Text Size Default Text SizeDefault Text Size Large Text SizeLarge Text Size Largest Text SizeLargest Text Size Print Print this Page Institutional Effectiveness

The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas:, educational programs, to include student learning outcomes. (Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1)

Judgment of Compliance

In compliance


Longwood University identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results. Assessment of educational programs, including general education, and of student learning outcomes, is regular, organized, and methodical. Methods of assessment include appropriate direct and indirect measures to target specific achievement and to evaluate actual achievement in order to identify means of making programmatic improvement. Evidence of improvement is gathered for future assessment cycles.

Three Strategic Measures

Institutional effectiveness at Longwood in the last five years has been shaped by several factors. First, fall headcount enrollment increased approximately 14% from 2003 to 2009. Second, state requirements increased. The institution began planning and piloting value-added assessment for three of the six core competency measures instituted by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV). Finally, a period of personnel turnover in what is now the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research (OAIR) followed the death of the director in 2003. Problems were exacerbated by the impact of chronic understaffing in the department.

To meet these challenges, in 2007, Longwood's administration made three strategic enhancements: managing assessment with a related group of policies, establishing an assessment infrastructure that reports directly to the president, and facilitating assessment with a new electronic system, WEAVEonline.

Assessment Policy

The Policy on University Assessment Activities and Advisory Committee for Assessment (ACA), approved by the president's cabinet in 2007, established a comprehensive, university-wide program of assessment and guides the University's assessment activities. The ACA includes representatives from all major divisions and is charged with coordinating university-wide assessment activity, promoting effective communication, and supporting divisional and departmental assessments with advice and liaison services.

Assessment of educational programs is further guided by a related group of policies, including SCHEV requirements to measure six student learning competencies and demonstrate program viability, professional accreditation guidelines, and internally developed program review policies. The Academic Unit Assessment Reporting Schedule incorporates biennial reports submitted to the OAIR, program reviews, and reporting required by accrediting bodies.

All academic degree programs undergo an internal program review on a five-year cycle. The process is guided by a program review policy and includes an examination of indicators of the program's centrality to the University's mission, demand, quality, resources, and costs. Programs that must conduct similar studies as part of professional accreditation reviews may substitute their accreditation reports for the internal program review. In February 2010, the Faculty Senate approved the creation of a Committee on Academic Outcomes and Program Review composed of five faculty members plus the assessment deans from the Cook-Cole College of Arts and Sciences (CCCAS), the College of Business and Economics (CBE), the College of Education and Human Services (CEHS), and Graduate and Extended Studies as voting ex-officio members and the assessment coordinator from OAIR as a non-voting ex-officio member. This committee will monitor, oversee, and evaluate all academic biennial assessment and program review reports as well as ensure that the program review policy remains current. The committee will begin to function in fall 2010 and will update the program review policy to meet the SACS principles implemented since Longwood's last reaffirmation as well as additional requirements from SCHEV. It is anticipated that a revised program review policy will be in effect within the next twelve months.

Assessment Infrastructure

An organizational structure that functions at the university, college, and departmental levels assures the coordination of assessment by qualified faculty and staff. The OAIR was completely restructured in 2008. With the hiring in October 2009 of the assessment coordinator, the OAIR is now fully staffed and provides a stable organizational structure that will contribute to implementation of policies in place.

At the university level, the OAIR team, guided by the ACA and the Committee on General Education, facilitates, coordinates, and supports the assessment of student and program outcomes. The OAIR also provides workshops on assessment report writing for both academic and non-academic programs.

At the college level, the CEHS and CBE have accrediting bodies that require regular, systematic program assessment. These colleges have long-established leadership positions at the assistant or associate dean level to ensure systematic collection and evaluation of assessment data. As part of continuous improvement, the CCCAS recognized that it was also in need of leadership and support in its assessment process. In 2009, despite budgetary constraints, an assistant dean's position was created in the CCCAS. In all three colleges, the assistant or associate deans work closely with department chairs and program coordinators to ensure the evaluation and assessment of department programs and goals, and the writing and timely submission of assessment and other reports and reviews. They guide and assist faculty in the collection, analysis, and evaluation of assessment data.


Longwood made the strategic decision to purchase the assessment planning software WEAVEonline. This program will not only streamline and unify the management of assessment, but it will be a new tool to show how courses and other university-related activities support institutional goals and objectives. The General Education Program began piloting its use in 2009. Training will be expanded to faculty for all academic programs by summer 2010. Components of Longwood's current assessment report template will be incorporated into the WEAVEonline structure. For example, the WEAVEonline  "Action Plan" corresponds to "Closing the Loop" in the current biennial assessment report template.

