HLC: Academic program assessment process revamped to better evaluate student learning

LAWRENCE — The University of Kansas continues efforts toward reaffirmation of accreditation through the Higher Learning Commission, whose peer review team will visit and evaluate KU’s campuses March 3-4, 2025. An earlier mock site review will take place Sept. 9-10. The HLC determines whether an institution merits accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation based on the standards of quality outlined in its Criteria for Accreditation. 

Criterion 4 in action

Criterion 4 focuses on the evaluation and improvement of teaching and learning at institutions. KU has particularly focused on building a culture of continuous improvement to increase efficiency and ensure accountability, one aspect of which has been updating the academic program assessment process. 

Following the submission of a midcycle Assurance Argument to the HLC in 2019, the accreditation peer review team gave KU a ranking of “Met with Concerns” on Core Component 4.B, which requires an institution to engage in “ongoing assessment of student learning as part of its commitment to the educational outcomes of its students.”

Gina Wyant, director of university assessment, and Jen Roberts, senior vice provost for academic affairs and graduate studies, have led the effort of developing and implementing a well-defined process for improving program assessment. The HLC expects institutions to participate in assessments, use assessment results to inform and guide ongoing improvements, and link results to strategic planning.

“KU’s Continuous Improvement Quality Initiative was intentionally designed to address the commission’s concerns in Criterion 4,” Wyant said. “The faculty have done a considerable amount of work over the past several years to advance the initiative.”

Certain programs at KU undergo regular specialized accreditation processes; however, a regular review process for other programs had been lacking, with many not sharing their assessment efforts for several years. With clearly outlined evaluation procedures, all programs now receive a systematic standard level of review and assessment to ensure students graduate with the desired learning outcomes. 

Faculty began by reviewing and refreshing degree-level learning outcomes to be current, measurable and relevant before moving on to degree planning and curricular mapping. From there, they wrote an assessment plan with goals on how they would improve on the findings, which will be measured through progress updates. These assessments are conducted on a four-year schedule, which help to inform academic program reviews conducted the following year. 

Campus collaborations

Joshua Potter, associate director for student learning and analytics at the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), said the rolling connection between assessment efforts and focused program reviews is a newer process the center and academic affairs is testing.

“I imagine the CTE will be able to robustly help departments get their house in order the year before they go out for program review,” he said. “I'm really excited about that because we've never had that kind of direct plug in to program review in the past.”

The CTE has worked closely with faculty to guide them through the program assessment process, hosting workshops, seminars and meetings. In doing so, Potter said, some programs have been able to discover valuable evidence and data, as well as see the bigger picture of how the various courses in the program connect to one another.  

“I think if a department or a set of colleagues is rolling up their sleeves and earnestly engaged in the assessment of student learning outcomes, they begin to see what they do on a day-to-day basis as a collective responsibility they have to students,” he said. “I think the benefit for degree-level assessment is that they really begin to feel some agency within the reality and some collective ownership over the curriculum.”

Potter said he appreciates the universitywide strategic outlook toward reconfiguring the assessment of student learning outcomes.

“With the partnership between the CTE and Academic Affairs, we have been able to roll out at scale the same quality and kind of depth of support we really only had the bandwidth to offer to a limited number of departments several years ago,” he said. “It’s truly a campuswide initiative. Faculty have access to better substantive support from us and a clearer and better-documented process as designed by the institution overall.”

Core Components of Criterion 4

4.A. The institution ensures the quality of its educational offerings.
4.B. The institution engages in ongoing assessment of student learning as part of its commitment to the educational outcomes of its students.
4.C. The institution pursues educational improvement through goals and strategies that improve retention, persistence and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

For more information, visit the HLC Accreditation 2025 website.