ANNUAL Institutional Assessment Report - Florida A&M ... Report/2015...training sessions, workshops and one-on-one sessions conducted by the OUA. Table 1 provides a ... 2015-16 ANNUAL

ANNUAL INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

2015-2016

Prepared by the Office of University Assessment A Title III Co-Sponsored Activity

2015-16 ANNUAL INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

F l o r i d a A g r i c u l t u r a l a n d M e c h a n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y | 2

Table of Contents

Strategic Highlights ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Message From the Acting Director .............................................................................................................. 8

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

Overview of Annual Report ............................................................................................................................ 9

OUA Mission Statement ................................................................................................................................... 9

FAMU Assessment Philosophy ...................................................................................................................... 9

OUA Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 10

Instructional Programs Assessment Activities .................................................................................... 11

Trends In Instructional Programs Assessment Reports / Plans Submission ........................... 11

Summary of Outcomes Met/Not Met for Instructional Programs ................................................. 11

Academic Learning Compacts .................................................................................................................... 15

Administrative and Support Units Activities ........................................................................................ 16

Trends in Administrative and Educational Support Units Reports/Plans Submission ......... 16

Summary of Outcomes Met/Not Met for Administrative and Educational Support Units .... 17

Institutional Level Assessment Activities .............................................................................................. 19

Exit Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

ETS Proficiency Profile ................................................................................................................................. 22

Office of University Assessment Activities/Updates .......................................................................... 24

Results of OUA Focused Objectives ........................................................................................................... 24

Workshops/Training Sessions................................................................................................................... 25

ASSQ Summary Results................................................................................................................................. 27

Assessment Committees Activities/Updates ........................................................................................ 32

General Education Assessment Committee Activities/Updates .................................................... 32

Institutional Level Assessment Activities/Updates ........................................................................... 35

Licensure/Certification Examination Pass Rates ................................................................................ 36

Summary of Key University Assessment Findings and Recommendations ............................... 40

Office of University Assessment Team .................................................................................................... 44



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STRATEGIC HIGHLIGHTS

The Office of University Assessment (OUA) at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University is charged with

the responsibility of building the University’s capacity for meaningful assessment that ultimately contributes

to the University’s Mission. The OUA promotes an institutional culture of evidence through the

implementation of a manageable and sustainable assessment process that leads to quality programs and

service improvements. In support of the University’s mission, the OUA works to promote excellence in student

learning and services across academic programs, administrative, and educational support units.

Over the course of the 2015-2016 academic year, the OUA realized several key accomplishments. Key

among them were the submission rates for Instructional Programs and Administrative and Educational

Support Units. The timeliness and quality of the assessment reports submitted is reflective of the many

training sessions, workshops and one-on-one sessions conducted by the OUA. Table 1 provides a

longitudinal overview of submission rates for assessment reports covering the past three assessment cycles.

The percentages represented are reflective of the annual October 31st submission deadline.

Table 1. Trends in Assessment Reports Submission

Assessment Reports 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Instructional Programs 49% (49/101) 62% (64/103) 70% (71/102)

Research 38% (5/13) 62% (8/13) 38% (5/13)

Community/Public Service 38% (5/13) 62% (8/13) 54% (7/13)

Certificate Programs 20% (1/5) 60% (3/5) 20% (1/5)

Administrative & Educational Support Units 44% (22/50) 38% (18/47) 67% (35/52)

To further raise the bar and awareness around assessment performance and reporting, the OUA produced a

report on Outcomes/Objectives Achieved/Not Achieved for all Colleges/Schools and Administrative

Divisions based on the annual assessment reports submitted. The comprehensive reports provide an

institutional summary of outcomes/objectives performance across Colleges/Schools/Divisions to include

reporting at the program/department level. The purpose of these reports are to stimulate deeper

conversations among faculty, staff, and administrators, with the aim of improving operations and student

learning. The Office of University Assessment continues to work with Colleges/Schools/Divisions in helping

to build capacity for stronger assessment processes and the utilization of assessment results for continuous

improvement.

Table 2 provides a qualitative analysis of outcomes/objectives not met across Colleges/Schools and

Divisions taken as a group. The date is organized to reflect the themes that emerged with a high level of

frequency:



Table 2. Frequency of Outcomes/Objectives Not Met

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

The assessment activities conducted at the institutional level included the administration of the ETS

Proficiency Profile (EPP) for entering freshmen and graduating seniors, the Exit Survey to graduating seniors,

and focus group exercises conducted with current students relative to general education outcomes.

Assessment activities also included the review and submission of Academic Learning Compacts to the Board

of Governors. The OUA conducted a comprehensive review of these results and advanced recommendations

relative to each of the aforementioned areas. A sample of the results from the assessment tools and activities

follows.

Exit Survey

The Exit Survey is designed to capture graduating students’ perceptions of their collegiate experiences and

future plans. The survey specifically seeks respondents’ perceptions of their experiences as they relate to

learning outcomes, student support services, facilities, availability of services, major field of study, among

other items deemed important to the university. Over the course of the 2015-2016 academic year, (N=2,593)

students graduated from the university. Of this population, (n=2,289) students responded to the survey

representing an overall response rate of 88.3%.

Consistent with the findings from previous years, graduating students have consistently reported low levels

of satisfaction with the Availability of Parking (33.0%), Financial Aid Processes (47.0%) and the

overall quality of services provided by the Office of Financial Aid (48.0%). Areas with the highest level

of satisfaction included: Educational Outcomes (95.0%), Value of your FAMU Degree (91.0%), and

University Libraries (90.0%). Refer to Table 3 for a longitudinal summary of these results.

Broad Outcome Focus Not Met N Frequency %

Communication Skills 26 14.44%

Content Knowledge 26 14.44%

Critical Thinking Skills 18 10.00%

Technology Literacy 15 8.33%

Critical Inquiry 10 5.56%

Broad Objective Focus Not Met N Frequency %

Performance Related 19 40.43%

Process Related 16 34.04%

Operational 5 10.64%

Process Outcome 4 8.51%

Research Related 2 4.26%



Table 3. Longitudinal Summary of Select Items from University Exit Survey

Select Items

FAMU Results

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondents

(n)

% Very Satisfied & Somewhat Satisfied

Total Respondents

(n)


Total Respondents

(n)


Educational Outcomes* 1980 92.66% 1968 94.3% 2259 95.0%

Major Field of Study 1985 89.23% 1964 89.7% 2259 89.3%

Facilities 1998 78.48% 1976 81.6% 2264 82.4%

Departments at FAMU 1997 60.41% 1974 65.6% 2258 67.0%

Student Support Services 1996 63.25% 1977 66.7% 2269 70.0%

Availability of Services 1998 63.17% 1976 68.9% 2256 70.8%

Collegiate Experience 1993 55.67% 1970 55.7% 2247 71.0%

ETS Proficiency Profile

The ETS Proficiency Profile (EPP) is a General Education knowledge and skills test that is designed to

measure critical thinking and college-level reading, writing, and mathematical skills in the contexts of the

humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.

In fall 2015, (n=620) out of (N=2,322) incoming freshmen attempted to take the EPP. Results were

calculated for (n=571) of those students who completed 75% or more of the test items. The total mean score

for the incoming freshmen was (M=431.38, SD=15.66) based on a 400-500 range. In spring 2016, (n=273)

out of (N=904) graduating seniors took the EPP. Results were calculated for (n=237) students who

completed 75% or more of the test. Results revealed that the total mean score for the graduating seniors

was (M=429.57, SD=17.54) based on a 400-500 range.

A comparative analysis of FAMU scores to those of the ETS provided National Averages, Carnegie

classification of doctoral institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) taken as group,

and institutions in the State University System (SUS) of Florida to include institutional peers, was

completed. Table 4 provides a comparative synopsis of the results for incoming freshmen and graduating

seniors.

Table 4. Comparative Summary of Student Performance on ETS Proficiency Profile for period (2011-2016)

Skill Dimension

National Carnegie HBCU SUS/Inst. Peers FAMU

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Incoming Freshmen Total Score

436.40 18.5 441.00 19.7 427.40 13.8 436.70 17.3 431.16 16.23

Graduating Seniors Total Score

445.60 20.7 450.00 21.7 433.10 17.8 446.40 20.5 432.59 18.97

REFLECTION ON SERVICE



ASSQ Results

The Assessment Support Service Questionnaire (ASSQ) was designed to capture respondents’ perceptions of

their experiences with various aspects of the assessment process and services provided by the OUA.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with various statements related to the services

provided by the OUA. The instrument was distributed electronically to (N=184) individuals who play a role

in assessment at the program and administrative support unit levels. Of those individuals who received a

copy of the survey, (n=60) responded to the instrument which represents a response rate of 32.6%.

Overall, the respondents’ perceptions of the quality of services provided by the OUA team was favorable.

Table 5 provides a summary of key findings from the 2016 administration of the ASSQ.

Table 5. ASSQ Select Survey Results

Question n % Strongly

Agree/Agree

Overall, I am satisfied with the Office of University Assessment feedback

and assistance. 60 100.00%

The FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach facilitates the continuous

improvement of my college/school/program/unit. 58 87.93%

Overall, I am satisfied with the assessment training that I received. 55 98.18%

Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of services (i.e. trainings and survey

design/administration) provided by the Office of University Assessment. 57 100.00%

Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of support (i.e. accreditation

preparation and data analysis) offered by the Office of University

Assessment.

57 100.0%



Focused Objectives

Over the course of the 2015-2016 academic year, the Office of University Assessment focused on four core

objectives.

