly detailed, including course numbers, titles and credits. A suggested course sequence for each program (“road map”) is required to quickly allow the committee to see what courses are required and where and when in the curriculum the students take each course.

VII. Coverage of IFT Core Competencies

• The Competency Grid, or its equivalent, must be provided so that HERB can quickly ascertain that all competencies are covered in the curriculum. Some indication of the taxonomic (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy or other commonly used taxonomy) level(s) at which each competency is taught would be a valuable addition.

VIII. Course Outcomes and Assessment

• Student learning outcomes for all required core food science courses have been clearly written (agreement by the full faculty is implicit). Learning outcomes for each course should contain both knowledge and skill domains. Individual course student learning outcomes must contribute or support a food science general program’s outcomes. Specific examples of deep assessment of student learning must be provided. Provide an example of assessment in each required course (beyond what’s provided in the summary sheets). Assessment above and beyond traditional homework and exams are strongly encouraged, especially in upper level courses where higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy are developed.

IX. Program Outcomes and Assessment

11

• Outcomes for the food science program as a whole have been clearly written (agreement by the full faculty is implicit). These should be detailed in one -two pages at the most.

• Also provide several examples of programmatic assessment of outcomes that are proposed (exit surveys or interviews, employer surveys, alumni survey after 5 years, etc.).

• A comprehensive assessment program, including assessment at both the course and program levels and that has been thought out at all levels of student learning, is under development. HERB can provide additional input and assistance to help the continued development of an assessment program. Current status and future plans should be provided.

X. Use of Results to Improve Learning

• This section should show how the results of assessment are used to improve student learning through curricular modification. It should describe (briefly) the plan for using data obtained from program assessment for curricular modifications.

• There should be a summary of results or modifications, etc. to date (if any).

Section 7. Annual Requirements for Maintaining Approval As a condition for maintaining IFT approval, each approved Food Science program must submit on an annual basis (by August 31 of each year) an Assessment Progress Report (See APPENDIX E). Assessment of course and program outcomes of the food science academic program should be occurring annually between initial approval and re-approval. However, HERB recognizes that it would be difficult to make changes to each course each time it is offered as a result of the assessment findings. HERB is requesting that the annual Assessment Progress Report record only the actions taken on a subset of the course learning outcomes or program outcomes. Food science programs should report on the interpretation of the assessment results in light of course learning outcomes and program expectations for student achievement. Programs are then requested to summarize how the assessment of the subset of courses was used to implement changes to course(s) or the food science program to improve student learning. Because action (or a deliberate vote of no action) should be taken on the assessment results of all course learning outcomes and program outcomes by the time of that program’s re-approval, the learning assessment schedule should have been completed after a five-year period. The annual Assessment Progress Report should provide details for actions taken (or not taken) for only that subset of learning outcomes that were selected for work during the previous academic year. The other two components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed, and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or student learning. If your university requires annual reports, you may submit a copy of that annual report in lieu of IFT’s Assessment Progress Report. However, be sure your program report has a summary of what your assessment showed and what your program is modifying or changing to improve program outcomes or student learning. HERB will send out notices in June reminding food science programs that annual reports are due at the end of August. All food science programs approved under the 2001 guidelines that would come up for re-approval after the new 2011 guidelines are implemented must submit an Assessment Progress Report for the years remaining until re-approval. For example, if a program was approved for 5 years in 2012, an initial Assessment Progress Report must be submitted by August 31, 2013. HERB members familiar with assessment processes of student learning outcomes will provide feedback on each program’s Assessment Progress Report by December 31 of that year. Failure to submit two consecutive Assessment Progress Reports without notification or reason will result in disapproval of a food science program.

