Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1

Report

Comprehensive Standard:		3.3.1
		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.

Compliance Rating:	Partial Compliance: to be in full compliance at the completion of another assessment cycle.

Statement of Compliance: The University of Texas-Pan American 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.

Narrative:

Broad-Based Participation

There is broad-based participation in assessment activities at The University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA). At the institutional level, planning and assessment is overseen by the Institutional Planning and Assessment Committee (IPAC) The purpose of IPAC is to establish, design, and coordinate an on-going strategic planning process and institutional assessment process at UTPA. The 27-member committee is comprised of representatives from each of the 6 academic colleges, undergraduate and graduate studies offices, 6 divisions, council of academic deans, library, faculty senate, staff senate, student organizations, alumni office, as well as ex officio members from the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Academic Assessment, and a faculty member who teaches outcome directed planning.

In FY06, IPAC dealt with several assessment issues. To oversee UTPA�s planning process at the institutional level, the committee developed a Stewardship Model that requires a team of stakeholders for each of the University's six goals annually review annual action plans and assessment reports for their support of the University�s goals, for cross-institutional collaborative opportunities, to monitor budget requests, to monitor outcomes, and to suggest changes for improvement. Documentation of IPAC�s involvement in the Stewardship Plan Monitoring Process can be found in the meeting minutes for:

December 16, 2005

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R2_12_16_05.IPACMinutes.doc

January 25, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R3_01_25_06.IPACMinutes.doc

February 22, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R4_02_22_06.IPACMinutes.doc

March 29, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R5_03-29-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

April 26, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R6_04-26-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

May 3, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.3R7_05-03-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

May 10, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R8_05-10-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

Also in FY06, IPAC dealt with assessing the UTPA Compact document (a plan required by the UT System from each component) for its completeness, appropriateness, and accuracy. They prepared and reviewed the results of an online survey of campus constituents, and prepared feedback from that survey to the appropriate vice presidents for improvement. Documentation of IPAC�s involvement in the review of the UTPA Compact can be found in meeting minutes for:

December 16, 2005

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R2_12_16_05.IPACMinutes.doc

January 25, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R3_01_25_06.IPACMinutes.doc

February 22, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R4_02_22_06.IPACMinutes.doc

March 29, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R5_03-29-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

April 21, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R9_04-21-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

April 26, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R6_04-26-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

May 3, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.3R7_05-03-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

May 10, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R8_05-10-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

The third assessment issue undertaken by IPAC in FY06 was oversight of a Task Force researching a quality initiative to be implemented at UTPA. The IPAC member who is chairing the quality recommendation Task Force, Dr. David Sturges, gave progress reports to IPAC to keep them informed, since the quality process, when identified and implemented, will be part of UTPA�s institutional effectiveness process. Documentation of IPAC�s involvement in the quality movement can be found in the meeting minutes for:

January 25, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R3_01_25_06.IPACMinutes.doc

February 22, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R4_02_22_06.IPACMinutes.doc

March 29, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R5_03-29-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

April 26, 2006

http://sacs.panam.edu/sacs/comprehensiveStandards/comp3.3.1Resources/comp3.3.1R6_04-26-06.IPAC.Minutes.doc

Participation in the assessment process is facilitated at the division level through the Planning and Assessment Representatives. These individuals help units prepare their outcome directed plans, annual action plans and assessment reports, and facilitate posting of these documents on the Institutional Effectiveness website. One member represents each of the six divisions: Office of the President, Academic Affairs, Business Affairs, Enrollment and Student Services, External Affairs, and Information Technology.

Broad-based participation in assessment activities at the unit level is demonstrated by the extent of involvement of faculty and staff in the development and evaluation of measurable outcomes. The outcomes developed for FY05, FY06, and FY07 Annual Action Plans, and monitored by FY05 and FY06 Annual Assessment Reports were developed in each unit by the entire staff/faculty of a small unit or a representative group of a large unit. The names and titles of those who participated in assessment activities in FY05 and FY06 are available. A summary of the number who participated by division is included on Table 1, below. The proportion of staff involved in assessment activities in the Division of Business Affairs is the least compared to the other divisions. This is because the majority of the staff are custodial, maintenance and yard workers. These individuals were represented by supervisory personnel in the planning and assessment processes. A majority of the supervisory, managerial and professional staff in Business Affairs are involved in planning and assessment activities.

Table 1. Participation in Assessment Activities: FY05 through FY06

Division	Assessment participants	# Fulltime employees	% Participating in Assessment
Academic Affairs	593	756	78%
Business Affairs	59	370	16%
Enrollment and Student Services	152	210	72%
External Affairs	41	102	40%
Information Technology	41	107	38%
President�s Office	21	21	100%

External Reporting of Outcome/Performance Measures

The UT System Compact

Expected outcomes (performance measures) are reported to the University of Texas System. Since Spring 2004, The University of Texas System has required that each of its component institutions submit a Compact each year. Each Compact covers the next two fiscal years (beginning September 1), and contains both short-term and long-term initiatives. A Compact is a succinct written agreement between the Chancellor and a component institution president that summarizes the institution�s major goals and priorities, strategic directions, and critical issues. It describes action plans necessary to achieve important goals, summarizes the institution�s progress and outcomes, and articulates the UT System Administration�s commitment of resources and time to support particular initiatives. The Compact is submitted to the UT System Board of Regents each February, and the performance measures are reviewed as part of the UT System Chancellor�s annual evaluation session with each university president.

The Compact includes outcome measures for the initiatives included, which mirror UTPA�s six goals. In the past, these measures were developed by OIRE and approved by the Executive Committee. In early Spring 2006, the process was expanded to include a group of faculty and staff, chosen by their vice presidents/president, who developed performance measures for the six new institutional goals that were crafted and approved in Fall 2005. Part of the review included revisiting the performance measures from UTPA�s prior Compact documents, adding new measures, and considering the use of measures that are required for other State initiatives, such as Closing the Gaps, the State Accountability System or the Legislative Appropriation Requests. The titles of the members of the Performance Measures Work Group who reviewed, revised, and recommended the progress measures to be included in the FY2007-FY2008 Compact reflect the expertise brought to this project:

Director of Corporate Foundation Relations	Dean, College of Education
Director of Financial Aid	Assistant Director, Human Resource
Associate Vice President for Graduate Studiess	Associate Dean, College of Business
Vice President for Enrollment and Student Services	Dean of Students
Assistant Vice President/Budget Director	Senior Financial Analyst
Exec. Dir., Institutional Research and Effectiveness, chair	Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Assoc. Vice President for Research and Sponsored Projects	Director of the Center for Distance Learning
Institutional research Analyst, Undergraduate Studies	Assistant Director, Institutional Research and Effectiveness
Exec. Dir., Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Dev.	Asst. to the Vice President, Enrollment and Student Services
Associate Vice President, Enrollment and Student Services	Assoc. Prof. Management and Marketing, member of IPAC
Vice President for Information Technology	Dean of Admissions and Enrollment Services

The Work Group recommended to Executive Committee 83 performance measures for inclusion in UTPA�s Compact FY 2007-2008. In May 2006, the Executive Committee (President and Vice Presidents) approved the list of recommended measures. The number of measures per goal and a sample of those measures are included on Table 2, below. The complete set of measures can be found online in UTPA�s Compact at Compact FY2007-FY2008.