Objective 1: Enhance the culture of assessment by improving ratings of Performance Appraisals for

Divisions/Colleges/Schools based on Assessment Activities by one rating level.

Objective 2: Enhance the electronic monitoring database of assessment reports to improve the review

process for and communications about submitted documents by implementing a new online database

management system for assessment reporting.

Objective 3: Increase the university’s understanding of assessment best practices as evident in the quality of

assessment reports submitted.

Objective 4: Increase data reporting and recommendations for improvements provided to university

administrators based on the comprehensive analysis of assessment data.

Based on reflective practice, the OUA was satisfied with performance relative to the above mentioned

objectives. The Office was successful in identifying, selecting and implementing a web-based platform to

support the management of the annual assessment process. We continue to work on customizations

relative to reporting capabilities. In the 2016-2017 Assessment cycle, the OUA will continue to monitor

stakeholder’s perceptions of their experiences interfacing with the new Assessment Insight System (AIS)

and the OUA.

LOOKING AHEAD

The Office of University Assessment continues to build the university’s capacity for meaningful assessment

and the use of assessment results to drive continuous and sustainable improvements. We will continue to

provide recommendations for improvements to all FAMU constituents with the aim of enhancing the culture

for assessment at the University. This we believe, will ultimately contribute to the overall student experience

and bring the university closer to the realization of its mission.

We will continue to play a critical role in increasing institutional effectiveness and contributing to an

environment of evidence wherein intentional, effective, and efficient programs and services are established

and improved in a manner that embodies the University's motto of “Excellence with Caring.”



Message from the Acting Director

Greetings FAMU Community,

Thank you for your continued interest in the Office of University Assessment

(OUA) Institutional Assessment Report.

Our mission is simple: to promote a culture of evidence at FAMU through the

implementation of a manageable and sustainable assessment process that leads

to quality programs and service improvements. With the support of the

University community, we continue to strive for excellence by fulfilling that mission each day. Assessment is a vital

component of the University’s commitment to sustaining excellence in academic programs and services. Currently,

there are a variety of forces (i.e. regional and specialized/program accreditation bodies, state governing boards

among other special interest groups) prompting institutions of higher education to gather additional information

about student learning and to use the data in a productive way to enhance the overall student experience. Over the

course of the academic year, the OUA (i.e. a Title III co-sponsored activity) continued to engage the university

community in activities designed to build and enhance capacity for meaningful and productive assessment.

The OUA 2015-2016 in Review

The 2015-2016 Annual Institutional Assessment Report highlights key assessments and activities within the OUA

for your review. It is my hope that you will find this report to be informative, enlightening, and empowering in

your own effort to move performance to new levels within your respective unit(s).

During this academic year, the OUA realized many significant accomplishments that have proven to strengthen and

galvanize our approach to meaningful assessment. We transitioned the University from a paper-based process for

the submission of annual assessment reports and plans to a cloud based platform designed to support and streamline

the management of the annual assessment process. The OUA now has the ability to electronically monitor all

assessment planning initiatives in real-time and generate reports that can be used to inform decision making and

improve student outcomes. The platform supports the alignment of unit level outcomes/objective to strategic

priorities for the University to include the ability to align to specialized accrediting standards.

Also of importance, the FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach was presented during the 2016 annual conference

of the Association for Institutional Researcher (AIR) in a piece entitled “Navigating the Path to Aligning

Performance Metrics to Assessment,” which was subsequently featured in the eAIR newsletter. The OUA team

is proud of our accomplishments in 2015-2016 and is committed to expanding our goals for 2016-2017.

At your leisure, please review the 2015-2016 Annual Institutional Assessment Report with special attention to the

sections that are most relevant to the work of your unit(s). I encourage you to use the information shared in this

report to begin conversations about how you and your team can improve performance in your unit(s). The Office

of University Assessment is prepared to support your assessment needs. To that end, we look forward to working

with you in 2017.

Sincerely,

Franz H. Reneau, Ph.D.

Acting Director

Office of University Assessment



Introduction

OVERVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT

The 2015-2016 Office of University Assessment (OUA) Institutional Assessment Report is designed to

provide you with insight into pertinent institutional level assessment data as a way of quantifying and

qualifying the impact of our instructional programs and support services on the academic experience of

FAMU students. Over the course of the academic year, the OUA continued to provide leadership and

expertise in building and sustaining a culture of meaningful assessment that moves the institution towards

the accomplishment of established goals and objectives. This report is divided into several key areas, which

highlights institutional level assessment activities to include the following: Exit Survey, the ETS

Proficiency Profile, and Outcomes/Objectives Performance for Academic and Non-Academic areas.

Also discussed in this annual report are trends in Instructional Programs (IPs) and Administrative and

Educational Support Units (ADESUs) submission rates for assessment reports and plans. We discuss the

results of our goals and objectives for the 2015-2016 assessment cycle in addition to providing summary

data on workshops and training sessions conducted over the course of the year. There is much information

presented in this annual report, and it is our hope that you will find this report meaningful and relevant in

promoting the “excellence with caring” experience that every student at Florida A&M University deserves.

OUA MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Office of University Assessment is to promote a culture of evidence at FAMU through the

implementation of a manageable and sustainable assessment process that leads to quality program and service

improvement.

In support of the University’s mission, the Office of University Assessment at FAMU promotes excellence in

student learning and services across academic programs, administrative, and educational support units.

Through ongoing training and assessment support services, the Office operationalizes the development of a

university-wide culture of evidence wherein intentional, effective, and efficient programs and services are

established and improved in a manner that embodies the University's motto of “excellence with caring.”

FAMU ASSESSMENT PHILOSOPHY

The philosophy of assessment at FAMU is "to foster a culture of continuous improvement of program offerings

and support services to ensure student success and institutional effectiveness.” Assessment is grounded in

the institutional values set forth in the mission statement and focuses primarily on improving student

learning both within and outside the classroom. Our approach is rooted in a comprehensive and collaborative

process that utilizes data to improve the overall student experience.

FAMU defines assessment as a systematic process of gathering, analyzing, interpreting and documenting the

effectiveness of the teaching and learning processes to ensure that expectations and standards are met in

fulfilling the mission of the university. The process also includes monitoring and enhancing the

administrative and educational support structure of the university that leads to the continuous

improvement of FAMU’s academic programs and administrative and educational support services.



OUA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 1: Academic Improvement –Strengthen the distinctive quality of academic programs, producing

graduates that demonstrate the 21st-century skills needed to compete in an increasingly diverse and global

society.

Strategy 1.1 Enhance the capacity for development of student learning outcomes aligned to

appropriate measures and reflective of best practices for each academic discipline.

Strategy 1.2 Analyze and summarize key student learning data for review by decision makers and

other stakeholders.

Goal 2: Service Improvement – Strengthen the quality of administrative and educational support services

through the development of appropriate performance outcomes and measures.

Strategy 2.1 Support the development of performance-based strategies and measures to monitor and

document efficiency and effectiveness of all support services.

Strategy 2.2 Summarize key performance data related to administrative and educational support unit

for review by decision makers and other stakeholders.

Goal 3: Accountability – Maintain effective and efficient assessment processes that comply with all internal

and external assessment requirements.

Strategy 3.1 Facilitate the implementation of assessment practices that meet or exceed the

accountability requirements set forth by the Florida Legislature, Board of Trustees, and other

external accountability bodies.

Strategy 3.2 Promote alignment between assessment planning and University strategic initiatives.

Goal 4: Communication - Raise stakeholder awareness of student learning and key performance outcomes

through the dissemination of institutional assessment data and recommendations for improvement.

Strategy 4.1 Communicate student learning outcomes and other assessment information to students,

faculty, staff, administrators, and other stakeholders.

Strategy 4.2 Maintain a framework for meaningful, timely feedback and recommendations related to

key assessment information.



Instructional Programs Assessment Activities

This section of the 2015-2016 OUA Annual Report highlights trends in the submission rates for assessment

reports from Instructional Programs and Colleges and Schools relative to Research and Community/Public

Service. Also provided in this section is a summary of outcomes performance across Colleges/Schools and a

status on the Academic Learning Compacts (ALCs) which are state-mandated requirements for

baccalaureate degree programs offered by public universities in the State of Florida University System. Full

assessment reports can be found at www.famu.edu/assessment.

TRENDS IN INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS ASSESSMENT REPORTS SUBMISSION

Table 1 provides a longitudinal summary of submission rates for the last three assessment cycles. It should

be noted that timely submission tends to increase in years when the university is preparing for accreditation

visits. The OUA promotes assessment for continuous improvement. We will continue to raise awareness

around the importance of timely submission and encourage units to make assessment a part of their daily

routine.

Where instructional programs are concerned, assessment reports are collected for three general areas:

Degree Programs, Research, and Community/Public Service, which are submitted at a College/School level.

Table 1 reflects the submission rates for the last three assessment cycles. The percentages represented are

reflective of the annual October 31st submission deadline.