General Education Program

The General Education Program develops the foundation upon which all other learning is built. It is the central component of a Longwood undergraduate education and reflects the institution's mission  of developing informed and engaged citizen leaders. The General Education Program is comprised of fifteen goals, each of which specifies defined student learning outcomes. In January 2010, the Faculty Senate approved rewording Goal 1 and dropping Goal 12, with subsequent goals to be renumbered effective in fall 2011.

Assessment of general education occurs at multiple levels. It begins with individual courses and is completed at the university level with the six core competencies identified by SCHEV. For each course that has been approved as fulfilling a certain goal, departments identify the class components and assignments that promote the student learning outcomes of that goal and the method for assessing the outcomes, as shown in the general education course proposal form and matrix. For example, the general education course component matrix for the Survey of French Literature II: Romanticism through the New Novel indicates how course components meet the general education requirements for Goal 3 (an understanding of our cultural heritage as revealed in literature, its movements and traditions, through reading, understanding, analyzing, and writing about the major works that have shaped our thinking and provide a record of human experience). The course syllabus further details assignments and assessment measures.

The Committee on General Education has responsibility for reviewing assessment results related to general education. While student learning outcomes for general education goals are identified and assessed at the individual course level, there has been no uniform or intentional collection and analysis of general education learning outcomes at the aggregate middle level. This weak middle level was a key factor in the decision to purchase WEAVEonline, which will allow departments, the Committee on General Education, and the OAIR to assemble and review general education assessment results for student learning outcomes by goal, by discipline, or for the University as a whole.

The core competencies for which SCHEV requires value-added measures of achievement are written communication, quantitative reasoning, scientific reasoning, critical thinking, oral communication, and information literacy. A curriculum map shows how the six competencies are embedded in Longwood's general education student learning outcomes. Assessment plans for each competency must be developed, externally reviewed, approved by SCHEV, and implemented following the SCHEV schedule for state institutions. The implementation timeline is noted in table 1.

Table 1. Core Competency Implementation Schedule

Pre-Assessment Core Competency Post-Assessment (no later than)
AY 2007-08 Quantitative Reasoning AY 2010-11
AY 2008-09 Written Communication AY 2011-12
AY 2009-10 Scientific Reasoning AY 2012-13
AY 2010-11 Critical Thinking AY 2013-14
AY 2011-12 Oral Communication AY 2014-15
AY 2012-13 Information Literacy AY 2015-16

Source: Report of SCHEV's 2007 Task Force on Assessment

The written communication competency (WCC) provides an excellent example of the development, pilot, and revision process. The assessment plan submitted to and approved by SCHEV in 2008 identified direct and indirect measures of specific student learning outcomes in two courses in composition, English 150/Writing and Research (General Education Goal 2) and English 400/Active Citizenship: An Advanced Writing Seminar (General Education Goal 14). English faculty conducted a full-scale pilot test of the scoring rubric in spring 2009 and evaluated the results in fall 2009. Analysis of the pilot data resulted in creating clearer guidelines for faculty members who teach English 150 and 400 as to what sort of papers are suitable for the assessment, and in revising the rubric from a 5-point scale to a 4-point scale with clarification of scoring categories. Much of the development of the WCC assessment has been faculty driven and has led to discussions about standards and student learning outcomes. English faculty revised the composition policies to make them tighter and more concrete after analyzing the results of the pilot.

As another step to improve coordination of general education assessment, a faculty group involved in general education and committed to assessment of student learning met in June 2009 to discuss challenges and strategies for building a cohesive and systematic infrastructure to support general education assessment. This group created the ad hoc Core Competency Team, composed of the coordinators of assessment for the six SCHEV competencies, the assistant/associate deans for assessment, the director and assessment coordinator of the OAIR, and the director of the General Education Program. In October 2009, the Core Competency Team invited the executive director for James Madison University's Center for Assessment and Research Studies to facilitate a day-long workshop and discussion of best practices at James Madison and how they might be applied at Longwood.