12

Section 8. Procedure for applying for 5-Year Re-approval IFT will notify programs approximately nine (9) months in advance of when they are scheduled for review for re-approval. Six (6) copies of the APPLICATION FOR RE-APPROVAL OF FOOD SCIENCE PROGRAMS (See APPENDIX F) are due at the IFT Chicago office at least 10 weeks in advance of the scheduled review date. A team of three (3) HERB members will be assigned as the primary reviewers for each program. One Lead Reviewer will be assigned as the primary contact with that department and will be responsible for presenting the document to the rest of the HERB at the review meeting. This person also will be responsible for obtaining any information deemed necessary to clarify the review document as needed. Review: The review process for re-approval will take place at a regularly scheduled HERB meeting, typically in October or March. A representative of the program under review should be available (via teleconference) during the review meeting to answer questions and to provide support as needed for HERB. After an initial period of open discussion with the program representative, HERB will go into closed session if needed to discuss the application and to reach a consensus on what action to take. Feedback will be provided to the program representative once a decision has been reached. Section 9. Training in Best Practices in Outcomes and Assessment To assist programs to continually improve the development of their food science students, HERB and IFT's Education Division will develop and sponsor Webcasts as well as educational workshops at IFT Annual Meetings on best practices in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and in outcomes and assessment. The seminars and workshops can feature speakers/activities/examples of current best practices and latest innovations. Online seminars and educational workshops can provide a means for IFT to “close the loop” if and when feedback from programs determines that many of the approved programs are facing similar instructional challenges and concerns. Face-to-face workshops can also provide a forum for interested persons to meet instructional faculty and experts in the field and to discuss their mutual concerns. References Allen, MJ. 2004. Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker. Angelo, T & Cross P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, JC. 2001. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty) Bresciani, MJ. 2006. Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A compilation of institutional good practices. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Bresciani, MJ, Zelna, CL, & Anderson, JA. 2004. Techniques for assessing student learning and development: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: NASPA. Huba, ME & Freed, JE. 2000. Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

13

Maki, PL. 2004. Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Sterling, VA: Stylus. (Recommended for Assessment coordinators). Nichols, KW & Nichols, JO. 2000. The Department Head's Guide to Assessment Implementation in Administrative and Educational Support Units. NY: Agathon. (Recommended for Assessment coordinators) Palomba, C & Banta, T. 1999. Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Richlin, L. 2006. Blueprint for Learning: Constructing College Courses to Facilitate, Assess, and Document Learning. Sterling, VA. Stylus. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty) Riodan, T and Roth, J (Eds). 2005. Disciplines as Frameworks for Student Learning: Teaching Practice of the Disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty) Suskie, L. 2009. Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Walvoord, B & Anderson, VJ. 1998. Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Walvoord, BA. 2004. Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments and general education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Recommended for Assessment coordinators).

14

APPENDIX A Request for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology To complete the form, fill in the grey shaded boxes. Request should be written in English using Arial 12 point font. Please conform to the following headings and sequence, and your entire request should not exceed five pages. Do not send supporting document unless it is requested by IFT. Save the document as “University_Name_ IFT_Approval_Request” and send it as an attachment to aylijoki@ift.org. I. Date of request Enter text here II. Person completing request

Professional title Departmental duties Mailing address Email address Office phone number Fax number

III. Description of administrative unit A. Name of Institution

B. Name of College

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit)

15

D. Name of Department Head/Chair

E. All undergraduate degrees including emphases (e.g., BS in Food Science, BS in Food Technology with Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science) granted by the Department. Please check the box to the right if you intend on requesting IFT approval for that program. Degrees and Emphases Requesting IFT Approval?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

F. How many years does it take most students to complete the degree(s) listed above? IV. Use of IFT Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science A. IFT Education Standards can be found online at: http://www.ift.org/Knowledge-Center/Learn-About-Food-Science/Become-a-Food-Scientist/Approved-Undergrad-Programs/Education-Standards.aspx. For how many years have you been using the IFT Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science in your curriculum?

16

B. Do you believe you currently meet IFT’s faculty requirements? Yes No Additional Comment: C. Do you believe you currently meet IFT’s facilities requirements? Yes No Additional Comment: D. Do you believe you currently meet IFT’s core competency requirements? Yes No Additional Comment: E. Have learning outcomes been established for each course in the food science curriculum? Yes No Additional Comment: F. Are course learning outcomes assessed using multiple such as portfolios, oral presentations, papers, reports, projects, academic journals, quizzes and exams? Yes No Additional Comment: G. Are program outcomes defined and assessed using tools such as exit interviews or examinations, alumni surveys, employer surveys, and food industry advisory boards? Yes No Additional Comment: H. Can you provide examples of how the results of your program outcome assessment are being used to improve student learning? Yes No Additional Comment: V. Timeline for Approval Most universities need at least six months to prepare a thorough application. In addition, the Higher Education Review Board needs at least two months to carefully review each application in anticipation of its annual meeting in October or November. Given this information, when is your preferred date to submit an application? September 1, 2013 September 1, 2014 September 1, 2015 Other