Table 2. UTPA�s Compact FY2007-FY2008 Performance Measures Summary

Goal Statement	Measures
Provide students a quality educational experience that enables them to complete their educational goals in a timely fashion. Achieve a 75% retention rate of the entering freshman cohort (first-time, full-time) from their first year to their second year FY10. Maintain at 90% the proportion of students meeting criteria for success as defined by academic programs. Improve the six-year undergraduate graduation rate of new first-time, full-time freshmen to 35% by 2010 and 53% by 2015.	29
Become an outstanding research institution, emphasizing collaborative partnerships and entrepreneurship. Be recognized among the top 350 research institutes in the U.S. in R&D expenditures by 2010. Implement two additional doctoral programs (PhD in Manufacturing Engineering and Rehabilitation Science) and one additional cooperative doctorate in Biomedical Life Sciences by 2010. Raise $6 million for endowed chairs and professorships to support the doctoral programs and other funds for centers of excellence, faculty development, etc. by 2010.	16
Enhance UTPA�s engagement with the community to meet challenges and maximize opportunities. Improve constituents� image of UTPA. Increase proportion of faculty/staff volunteer organizations. Improve COSERVE�s (Center for Operations and Community Services) engagement with the community.	9
Collaborate with P-12 schools to enlarge the pool of applicants who are personally prepared and academically qualified for higher education. Improve collaboration with P-12 schools through coordinated efforts among the divisions of Academic Affairs, ESS through the P-16 Council. Public school student visits to campus scheduled through the Visitors Center will increase by 5% per year. % of entering freshmen with college credit will increase by 1-2% per year.	11
Infuse Inter-American and global perspectives throughout the University community. Develop a plan to expand the university�s involvement in Inter-America/global issues. Increase student enrollment in study abroad programs to 425 in FY10. Increase the number of F1 students (fulltime International) by 5% a year.	4
Optimize institutional effectiveness and efficiency consistent with high quality organizational standards. The plan for continuous quality improvement will be completed in FY07 and implemented in FY08. Oracle will be fully installed by September 1, 2006. Customer satisfaction reports and other forms of feedback are used to monitor effectiveness of and to improve UTPA�s systems.	14

During the development of FY07 Annual Action Plans, units included the Compact outcome measures and supporting strategies to achieve them in their plans. Examples of this inclusion are listed here by division:

Academic Affairs
- Office of Academic Advising and Mentoring (AAM) Program
  - 100% of the AAM Center caseload during Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 will be tracked using the plan to be developed.
- Office of Graduate Studies
  - Increased number of graduate students enrolled in graduate programs by 3% from current enrollment.
- College of Education
  - Research teams developed and research projects identified that include school-based research that will impact K-12 English Language Learners.
Division of Business Affairs
- Office of the Vice President
  - Maintain the administrative costs ratio (as percent of operating budget) within one to 1.5% (plus or minus) of the instate peer average.
- All units
  - Customer satisfaction reports and other forms of feedback are used to monitor effectiveness of and to improve UTPA�s systems.
Division of Enrollment and Student Services
- Financial Aid
  - Increase the proportion of all students who complete the FAFSA by March 1 by 5%.
  - Increase the proportion of entering freshmen who completed the FAFSA by March 1 by 5%.
Division of External Affairs
- University Relations
  - Improved constituents� image of UTPA.
- COSERVE
  - Improved engagement between COSERVE (Center for Operations and Community Services) and the community.
- Division of Information Technology
  - Complete plans for increasing technology-aided courses and expanding Internet services to students to meet FY07 and FY08: By October 2006, extend wireless network to the residence halls. By December 2007, complete student internet portal. By May 2007, augment traditional student internet labs with work areas designed for group and collaborative activities.
President�s Division
- Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness
  - Reports to the P-16 council.
  - Stewardship road shows are completed and training begins.
  - Stewardship Council is implemented.
  - IDEEL or some similar process is implemented.
  - Peer Review Program is scheduled Summer 2007.

State Higher Education Accountability System

Expected outcomes/performance measures are reported to the State of Texas through the State Higher Education Accountability System. On January 22, 2004, Governor Perry issued Executive Order RP 31 requiring the Coordinating Board and each institution and system work together to provide �the information necessary to determine the effectiveness and quality of the education students receive at individual institutions� which will serve as �� the basis to evaluate the institutions� use of state resources.� UTPA�s latest report was submitted to the State in December 2005.

Included in the Accountability System are outcome measure targets developed annually by institutional representatives with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) staff. UTPA�s Executive Director for Institutional Research and Effectiveness is the THECB liaison. The targets are set for sets of institutions according to mission: research, doctoral, comprehensive, master�s, baccalaureate. UTPA is in the comprehensive category.

This Accountability System is populated by data from required reports submitted by higher education institutions to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and a few variables submitted by the institution, such as the number of endowed professorships and chairs, members of national academies, number of faculty with external grants, and total dollar value of the endowment. The Accountability System is maintained by the Coordinating Board. It is used by UT System officials to track progress against targets. It is used by legislators during the biennial legislative appropriations cycle to answer their questions about public 4-year higher education institutions. It is used by members of the public to increase their awareness of the performance of the institutions for which they pay taxes.

One example of an outcome measure with a comprehensive group target is the federal research expenditures per fulltime equivalent faculty. The target for the group is a 10% increase from FY2004 to FY2007. Table 3, below, displays a sample from the Accountability System showing UTPA�s FY2004 baseline of $7,364, which would increase to $8,101 by FY2007 to meet the group target.

Table 3. UTPA Sample Posting from the State Accountability System

Table 4 displays the complete list of the measures monitored by the State of Texas in the Higher Education Accountability System. There are 53 measures in the areas of student participation and success, academic excellence, institutional research productivity, and institutional efficiency and effectiveness. The 23 �Key Measures� are those for which targets are developed by institutional grouping. The 30 �Contextual Measures� are included to explain performance on some key measures, or to provide more detail regarding the institutional mission within the context of the measures discussed.

Table 4. Accountability Measures: Public Universities

Participation

Key Measures

Enrollment: Number and percent of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students enrolled on the 12th day of class,
disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, age, and level.

FTE Enrollment: Number and percent of undergraduate, graduate, and professional FTE students enrolled, disaggregated by
gender, ethnicity, and age.

Contextual/Explanatory Measure

Percent of first-time freshmen from the top ten percent of their Texas high school class.

Percentage of first-time entering applicants accepted, and the percentage of those accepted who enroll.

Percent of enrollment that are transfers from Texas two-year colleges with at least 30 SCH.

Semester Credit Hours: Total number of graduate and undergraduate semester credit hours.

Graduate and professional SCH as a percent of total SCH.

Ethnic composition of high school graduates in Texas.