Table 1. Trends in Assessment Reports Submission


Instructional Programs 49% (49/101) 62% (64/103) 70% (71/102)

Research 38% (5/13) 62% (8/13) 38% (5/13)

Community/Public Service 38% (5/13) 62% (8/13) 54% (7/13)

Certificate Programs 20% (1/5) 60% (3/5) 20% (1/5)

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES MET/NOT MET FOR INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS

This section of the annual report provides a comprehensive summary of assessment outcome performance

by Colleges/Schools for the 2014-2015 assessment cycle. The report provides an institutional summary of

outcome performance across Colleges/Schools followed by College/School specific results which detail

performance at the degree program level. Quantitative and qualitative techniques were employed in

analyzing the data associated with this report. A count of total outcomes met/not met was conducted for

each degree program and aggregated at the College/School level. A thematic summary of outcomes not met

and their frequency across Colleges/Schools was also conducted in an effort to identify broad areas of

opportunities at the institutional level and also at the college/school level.

http://www.famu.edu/assessment



It is important to interpret the outcomes not met as areas of opportunity for further investigation and

collective reflection rather than failure. Outcomes may not be met for several reasons such as:

• The benchmarks were set at challenging levels

• Students did not have the academic preparation to master the outcomes within a specified period

• Misalignment between the competencies/content taught and the outcomes assessed

• Teaching strategies may not be aligned with expected learning outcomes.

The purpose of this report is to stimulate deeper conversations among faculty within programs, with the

aim of improving both teaching and learning, resulting in students’ mastery of outcomes. The Office of

University Assessment continues to work with Colleges/Schools to help build capacity for stronger

assessment processes and the utilization of assessment results for continuous improvement. A qualitative

analysis of outcomes not met across Colleges/Schools taken as a group, resulted in the following, which

emerged with a high level of frequency.

Table 2. Frequency of Outcomes Not Met

Broad Outcome Focus Not Met N Frequency %

Communication Skills 26 14.44%

Content Knowledge 26 14.44%

Critical Thinking Skills 18 10.00%

Technology Literacy 15 8.33%

Critical Inquiry 10 5.56%

College/School specific results provide outcome performances for each associated program to include, the

relevancy at the College/School level, and the top five outcomes, which emerged with the highest level of

frequency as a result of data analysis. Also included in the College/School specific results is a list of all

outcomes not met for the 2014-2015 assessment cycle. A copy of the full report can be obtained by

contacting the OUA. Table 3 provides a summary of the results at the College/School level followed by Table

4, which provides a thematic summary of outcomes not achieved across Colleges/Schools.

Table 3. Summary of Outcomes Achieved/Not Achieved by Colleges/Schools

COLLEGES/SCHOOLS Total #

Outcomes in Reports

Total # Outcomes

Met

Total # Outcomes

not met % Met % Not Met

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES

93 71 22 76.34% 23.66%

COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 67 47 20 70.15% 29.85%

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 92 56 36 60.87% 39.13%

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCES 24 19 5 79.17% 20.83%

COLLEGE OF LAW 6 3 3 50.00% 50.00%



COLLEGES/SCHOOLS Total #

Outcomes in Reports

Total # Outcomes

Met

Total # Outcomes

not met % Met % Not Met

COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES

48 32 16 66.67% 33.33%

SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT 18 10 8 55.56% 44.44%

FAMU/FSU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 99 83 16 83.84% 16.16%

SCHOOL OF ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCES 44 32 12 72.73% 27.27%

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

34 12 22 35.29% 64.71%

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 38 19 19 50.00% 50.00%

SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION

11 11 0 100.00% 0.00%

SCHOOL OF NURSING 17 16 1 94.12% 5.88%

Figure 1. Graphical Representation of the Percent of Outcomes Achieved/Not Achieved by Colleges/Schools

Table 4. Thematic Summary of Broad Outcomes Not Achieved Across Colleges/Schools

CS

SA

H

CS

T

CO

E

CA

FS

CO

L

CO

PP

S

SO

E

CO

En

g.

SO

AH

S

SA

ET

SB

I

SJG

C

SO

N

Freq

uen

cy o

f To

pic:

%

Freq

uen

cy

Communication Skills 6 2 1

3 1 4 1 5 3

26 14.44%

Content Knowledge 8 2 3

1 2 3 2

5

26 14.44%

Critical Thinking Skills 2 1 3

1 3 1 5 1

1 18 10.00%

Technology Literacy 1 3

1 10

15 8.33%

Critical Inquiry

10

10 5.56%

Professionalism 1

5

3

9 5.00%

C O L L E G E O F S O C I A L S C I E N C E S , A R T S A N D …

C O L L E G E O F S C I E N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G Y

C O L L E G E O F E D U C A T I O N

C O L L E G E O F A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E S

C O L L E G E O F L A W

C O L L E G E O F P H A R M A C Y A N D P H A R M A C E U T I C A L …

S C H O O L O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T

F A M U / F S U C O L L E G E O F E N G I N E E R I N G

S C H O O L O F A L L I E D H E A L T H S C I E N C E S

S C H O O L O F A R C H I T E C T U R E A N D E N G I N E E R I N G …

S C H O O L O F B U S I N E S S A N D I N D U S T R Y

S C H O O L O F J O U R N A L I S M A N D G R A P H I C …

S C H O O L O F N U R S I N G

23.66%

29.85%

39.13%

20.83%

50.00%

33.33%

44.44%

16.16%

27.27%

64.71%

50.00%

0.00%

5.88%

76.34%

70.15%

60.87%

79.17%

50.00%

66.67%

55.56%

83.84%

72.73%

35.29%

50.00%

100.00%

94.12%

% Not Achieved % Achieved



CS

SA

H

CS

T

CO

E

CA

FS

CO

L

CO

PP

S

SO

E

CO

En

g.

SO

AH

S

SA

ET

SB

I

SJG

C

SO

N

Freq

uen

cy o

f To

pic:

%

Freq

uen

cy

Cultural Competence 2

6

8 4.44%

Ethical Reasoning 1 2

1

4

8 4.44%

Research

3

1

3

7 3.89%

Quantitative Analysis

2 3

5 2.78%

Reflective Practice

5

5 2.78%

Collaboration

1

2 1

4 2.22%

Global Awareness

1

3

4 2.22%

Analytical Reasoning Skills

1

2

3 1.67%

Graduation Rates

2

1

3 1.67%

Student Publications

1

2

3 1.67%

Co-curricular Activities

1

1

2 1.11%

Presentation Skills

1

1

2 1.11%

Progression Rate

1

1

2 1.11%

Academic Quality

1

1 0.56%

Administrative Vision

1

1 0.56%

Community Service 1

1 0.56%

Course Level Objectives

1

1 0.56%

Decision Making

1

1 0.56%

External Funding

1

1 0.56%

Graduate School Preparedness

1

1 0.56%

Instructional Benefit

1

1 0.56%

International Presence

1

1 0.56%

Learning Environment

1

1 0.56%

Licensure/Pass Rates

1

1 0.56%

Life Long Learning

1

1 0.56%

NAPLEX Preparedness

1

1 0.56%

Online Courses

1

1 0.56%

Performance Metrics

1

1 0.56%

Pharmaceutical Care System

1

1 0.56%

Post-Doctoral Work

1

1 0.56%

Scholarly Activity

1

1 0.56%

Shared Vision

1

1 0.56%

Student Enrollment

1

1 0.56%

Total Number of Outcomes not met for all Colleges/Schools taken as a group (N=180).



ACADEMIC LEARNING COMPACTS

Academic Learning Compacts (ALCs) are state-mandated requirements for baccalaureate degree programs

offered by public post-secondary institutions in the State of Florida University System. The ALCs serve to

document expected learning outcomes to be achieved by every student matriculating through his/her

program. These ALCs are required, at a minimum, to determine expected student learning outcomes for

baccalaureate program graduates in the areas of:

Content/discipline knowledge and skills

Communication skills

Critical thinking skills

Documentation of the ALCs and related results at FAMU are based upon the FAMU-STARS assessment

planning and implementation model. Periodic assessment of the extent to which student learning has taken

place are accomplished by the use of tools, such as rubrics, products of student work, and other course-

embedded measures.

Florida Board of Governors Regulation 8.016 requires universities to submit a status report on student

learning outcomes assessment for each baccalaureate program. Following are the student learning outcome

elements required by FL BOG.

(1) Program faculty have made expected core student learning outcomes in the areas of

communication, critical thinking, and content/discipline knowledge and skills available to students

through a published Academic Learning Compact (please provide link in the comments section).

(2) Program faculty have a process in place to assess/evaluate student learning outcomes.

(3) Program faculty have a process in place to use information yielded from the periodic review of

Student Learning Outcomes, and corresponding assessment mechanisms, to improve the program's

efficacy and student learning outcomes.

(4) For each academic program, please indicate the most recent year that the program-level student

learning outcomes were assessed. If the most recent assessment was for a particular track(s),

please note the specific track(s) in the comments section.

A template is used to report on the status of student learning outcomes assessment in each baccalaureate

degree program. The Board’s expectation is that each element be reviewed for possible improvement with

the exception of new programs early in their review cycles or programs undergoing significant

modifications. The Student Learning Assessment Report was submitted on December 15th, 2016. Following,

is a summary of the required program status submitted to the Board of Governors.



Table 5. Summary Student Learning Outcomes Progress Report Submitted to the Board of Governors

SLO Assessment Status Report Elements

"1. Expected core student learning outcomes made available to students (by publishing the ALC)"

"2. A Process is in place to assess/evaluate student learning outcomes."

"3. A process is in place to use information from program reviews to improve student learning outcomes and program effectiveness."

4. Year of most recent assessment.

Yes 60 60 60 Assessment reports are submitted on an annual

basis. Most recent assessment year on file

2015-2016. No 0 0 0

Assessment reports submitted for the 2015-2016 academic year (submission date October 31, 2016) were

used to provide responses for the four elements previously stated. Based on the submissions from the 60

undergraduate degree programs, all programs are in compliance with the first three elements. Due to new

programs and restructuring, 4 programs do not have an assessment report on file for the 2015-2016

assessment cycle.