The new strategic approach puts emphasis on faculty involvement and is aligned with Core Requirement 2.5 regarding institutional effectiveness. Its impact is demonstrated by the departmental leadership exercised by biology faculty regarding Biology 101, which typically has 27 sections per year and meets General Education Goal 6 (to apply the methods of science to the acquisition of knowledge). In fall 2009, the Biological and Environmental Sciences G6 Working Group asked to meet with the director of the General Education Program to discuss issues related to assessing course learning outcomes as articulated on the general education course matrix and approved by the Committee on General Education. The group assigned responsibility for revising specific learning outcomes to pairs of faculty members after analyzing the differences found in course syllabi by the various faculty currently teaching the course.  

Degree Programs

In addition to comprehensive assessment of the general education program, Longwood University has an ongoing review process based on learning outcomes for all graduate and undergraduate degree programs within each of the three colleges. Undergraduate and graduate programs are coordinated, assessed, and reviewed by the faculty involved in the program area. Many programs must also meet regional and professional accreditation requirements.

Longwood University is committed to maintaining quality and consistency in all courses regardless of delivery model. The Statement on Distance Learning and Non-Traditional Instruction states that off-campus instruction and non-traditional instruction are natural extensions of on-campus, face-to-face instruction and that assessments of student learning outcomes apply to all students regardless of the nature of instruction or the venue of instruction. In keeping with this policy, all faculty offering online or hybrid instruction are trained through the Longwood Online Technology Institute (LOTI).

College of Business and Economics

Accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB), the CBE offers four degrees: BS in Business Administration, BS in Economics, BA in Economics, and Master of Business Administration (MBA). In its AACSB reaffirmation in 2007, the peer review team commended the business school for its assurance of learning processes: "The faculty exhibited a high level of commitment to defining and refining the process to assess student learning. The faculty uses the analysis of data to 'close the loop,' resulting in plans to improve the academic programs."  

The Undergraduate Learning Outcomes and Goals, established by the business and economics faculty in 2005, includes both direct and indirect assessment information from students, internship supervisors, and outside evaluators. Most assessment measures are embedded in courses and are routinely collected on a predetermined two-year cycle. This rolling two-year cycle includes not only collecting the data, but evaluating the student learning outcomes, defining an improvement plan, and refining the assessment plan. Assessment results are reported to the CBE faculty each year at the fall faculty retreat. Based on faculty feedback, the Mission and Assessment Committee develops a continuous improvement plan that guides the improvement process and proposes revisions to the assessment plan. For example, in response to mixed achievement results in 2007-08 for program goal 8 regarding ethical reasoning and decision making, CBE faculty are modifying the Managing Business Ethics and Diversity course, evaluating the quality of rubric ratings, and taking steps to more deliberately integrate ethics throughout the business curriculum.

The MBA Learning Outcomes and Goals were established by the MBA Faculty Advisory Council and approved by the CBE faculty when the degree program started in 2006. Most assessment measures are embedded in courses and are routinely collected. Due to the small number of students in the program (four graduated to date and six are scheduled to graduate in May 2010), it has taken three years to collect enough data to analyze. During fall 2010 the MBA Advisory Council will develop a continuous improvement plan based on the results and refine the assessment plan accordingly. For example, for program goal 2 regarding demonstrating a conceptual understanding of business disciplines, the MBA Advisory Council will analyze the assessment process, evaluate the clarity and reliability of the rubric, and recommend improvements.

College of Education and Human Services

The CEHS houses one of the most visible programs on campus, the teacher preparation program, and consists of three departments: Education and Special Education; Health, Recreation and Kinesiology; and Social Work and Communication Sciences and Disorders. The college offers bachelor's degrees in athletic training, communication sciences and disorders, kinesiology, social work, and therapeutic recreation, an MS in Communication Sciences and Disorders, and an MS in Education with 14 concentrations. CEHS programs are accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education, the Council on Social Work Education, the Council on Accreditation for Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Services, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Office of Professional Services (OPS) coordinates field and clinical experiences for undergraduate and graduate candidates who are pursuing teaching licensure and serves as the link between the CEHS, the CCCAS, and the CBE. The OPS ensures that all aspects of preparing students for licensure adhere to the requirements of NCATE and the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). Candidates wishing to earn licensure in a teaching endorsement area in the Commonwealth of Virginia must take and pass the appropriate test--Praxis I, the Virginia Communication and Literacy Assessment (VCLA), the Virginia Reading Assessment (VRA), or the Praxis II. Candidates for licensure must pass the prescribed licensure tests at a rate no lower than 80% starting July 1, 2010.