Success

Key Measures

Graduation Rate: Four, five, and six-year graduation rate of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduates by ethnicity.

Graduation and Persistence Rate: Percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates who have graduated or are still
enrolled in higher education after six academic years (by total and race/ethnicity).

Graduates: Number and percent of graduates by level and race/ethnicity & gender.

Computer science, engineering, math, and physical science graduates both undergraduate and graduate.

Nursing and allied health graduates both undergraduate and graduate.

Number of students taking the certification exam for teacher education and the pass rates by ethnicity and gender.

Contextual/Explanatory Measures

Financial Aid: Percent of students receiving Pell Grants.

Enrollment: Percent of first-time students 19 and under.

Part-time Undergraduate Students: The number and percent of part-time degree seeking and part-time first-time degree seeking
undergraduates.

  Developmental Education: Percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking undergraduates requiring developmental education who
  have graduated or are still enrolled in higher education after six academic years (by
  total and race/ethnicity).

Graduation Rate for two-year college students who completed at least 30 SCH before transferring to a university.

Percent of baccalaureate graduates completing at least 30 SCH at a Texas two-year college.

Graduation Rates for master's, doctoral and professional programs

Persistence Rate: First-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who remain enrolled after one and two academic years (by
total and race/ethnicity).

Excellence

Key Measures

Percent lower division SCH taught by
tenure/tenure track faculty.

FTE student/FTE faculty ratio.

Percent of baccalaureate graduates either employed or enrolled in a Texas graduate or professional school within one year of
graduation.

Certification or licensure, licensure/certification rate on state or national exams (law, pharmacy, nursing, CPA, engineering).

Class size: The average class size of lower division classes.

Percent of faculty who are Tenure/Tenure-Track.

Contextual/Explanatory Measures

Percent of FTE faculty who are Tenure/Tenure-Track by ethnicity and gender.

Faculty Headcount: Ethnicity and gender.

Faculty: Salaries and trends, compared to national average by discipline and appointment level.

Endowed Chairs: Total number of endowed professorships and chairs, number and percent of those filled, and percent of total
tenure/tenure-track faculty.

Number of members in the National Academies.

Class Size: The percentage of classes with less than 20 students.

Class Size: The percentage of classes with more than 50 students.

Employment: Percent of baccalaureate graduates employed in Texas one year following graduation.

Percent of baccalaureate graduates enrolled in a Texas graduate or professional school within one year of graduation.

Research

Key Measures

Research expenditures.

Federal research expenditures as a percent of state appropriations.

Federal research expenditures per FTE faculty.

Contextual/Explanatory Measures

Research expenditures by source of funds (federal, state, private, institutional).

FTE Faculty: Number and percent of FTE tenured/tenure-track holding extramural grants (all sources and types).

Institutional Efficiencies and Effectiveness

Key Measures

Administrative Costs as a percent of operating budget.

Facilities: Space utilization rate of classrooms and labs.

Appropriations: Appropriated funds per FTE student and per FTE faculty.

Expenditures: Operating expenses per FTE student.

Total Revenue: Adjusted total revenue per FTE student and per FTE faculty.

Total HUB expenditures with and without construction.

Contextual/Explanatory Measures

Average cost of tuition and fees for 30 resident undergraduate semester credit hours

Square footage E&G classroom and square footage E&G lab space by full-time equivalent student.

Endowment: Total

Endowment: Per FTE Student

Total Revenue: Adjusted total revenue by tuition and fees, state appropriations, federal funds, and institutional funds.

Legislative Budget Board Report

Every two years, the institution submits its Legislative Appropriations Request for the next biennium. In that request, the institution includes past actual data and future projections for a set of performance measures. Strategies in terms of budget allocations are included to address the performance measure projections. These data serve as discussion points with the Legislative Budget Board, which reviews the budget requests. The institutional outcomes/performance measures projected include:

Number of undergraduate degrees awarded
Number of course completers
Number of minority graduates
Number of community college transfer graduates
Number of lower division classes taught by tenured or tenure track faculty
Number of minority students enrolled (Fall semester)
Number of community college students enrolled
Headcount enrollment (Fall)
Student enrollment on last class day as a percent of those enrolled on twelfth class day
Number of semester credit hours (annual)
Percent of course completers (% SCH completed)
Percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen who graduate within six years by ethnicity
Percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen retained after one academic year (Fall to Fall)
Percent of TASP students retained after one academic year
Dollar amount of externally funded research
External research as a percent of state appropriations
Administrative cost as a percent of total institutional educational and general expenditures
Space utilization rate of classrooms
Space utilization rate of class labs
Success of students needing remediation
State licensure examinations for nurses and teachers
Faculty/student ratio
Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB) utilization

UTPA�s LBB Performance Measures for the FY07 and FY08 biennium was submitted to the State in August 2006

Use of Major Institutional Level Programmatic Outcomes

Major institutional programmatic outcomes are assessed, reviewed, and used for improvements. These measures are in unit action plans and assessment reports, Compact performance measures, and a few are tracked in the State Higher Education Accountability System. The following discussion focuses on four major outcomes: first-year retention, six-year graduation rates, graduate semester credit hour productivity, and research and sponsored projects productivity. These outcomes are discussed in relationship to the university goal it supports.

GOAL: Provide students a quality educational experience that enables them to complete their educational goals in a timely fashion.

The two major outcomes associated with this goal are first-year retention and 6-year graduation rates.

First-Year Retention

First-year retention rates are monitored annually at UTPA when certified data is available from the Coordinating Board in the early Fall. These rates are also monitored by UT System Board of Regents through the annual Accountability and Performance Reports, and through the Compact reports. On the State level, these outcomes are monitored via the Higher Education Accountability System

Table 5 displays the first-year retention rates at UTPA for the entering classes of Fall 2000 through Fall 2004. The right hand column contains the target for the retention of freshmen who entered in Fall 2005 and continued in Fall 2006.

Table 5. First-Year Retention

Entering Class
Fall 2000	Fall 2002	Fall 2004	Target Fall 2005
61.0%	66.3%	67.3%	75.0%

Recent improvements in administrative units to increase the first-year retention rates to achieve the target include:

FY2005

Expanded the Early Warning System to identify students in academic distress in mid-semester so proper interventions can be taken.
Implemented the Learning Framework Course required of all freshmen to promoting the active engagement of students in their learning.
Improved recruitment and orientation processes to reduce the barriers for entering students, and to increase their awareness of the demands of college life.

FY2006

Opened the Academic Advisement and Mentoring Center to assist students in efficiently and effectively developing and completing their degree plans.
Completed construction on a 400-bed residence hall to open Fall 2006.
Doubled the number of cohorts of paired Learning Communities.
Initiated the UTPA Parents and Families Association to inform parents of first-generation students (73% of UTPA undergraduates) of the responsibilities of college.

Examples of interventions included in FY07 Action Plans to improve first-year retention are reflected on Table 6, below.