Administrative and Support Units Activities

This section of the 2015-2016 OUA Annual Report highlights trends in the submission rates for assessment

reports from Administrative and Educational Support Units (ADESUs). Also provided in this section is a

summary of objectives performance across Divisions at the University. Full assessment reports can be found

at www.famu.edu/assessment.

TRENDS IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT UNITS REPORTS

SUBMISSION

Table 6 provides a longitudinal summary of submission rates for the last three assessment cycles. As can be

discerned from the data reported, submission rate significantly improved between 2014-2015 and 2015-

2016. The increase in submission rate is believed to be influenced by the annual one-on-one meetings that

the OUA have conducted with VPs in the previous assessment cycle.

Table 6. Trends in Administrative and Educational Support Units Reports Submission


Administrative & Educational

Support Units 44% (22/50) 38% (18/47) 67% (35/52)



SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES MET/NOT MET FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL

SUPPORT UNITS

This section provides a comprehensive summary of assessment objective performance for Divisions at FAMU.

Quantitative and qualitative techniques were employed in analyzing the data associated with this report. A

count of total objectives achieved/not achieved were conducted for each administrative unit and aggregated

at the Division level. A thematic summary of objectives not achieved and their frequency was also conducted

in an effort to identify broad areas of opportunity. It is important to view the objectives not achieved as areas

of opportunity for further investigation and collective reflection rather than failure. Objectives may not be

achieved for several reasons such as:

The benchmarks were set at challenging levels

Staff did not have the professional development or adequate resources to achieve the objectives within

a specified period

Misalignment between the operations executed and the objectives assessed

Operational goals may not be aligned with expected objectives.

The purpose of this report was to stimulate deeper conversations among staff and administrators within

departments, with the aim of improving operations and the overall quality of service provided to students.

The OUA continues to work with Divisions in helping to build capacity for stronger assessment processes and

the utilization of assessment results for continuous improvement.

Division specific results provide objective performance for each associated unit to include a list of all

objectives not achieved for the 2014-2015 assessment cycle. A copy of the full report can be obtained by

contacting our office. Table 7 provides a summary of the results at the Division level followed by Table 8 which

provides a thematic summary of objectives not achieved across Divisions.

Table 7. Summary of Objectives Achieved/Not Achieved by Divisions

FAMU Administrative Units Total # Objectives in Report

Total # Objectives

Not Met

Total # Objectives

Met

% Not Met % Met

Office of the President 12 4 8 33.33% 66.67%

Division of Legal Affairs 11 1 10 9.09% 90.91%

Division of Academic Affairs 59 16 43 27.12% 72.88%

Division of Research 10 7 3 70.00% 30.00%

Division of Enterprise Information Technology

3 1 2 33.33% 66.67%

Division of University Relations or Advancement

9 4 5 44.44% 55.56%

Division of Audit and Compliance 3 0 3 0.00% 100.00%

Division of Student Affairs 51 11 39 21.57% 76.47%

Division of Finance and Administration 22 3 19 13.64% 86.36%



FIGURE 2: Graphical Representation of the Percent of Objectives Met/Not Met by Division

Table 8. Thematic Summary of Objectives Not Achieved by Division

Pre

side

nt

Le

ga

l

Aca

de

mic

Re

sea

rch

ITS

Ad

va

nce

me

nt

Au

dit

Stu

de

nt

Fin

an

ce

N % Frequency

Performance Related 2 5 3 1 6 2 19 40.43%

Process Related 2 1 3 3 1 5 1 16 34.04%

Operational 2 1 2 5 10.64%

Process Outcome 4 4 8.51%

Research Related 1 1 2 4.26%

Student Focused 1 1 2.12%

Total Topics by Division 4 1 16 7 1 4 0 11 3 47 100%

O F F I C E O F T H E P R E S I D E N T

D I V I S I O N O F L E G A L A F F A I R S

D I V I S I O N O F A C A D E M I C A F F A I R S

D I V I S I O N O F R E S E A R C H

D I V I S I O N O F E N T E R P R I S E I N F O R M A T I O N …

D I V I S I O N O F U N I V E R S I T Y R E L A T I O N S O R …

D I V I S I O N O F A U D I T A N D C O M P L I A N C E

D I V I S I O N O F S T U D E N T A F F A I R S

D I V I S I O N O F F I N A N C E A N D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

33.33%

9.09%

27.12%

70.00%

33.33%

44.44%

0.00%

21.57%

13.64%

66.67%

90.91%

72.88%

30.00%

66.67%

55.56%

100.00%

76.47%

86.36%

% Not Met % Met



Institutional Level Assessment Activities

This section of the 2015-2016 OUA Annual Report highlights key findings from a variety of inventories

designed to provide deeper insights into the experiences, disposition, skills and abilities of FAMU students.

Discussed within this section are key findings from the following instruments: FAMU Graduate Exit Survey

and the ETS Proficiency Profile. For a comprehensive report of the findings from these instruments, please

contact the Office of University Assessment at [email protected].

EXIT SURVEY

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) exit survey is designed to capture graduating

students’ perceptions of their collegiate experiences and future plans. The survey specifically seeks

respondents’ perceptions of their experiences as it relates to learning outcomes, student support services,

facilities, availability of services, major field of study, among other items deemed important to the university.

This report provides a summary of exit survey data collected over the last three academic years. Following

is a descriptive summary of the total number of graduates and response rates to the exit survey.

Table 9. Exit Survey Response Rates

Academic Year Total Number of

Graduates

Response Rate

2015-2016 2,593 88.3%

2014-2015 2,107 95.2%

2013-2014 2,197 92.9%

Table 10 provides a longitudinal summary of the results for select items from the exit survey. The rows

highlighted in gray reflect the summary results for each category in the survey. These numbers represent an

average for all items within that category. Items in which average scores are ≤ 60% for service areas are

bold and italicized.

Table 10. Summary of Exit Survey Results (2013-2016)

Select Items

FAMU Results

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondents

(n)


Student Support Services* 1996 63.25% 1977 66.7% 2269 70.0%

Registration Process 2001 76.06% 1981 79.5% 2267 82.0%

Financial Aid Process 1996 32.31% 1978 39.1% 2266 47.0%

Grade Reporting Process 1994 79.59% 1977 80.2% 2272 83.0%

Advising Process 1991 65.04% 1972 67.9% 2271 68.0%

Facilities* 1998 78.48% 1976 81.6% 2264 82.4%

mailto:[email protected]



Select Items

FAMU Results

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondents

(n)


Classroom facilities 2003 83.08% 1981 85.8% 2265 85.0%

Computing facilities 1999 77.39% 1975 80.7% 2262 83.0%

Dining facilities 2001 65.27% 1979 74.3% 2263 74.0%

Recreational facilities 1998 76.93% 1973 78.9% 2260 81.0%

University bookstore 1997 79.67% 1975 83.0% 2265 84.0%

University libraries 1995 87.97% 1973 89.4% 2268 90.0%

Fitness/Exercise facilities 1996 79.11% 1975 79.1% 2268 80.0%

Departments at FAMU* 1997 60.41% 1974 65.6% 2258 67.0%

Campus Police 2001 66.62% 1980 72.9% 2258 73.0%

Office of Financial Aid 1995 33.63% 1974 40.9% 2258 48.0%

Office of Food Services 2000 55.00% 1972 63.6% 2261 65.0%

Housing Office 1997 44.97% 1969 52.7% 2254 56.0%

Office of Parking Services 1995 42.76% 1976 47.8% 2255 45.0%

Registrar's Office 1996 73.40% 1969 76.2% 2259 78.0%

Your major program's department office

1999 79.14% 1973 81.5% 2259 82.0%

Library Services 1992 87.75% 1978 89.3% 2262 89.0%

Select Items

FAMU Results

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondent

s (n)


Total Respondents

(n)


Availability of Services* 1998 63.17% 1976 68.9% 2256 70.8%

Availability to obtain desired classes

2001 69.57% 1981 73.6% 2258 77.0%

Availability of student parking 1996 26.35% 1975 32.5% 2254 33.0%

Size of classrooms 1997 83.73% 1975 86.6% 2253 88.0%

Quality of food served on campus

2000 59.45% 1977 68.4% 2251 70.0%

Student Government Association

2001 52.92% 1978 58.2% 2255 57.0%

Your Campus Email Account 1992 61.50% 1977 72.6% 2257 78.0%

Campus Radio Station 1993 62.52% 1968 68.5% 2258 72.0%

The value of your FAMU degree 2002 89.26% 1976 90.7% 2259 91.0%



Select Items

Total Respondent

s (n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Total Respondent

s (n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Total Respondents

(n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Educational Outcomes* 1980 92.66% 1968 94.3% 2259 95.0%

Communication 1884 94.16% 1973 95.5% 2262 95.0%

Critical Thinking 1996 95.34% 1975 96.6% 2260 97.0%

Technology Literacy 1996 86.47% 1972 89.1% 2259 91.0%

Collaboration 1999 94.90% 1966 96.0% 2257 96.0%

Ethical Values 1997 91.99% 1968 94.1% 2260 95.0%

Life-long Learning 1998 93.09% 1963 94.5% 2258 95.0%

Cultural Diversity 1990 92.76% 1958 94.1% 2260 96.0%

Select Items

FAMU Results 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondents

(n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Total Respondents

(n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Total Respondent

s (n)

% Strongly Agree &

Somewhat Agree

Major Field of Study* 1985 89.23% 1964 89.7% 2259 89.3% I have obtained a sense of competence in my major field of study.