17

APPENDIX B Application for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology (Application format should conform to the following headings, sequence, and page limitations, using 12 point font. Any additional material should be attached as appendices.) I. Date of application submission ___________________________ II. Name of person completing this application _____________________________________

Professional title __________________________________ Mail address __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ E-mail address __________________________________ Office phone number __________________________________ Fax number __________________________________

III. Description of administrative unit A. Name of Institution ______________________________________

B. Name of College ______________________________________

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit) ______________________________________

D. Name of Department Head/Chair ______________________________________

E. All undergraduate degrees (including emphases) granted by the Department (e.g., BSA in Food Science, BS in Food Technology with Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science)

_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

F. Of those above, degree(s) (including emphases) to be evaluated for IFT approval _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

18

IV. Description of faculty (1-2 pages) A. Food Science and other faculty members teaching in the program (place an asterisk by course numbers of required courses) Highest Degree Name and Institution Appointment§ Specialization(s) Courses Taught Jane Doe Ph.D., Ohio State Univ. member, full time Food Chemistry, FS 105, 215*, 450* Quality Assurance 1. 2. 3. etc. B. Additional faculty (including those from other departments) teaching Food Science courses (place an asterisk by course numbers of required courses) Highest Degree Name and Institution Appointment§ Specialization(s) Courses Taught 1. 2. 3. etc. C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding faculty that should be considered § Explain appointment status in the Department, e.g., member, adjunct, courtesy, joint, full-time, part-time) V. Description of facilities (1 page) A. Website describing and providing pictures of Department facilities __________________________ B. Equipment available for teaching undergraduates in the program C. Teaching laboratories (include food chemistry/analysis, food microbiology, food engineering)

19

D. Pilot plant/processing capabilities E. Explanations of accessibility if above facilities are not in-department or on-campus

F. Any extenuating circumstances regarding facilities that should be considered VI. Description of curriculum (2 pages) (Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated) A. Specific website containing course descriptions for both background and departmental courses ______________________________ (If not available online, include as an appendix or include a copy of the undergraduate catalog in application submission) B. Required courses in each of the following background subjects: Dept. Number Credits Lab included

(e.g. Chem 103 4 credits Yes ) Chemistry

General Chemistry _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Organic Chemistry _____ _____ _____ _____ Biochemistry _____ _____ _____ _____ Other Chem courses _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Biological Sciences Biology _____ _____ _____ _____ General micro _____ _____ _____ _____ General micro lab _____ _____ _____ _____

20

Other biology courses _____ _____ _____ _____ Human Nutrition _____ _____ _____ _____ Physics General physics _____ _____ _____ _____ Other physics courses _____ _____ _____ _____ Mathematics Calculus _____ _____ _____ _____ Other math courses _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Statistics _____ _____ _____ _____ Communications Written _____ _____ _____ _____

Oral _____ _____ _____ _____

C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding background courses that should be considered VI. Description of curriculum – cont. D. Required courses (excluding background courses), listed in numerical order

Course Credit Number Hours Title

E. Elective courses offered, listed in numerical order

Course Credit Number Hours Title

F. Road map of suggested student progress through the curriculum (one for each curriculum under

review). (See APPENDIX C)

VII. Coverage of IFT Core Competencies (1 spreadsheet or checklist. See APPENDIX D) (Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated) A. Show on the template where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within the curriculum of required food science courses and indicate some level of depth or extent of coverage (Bloom’s taxonomy or similar scale).

21

VIII. Course learning outcomes and assessments (1-3 pages per course) (Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated) For each required food science course:

A. Please specify the student learning outcomes for this course (if not yet developed for all courses, plans in place to accomplish this).

B. Tools used to assess learning outcomes (portfolios, oral presentations, papers, reports, projects, academic journals, quizzes and exams, etc.), indicating level of assessment (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy)

C. Brief summary of assessment results to date IX. Program outcomes and assessments (1-3 pages)

For the program as a whole: A. List specific food science program outcomes

B. Tools used to assess program outcomes (exit interviews or examinations, alumni surveys, employer surveys, food industry advisory boards, etc.)