Table 6: Selected AY07 Interventions to Improve First-Year Retention

Unit	Strategy(ies) to Achieve Unit Objective	Measurable Outcome for Unit Objective
Academic Advisement and Mentoring Center	During Summer 2006, the AAM Center will develop an academic advisement process as a framework for providing academic advisement.	Beginning in Fall 2006, the academic advisement process will be utilized with 100% of the AAM Center caseload.
Office of Student Financial Services	Encourage student to explore the work-study program before seeking employment off campus.	Include information on newsletter, Bronc Notes & in outreach activities
Math Department	Develop actions through the QEP to improve the delivery of instruction in gatekeeper math courses.	Action plan

Six-Year Retention

Six-year retention rates are monitored annually at UTPA when certified data is available from the Coordinating Board in the early Fall. These rates are also monitored by UT System Board of Regents through the annual Accountability and Performance Reports, and through the Compact. On the State level, these outcomes are monitored via the Higher Education Accountability System.

Graduation rates have become an issue with the UT System Board of Regents as evidence by a resolution passed at their February 2006 meeting to improve graduation rates at UT System academic institutions. The targets for improving graduation rates at UT System institutions, and UTPA in particular, were reported at the May Board meeting.

UTPA�s graduation targets are set to equal the average for all public 4-year institutions in the United States. These targets, which are monitored annually by UTPA and the UT System, are displayed on Table 7.

Table 7: UTPA�s Graduate Targets

Table 8 displays the six-year retention rates at UTPA for the entering classes of Fall 1993 through Fall 1999. The right hand column contains the target for the graduation of freshmen who entered in Fall 2004 and graduated in FY2010.

Table 8. Six-Year Graduation Rates

Entering Class
Fall 1993	Fall 1997	Fall 1998	Fall 1999	Target Fall 2010
22.1%	26.2%	26.7%	29.6%	35.0%

Recent improvements in administrative units to increase the 6-year graduation rates to achieve the target include:

FY2005

Expanded the Early Warning System to identify students in academic distress in mid-semester so proper interventions can be taken.
Implemented flat fee for designated tuition and mandatory fees at 14 SCH for Fall 2004 to encourage students to increase their course loads and reduce time-to-degree.
Expanded the May mini-term to offer nearly twice as many courses.
Improved processes in the Office of Financial Aid that increased the identification of and awards to students eligible for the Texas Grant program.

FY2006

Opened the Academic Advisement and Mentoring Center to assist students in efficiently and effectively developing and completing their degree plans.
Instituted a financial disincentive for enrollment in the same course more than twice.
Implemented recommendations from the Task Force on Class Scheduling to improve the timing of course offerings to facilitate degree completion.
Opened the Child Development Center to provide child care for the young children of UTPA students.
Completed construction on a 400-bed residence hall to open Fall 2006.

Examples of interventions included in FY07 Action Plans to improve six-year graduation rates are reflected on Table 9, below.

Table 9: Selected AY07 Interventions to Improve Six-Year Graduation Rates

Unit	Strategy(ies) to Achieve Unit Objective	Measurable Outcome for Unit Objective
College of Health Sciences and Human Services	Encourage the development of new clinical sites.	Increased number of preceptor/clinical sites by at least 5% during AY 2006-2007 as compared to the previous academic year.
College of Social and Behavioral Sciences	Develop and publish class schedules 1 year in advance.	Departmental AY07-08 schedules that are disseminated in AY06-07.
College of Business Administration	Standardize degree plans and continuously improve them to meet professional relevance.	Number of continuing students who graduate in four years increases to 20%.

GOAL: Become an outstanding research institution, emphasizing collaborative partnerships and entrepreneurship.

The two major outcomes tracked regarding this goal are: increase graduate SCH, and increase research and sponsored projects dollars received.

Proportion of Semester Credit Hours at the Graduate Level

The proportion of semester credit hours (SCH) at the graduate level is monitored annually at UTPA when certified data is available from the Coordinating Board in the early Fall. This data is also monitored by UT System Board of Regents through the annual Accountability and Performance Reports, and through the Compact reports. On the State level, these outcomes are monitored via the Higher Education Accountability System.

Table 10 displays the proportion of semester credit hours generated at the graduate level for the Fall semesters indicated. The right hand column contains the target for the Fall semester of 2010.

Table 10. Proportion of SCH at the Graduate Level

Fall Semester
2000	2004	2005	Target 2010
6.4%	6.9%	7.1%	16.0%

Recent improvements in administrative units to increase the proportion of SCH at the graduate level to achieve the target include:

FY2005

Implemented three new master�s degree programs: Accounting, Accountancy, and Occupational Therapy.
Offered the Master�s in Public Administration as a separate program from Political Science.

FY2006

Hired a Director of Graduate Studies and additional support staff to aid the Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies.
Obtained Coordinating Board approval to implement a new master�s degree program, the Master of Science in Chemistry, in Fall 2006.
Replaced the Associate Vice President for Graduate Programs with the Associate Dean from the College of Business, which houses one of UTPA�s doctoral programs.

Examples of interventions included in FY07 Action Plans to increase the proportion of SCH at the graduate level are reflected on Table 11, below.

Table 11: Selected AY07 Interventions to Increase Proportion of Graduate SCH

Unit

Strategy(ies) to Achieve Unit Objective

Measurable Outcome for Unit Objective

Graduate School

�		Enter the classroom to recruit with the help of faculty.
�		Increase communications.
�		Add additional master and doctoral programs.

3% from current enrollment.

Department of English

Cultivate prepared undergraduates for graduate work by:

Hosting an annual recruitment session for all undergraduates with graduate advisor and graduate students.
Hosting an annual recruitment session for all undergraduates with graduate advisor and graduate students.
Including strong research and writing components in upper division English classes.

�		Implemented recruitment session.
�		Research and writing assignments designed to prepare students for graduate work.

Department of Educational Leadership/EdD Program

Create an Educational Leadership Doctoral (EDLP) Program Task Force for student recruitment.

By December 31, 2006, the ELDP Task Force will be created made up of individuals who have completed their Ed.D., individuals working on, but not yet finished, with their Ed.D. and representatives of COE and the EDPL Admissions Committee.

Department of Electrical Engineering

Create long term plan for new programs by:

Investigating opportunities for Cooperative PhD programs
Allocating time for long-range planning of new programs at department retreat

1. List of Texas programs interested in
    Cooperative PhD program.
2. Submitted report on long-range
    prospects for PhD, Cooperative PhD, and
    additional MS programs

Research and Sponsored Projects Dollars Received

The total amount of research and sponsored projects dollars received is monitored annually in late Fall after the Annual Financial Report is completed. The Office of Sponsored Projects and Research set a target of a $1 million dollar increase per year.

Table 12 displays the total amount of research and sponsored projects funding received for the fiscal years indicated. The right hand column contains the annual target for the near future.

Table 12. Research and Sponsored Projects Dollars Received

Fiscal Year
2004	2005	Annual Target
$18.9 million	$20 million	+ $ 1 million

Recent improvements in administrative units to increase the total amount of research and sponsored projects dollars received to achieve the target include:

FY2005

Established cross-campus collaborative research groups.
Instituted an indirect cost policy to allocate more funds back to the principal investigator to encourage more research activities.
Joined the Board of LEARN (Lonestar Education and Research Network) to give UTPA a voice in the development of the state research network.