1989 96.08% 1968 96.5% 2261 96.0%

I have acquired the ability to apply theoretical knowledge to a practical situation.

1985 96.68% 1967 96.9% 2256 97.0%

I feel my major field of study was intellectually challenging.

1985 94.76% 1961 94.4% 2259 94.0%

I feel my major field of study was easily done academically.

1981 69.36% 1960 70.8% 2260 70.0%

Item 31 from the exit survey asked respondents – “Please indicate to what extent the following items were important in your decision to attend FAMU:” Results are summarized below.

Select Items

FAMU Results

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Respondent

s (n)

% Very Important & Somewhat Important

Total Responde

nts (n)


Total Responde

nts (n)


Collegiate Experience* 1993 55.67% 1970 55.7% 2247 71.0%

Intercollegiate athletics 1996 30.01% 1968 35.2% 2252 46.0%

On-Campus Social Events 1995 44.81% 1976 47.2% 2252 63.0%

Student Clubs and Organizations 1985 50.83% 1971 52.8% 2235 69.0%

Reputation of the Degree Programs

1991 83.22% 1962 57.3% 2242 89.0%

Reputation of Florida A&M University

1996 83.87% 1973 85.9% 2254 88.0%



Item 36 from the exit survey asked respondents – “How confident are you about your ability to find a job related to your major area of study after earning your degree from FAMU?” Results are summarized below.

Employment

Select Items

FAMU Results 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Responden

ts(n) %

Total Respondent

s (n) %

Total Respondents

(n) %

I have already accepted a job offer

238 12.00% 262 13.3% 352 15.6%

Very confident 707 35.64% 678 34.5% 747 33.1% Confident 469 23.64% 449 22.9% 538 23.9% Somewhat confident 474 23.89% 483 24.6% 496 22.0% Not confident at all 96 4.84% 92 4.7% 122 5.4% Item 38 from the exit survey asked respondents – “Would you recommend Florida A&M University (FAMU) to others who may be interested in your field of study?” Results are summarized below.

Likelihood of Recommending FAMU to Others

Select Items

FAMU Results 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Responden

ts (n) %

Total Respondent

s (n) %

Total Respondents

(n) %

Yes 1747 87.31% 1217 74.7% 2052 91.0% No 254 12.69% 413 25.3% 202 9.0%

Note: (*) Represents the average number of students and their corresponding scores for topical area.

ETS PROFICIENCY PROFILE

The ETS Proficiency Profile (EPP) is a General Education knowledge and skills test that is designed to

measure critical thinking and college-level reading, writing, and mathematical skills in the contexts of the

humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. In an effort to evaluate General Education learning

outcomes, the University currently requires students to take the EPP at entry (freshmen) and exit (senior)

levels. The EPP is administered twice a year, to incoming freshmen in the fall semester and to graduating

seniors in the spring semester. Within the past five years (fall 2011 – spring 2016), (n=2,017) freshmen

and (n=1,729) seniors have participated in the EPP test.


calculated for (n=571) of those students who completed 75% or more of the test items. The total mean score

for the incoming freshmen was (M=431.38, SD=15.66) based on a 400-500 range. In spring 2016, (n=273)

out of (N=904) graduating seniors took the EPP. Results were calculated for (n=237) students who



A comparative analysis of FAMU scores to those of the ETS provided National Averages, Carnegie

classification of doctoral institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) taken as group,

and institutions in the State University System (SUS) of Florida to include institutional peers was completed.

This comparison revealed that the average scaled scores for both incoming freshmen and graduating seniors

were below the national average and the group of institutions in the SUS who participated in the test. Table

11 provides a comparative analysis of the performance of incoming freshmen and graduating seniors.



Table 11. Comparative Summary of Student Performance on ETS Proficiency Profile for period (2011-2016)

Skill Dimension

National Carnegie HBCU SUS/Inst. Peers FAMU

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Incoming Freshmen Total Score

436.40 18.5 441.00 19.7 427.40 13.8 436.70 17.3 431.16 16.23

Graduating Seniors Total Score

445.60 20.7 450.00 21.7 433.10 17.8 446.40 20.5 432.59 18.97

The results of the ETS Proficiency Profile continues to confirm that our students are entering the university

with serious deficiencies in all skill areas as reported by the proportion of incoming freshmen who were

classified as proficient on the test. Equally concerning, is the proportion of graduating seniors who were

classified as proficient in the skill areas measured by the test. Since 2009, less than 55% of FAMU

graduating seniors were classified as proficient in the skill areas measured by the test. Additionally, less

than 8% of graduating seniors completing the test were scored proficient in Critical Thinking, Writing Level

3 and Mathematics Level 3. It is clear that more emphasis across degree programs should be placed on

remediating and developing/enhancing the competencies measured by the test. In general education

courses, in addition to upper division courses, these skill sets should be heavily emphasized. The OUA

strongly encourages Colleges/Schools to engage their students around the importance of taking this test

seriously. Performance on the test is a reflection on what students learn at FAMU.

You can access a copy of the full report by going to www.famu.edu/assessment. It is our hope that you will

find the report meaningful and empowering in efforts to improve the academic performance of our students.

http://www.famu.edu/

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES ACTIVITIES/UPDATES


Office of University Assessment Activities/Updates

RESULTS OF OUA FOCUSED OBJECTIVES FOR 2015-2016 ASSESSMENT CYCLE

During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Office of University Assessment focused on four core objectives,

namely:

Objective 1: Enhancing the culture of assessment by improving ratings of performance appraisals for

Divisions/Colleges/Schools based on assessment activities by one rating level.

Objective 2: Enhancing the electronic monitoring database for assessment reports to improve the review

process of and communications about submitted documents by implementing a new online database


Objective 3: Increasing the university’s understanding of assessment best practices as evident by the

quality of assessment reports submitted.

Objective 4: Increasing data reporting and recommendations for improvements provided to university


Based on reflective practice, the OUA was satisfied with performance relative to the above mentioned

objectives. Following are results associated with each objective.

Objective 1: Enhancing the culture of assessment by improving ratings of performance appraisals for

Divisions/Colleges/Schools based on assessment activities by one rating level.

a. The criterion was met. 100% of Deans and VPs were provided an evaluation of the assessment

processes in their area by June 2015.

b. The average rating on the assessment evaluations was 3.71 for the Deans and 3.30 for the VPs.

This represents an overall average rating of 3.51. This measure will be used to evaluate

assessment objectives during the course of the next assessment cycle. The target performance

level will be increased to 3.65.

c. 100% of respondents who completed the ASSQ "Strongly Agreed" or "Agreed" that they were

satisfied with the information provided by our office.

Objective 2: Enhancing the electronic monitoring database for assessment reports to improve the review

process of and communications about submitted documents by implementing a new online database


d. An implementation plan and training schedule was developed and executed for the academic

year to introduce the university community to LiveText AIS.

e. The pilot group consisted of ILAC members. Training was held in February 2016. All

Colleges/Schools were trained by May 2016. All Divisions were trained by July 2016. The

university has fully transitioned to a web-based platform for assessment reporting effective for

the 2015-2016, 2016-2017 assessment cycle.

f. 100% of faculty and staff who completed the early adopter training evaluation form "Strongly

Agreed" or "Agreed" that they were satisfied with the new web-based system. The OUA will



continue to monitor stakeholders’ perceptions of their experience interfacing with the new

system.

Objective 3: Increasing the university’s understanding of assessment best practices as evident by the

quality of assessment reports submitted.

g. The OUA hosted two Assessment Open Labs for Assessment Coordinators in October 2015. A

workshop on closing the loop was held on February 10th, 2016. The OUA will stretch the

targeted performance level for this measure to 4 general assessment workshops for the 2016-

2017 assessment cycle.

h. No data was collected in relation to the assessment report quality rubric as the OUA was

focused on fully transitioning the university to the web-based assessment system over the

course of the assessment cycle. The Quality Rubric for the evaluation of assessment

plans/reports will be revised and uploaded to AIS by October 1, 2017.

i. 99% of faculty and staff who completed the Workshop Evaluation Form "Strongly Agreed" or

"Agreed" that they were satisfied with the workshop/training session. The OUA will stretch the

target performance level for this measure to 98% for the next assessment cycle.

Objective 4: Increasing data reporting and recommendations for improvements provided to university


j. Four reports were disseminated to the University community during the 2015-2016 academic

year. Exit Survey reports were completed for the summer and fall of 2015, and spring 2016 for

all Colleges/Schools. Additionally, a 5 year longitudinal Exit Survey report was prepared and

disseminated to the University community. The OUA will stretch the target performance level to

at least 4 reports for the next assessment cycle.

k. 100% of faculty and staff who completed the ASSQ “Strongly Agreed" or "Agreed" that they

were satisfied with the data provided by the OUA staff. The OUA will continue to monitor

stakeholders’ perceptions of their experience interfacing with the OUA staff over the course of

the next assessment cycle.

Based on performance, there was one area in which the targeted performance level was not achieved (i.e.

evaluating assessment reports and plans with the Quality Rubric in support of improving the quality of

reports and plans submitted during the annual process). The OUA has put a plan in place to ensure that the

quality rubric is revised and uploaded in the Assessment Insight System by October 1, 2017. This will help

to support meaningful feedback provided to units in addition to improving the quality of reports and plans

submitted to the OUA. In the 2016-2017 Assessment cycle, the OUA will continue to monitor stakeholders’

perceptions of their experiences interfacing with the new assessment insight system in addition to their

experiences interfacing with the OUA.

