October 20, 2007

The Higher Learning Commission

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400

Chicago, IL 60602-2504

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject. Report on assessment from the University of Minnesota, Morris, due on or before November 1, 2007.

This is in response to the HLC mandate of October 11, 2005, which states: “The report will describe the University’s comprehensive program for assessing student learning in academic programs and in the general education curriculum. It will also describe the data on student learning that come from the assessment measures of student learning, and report how these data on student learning are fed back to academic departments and used to improve that learning.”

UMM’s Report on Assessing and Improving Student Learning. It consists of three parts: twenty-five reports on assessment and student learning within UMM’s academic disciplines, pp. 1-70; a report on course-embedded assessment of general education as it occurs within the disciplines, pp. 71-76; and the appendices, which are the raw material for producing the first two parts that are the heart of the report.

An Observation. The following statement was made in UMM’s Five-Year report, dated June 28, 2005: “As a result while disciplines are in the process of evaluating the effectiveness of both their curricula and their assessment programs, it is too early to report on any changes prompted by the assessment program for most majors.” The following statement is made in the HLC response of October 11, 2005: “The University states that it is too early to report on any changes prompted by the assessment program in most majors.” (HLC italics) Having worked long and hard on this report, I hold that two years ago was not too early to report on changes prompted by the assessment program in most majors. All majors had capstone courses two years ago, and many of them had used assessment to improve student learning. The discipline reports will support that assertion. It is also true that assessment activities at UMM are more vigorous and extensive than they were two years ago.

Producing the Report. The Assessment of Student Learning Committee (ASLC), which I’ve chaired since the fall of 2006, approved a plan for producing this report. I met with administrators, disciplines or groups of disciplines about this report, and spoke to the Campus Assembly, our legislative body, about it. UMM’s Director of Institutional Research and I held a forum on the report.

Disciplines sent me reports on their assessment activities. Sometimes these were formal reports of the type that disciplines had been producing annually, sometimes just ad hoc responses to my request, and sometimes just emails, some of them rather chatty at that. These are in the appendices.

I shaped this raw material into a two- to four-page discipline report in a standard format, which I returned to the discipline for its critique. If it recommended changes, I always made them. In a few instances I’ve taken no reply as tacit approval, but in most instances I’ve had explicit endorsement.

As you will learn, UMM has adopted a course-embedded program for general education, so once the discipline reports were completed I drafted the second part of the report. The ASLC critiqued the initial draft and two colleagues critiqued the redraft, which led to the final.

HLC Response to UMM’s Report. Please address it to

Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson

309 Behmler Hall

University of Minnesota, Morris

Morris, MN 56267

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

James Togeas

Professor of Chemistry

Chair, Assessment of Student

Learning Committee