FY2006

Implementation of the three-course workload for faculty involved in grants, research, and creative activity.

Examples of interventions included in FY07 Action Plans to increase research and sponsored projects dollars received are reflected on Table 13, below.

Table 13: Selected AY07 Interventions to Increase Research and Sponsored Projects Dollars Received

Unit

Strategy(ies) to Achieve Unit Objective

Measurable Outcome for Unit Objective

Office of Innovation and Intellectual Property

Convert existing underutilized space into collaborative technology incubation/R&D space for faculty and students to build relationships with industry by working on real world problems.

Space created and occupied.

School of Engineering and Computer Science

Build on existing contacts by submitting collaborative proposals and host research symposiums so faculty can share research interests.

Number of collaborative proposals submitted

Center on Aging and Health

1.		Expand the sharing of resources and technical support among UTPA faculty, staff, and students.
2.		Diversify grant submissions to raise research funds.
3.		Support RAs program.
4.		Encourage interdisciplinary and collaborative research within and across colleges.
5.		Facilitate faculty research and scholarly collaboration within the university through formal and informal meetings, announcements, provision of resources and technical support.

Diversification of research grant submissions and increased faculty collaborations in national and international programs and activities, refereed publications & presentations; improved organization effectiveness through the sharing of resources and facilitation of research.

In addition to these outcome measures, UTPA has a set of Key Performance Indicators that act as a �report card� to indicate how well the institution is performing in five key areas: students, admissions, finance, faculty, and financial aid. These 25 indicators are monitored on an annual basis by the President�s Council. Targets are developed for some but not all these indicators � for retention and graduation rates, for instance. The indicators that display a negative change from one year to the next are investigated.

Educational Programs

The University of Texas-Pan American has been engaged in the process of identifying and assessing expected student learning outcomes for all its educational programs for many years. Through the process of Program Review, each educational program has examined the student learning outcomes and made improvements as needed. Since Fall 2000, UTPA has become more focused on continuous improvement, and has developed a more systematic process for assessing expected student learning outcomes in all educational programs.

Systematic assessment of student learning outcomes in the general education (core curriculum) was the first to be conducted. A description of that process may be found in Criterion 3.5.1. During the Fall 2003 semester, every educational program developed Assessment Plans to systematically guide the process for assessment of student learning outcomes in each major. Through facilitation from the Associate Vice Presidents for Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies, the faculty in each program reviewed, revised, and/or identified new student learning outcomes for each educational program. The faculty also identified direct and indirect means of assessing/measuring the outcomes, as well as set criteria for success. Procedures for how assessment was to be conducted were also developed.

To date, 65 undergraduate programs and 41 graduate programs have developed Assessment Plans that describe the student learning outcomes expected for the major, the direct and indirect means by which the outcomes will be assessed, and the criteria for success expected. At the end of every fall and spring semesters, all students graduating in every undergraduate and graduate program are assessed. A report describing the results of the assessment and improvements made to the program as a result of assessment is generated by each program coordinator, discussed with faculty in the program, the department chair, and the dean of the college. The faculty analyzes the results and identifies improvements that need to be made to the curriculum design, courses, faculty assignments, and/or assessment processes and procedures. A copy of the report is submitted to the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs through the Associate Vice Presidents for Undergraduate and Graduate Studies. Assessment Plans and Assessment Reports of student learning outcomes for all educational programs may be found on the Institutional Effectiveness website.

Assessment of learning for all students graduating was conducted in a systematic manner for all educational programs during Spring 2005, Fall 2005 and Spring 2006. Summarizing the results of the total number of reports is too voluminous to address here. However, below are examples of identified student learning outcomes in each of the six colleges at UTPA, the process use to assess the SLOs, the results of the assessment, and the improvements made based on the results.

Assessment in the College of Arts and Humanities

Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in English and Teacher Certification

In the College of Arts and Humanities, the faculty have refined the expected student learning outcomes in the B.A. in English and English Language Arts 4-8 and 8-12 Teacher Certification over the course of two academic years as a result of assessment. The Intended Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for the B.A. in English and Teacher Certification are as follows:

Students will be able to interpret and analyze a text using different approaches from literary, rhetorical, and/or linguistic theories.
Students in certification tracks will demonstrate knowledge and skills in the areas of writing, literature, reading, oral communication, media literacy, and English language arts pedagogy.
Recent graduates who majored in English will demonstrate satisfaction with the programs in the English Department.

To assess SLO 1, a direct measure of learning is utilized. English majors enrolled in 3000 and 4000-level English courses and graduating in May/August or December are asked to submit an essay completed in any upper division English class during their tenure as English majors at UTPA. The essay must fit one of the following descriptions:

The paper analyzes a significant issue and/or position in an area of English studies, or
It interprets or analyzes a text or texts associated with a specific area of English studies (literature, rhetoric/composition, and linguistics).

Students are advised to submit essays that represent their best work. A team of faculty graders from the English department scores the essays using a rubric developed by the English faculty.

The criteria for success set by the faculty were that at least 80% of graduating seniors must score �satisfactory� or higher in the following four traits: (1) organization/ development; (2) analysis of texts/topics/sources; (3) rhetoric/audience; (4) writing style. Each essay was assigned a score from 1-4 by two graders, with 4 designated High Pass, 3 designated Pass, 2 designated Low Pass, and 1 designated No Pass. The 2 rating was set as the lowest satisfactory score.

During Spring 2005, 58 graduating students submitted an essay for scoring; during Fall 2005, 27 graduating students were assessed, and 69 were assessed in Spring 2006. Table 14 depicts the results of assessment for three semesters.

Table 14: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for B.A. in English

Semester	Satisfactory (2) or Higher	Unsatisfactory (1)	Pass (3) or High Pass (4)	High Pass (4)
Spring 2005	67% (39 papers)	33% (19 papers)	24% (14 papers)	1% (1 paper)
Fall 2005	92.5% (25 papers)	7% (2 papers)	22% (6papers)	0%
Spring 2006	85.5% (59 papers)	14.4% (10 papers)

As can be noted, the assessment results for SLO 1 indicate that the criteria for success were not met for the Spring 2005 semester. Based on these results, the English faculty made several improvements/changes:(1) training/discussion sessions for faculty to coordinate expectations in analytical assignments; and (2) faculty worked with students in improving drafts of major papers in upper division courses prior to submission for a grade. (The consensus among the four readers was that most of the papers submitted for assessment could have been rated 3s and 4s in all categories had the writers been given more direction during the drafting stage.)

In Fall 2005, the results indicated a significant improvement as compared to results of Spring 2005 semester. The criteria for success were met. During the 2005-2006 academic year, the English faculty revised the scoring rubric, restructured the entire B.A. in English degree with a focus on creative writing, hired three new faculty in creative writing, and gave two faculty members 25% release time each to coordinate assessment efforts in the department and follow up on improvements. In Spring 2006, the assessment results met and exceeded the expected criteria for success.