The VDOE has developed an assessment plan which stipulates the candidate outcomes necessary for success.  For example, professional education programs in Virginia must obtain accreditation from either NCATE or the Teacher Education Accreditation Council.  Longwood University has chosen the NCATE accreditation process for its licensure programs.  Furthermore, the VDOE stipulates the courses for each licensure program area, the length and content of the clinical practice exercises, and the types and content of the professional education courses.  Each program leading to licensure maps course content to the endorsement competencies required by the VDOE. See, for example, the list of education program endorsement area matrices reviewed by the VDOE as of December 2009 and the program matrix for the special education speech-language disorders preK-12 competencies.

As part of the NCATE review process, the programs that lead to teacher licensure in the CEHS, CCCAS, and CBE have developed a conceptual framework of nine standards that teacher candidates who graduate from Longwood University will achieve. There is a rubric for learning outcomes associated with each standard. For example, CF Standard IV: Implementation/Management relates to the design and use of effective strategies that motivate students to have high expectations while encouraging critical thinking and creative problem solving. One of the six learning outcomes associated with this standard is that the student will implement planned instruction based on diverse student needs and assessment data.

Demonstration of these standards by teacher candidates will be assurance that they have the skills and talents necessary to practice the art of critical pedagogy and to conduct themselves professionally as instructional leaders. The candidates, faculty, and clinical supervisors complete electronic surveys that target specific candidate skills or dispositions. Survey results are stored on a network drive and distributed to the program area or unit for review.

Each program area in the CEHS has established an assessment plan for the program and for the individual candidates. The candidates are assessed on content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and dispositions. Many programs submit a Specialized Professional Association (SPA) report every five to seven years. Table 2 indicates programs submitting SPAs in 2010. SPA reports include program-specific lists of assessments, an explanation of the relationship of those assessments to the program area standards, evidence of meeting those standards including a description of each assessment, its alignment with standards, and an analysis of the data collected. The final section of the report (Section V) demonstrates the use of assessment data to set improvement goals for candidate and program performance.

Table 2. Programs with SPAs to Be Submitted for Review by March 15, 2010

Name of Program Program Type (Initial or Advanced) SPA Standards Addressed Type of Report (Initial, Revised, or Response to Conditions)
Administration and Supervision PreK-12 Advanced Educational Leadership Constituent Council Initial
Elementary Education PreK-6 Initial Teacher Education (Undergraduate) Association for Childhood Education International Initial
Elementary Education PreK-6 Initial Teacher Education (Graduate) Association for Childhood Education International Initial
English Initial Teacher Education (Undergraduate) National Council of Teachers of English Initial
Health and Physical Education PreK-12 Initial Teacher Education (Undergraduate) American Association for Health Education (Old Standards) Initial
History and Social Sciences Initial Teacher Education (Undergraduate) National Council for the Social Studies Initial
Library Media PreK-12 Advanced American Association of School Librarians Initial
Mathematics Initial Teacher Education (Undergraduate) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Initial
Middle Education 6-8 Initial Teacher Education   National Middle School Association Initial
Reading Specialist Literacy and Culture Advanced International Reading Association Initial
Special Education General Curriculum K-12 Initial Teacher Education (Graduate) Council for Exceptional Children Initial

Source: Associate Dean of the CEHS

The various SPA, NCATE, and other accreditation requirements provide ample documentation of assessing student learning outcomes and using the results to make improvements in the educational program. Several examples are highlighted below:

  • In February 2009, the Mathematics Education Committee redesigned the portfolio assessment for teacher candidates in secondary mathematics to a more manageable set of standards.
  • The Program Report for the Preparation of Reading Education Professionals submitted for the MS in Education with a concentration in literacy and culture and leading to endorsement as a reading specialist, outlines plans to include more writing assignments in different classes and to assist students in connecting key names, research, and events with practice.
  • The Physical and Health Education Teacher Education (PHETE) program uses a skill portfolio to assess student achievement of specific National Association for Sport and Physical Education standards. After the first year of data collection limited to the last class of a three-course kinesiology sequence, PHETE faculty decided to collect data in all three courses to have more complete information.

Cook-Cole College of Arts and Sciences

The CCCAS offers bachelor's degrees in 19 subject areas (anthropology, art, biology, chemistry, communication studies, computer science, criminology/criminal justice, English, history, liberal studies, mathematics, modern languages, music, nursing, physics, political science, psychology, sociology, and theatre) and master's degrees in English and sociology. As the largest and most complex college at Longwood, it enrolls the most students, offers the most majors, and teaches more than 90% of the general education courses. Programs within the CCCAS also differ in that most majors are not governed by specialized accreditation bodies like those in the two other colleges. Music (National Association of Schools of Music), nursing (Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education), and theatre (National Association of Schools of Theatre) are the only undergraduate programs in the CCCAS with external accreditation reviews.