C. Brief summary of assessment results to date (if any) X. Use of Results to Improve Learning (1-2 pages)

A. Plan for using assessment results to improve student learning through curricular modifications B. Brief summary of improvements, modifications, etc. to date (if any)

XI. Submission. Submit six (6) copies of this review document to the IFT headquarters office at least 10 weeks in advance of the scheduled review date.

22

APPENDIX C Curriculum Map for _____________ Food Science Program

FALL SEMESTER SPRING SEMESTER _____________________________________________________________________________________________ First Year Total 15 Total 17 Total Credit Hours 32 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Second Year Total 14 Total 17 Total Credit Hours 31 ______________________________________________________________________ Third Year Total 16 Total 15 Total Credit Hours 31 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Fourth Year Total 16 Total 16

Total Credit Hours 32 Total Credit Hours Required for Graduation: 126

23

APPENDIX D Template for Documenting IFT Core Competencies Please indicate where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within your curriculum of required food science courses and to what level (of Bloom’s Taxonomy). This form is to be used for completing Use the following abbreviations to indicate whether the competency is introduced (I), covered to some extent (C) or covered in detail (D). For Bloom’s Taxonomy, use the following: Coverage of competency abbreviations Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain abbreviations I = introduced 1. Knowledge (or recall) C = covered to some extent 2. Comprehension (or translate) D = covered in detail 3. Application (or generalize) 4. Analysis (or breakdown/discover) 5. Synthesis (or compose) 6. Evaluation (or judge)

Food chemistry FS

course #1

FS course

#2

FS course

#3

FS course #4

FS course

#5

FS course

#6

Etc.

Chemistry underlying properties and reactions of food components

I,1,2,3 - C1,2,3 D 1,2,3,4,5,6

D 3,4,5,6

-

Chemistry knowledge to control reactions

- I I C D D

Know the major chemical reactions that limit shelf life of foods

All the competencies will be listed in the final document. This example is a place holder in lieu of a more detailed template.

List other food chemistry competencies required by the program

24

APPENDIX E Assessment Progress Report (To be submitted to IFT’s Higher Education Review Board By August 31 of each year after being granted IFT Approval/Re-approval Status) If your program proposed a learning assessment plan in your initial or re-approval application, completing the Assessment Progress Report template will be straightforward. The Assessment Progress Report entails specifying the program outcome(s) or course learning outcome(s) that were assessed and the methods that were used to assess them each year after initial approval or re-approval. The other two components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed, and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or student learning. The Assessment Progress Report template is shown below.

ASSESSMENT PROGRESS PREPORT (_____ - _____ ACADEMIC YEARS)

Food Science Program: Name of coordinator: Title: E-mail:

Faculty who participated in the development or approval of this Assessment Progress Report (please list all):

I. PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) OR COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME(S) THAT WERE ASSESSED IN THE ____- ____ ACADEMIC YEARS, METHODS USED, AND KEY FINDINGS List the outcomes that were assessed, the methods that were used to assess each outcome, and summarize key findings. Attach all relevant rubrics. Add more boxes if more than three outcomes were assessed. The first set of boxes provides an example of course learning outcomes, assessment techniques, and summary of key findings.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Example of course learning outcome: Food Microbiology, F’12 Identify sanitation practices to control important pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in foods

Method(s) of Assessment

1. All students (35) completed a multiple-choice and short-answer written exam. 2. Students (groups of 3) recommended sanitation practices for meat processing facilities after discussing a case study. 3. Each student completed a written laboratory report about techniques to control spoilage organisms. 4. Students completed a ‘delta-plus’ activity (anonymous report) to reflect about learning strategies in the course.

25

Summary of Key Findings

1. Students identified pathogens and spoilage organisms on written exam with an average score of 72%. 2. Ten/12 groups (83%) correctly identified all appropriate sanitation procedures for the problems presented in their case study. 3. Average scores from a grading rubric for the lab report about methods of control for spoilage microorganisms were: 4.0/5, 4.0/5, 4.5/5, and 3.0/5 for pH, temperature, oxygen, and chemical, respectively. Overall average was 15.5/20 points = 77.5%. 4. The majority of students reported that the textbook was difficult to understand, but lectures and lab experiences helped them learn about pathogens and spoilage microorganisms in food. Over 90% of the responses indicated that the case study was time-consuming but very effective in illustrating control of microorganisms in industry.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Example of program learning outcome: Demonstrate oral and written communication skills appropriate for food science professionals

Method(s) of Assessment

1. Senior teams presented public demonstrations about their product development projects to students, faculty and industry representatives. Ten industry representatives used a rubric to evaluate the content, creativity, technical expertise and oral communication ability demonstrated by the students. 2. Written reports and oral summaries of Journal of Food Science articles were presented in the senior seminar course. 3. Employers of food science graduates for the past 3 years were surveyed by the college.