To assess SLO 2, English majors seeking certification to teach English language arts and reading at the public school 4-8 middle school level or 8-12 high school level are required to take the English Language Arts/Reading Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES), a standardized state examination. The TExES is scored by a national testing firm.

The results for assessment of SLO 2 for students pursuing teacher certification indicated that 100% of graduating students (N=18) who took the English Language Arts/Reading content TExES examination in Spring 2005 passed it. No students took the test in Fall 2005 or Spring 2006. During 2005-2006 academic year, the English Education Committee in the English department conducted review sessions to prepare students for the exam experience, posted information about TExES on the English Department web site and contacted all students in English certification programs (4-8 and 8-12 certification degree plans) via letters and email to inform them of TExES eligibility requirements, and held individual review conferences with students registered to take the TExES.

To assess SLO 3, a student satisfaction survey, an indirect measure of student success, was used. In April 2005, student satisfaction surveys were sent to all graduating seniors for 2005 (76 seniors). An additional 80 surveys were sent to students who graduated between 2001 and 2004. As of late May 2005, 44 graduating seniors and three 2002-2004 graduates had responded. Ratings in the 4 (good) and 5 (excellent) categories ranged from 98% for the category �your overall English classroom experience� to 78% for �The English Department�s advisors for teacher certification.� The average for responses in the 4 and 5 ratings was 89%. In the Fall 2005 semester, 80% of students responded in the 4 and 5 categories to survey questions. Twenty-eight (28) graduating seniors (54% of the students who graduated in Fall 2005) completed and submitted surveys either online or in writing. In the Spring 2006 semester, the results indicate that 80% of the graduating students (56) responded in the 4 and 5 categories to survey questions.

Based on the results of the survey, the English department made several improvements in the assessment: (1) The Student Satisfaction Survey was placed on line. (2) The English Program�s Assessment Committee reviewed the open-ended responses to determine trends and to suggest overall program improvement. (3) The Student Satisfaction Survey was revised to yield more useful information for departmental program improvement and to reflect previous respondents� recommendations and to create items that elicit more specific data on the way that the department contributes to student satisfaction. (4) A detailed report of survey results was prepared for deliberation by the English Programs Assessment Committee. (5) The English Department Assessment Coordinator distributed results of the survey to the Department of English Chair and appropriate Program Coordinators and Committee Chairs. (6) Information on degree requirements, certification requirements, and English careers was updated on the Department of English Web Site and on Department classroom bulletin boards.

Master of Arts (M.A.) in History

The M.A. in History has identified the following as the expected student learning outcomes for its program. The student will:

be able to use proper historical method to categorize information, organize arguments, and critically assess the validity of historical theories.
be able to write a thoughtful, organized, and well researched historical paper or thesis.
be able to identify and explain the historiographical schools in at least two areas. The means for direct assessment of the SLOs is through written comprehensive examinations, research papers, and/or theses. The criteria for success are that students will pass the written comprehensive examination and satisfactorily complete a research paper and/or thesis. Results of assessment for the Spring 2005, Fall 2005, and Spring 2006 semesters are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for M.A. in History

Semester Percent	Passing
Spring 2005	100% (N=2)
Fall 2005	No Graduates
Spring 2006	100% (N=1)

The program is primarily an evening program that consists of part-time students; therefore, enrollment in graduate degree programs is small. Few students graduate each semester/year. As a result of program review and assessment, the History department is focused on implementing strategies for recruitment of students into the graduate program. One of the goals for UTPA is to increase the number of graduate programs and the number of students pursuing graduate studies.

Assessment in the College of Business

Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in Business Administration with a Major in Economics

In the College of Business Administration, the faculty in the Department of Economics identified the following student learning outcomes for the B.A. in Economics:

Students will demonstrate knowledge of concepts in:
- Macroeconomics
- Microeconomics
- International Economics
Students will communicate effectively in writing and verbally.

To assess the SLO 1, students graduating at the end of Spring 2005, Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 were administered the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Major Field Examination for Business Administration. The questions on the test are designed to measure a student�s knowledge and ability to apply significant facts, concepts, theories, and analytical methods, as well as knowledge in specific business disciplines, such as accounting, economics, finance, management, quantitative business analysis and information systems, and international issues. The criteria for success set by the faculty were that students should obtain an average correct score at or above the national norm. Results of the assessment are described in Table 16.

Table 16: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for B.A. Business Administration with a Major in Economics

SLO	Spring 2005	Fall 2005	Spring 2006
1. Students will demonstrate knowledge of concepts in: Macroeconomics Microeconomics International Economics	38.2.%--UTPA Average (N=42) (42.8%-- National Average)	39% --UTPA Average (N=77) (42.7%--National Average)	39%--UTPA Average (N-86) (42.7%-- National Average)
2. Students will communicate effectively in writing and verbally	Not Assessed	Not Assessed	Not Assessed

Data indicate that the criteria for success were not met in any semester. Analysis of the results by the Associate Dean, the Director of Advisement, the Department Chair and the faculty revealed that students who were enrolled in the last course in the sequence of courses for a major in Economics, and other majors as well, had not taken the pre-requisites for the courses. Students were enrolled in the course in which the assessment was administered and had not completed the pre-requisite courses. A software computer procedure was implemented to identify those students who were not in compliance with pre-requisites at the beginning of the Spring 2006 semester. It was discovered that approximately 1,384 students were out of compliance with respect to having the required prerequisites. Through an aggressive advisement process, students who were out of compliance were dropped from certain courses and added to appropriate courses. By the end of this process, there were only 274 students who did not have the prerequisites because they were not informed by the faculty or were going to graduate and were allowed to stay in the course. An automated process has been put into place that will not allow students to register for a course without having met the pre-requisites. It is anticipated that this major change in the curriculum will improve the performance of students on measures of success in the semesters to come.

The College of Business created an Advisement Center within its own building that is a part of the University Academic Advisement and Mentoring (AAM) Center to ensure that all majors in the college received appropriate advisement. During the Fall 2006 semester, the faculty will be working on revising the student learning outcomes so that they are more measurable. The process for assessment, including the means of assessment, will also be reviewed.

Assessment in the College of Science and Engineering

Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Chemistry

In the College of Science and Engineering, the faculty in the Department of Chemistry identified the following student learning outcomes for the B.S. in Chemistry:

Graduates will have both broad knowledge and skills of critical thinking in the chemical sciences.
Graduates are prepared to conduct or participate in advanced research.
Graduates will demonstrate the ability to communicate chemical knowledge.
Graduates are prepared to search for employment (including graduate or professional school)

To assess the SLOs, the faculty used the following direct means of assessment:

70% passing score on an objective, written examination designed by the chemistry faculty and administered to graduating students the semester prior to graduation;
a requirement that all majors pass CHEM 4201, a research-based problems course;
a requirement that the student deliver a formal seminar, make a poster presentation or write a comprehensive technical report;
a requirement that the student complete two of the three following activities:
- prepare a personal resume, participate in a practice job interview session or
- complete and submit two applications to graduate school OR obtain
- acceptance by one graduate school (this includes medical school, Law school, etc.)

