The Academic Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee (ALOA), with the support of the Office of the Provost and the Center for Teaching Excellence, is pleased to announce a grant competition in support of learning-outcomes assessment at the program level. Mini grants will typically be about $2,000, to be used by May 15, 2009.

MINI-GRANT PURPOSE

As stated in the Duquesne University Academic Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan, (http://www.aloa.duq.edu/assessmentplan.html), “assessment can serve many purposes. These include examining Duquesne's academic programs and the role curriculum, pedagogy, and program structure play in student learning. Assessment findings are useful to maintaining high quality programs that are consistent with the University's mission, to highlighting program and University strengths, and to identifying areas for strategic change or improvement. What we learn through assessment helps the institution determine how best to support needed changes. Assessment enables us to evaluate the competence of graduates in terms of both the program's goals and those of the core curriculum and University mission. Ultimately, the purpose of assessment is to promote student learning and development.”

The first goal of these grants, then, is to encourage academic programs to engage in sound learning assessment practices. The funding can be used to support new initiatives or revision of existing initiatives. A second goal is for these initiatives to serve as models for other programs.

ELIGIBILITY

Application for these grants is to be made by a faculty member for the assessment of an academic program (e.g., degree, disciplinary/school core, certificate, concentration, component of the University core curriculum).

The chair or director (where appropriate) and dean will write letters of support indicating the pertinence of the proposal to the academic program in question, the commitment of matching funds, and the program’s commitment to sustain the initiative.

In order to encourage widespread participation among University colleagues, we will not fund award recipients in consecutive years. No member of the assessment mini-grant evaluation committee may submit a proposal while serving on the committee.

SAMPLE INITIATIVES

Initiatives might comprise the following aspects. This list includes various steps in the assessment process, because programs across the campus are at very different points.

• Addressing a gap in your students’ learning, which you identified through program learning assessment.
• Using data from institution–wide assessment tools, such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) or the ACT College Outcomes Survey, to inform and guide program-level assessment and curricular change.
• Using standards and data from recognized discipline–specific assessments to inform and guide program-level assessment and curricular change.
• Revising curriculum and instruction based on departmental assessment findings. Assessing the impact of these changes on student learning.
• Developing specific tests, tools, or activities that will facilitate assessment initiatives.
• Piloting specific tests, tools, or activities developed elsewhere.
• Analyzing and interpreting data that are already available so that they can be useful in improving student learning. These might include course-embedded test items or assignments that are analyzed for program-level learning outcomes.

CRITERIA

Proposals are typically funded at $2,000 or less.

Requirements / Guidelines

1. Only academic programs will be considered.
2. The person requesting the funding must be a faculty member. This person does not have to be on the tenure track.
3. Other faculty or staff may be involved.
4. The chair or director (where appropriate) and dean must write letters of support indicating (a) the pertinence of the proposal to that academic program, (b) agreement with the matching funds committed in the budget, and (c) the program’s commitment to sustain the initiative beyond the grant period.
5. The assessment project must include the gathering of direct evidence of student learning. Indirect evidence may be included, but is optional.

Direct evidence
--definition: assessment of actual student performance which demonstrates what students learned and the extent to which students met the learning goals
--examples: written assignments, performances, presentations, observations of quality of field work (e.g., clinical, service-learning, internships), reflection on theory and practice, research and capstone projects, exams, standardized tests, licensure exams, student publications

Indirect evidence
--definition: perspectives on teaching and learning that provide insights on the learning process
--examples: student self-appraisals of learning, satisfaction surveys, peer review by faculty, focus groups (e.g., with students, alumni, community partners, employers of graduates)

Legitimate uses of funding (not exhaustive list)

• Faculty training in assessing learning (e.g., in using a specific tool or method)
• Hiring of staff or consultant to aid in development of assessment methods and/or analysis of student-learning outcomes data
• Travel to assessment conference or institute for specific purposes
• Purchase or licensing of commercially available instruments for piloting
• Faculty release time or summer funding to be used for program assessment or curricular development resulting from learning assessment

OBLIGATIONS

• Use the funding exclusively for expenses directly pertinent to student-learning assessment, per the proposal, by May 15, 2009.
• Follow the timeline for the 2008-2009 implementation of your project
• Report briefly to ALOA on progress in January 2009 (1/2 page written report)
• Submit a formal report to ALOA by May 29, 2009 (3-4 pages using guidelines that will be provided)
• Share what you have learned, for example, through a CTE/ALOA workshop, panel discussion, presentation, or resource that would be useful to faculty and programs across campus.

Human subjects: Please note that the use of students for learning outcomes assessment that will be converted to an external presentation or publication outside the University must meet Duquesne’s protocols for the use of human subjects. However, gathering student outcome data exclusively for the purpose of improving instructional programming does not require the approval of the Internal Review Board. See the Office of Research website for further details on the use of human subjects.

PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT & SUBMISSION

Proposals must focus on department/program-wide efforts to improve student learning. This may include components of the new core curriculum.

You are encouraged to seek consultation on writing the proposal from members of the Academic Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee or the Center for Teaching Excellence.

Proposals are due to the Center for Teaching Excellence by Monday, April 21, 2008 at 4 p.m. (312 Administration Building, 412-396-5177). Please submit 7 copies of your application. Decisions will be announced in May, 2008.

Please use the application form available online.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Evaluation Committee

• Three representatives from the Academic Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee
• Two other Duquesne faculty with experience in conducting learning assessment
• These members will represent five different academic programs

The committee will evaluate the submissions according to these guidelines:

1. In order to be evaluated, the proposal must follow the criteria listed above, and each component of the application checklist must be submitted by the due date given.
2. Scope of impact on students, faculty and curriculum.
3. Articulation of learning goals to be assessed. Be sure to word these in terms of what students will know or do, such that you can generate observable evidence of learning.
4. Proposed assessment methods, or plan for determining these. Must include direct evidence, or a plan for gathering direct evidence of learning.
5. Plan for analysis, interpretation and communication of the project findings
6. Likelihood that the proposed assessment practices will become an ongoing part of the program (see chair/director and dean letters).
7. Timeline and budget.

The committee will make a recommendation to the Provost, who has the final approval.