WORKSHOPS/TRAINING SESSIONS

In an effort to build the University’s capacity for assessment that matters, the OUA facilitated Assessment

workshops and targeted individual training sessions with Assessment Coordinators and others responsible

for the assessment process within their units across the university. The purpose of these workshops and

training sessions were as follows:



a) Reinforce Assessment Coordinators understanding of the FAMU-STARS Assessment Process.

b) Build capacity around Curriculum and Assessment Mapping.

c) Work with units to develop effective Student Learning Outcome Statements.

d) Closing the loop on the assessment process.

The workshops and training sessions afforded participants the opportunity to engage in meaningful ways

with the OUA staff as we work to broaden our impact on assessment across the university. The targeted

training sessions were well received. Over the course of the 2015-2016 academic year, a total of (N=3)

general assessment workshops were conducted not to include the many individual targeted training

sessions facilitated by the OUA staff. There was a general consensus among the participants that the

workshops were helpful in improving their understanding of best practices in assessment. Participants also

stated that among others, the most beneficial aspect of the workshops were the practice components and

the opportunity to work in groups and exchange ideas around assessment. Based on the success of this

approach in engaging the university community around quality assessment, the OUA will continue this

format during the course of the next assessment cycle.

The information below provides a summary of participants’ perceptions of their experiences relative to the

workshops. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with statements pertaining to the

workshop on a four point Likert-scale ranging from Strongly Agree (4) to Strongly Disagree (1). Please refer

to the information below for a summary of the results.

Table 12. Summary 2015-2016 OUA Training Session Evaluation (Items 1-6)

Survey Items n % Strongly

Agree/Agree 1) The presentation materials provided will be useful in helping me with assessment in my unit. 209 99.05%

2) The speaker(s) seemed knowledgeable of the discussion topics.

209 99.04%

3) The discussion topics were relevant to assessment. 209 99.04%

4) I found the topics discussed during the session to be applicable to my work and responsibilities. 208 99.04%

5) The knowledge and skills I learned in this training session will inform the assessment process in my unit. 209 98.57%

6) Overall I am satisfied with the quality of today’s session. 209 99.04%

There were several open-ended items on the OUA Training Session Evaluation Survey which afforded

participants an opportunity to provide text feedback. For a copy of the comprehensive findings of this

survey, please contact the Office of University Assessment at [email protected]

The last item on the survey asked respondents to rate their likelihood of recommending the workshops to

colleagues on a 10 point scale with anchored responses ranging from Not at all Likely (1) to Extremely

Likely (10). The mean rating for this item was 9.91, SD=1.48.

mailto:[email protected]



ASSQ SUMMARY RESULTS

The 2015-2016 Assessment Support Service Questionnaire (ASSQ) was launched August 10th, 2016 via an

on-line survey platform namely (Qualtrics). The survey was designed to capture respondents’ perceptions

of their experiences with various aspects of the assessment process and services provided by the Office of

University Assessment (OUA). Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with various

statements related to the services provided by the OUA on a four point Likert scale ranging from strongly

agree to strongly disagree. If the respondent sample could not assess a particular item, there was an option

of “Not Applicable”. The instrument was distributed electronically to (N=184) individuals who play a role

in assessment at the program and administrative and support unit levels. Of those individuals who received

a copy of the survey, (n=60) responded to the instrument which represents a response rate of 32.6%.

Overall, the respondents’ perceptions of the quality of services provided by the OUA team was favorable.

The information below, provides a detailed summary of respondents’ responses to items from the survey.

Table 13. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 1: Feedback and Assistance from the Office of

University Assessment (OUA) staff


Agree/Agree I find the Office of University Assessment Staff to be professional and courteous.

60 100.00%

Overall, I am satisfied with the Office of University Assessment feedback and assistance.

60 100.00%

The Office of University Assessment staff addressed any questions or concerns to my satisfaction.

60 100.00%

The Office of University Assessment staff provides timely response to requests for information and feedback.

60 100.00%

Table 14. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 2: The FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach


Agree/Agree The FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach is easy to apply. 59 91.53% The FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach effectively documents the assessment process for my college/school/program/unit.

59 88.14%

The FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach facilitates the continuous improvement of my college/school/program/unit.

58 87.93%

Table 15. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 3: How can the FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach

be improved?

1. Automated/online collection of raw data.

2. Mr. George Pinkney was a great facilitator. Very helpful and great to work with.

3. We just need to diligently use STARS. Through consistent and diligent use, we will be able to see the value of STARS and can see more clearly how it can be improved. My focus right now is to use it.

4. Anything can be improved. The OUA has always tried to ensure that the best possible software is being provided to its university constituents.



5. This process could be simplified.

6. Frequent training and updates with each college and/or school.

7. I am still learning about STARS.

8. Improvement in the process requires improvement in the locally selected assessments. In order for this to work, there should be a way to modify what is being assessed during the assessment period.

9. Help identify easier and consistent methods data collection for programs that have an undergraduate and graduate component where the program (primary faculty) have no influence or access on undergraduate course metrics. To date, this process has been difficult to navigate for the Division of Physical Therapy's graduate program and its undergraduate program, Pre-Physical Therapy Health Science degree

10. Continue to engage assessment coordinators and deans in the process. Regular training and random one-on-one sessions with deans/directors and coordinators are important. Immediate feedback/review of plans/reports submitted to ensure alignment with institution's mission.

11. The web interface was not intuitive.

12. The process is pretty seamless and extremely practical.

Table 16. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 4: Please choose from below options


Agree/Agree I found the assessment session(s) to be informative. 55 96.36% I found the topics discussed during the session(s) to be applicable to my work and responsibilities.

55 94.54%

Overall, I am satisfied with the assessment training that I received. 55 98.18%

Table 17. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 5: Office of University Assessment Website


Agree/Agree The website is easy to access and navigate. 53 94.34% The website contains useful assessment information. 54 96.30% I frequently refer to the website for assessment resources. 53 64.15%

Table 18. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 6: How can the Office of University Assessment

website be improved?

1. FAMU's websites are generally clunky and not user friendly. Trusting that the OUA site will be enhanced with the new university website upgrades.

2. No improvements noted.

3. The website is an excellent source for our faculty members; however, I will like to see more webinars on the site that contain past workshops and trainings hosted by the Office of University Assessment.

4. I have not visited the website until recently. Therefore, I am unable to give a fair assessment of it.



Table 19. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 7: Assessment Support Services


Agree/Agree Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of services (i.e. trainings and survey design/administration) provided by the Office of University Assessment.

57 100.00%

Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of support (i.e. accreditation preparation and data analysis) offered by the Office of University Assessment.

57 100.00%

Table 20. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 8: How can the Office of University Assessment be of

greater service to you?

1. Website design needs more buy-in from core users

2. Make things more simple

3. Provide more training

4. At this time, they are doing a wonderful job.

5. Engage in frequent communication.

6. Make the assessment training online.

7. Keep doing a great job!

8. Nothing.-You guys are doing service delivery exceptionally well over there. Thanks!!

Table 21. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 9: What assessment training would you like to

receive?

1. Rubric design 2. n/a 3. STARS 4. The training currently being provided is great. 5. None at this time. 6. STARS



Figure 3. Graphical Representation of Respondents Responses to Question 10 – Current position/function at

FAMU.

Table 22. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 10: Current position/function (please select all that

apply.

Responses % Count Dean/Director/VP/AVP 20.69% 12 Associate/Assistant Dean/Director 22.41% 13 Department Chair 8.62% 5 Faculty 39.66% 23 Staff 12.07% 7 Responsible for completing assessment plans and reports 24.14% 14 Total 100% 58



Figure 4. Graphical Representation of Respondents Responses to Question 11 – Assessment Committee

Memberships (please select all that apply)

Table 23. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 11: Assessment Committee Memberships (please

select all that apply.

Responses % Count Institutional Level Assessment Committee (ILAC) member 33.33% 8 General Education Assessment Committee (GEAC) member 8.33% 2 College Level Assessment Committee or School Level Assessment Committee (CLAC/SLAC) member

66.67% 16

Administrative and Educational Support Services Divisional Assessment Committee (AESDAC) member

29.17% 7

Total 100% 24

Table 24. Descriptive Summary of Responses - Question 12: To which of the following functional areas do

you belong?

Responses % Count Instructional Programs (IP) 56.36% 31 Administrative and Educational Support Units (ADESU) 43.64% 24 Total 100% 55



Assessment Committees Activities/Updates

This section of the 2015-2016 OUA Annual Report provides an update on activities carried out by University

level assessment committees to include the General Education Assessment Committee (GEAC) and the

Institutional Level Assessment Committee (ILAC).

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES/UPDATES

The General Education Assessment Committee (GEAC) continues to fulfill its charge with a specific focus in

developing, implementing, and monitoring the General Education assessment processes for the University.

During the 2015-2016 academic year, the main focus in General Education Assessment was to collect

artifacts and data in preparation for the SACSCOC 2018 Reaffirmation. The following summarizes the

activities of the GEAC.

Determined University general education requirements as mandated by recent legislation (BOG Regulation 8.005)

Completed Focus Groups Clarified which courses corresponded to the five competencies Collected student artifacts and conducted evaluation for assessment purposes Provided updates to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee • Provided regular GEAC updates/ reports to the Institutional Level Assessment Committee during

the 2015 – 2016 academic year • Planning continued for the SACSCOC 2018 Reaffirmation.