The 2009 creation of a new assistant dean position was a strategic move to fill the assessment gap within the college. A faculty member with 17 years of experience in evaluation research and 7 years of teaching within the CCCAS, and who had participated in and demonstrated a strong interest in assessment, was moved into this position. There was a deliberate decision to retain some teaching duties to build credibility and develop best practices for assessment. The first act of the assistant dean was to survey and evaluate the state of assessment within the college, which involved creating an inventory of all assessment-related reports (results are discussed below).

In accordance with university assessment policy, programs in the CCCAS report every two years on student learning outcomes through the standardized biennial assessment report template, unless required otherwise by accreditation review. These reports also include action plans related to specific learning outcomes. Each CCCAS program has a capstone assessment. When appropriate, programs (72.2%) employ national assessment tools like the Major Field Test (MFT) for graduating seniors. Anthropology developed in 2008 and piloted in 2009 its own comprehensive exam as there is not a national assessment tool for the discipline; the exam has been used for three semesters. In accordance with the five-year program review policy, each program has also identified other tools appropriate for its own student learning outcomes, ranging from supervisors' evaluations of interns, senior research projects, senior surveys, web portfolios, and juried performances.

All programs within the CCCAS have identified expected student learning outcomes. Examples for physics, psychology, and anthropology were drawn from recent biennial assessment reports and program reviews. However, some majors (biology and chemistry) have not specified target performance levels. Although all departments in the CCCAS work conscientiously to improve their educational programs, documentation of assessment data has not been consistent. According to the assessment inventory conducted by the assistant dean, no reports were filed in the three years following the death of the University's director of assessment in 2003. Ten undergraduate programs (58.8%) submitted reports in 2006, followed by an additional three (17.6%) in 2007. Inconsistencies have also been identified within the reports submitted. For example, evidence reported does not always indicate whether students are achieving program goals; some reports have measures, but do not contain target levels. On the other hand, some programs have well developed goals and target levels, but have not collected data or analyzed the data gathered. None of the programs have evidence of improvement in student learning outcomes based on data analysis because of the date the standardized biennial report template went into effect (fall 2007). The first biennial reports that required action plans were submitted in summer 2008. A full two-year cycle is needed before the first evidence will be available in summer 2010 to document improved student outcomes related to submitted action plans.

The CCCAS has taken a number of steps to address the inconsistencies above. First, as previously stated, a new assistant dean position with responsibility for assessment within the college was created in June 2009. Second, the content of all assessment-related reports has been evaluated for quality and will be addressed with each program individually. Third, problems with consistency will be alleviated by implementation of WEAVEonline. Reports submitted by the physics and psychology departments, which are successfully reporting on level of achievement with supporting data and action plans to improve student learning, have been identified and used as models for other programs. Fourth, the review of submitted reports has identified a number of areas for faculty training related to assessment, including how to provide evidence of improvement in student learning based on analysis of assessment results. Fifth, faculty assessment committees in a number of programs (anthropology, biology, criminal justice, music, physics, sociology, and theatre) have been formed to address various assessment issues within their programs, while three programs (communication studies, history, and political science) have ad hoc committees for assessment. Finally, the assistant dean attends the meeting of the CCCAS chairs to learn about and address assessment-related issues encountered within the college.

The Committee on Academic Outcomes and Program Review will further coordinate assessment for cross-disciplinary degree programs such as liberal studies, historically the largest major in the CCCAS and most commonly pursued by students preparing for elementary and middle school teaching careers. Liberal studies majors take advanced CCCAS courses in English, mathematics, science, and the social sciences. Learning outcomes for these content areas are regularly assessed by the CEHS through SPA reports and the Praxis II exam. Through this new committee, systematically enhanced information sharing and coordination will allow CCCAS programs to consider and incorporate learning outcomes assessment generated by CEHS.