The criteria for success were set as follows: 80% of graduating students would obtain a minimum score of 70% on the written examination and that 100% would satisfactorily complete all of the remaining requirements.

Results of the assessment are described in Table 17.

Table 17: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for B.S. in Chemistry

SLOs	Spring 2005	Fall 2005	Spring 2006
Graduates will have both broad knowledge and skills of critical thinking in the chemical sciences.	40% of the graduating students (N=10) achieved scores of 70% or more on the written examination.	No students graduated in Fall 2005.	62% of the graduating students (N=25) achieved scores of 70% or more on the written examination.
Graduates are prepared to conduct or participate in advanced research.	100% of chemistry majors (N=10) who graduated in May 2005 passed CHEM 4201.	No students graduated in Fall 2005.	100% of chemistry majors received a passing grade in CHEM 4201.
Graduates will demonstrate the ability to communicate chemical knowledge.	100% of graduating chemistry majors (N=10) completed these requirements. 100% of graduating majors (N=10) wrote a full technical report on the research they performed in the CHEM-4201course. The students established their abilities of writing scientific reports.	No students graduated in Fall 2005.	100% of chemistry majors (N=25) passed CHEM 4101. 100% of graduating majors (N=25) wrote a full technical report on the research they performed in the CHEM-4201course. The students established their abilities of writing scientific reports. 85% percent of the students have been accepted to graduate, pharmacy or medical schools.
Graduates are prepared to search for employment (including graduate or professional school.	Of nine graduates, two have accepted teaching positions in local high schools; one is expected to be hired soon as a chemistry teacher; three students are accepted to attend medical school; one has been accepted to graduate school; and one to the pharmacy school. The future plans of one student remain unknown.	No students graduated in Fall 2005.	85% percent of the students have been accepted to graduate, pharmacy or medical schools.

The data indicate a slight improvement in assessment results from Spring 2005 to Spring 2006. Based on the failure to meet the criteria for success set by the department for the performance of students on the examination that measured student knowledge in chemistry, the faculty in the chemistry program analyzed the test questions in relation to the courses in which the content is expected to be taught. Each faculty member teaching the courses examined and revised his/her own syllabus to ensure that the content is being covered. During the 2006-2007 academic year, the faculty will improve the assessment processes and procedures, including the revision of SLOs and assessment measures.

Assessment in the College of Education

Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies (BIS) in EC-4 Generalist

In the College of Education, the faculty have identified the following student learning outcomes (SLOs) for the B.I.S. degree in EC-4 Generalist program:

TExES Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR)

1. Students completing the teacher education program will be ready for employment in the field.

2. Students will demonstrate knowledge and skills in the following domains of the TExES EC-4 Generalist examination:

Domain I: Designing Instruction and Assessment to Promote Student Learning
Domain II: Creating a Positive, Productive Classroom Environment
Domain III: Implementing Effective, Responsive Instruction and Assessment
Domain IV: Fulfilling Professional Roles and Responsibilities

TExES Generalist EC-4

3. Students will demonstrate knowledge and skills in the following domains of the TExES EC-4 Generalist examination:

Domain I: English Language Arts and Reading
Domain II: Mathematics
Domain III: Social Studies
Domain IV: Science
Domain V: Fine Arts, Health, and Physical Education

To assess the SLOs for students pursuing a B.I.S. degree, the EC-4 Generalist program utilizes student performance on the standardized TExES (Texas Examinations of Educator Standards) state teacher certification examination. Students seeking teacher certification must pass two examinations with a minimum score of 240: TExES PPR and TExES Generalist Exam. The TExES PPR measures knowledge and skills in pedagogy and professional responsibilities; the TExES Generalist examination measures knowledge in subject matter taught in grades Early Childhood through 4th grade. Students take the examination while enrolled in Internship II during the last semester of their degree program.

Table 18 describes the results of the assessment during the Spring 2005, Fall 2005, and Spring 2006 semesters.

Table 18: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for B.I.S. EC-4 Certification

SLO

Spring 2005

Fall 2005

Spring 2006

1. Students completing the teacher education program will be ready for employment in the field.

At the time of assessment, students were in the process of obtaining employment. No data was available.

90% of the students in the Teacher Education Program who graduated and were certified in Spring or Summer was employed as teachers within one year of completion.

At the time of assessment, students were in the process of obtaining employment. No data was available.

2. Students will demonstrate knowledge and skills in the following domains:
Domain I:	Designing Instruction and Assessment to Promote Student Learning
Domain II:	Creating a Positive, Productive Classroom Environment
Domain III:	Implementing Effective, Responsive Instruction and Assessment
Domain IV:	Fulfilling Professional Roles and Responsibilities

74% of May 2005 graduating students (N= 158) passed the PPR exam with a minimum score of 240.

73% of December graduates (N= 95) passed the PPR exam with a minimum score of 240.

80% of May 2006 graduating students (N= 146) passed the PPR exam with a minimum score of 240.

3. Students will demonstrate knowledge and skills in the following domains of the TExES EC-4 Generalist examination:
Domain I:	English Language Arts and Reading
Domain II:	Creating a Positive, Productive Classroom Environment
Domain III:	Social Studies
Domain IV:	Science
Domain V:	Fine Arts, Health, and Physical Education

79% of May 2005 graduates (N= 213) passed the EC-4 Generalist or EC-4 Bilingual Generalist with a minimum score of 240.

The criterion for success was met.

81% of December graduates (N= 138) passed the EC-4 Generalist or EC-4 Bilingual Generalist with a minimum score of 240.

86% of May 2006 graduates (N= 230) passed the EC-4 Generalist or EC-4 Bilingual Generalist with a minimum score of 240.

The results indicate that the percent of students in the B.I.S. EC-4 degree program who are passing the state examination and getting certified has increased steadily during the past two years. However, there are still a percentage of students who are not successful on the TExES examination after completion of the degree. The faculty in the department has made several changes to the program during the past two years to improve student success. One change made in Fall 2005 was the revision of the criteria for admission to teacher education program. A study conducted by two faculty in the Department of Educational Psychology several years ago indicated that there is a strong correlation between the level of reading ability of students and their scores on the TExES examination. The faculty revised the admission criteria by raising the required Reading score on the Texas Higher Education Assessment examination (THEA) used to enter the University. The requirement for completion of academic coursework prior to entering the teacher education component of the degree program was also raised. Students are now required to have completed all but six semester hours of their academic content coursework prior to being admitted to teacher education.

The faculty also analyzed the success rate of students in the individual competencies in each domain to determine areas of weakness. As a result, they revised course syllabi to ensure that the content is being covered. It is anticipated that the percent of students passing the state certification examination will continue to improve as a result of the changes.

Master of Education (M.Ed.) in Guidance and Counseling

The Master of Education (M.Ed) in Guidance and Counseling Program has identified the following student learning outcomes for students:

Students will be well prepared to pass either the TExES exam for school counselors or the state licensure exam for professional counselors.
Students will demonstrate knowledge of school counseling, agency counseling, counseling theories, human development, career counseling, human development, and issues of cultural diversity in counseling.
Students will demonstrate competency in application of appropriate counseling methods and techniques.