General Education Institution Portfolios 2015-2016

Social & Ethical Responsibility 2015-2016

In 2015-2016 99 artifacts were collected from PHI 3601 Ethics courses and evaluated using the five point

rubric (5-Excellent, 4-Good, 3-Average, 2-Below Average, and 1-Unacceptable). The artifacts consisted

of argumentative papers. Papers scored at Excellent, Good or Average are ranked as (1-competent) while

those ranked at Below Average or Unacceptable are ranked as (2-not competent).



Figure 5. Breakdown by score Legend - 5-Excellent, 4-Good, 3-Average, 2-Below Average, and 1-Unacceptable

Figure 6. Breakdown by Competence Legend- 1-competent, 2-not competent

11%

23%

41%

22%

3%

2015-2016 Student Performance Rating - Social & Ethical Responsibility

5 4 3 2 1

75%

25%

2015-2016 Competency Rating - Social & Ethical Responsibility

Competent Not



ETS Proficiency Profile Results 2015

Following is a summary of students’ performance on the ETS Proficiency Profile.

Communication

The targeted performance level for this competency was for FAMU students to score at minimum the

national sample mean in the areas of reading (M=120.10) and writing (M=115.63).

Actual Results: The mean score for FAMU students’ was (115.46) in reading and (112.74) in writing. The

national sample mean score was (120.10) in reading and (115.63) in writing. Based on these results,

targeted performance levels were not achieved.

Critical Thinking


national sample mean (i.e. M=112.90).

Actual Result: The mean for FAMU students was (108.60) in the area of critical thinking. The national

sample mean score was (112.90). Based on this result, targeted performance level was not achieved.

Quantitative Reasoning



Actual Result: The mean score for FAMU students was (110.90) in the area of quantitative reasoning. The

national sample mean score was (111.20). Based on this result, targeted performance level was not

achieved.

ETS Proficiency Profile Results 2016

Communication


national sample mean in the areas of reading (M=118.40) and writing (M=114.5).

Actual Results: The mean scores for FAMU students was (113.27) in reading and (110.99) in writing. The

national sample mean score was (118.4) in reading and (114.5) in writing. Based on these results, targeted

performance levels were not achieved.

Critical Thinking



Actual Result: The mean score for FAMU students was (107.49) in the area of critical thinking. The national




Quantitative Reasoning



Actual Result: The mean score for FAMU students was (111.38) in the area of mathematics. The national


Focus Groups 2015-2016

Focus groups were conducted in 2015-2016; but the sessions are still being transcribed.

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES/UPDATES

The Institutional Level Assessment Committee (ILAC) continued to monitor the assessment activities of the

university at the institutional level during the 2015-2016 academic year. The committee successfully held

meetings during which they discussed, approved and advanced recommendations on important issues

regarding the University's assessment activities and processes. The committee met regularly during the fall

and spring semesters. A total of five meetings were held during the academic year. The following table

provides a list of tasks that were addressed during the academic year. Please be advised that some activities

will be on-going and will continue beyond the current year.

Table 25. ILAC 2015-2016 Activities

Task Purpose of Task Action Item Outcomes Senior Exit Survey

Purpose was to update Senior Exit Survey and create alignment with the goals of the university concerning student academic outcomes and activities – link results to tangible outcomes.

The committee reviewed and approved recommended changes to the exit survey. Two questions on the survey were revised. Revisions will take effect Summer 2016.

Assessment Reporting Process

Review the new web-based system that will be used to collect and review assessment reports and plans.

The committee reviewed and approved the use of a new assessment platform, LiveText AIS, for the university. The pilot group consisted of ILAC members. Training was held in February 2016. Feedback was provided to the OUA for improvements. All Colleges/Schools were trained by May 2016. All Divisions were trained by July 2016. The university has fully transitioned to the web-based platform for assessment effective for the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 assessment cycle.

Assessment Release Time

Develop recommendation for instructional faculty who are responsible for the assessment process in their programs to receive release time for their efforts.

The committee revisited and approved the recommendation for faculty to receive course release time for assessment efforts. The recommendation will be presented to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.



Licensure/Certification Examination Pass Rates

This section of the report highlights pass rates on licensure/certification examinations. The Board of

Governors (BOG) for the Florida State University System (SUS), monitors the progress of performance on

licensing and certification exams for select baccalaureate and professional programs in which licensure is

required to practice in the field. In addition to progress monitored by the BOG, FAMU Board of Trustees

(BOT) has established increasing pass rates on licensure examinations and set target pass rates for the

programs in which passing licensure or certification is a condition of employment in the field. To meet the

BOT’s goals, each academic program developed detailed plans with various strategies on how it plans to

achieve the stated goals. Table 26 provides a summary of FAMU Licensure/Certification pass rates by

program.

AREAS REQUIRING LICENSURE/CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION

College of Education o Counselor Education (M.S. /M.Ed.) o Early Childhood Education (B.S.) o Educational Leadership (M.S.) o Elementary Education (B.S.) o Social Science Education o Theatre Education o Biology Education o English Education o Math Education o Music Education o Physical Education (B.S.)

College of Law o Law

College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences o Pharmacy (Pharm. D.)

School of Nursing o Nursing (B.S.)

School of Allied Health o Health Informatics and Information Management (B.S.) o Cardiopulmonary Science (B.S.)

Table 26. Florida A&M University Licensure Exam Pass Rates: First-Time Test Takers

Nursing: National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Examinees 72 73 84 82 75 73 36 First-time Pass Rate 85% 85% 90% 74% 64% 78.08% *75.68% State Benchmark 89% 88% 86% 77% 73% 72.02% *72.02% National Benchmark 89% 89% 92% 85% 85%% 87% Accreditation Standard At or above the National Average

1st Quarter Results



Law: Florida Bar Exam

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Examinees 108 144 123 175 157 122 First-time Pass Rate 61% 63% 67% 73% 73% 66% State Benchmark* (Florida schools only)

79% 82% 81% 80% 74% 69%

State Benchmark (Overall)

78% 80% 79% 78% 72% 68%

National Benchmark (As reported by the National Bar Examiner)

74%

Accreditation Standard 75% ultimate pass rate over the last five years

Pharmacy: North American Pharmacist Licensure Exam

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Examinees 133 142 130 123 124 129 First-time Pass Rate 72% 87% 88% 85% 89% 85% National Benchmark 94% 96% 97% 96% 95% 93% Accreditation Standard Within 2 standard deviations of the national average for first-time test takers

Physical Therapy: National Physical Therapy Examinations1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Examinees 13 13 19 26 25 25 First-time Pass Rate 54% 39% 53% 46% 76% 64%* Overall Pass Rate - - - 73% 88% 64%* State Benchmark - - 77% 85% 94% - National Benchmark 87% 89% 88% 90% 91% 93% Accreditation Standard Three year ultimate pass rate of at least 80%.

*Note: 9 students have not taken the exam as 10/27/15. Note: Although the pass rates shown in the table are

low, the program is in compliance because it meet the accreditation standard for licensure pass rates, which is

80% over the last three years based on overall pass rates, not first-time.

Physical Therapy: National Physical Therapy Examinations2 Cont.…

2006-08 2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12 2011-13 2012-14 Examinees 52 58 59 40 45 58 70 First-time Pass Rate 33% 40% 45% 48% 47% 46% 58% Overall/Ultimate Pass Rate

89% 84%

National Benchmark

86% 87% 87% 89% 89% 89% 90%



Physical Therapy Tables

1 The first table provides data on the # of examinees and the percent of students who passed on their first

attempt, secondly, the overall pass rate provides the data on the graduating class who took the exam and

passed, regardless of the number of attempts taken.

2 The second table provides a three-year average of students in the graduating classes (year provided) who

took the exam and passed their first time. Also, this is how the University reports the pass rates in the

Annual Accountability Report.

Occupational Therapy: National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy Exam

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Examinees 14 12 5 12 24 - First-time Pass Rate 2% 50% 20% NA* NA - New Graduate Pass Rate --- ---- --- 92% 92% - National Benchmark 81% 81% 81% 81% -* -* Accreditation Standard 80% pass rate w/i one-year of graduation

*Note: *Beginning 2013, pass rates are calculated based on new graduates within 12-months of graduation

rather than first-time pass rates. New graduate pass rates may include multiple attempts. National average

pass rate is no longer calculated based on changes to accrediting agency.

Cardiopulmonary Science: National Board for Respiratory Care Examination

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Examinees 11 8 23 21 10 14* First-time Pass Rate 73% 38% 70% 86% 100% 100% Overall Pass Rate 90.9% 62.5% 78.3% 90.5% 100% 100% National Benchmark 88% 76% 85% 79% 85% 98% Accreditation Standard 80% for the last three years

*Note: 2015 graduates yet to take the exam. N=15.