Summary of Key Findings

1. All ratings on the rubric were in the ‘competent’ category. The average score for 8 teams was 92%; the average score for oral communication was 98%, according to the industry evaluators. 2. Students’ ability to summarize JFS research data was satisfactory but not exemplary. Eighty-two percent of the students scored ≥80% on the oral summary assignment but only 60% scored ≥80% on the written summaries. 3. Employer comments indicated high overall satisfaction with food science graduates, but the response rate was low (n = 9). Scores (1 = not prepared to 5 = very well prepared) for most survey questions were above 4 except the ability to communicate effectively in technical reports was rated 3.5.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Method(s) of Assessment

26

Summary of Key Findings

OUTCOME MEASURED

Method(s) of Assessment

Summary of Key Findings

27

II. ACTIONS BEING TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE RESEARCH FINDINGS In the space below, interpret the above research findings in light of program expectations for student achievement. Discuss the meaning of the learning assessment findings in relation to desired student proficiency. Describe how these findings were used, or are being used to improve student learning (very important). If changes are being made to courses or the food science program, summarize these changes. If lessons were learned during implementation of the learning assessment, and changes will be made to future assessments as a result, discuss here. (Sometimes an assessment does not go exactly as planned and it is not possible to draw conclusions reliably. If this occurred, describe what happened and what will be done in the future to remedy it.)

Resource: Permission to use this form granted by Lisa Kramer info@PAERconsulting.com.

28

APPENDIX F Application for 5-Year Re-Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology This Re-Approval application is intended to aid a food science program in determining what improvements to the program and to specific courses have been made in the previous five (5) years, and those that will be made during the next 5-year approval cycle. It is intended to be reasonably brief, but still sufficiently detailed overview of the program at the 5-year point since last review. It should provide a summary of recent assessment evidence (from recent yearly assessment progress reports), a description of future assessment plans, and a description of plans for continued program improvement. Because many programmatic changes may occur in the 5 years since initial approval, this document must also reflect any substantive changes in a program’s status (faculty, facilities, required background courses, etc.) that could influence the curriculum and the assessment program. (Application format should conform to the following headings, sequence, and page limitations, using 12 point font. Any additional material should be attached as appendices.) I. Date of application submission ___________________________ II. Name of person completing this application _____________________________________

Professional title __________________________________ Mail address __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ E-mail address __________________________________ Office phone number __________________________________ Fax number __________________________________

III. Description of administrative unit A. Name of Institution __________________________________

B. Name of College __________________________________

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit) ______________________________________

D. Name of Department Head/Chair ______________________________________

E. All undergraduate degrees (including emphases) granted by the Department (e.g., BSA in Food Science, BS in Food Technology with Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science)

29

_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

F. Of those above, degree(s) (including emphases) to be evaluated for IFT approval _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

IV. Description of faculty (1-2 pages) A. Food Science and other faculty members teaching in the program (place an asterisk by course numbers of required courses) Highest Degree Name and Institution Appointment§ Specialization(s) Courses Taught Jane Doe Ph.D., Ohio State Univ. member, full time Food Chemistry, FS 105, 215*, 450* Quality Assurance 1. 2. 3. etc. B. Additional faculty (including those from other departments) teaching Food Science courses (place an asterisk by course numbers of required courses) Highest Degree Name and Institution Appointment§ Specialization(s) Courses Taught 1. 2. 3. etc. C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding faculty that should be considered § Explain appointment status in the Department, e.g., member, adjunct, courtesy, joint, full-time, part-time)