To assess the graduating students� accomplishment of the SLOs, the program uses a variety of means. Graduating students are required to pass a written comprehensive examination called the TExES Representative Form during their last semester in the program with a minimum score of 70% correct responses. This test is patterned and designed in the same manner as the TExES examination for state certification as a school counselor and measures knowledge of content. Students must also pass the standardized TExES examination upon completion of the program with a minimum score of 240. An oral examination, in small group format, is used to assess the application of counseling skills.

Results of the assessments for three semesters is described in Table 19.

Table 19. Results of M.Ed. in Guidance and Counseling Student Learning Outcomes in Spring 2005, Fall 2005 and Spring 2006

SLOs	Spring 2005	Fall 2005	Spring 2006
Students will: 1. be well prepared to pass either the TExES exam for school counselors or the state licensure exam for professional counselors.	81% of graduating students (N=26) passed the TExES examination with a minimum score of 240.	Only 8 of the 20 (40%) graduates took the test at this time. Of these, 75% (N=6/8) passed the TExES examination with a minimum score of 240. The 12 graduates who have not taken this test will do so in February of 2006.	95% of graduating students (N=20/21) who took the TExES examination passed it with a minimum score of 240. Some of these included Fall 2005 graduates. 11 graduates will take the TExES Exam in June 2006.
2. demonstrate knowledge of school counseling, agency counseling, counseling theories, human development, career counseling, human development, and issues of cultural diversity in counseling.	90% of the students (N=28) passed the TExES Representative Form examination with 70% correct responses.	90% of the students (N=18/20) passed the TExES Representative Form examination with 70% correct responses on the initial attempt. The other two students passed this exam on subsequent examinations. Thus, all 20 graduates have passed this test.	84% of the students (N=27/32) passed the TExES Representative Form examination with 70% correct responses.
3. demonstrate competency in application of appropriate counseling methods and techniques.	100% of the students (N=40) obtained a �satisfactory� or better score on the oral examination.	100% of the students (N=20) obtained a �satisfactory� or better score on the oral examination.	100% of the students (N=32) obtained a �satisfactory� or better score on the oral examination.

The results indicate that students in the M.Ed. in Guidance and Counseling program are meeting the criteria for success. The pass rates on the TExES state certification examination are very good. The Counselor Education program has made several improvements to the M.Ed. in Guidance and Counseling program during the past two years. The sequence in which students take the courses and the advisement process for students have been revised. These have contributed to improvement in passing rates on the TExES examination. Three new assistant professors with specialties in school counseling have been hired for AY 2006-2007. New processes and procedures for admission into the guidance and counseling program are being designed at the present time. The process for conducting the oral examination is being revised. It is anticipated that all these improvements in the curriculum and program will improve the achievement of student learning in the program.

Assessment in the College of Health Sciences and Human Services

Bachelor of Nursing (B.S.N.)

In the Bachelor of Nursing (B.S.N.) program, the following student learning outcomes have been identified. BSN students/graduates will:

demonstrate critical thinking in the use of knowledge and theory from the behavioral, physical, and nursing sciences to provide holistic client care in multicultural health settings.
demonstrate the appropriate use of the nursing process in providing culturally competent client care.
collaborate as a member of a multidisciplinary health care team to advocate for safe and effective client care, being cognizant of cultural, societal, economic, political and ethicolegal issues.
use the research process to identify nursing problems.
evaluate research findings for applicability to nursing practice.

To assess student learning in the B.S.N. degree program, the faculty use several means/measures of assessment. One such measure is the students� passage of Final-Semester BSN Courses [Capstone]. In order for a student to receive a passing grade in a BSN course, the student must make a grade of 75 or better. The decision to use this standard was made because analysis revealed that students with a minimum grade of 75 have a better chance of passing the NCLEX on their initial attempt. During the final-semester BSN [capstone] courses, students demonstrate their cumulative knowledge and skills through various activities, including comprehensive tests and community activities. Community examples include health promotion via a community health fair in a local colonia, community and family teaching projects, health screenings [e.g., hearing, vision, acanthosis nigricans] in area schools, and volunteering at numerous organizations, such as the Food Bank.

A second means is the passage of BSN Readiness Exam. All graduating students must pass a BSN Readiness Exam in order to graduate. Passage of this Readiness Exam indicates that the student is ready to take the NCLEX or, in the case of students who are already RNs, that they have achieved the competencies as stated in the program outcomes. It is anticipated that generic students who pass the exam on their first attempt will also pass NCLEX on their first try. Since, ultimately, that is the main external criterion [post-graduation] in determining our program�s success, the BSN Readiness Exam is seen as a critical instrument to assess whether students have actually learned necessary content in the class and clinical rotations.

Students are given two opportunities to pass the BSN Readiness Exam. If they do not pass on the second attempt they must enroll in NURS 3307 Improving Critical Thinking in Nursing, a special topics course.

The final measure is the NCLEX Pass Rates [post-graduation]. Ultimately, the greatest measure of student success is passing the NCLEX-RN on the first attempt. The BNE only considers first-attempt success and may choose to sanction programs that are below an 80% first-time pass rate.

Results of the Spring 2005, Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 assessment results of the B.S.N. program are described in Table 20.

Table 20. Results of Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for the B.S.N. in Nursing in Spring 2005, Fall 2005 and Spring 2006

SLOs	Spring 2005	Fall 2005	Spring 2006
BSN students/Graduates will: 1. demonstrate critical thinking in the use of knowledge and theory from the behavioral, physical, and nursing sciences to provide holistic client care in multicultural health settings. 2. demonstrate the appropriate use of the nursing process in providing culturally competent client care.	N = 82 students [70 generics + 12 RNs] � 92.7% [76] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 92.7% [76] passed the BSN Readiness Exam N = 82 students [70 generics + 12 RNs] � 92.7% [76] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 92.7% [76] passed the BSN Readiness Exam	N = 55 students in December 2005 graduating class [46 generics + 9 RNs] � 94.55% [52] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 94.55% [52] passed the BSN Readiness Exam N = 55 students in December 2005 graduating class [46 generics + 9 RNs] � 94.55% [52] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 94.55% [52] passed the BSN Readiness Exam	No students were graduated in May 2006. No students were graduated in May 2006.
3. collaborate as a member of a multidisciplinary health care team to advocate for safe and effective client care, being cognizant of cultural, societal, economic, political and ethicolegal issues.	N = 82 students [70 generics + 12 RNs] � 92.7% [76] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 92.7% [76] passed the BSN Readiness Exam	N = 55 students in December 2005 graduating class [46 generics + 9 RNs] � 94.55% [52] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 94.55% [52] passed the BSN Readiness Exam	No students were graduated in May 2006.
4. use the research process to identify nursing problems.	N = 82 students [70 generics + 12 RNs] � 92.7% [76] passed the 3 final-semester courses � 92.7% [76] passed the BSN Read