College of Education Licensure Pass Rates 2010-2016 (First Attempt)

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2010-2016

FTCE % N % N % N % N % N % N % N Math Ed NA 0 NA 0 100 2 NA 0 0 1 NA 0 67 3 Music Ed 75 4 50 6 100 3 100 2 44 9 75 4 64 28 Social Sciences Ed 100 3 80 5 20 5 0 3 50 2 100 1 53 19 School Psych 100 1 100 2 50 2 NA 0 100 1 NA 0 83 6 Art Ed 100 1 0 1 Inactive 50 2 Biology Ed NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 2 NA 0 0 2 Chemistry Ed NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 0 English Ed NA 0 33 3 0 1 NA 0 100 1 NA 0 40 5 English Ed Multiple Choice

0 2 NA 0 0 2*

English Ed Written 1 2 NA 0 0 2* Physics Ed NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 0 Theatre Ed 100 1 100 1 Inactive 100 2 Counselor Ed 67 3 100 2 100 4 67 3 NA 0 100 2 86 14



2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2010-2016

Elementary Ed 57 21 75 12 60 20 86 21 69 74 Subtest 1 67 27 60 5 66 32* Subtest 2 56 27 40 5 53 32* Subtest 3 67 27 60 5 66 32* Subtest 4 56 27 80 5 59 32* Early Childhood 100 3 100 2 100 1 90 20* 92 26 Subtest 1 60 5 100 6 82 11 Subtest 2 60 5 100 6 81 11 Subtest 3 60 5 50 6 55 11 Subtest 4 80 5 83 6 82 11 Business Ed 0 1 100 1 Inactive 50 2 Ed Lead 67 15 58 12 78 18 67 21 68 66* Subtest 1 100 4 100 1 100 5* Subtest 2 75 4 0 1 60 5* Subtest 3 Multiple Choice

75 4 0 1 60 5*

Subtest 3 Written

100 1 100 1 100 2*

Physical Ed 67 9 20 5 60 5 54 13 0 1 50 2 51 35 Technology Ed NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 General Knowledge Subtest 1 75 53 64 53 70 106 Subtest 2 66 58 43 53 55 111 Subtest 3 70 61 49 53 61 114 Subtest 4 66 64 36 53 53 117 Professional Knowledge

53 43 24 25 43 68

*FELE is a 3-part exam. Each part was counted by subtests. *Early Childhood became a 4-part examination in summer 2013 and was counted by subtests. *Elementary Education became a 4-part examination in spring 2014 and was counted by subtests. *English Education became a 2-part exam in spring 2015 and was counted by subtests. *General Knowledge is a 4-part examination and was counted by subtests.



Summary of Key University Assessment Findings and

Recommendations

The following are a summary of key university assessment findings.

Collaborative Efforts

To build capacity for assessment that matters, the OUA facilitates Assessment training sessions with all

Assessment Coordinators and others responsible for assessment within their units across the university.

During the 2015-2016 academic year, the OUA hosted several workshops and training sessions that focused

on the FAMU-STARS Assessment Approach, Outcome Development, Closing the Loop in the Assessment

Process, and Grading Rubrics. An assessment open lab was also held in the 2015-2016 academic year to

assist faculty and staff in completing their annual assessment reports and plans. There was a general

consensus among the participants that the sessions were helpful in increasing their understanding of the

assessment process and best practices. As we continue to improve the assessment process at FAMU, the

OUA will continue to offer more in-depth, topic specific workshops for programs and departments.

Assessment Status Reports

Assessment reports are meant to highlight progress made in assessment efforts. It is recommended that

each unit use their assessment report and results to celebrate achievements as well as to identify potential

areas for future improvement. The percentages represented are reflective of the annual October 31st

submission deadline.

Table 27. Assessment Report Submission Rates

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

Instructional Programs 54% 63% 73% 49% 62% 70% IP (N) 104 112 105 101 103 102 Research 58% 50% 85% 38% 62% 38% RS (N) 12 12 13 13 13 13 Community/Public Service 58% 58% 85% 38% 62% 54% CS/PS (N) 12 12 13 13 13 13 Administrative Units and Educational Support Services

48% 61% 58% 44% 38% 67%

ADESU (N) 52 53 52 50 47 52

The OUA promotes assessment for continuous improvement and as such, we are emphasizing timely

submissions for the 2016-2017 reporting cycle. As a reminder, all assessment reports and plans are

due to the OUA on or before October 31, 2017. We will continue to push for 100% submission and

encourage units to make assessment a natural part of their daily routine.



ASSQ Summary Results

The 2015-2016 Assessment Support Service Questionnaire (ASSQ) was launched on August 10th, 2016 via

an on-line survey platform namely (Qualtrics). The instrument was distributed electronically to (N=184)

individuals who play a role in assessment at the program and administrative and support unit levels. Of

those individuals who received a copy of the survey, (n=60) responded to the instrument which represents

a response rate of 32.6%.

For 2015-2016, the OUA will be focused on improving response rates for this instrument. We have

set a bold target of 50% response rate for the 2016-2017 administration of this instrument.

University Exit Survey

During the 2015-2016 academic year, (N=2,593) students graduated from the university. Of this

population, (n=2,290) students responded to the University exit survey representing an overall response

rate of 88.3%. Following is a summary of items with the highest and lowest levels of satisfaction reported

by students graduating in the 2015-2016 academic year. The OUA strongly encourages the Division of

Student Affairs to review the longitudinal results from the Graduate Exit Survey and

plan/implement strategies to increase students’ level of satisfaction with areas of opportunity.

Historically, the areas receiving the lowest levels of satisfaction (see Table 28) are consistent from

one year to the next.

Table 28. Exit Survey highest and lowest levels of satisfaction

Survey Item n

% Very Satisfied / Somewhat Satisfied

Areas with Highest Levels of Satisfaction

Value of FAMU Degree 2,259 91%

University Libraries (Facilities) 2,268 90%

Library Services 2,262 89%

Size of classrooms 2,253 88%

Classroom facilities 2,265 85%

Areas with Lowest Levels of Satisfaction

Availability of student parking 2,254 33%

Office of Parking Services 2,255 45%

Financial Aid Process 2,266 47%

Office of Financial Aid 2,258 48%

Housing Office 2,254 56%

Educational Testing Service (ETS) Proficiency Profile

The ETS Proficiency Profile is designed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) as a measure of college-

level reading, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking in the context of the humanities, social sciences,

and natural sciences. The Proficiency Profile is designed for colleges and universities as a means to assess

general education outcomes.




calculated for (n=571) of those students who completed 75% or more of the test items. The total mean

score for the incoming freshmen was (M=431.38, SD=15.66) based on a 400-500 range. In spring 2016,

(n=273) out of (N=904) graduating seniors took the EPP. Results were calculated for (n=237) students who



Assuming a four year graduation for the cohort of incoming freshmen who took the test in 2012, overall

mean performance between incoming freshmen (M=431.26) and graduating seniors (M=429.57) showed a

marginal decrease (i.e. 1.69 scaled score points). Similarly, assuming a six year graduation for the cohort of

incoming freshmen who took the test in 2010, overall mean performance between incoming freshmen

(M=429.67) and graduating seniors (M=429.57) also showed a marginal decrease of 0.10 scaled score

points.

The OUA recommends that all Colleges and Schools emphasize the competencies assessed on this

inventory throughout students’ matriculation at FAMU. These competencies should be emphasized

in curricular and co-curricular activities.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is designed to capture students’ perceptions of their

collegiate experiences to include how students spend their free time, what they have gained form classes

and their interactions with faculty and peers. The NSSE is administered annually at many colleges and

universities nationwide. The NSSE was first administered at FAMU in 2005 and was subsequently

administered in 2008, 2011 and 2014.

Following is a snapshot of key findings from the 2014 administration of NSSE.

FAMU first-year students and seniors perceived higher levels of engagement with faculty when

compared to other students from institutions in the SUS, Carnegie Classification and NSSE 2013 &

2014 taken as a group.

FAMU seniors perceived higher levels of learning with peers as described by the engagement indicator

(Collaborative Learning) when compared to other students from institutions in the SUS, Carnegie

Classification and NSSE 2013 & 2014 taken as a group.

FAMU first-year students perceived lower levels of engagement in the areas of Discussions with

Diverse Other, Effective Teaching Practices and Quality of Interactions when compared to other

students from institutions in the SUS, Carnegie Classification and NSSE 2013 & 2014 taken as a

group.

FAMU seniors perceived lower levels of engagement with respect to Quality of Interactions when

compared to other students from institutions in the SUS, Carnegie Classification and NSSE 2013 &

2014 taken as a group.

The majority of the respondent sample rated their overall experience at FAMU as excellent or good

(First year students – 70% and Seniors – 82%).

Seventy nine percent of seniors as compared to 82% for the Carnegie Classification of students stated

that they would definitely or probably attend FAMU again.



The NSSE will be administered at FAMU in 2017. In 2014, there was a 25% response rate to this

instrument. The 2017 NSSE administration team at FAMU has set a bold target of 40% response rate.

The team is currently working on a strategic approach to impact the response rate in 2017.

Summary

The Office of University Assessment continues to build the university’s capacity for meaningful assessment

and the use of assessment results to drive continuous and sustainable improvements. We will continue to

provide recommendations for improvements to all FAMU constituents with the aim of enhancing the culture

for assessment at the University. This we believe, will ultimately contribute to the overall student experience

and bring the university closer to the realization of its mission.

We will continue to play a critical role in increasing institutional effectiveness and contributing to an

environment of evidence wherein intentional, effective, and efficient programs and services are established

and improved in a manner that embodies the University's motto of “Excellence with Caring.”



OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT TEAM

FRANZ H. RENEAU, PH.D. ACTING DIRECTOR

BRANDI NEWKIRK, MBA COORDINATOR, ACADEMIC SUPPORT

Tel (850) 412-5263 [email protected]


ANGELA JORDAN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

GEORGE L. PINKNEY IV, M.ED. COORDINATOR, COMPUTER APPLICATIONS



Office of University Assessment

A Unit within the Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University

659 Ardelia Court, Tallahassee, FL 32307 Tel (850) 412-5265 Fax (850) 412-5267

www.famu.edu/assessment

http://www.famu.edu/assessment

Documents

ANNUAL Institutional Assessment Report - Florida A&M ... Report/2015...training sessions, workshops and one-on-one sessions conducted by the OUA. Table 1 provides a ... 2015-16 ANNUAL