30

V. Description of facilities (<1 page) A. Website describing and providing pictures of Department facilities __________________________ B. Please examine the Description of Facilities section in your most recent approval application and list any changes, additions, or deletions to your facilities since that time. VI. Description of curriculum (2 pages) (Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated) A. Specific website containing course descriptions for both background and departmental courses ______________________________ (If not available online, include as an appendix or include a copy of the undergraduate catalog in application submission) B. Suggested Road Map, showing semester-by-semester progress through the entire curriculum (show

one for each curriculum being considered for approval) C. Please examine the Description of Curriculum section in your most recent approval application and list any changes, additions, or deletions to your curriculum since that time. VII. Program outcomes

To insure adequate review, please provide the specific outcomes for the program as a whole. This will remind both reviewers and program participants of the main outcomes set by the department. VIII. Summary of assessments over the previous 5-year period Please submit all Assessment Progress Reports submitted since the previous review. This section should also include a summary reflection of the evidence for student learning gathered from the previous annual reports as described below. Summary Reflections. This section typically interprets the significance of the findings in the above analysis of program evidence. Its purpose is to determine a program’s strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. It is helpful to have questions that guide the interpretation of the findings, such as:

Are the curriculum, practices, processes, and resources properly aligned with the outcomes of the program?

Are department/program goals aligned with the goals of the food industry and graduate programs that the program serves?

Is the level of program quality aligned with the college/university’s acceptable level of program quality? Is the program quality aligned with the constituents’ acceptable level of quality?

Are program goals being achieved? Are student learning outcomes being achieved at the expected level?

It is also helpful to have evaluation criteria in mind; that is, what guidelines will be used to determine what the evidence suggests about the program’s strengths and weaknesses? In some cases, an absolute standard may be used. For example, it may be decided that a student-faculty ratio of 20 to one is

31

necessary to ensure program quality, and any ratio higher than that is unacceptable. In other cases, a norm-referenced criterion may be more appropriate. For example, if an IFT food science national student survey was used to assess student satisfaction with the program, the evaluation criterion might be that your students’ satisfaction is at least as high as students at other similar institutions. IX. Future Goals and Planning for Improvement. This section is intended to aid a food science program in determining what improvements to the program and to specific courses will be made during the next approval cycle. Assessment of a subset of all outcomes for the food science academic program should have been occurring annually between initial approval and re-approval. Because all outcomes for a food science program should be assessed by the time of that program’s re-approval, each program should have completed and reported the assessment results of all its proposed course learning and program outcomes by the end of a five-year period. Please provide a brief (1-2 pages) summary of plans for future assessment strategies and goals, and how curricular improvement will be maintained. There should be a short discussion of how results of the assessments will continue to be used to improve the food science program or student learning. This section might address such questions as:

What are the program’s assessment goals for the next five years? How will the program specifically address any weaknesses identified in previous assessments? How will the program build on existing strengths?

X. Submission. Submit six (6) copies of this document to the IFT Headquarters office at least 10 weeks in advance of the scheduled review date.

32

APPENDIX G Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports

Not yet developed In development Developed

Degree to which outcomes are defined and lend themselves to assessment and student learning

There is little or no evidence that outcomes exist for the course or program

Outcomes exist, but are incomplete or do not address all of the desired outcomes for the course or program; or, student learning outcomes exist, but faculty are unable to assess them

Outcomes exist, and lend themselves to assessment

Degree to which assessments address outcomes

There are little or no assessments used to assess course learning outcomes or program outcomes

Assessments exist, but have not yet been summarized, aggregated or analyzed for communication to faculty; or, assessments are reported only episodically (not regularly)

Assessments exist, and have been communicated to faculty on a regular basis

Degree to which faculty meaningfully discuss students’ achievement of outcomes and make recommendations to act

Faculty discussions about assessments have not yet occurred on a formal basis, or have only been discussed intermittently and in starts

Faculty discussions about assessments have occurred, but only informally and among a few

Faculty discussions about assessments directly evaluate student learning outcomes and occur on a regular basis

Degree to which discussed actions are implemented in areas such as instruction, curriculum, course learning objectives, etc.

There is no evidence that assessment-based discussions have led to action or to any change

There is some evidence that assessment-based discussions have led to action or change; or, there is some evidence that recommendations based on assessment-based discussion have been enacted

There is ample evidence to demonstrate that assessment-based discussions have led to action; or, there is ample evidence demonstrating that recommendations based on assessment-based discussions have been enacted