Supporting Documents

Name of Document Location
AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation, Team Visit Report (2007) Team_Visit_Report_CBE.pdf
Academic Unit Assessment Reporting Schedule Academic_Unit_Assessment_Reporting_Schedule_Modified_(2)[2].pdf
Anthropology Biennial Assessment Report (2007-09, excerpt) Anthropology report CCCAS.pdf
Biennial Assessment Report Template (2007) LUassessment_policy 7.pdf
Biological and Environmental Sciences Assessment Committee (minutes, 10/5/09) BIO_Assessment_Minutes_for_5_Oct.pdf
Biological and Environmental Sciences G6 Working Group (proposed agenda, February 2010) Biology_Goal_6_Minutes.pdf
CBE Biennial Undergraduate Assessment Report (2010, Program Goal 7 example) CBE_Undergraduate_Assessment_Report 8.pdf
CBE Fall Faculty Retreat (agenda, 8/18/09) CBE_Fall_Retreat_2009.pdf
CBE Undergraduate Learning Outcomes and Goals Undergraduate Learning Outcomes CBE.pdf
CCCAS Assessment Inventory (2000-2009) CCCAS_Assessment_Inventory.pdf
CF Standard IV:  Implementation/Management (CEHS website) CF_Standard_4_Rubric.pdf
Committee on Academic Outcomes and Program Review Committee on Academic Outcomes approved.pdf
Committee on General Education (FPPM 2009-10) FPPM_2009_2010 150-151.pdf
Composition Policies (English and Modern Languages website) Composition Bylaws.pdf
Conceptual Framework Standards (CEHS website) Conceptual Framework.pdf
Core Competencies (SCHEV Task Force on Assessment, 2007) SCHEV 2007 Task Force Report.pdf
Core Competency Team (agenda, 6/23/09) CoreCompetency Team Meeting Minutes 062309.pdf
Core Competency Team (agenda, 8/19/09) CoreCompetency Team Meeting Minutes 081909.pdf
Curriculum Map:  General Education and SCHEV Competencies GenEd curriculum map.pdf
Faculty Senate (minutes, 1/28/10) Senate Minutes 1-28-10.pdf
Faculty Senate (minutes, 2/18/10) Senate Minutes_2-18-10.pdf
General Education (Undergrad Cat 2009-10) General Education Goals.pdf
General Education Course Proposal Form and Matrix (Curr Dev Hdbk 2009) CurriculumHdbk_09 32-33 61-63.pdf
Longwood University Mission and Vision Mission and Vision.pdf
MBA Advisory Council (CBE Bylaws) CBE bylaws-faculty information 6.pdf
MBA Biennial Assessment Report (2010, program goal 2 example) CBE Graduate Assessment Report 2.pdf
MBA Learning Outcomes and Goals Graduate Learning Outcomes and Goals CBE.pdf
Mission and Assessment Committee (CBE Bylaws) CBE bylaws-faculty information 5.pdf
OAIR Training and Workshops (OAIR website) Assessment Training and Workshops.pdf
On-Line at Longwood, Faculty Policies and Procedures (FPPM 2009-10) FPPM_2009_2010 56-58.pdf
PHETE Skill Portfolio (SPA Report, 2010) Assessment_2_-_Skill_Portfolio.pdf
Physics Program Review (2006, excerpt) Physics report CCCAS.pdf
Policy on University Assessment Activities and ACA (2007) LUassessment_policy.pdf
Program Report for the Preparation of Reading Education Professionals (IRA Report, 2008, Section V) IRA Report 2008 32-33.pdf
Program Review Policy (2002) program review policy2002.pdf
Program Review Policy (2002, Major Program Assessments) program review policy2002 6-10.pdf
Psychology Biennial Report (2008, excerpt) Psychology report CCCAS.pdf
Secondary Mathematics (SPA Report, 2010, Section V) 2010_SPA_Report_-_Mathematics 32-33.pdf
Senior Research Project (example) senior research project.pdf
Statement on Distance Learning and Non-Traditional Instruction (FPPM 2009-10) FPPM_2009_2010 54-55.pdf
Survey of French Literature II (general education course component matrix) French 342 Matrix.pdf
Survey of French Literature II (syllabus) French 342 Syllabus.pdf
VDOE Education Program Endorsement Area Matrices (12/28/09) education program endorsement area matrices.pdf
VDOE Program Status Matrix, Speech-Language Disorders PreK-12 (2008) Speech-Language_Disorders_Matrix_2008.pdf
VDOE Regulations Governing the Review and Approval of Education Programs (2007) VDOE regulations.pdf
WEAVEonline Action Plan (example) WEAVE online action plan.pdf
Written Communication Competency Assessment Plan (2009-10) Written Communication Competency Report 110909.pdf
Written Communication Competency Assessment Plan (2009-10, Status Report) Written Communication Competency Report 110909 10-12.pdf