In 2006, the Division of Student Affairs was not required to submit our assessment reports through the Online Assessment Tracking System (OATS).  We were required, however to comply with the Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 of the SACS Principles of Accreditation which mandates that:

            “The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.”

            Units within the Division of Student Affairs were expected to submit an assessment plan that clarified these outcomes as well as the methods used to measure outcomes.  To this end, the Division of Student Affairs increased its emphasis on assessment during the 2006-2007 calendar year.  In the summer of 2006, the Division of Student Affairs developed an Assessment Plan unique to student affairs.  This plan was the result of an extensive literature review, identification and implementation of best practices of student affairs assessment at comparable institutions, and direct consultation with various prominent Directors of Research and Assessment in Student Affairs throughout the United States.

  In the fall of 2006, each unit within the Division contributed to the development of an Assessment Plan for the GT Division of Student Affairs.  Components of the plan consisted of: (1) Learning and/or Operational Goals; 2) Outcomes; 3) Evaluation Strategies; 4) Methods for Disseminating and Using Information for Improvement; 5) Summary of Results; and 6) Actions Taken. 

In the spring of 2007, each unit within the Division completed the assessment cycle by summarizing findings and identifying ways to use the data for improvement purposes.  Our assessment efforts reflect an increased accountability and commitment to an evidence-based, systematic process of assessment.  Overall, the Division reported 61 goals of which 41% were Learning Goals, and 51% Operational Goals. Relative to stated versus implemented goals, 89% of our goals completed the assessment cycle and 11% did not.  Reasons for failing to complete the assessment cycle include: 1) Goal was postponed; 2) Goal was simply not implemented; 3) The goal was deemed inappropriate; and 4) The data collection method did not yield adequate results.