�̾�����Ƶ

ILOs related to knowledge acquisition

1. Students are equipped to thoughtfully discuss, analyze, and apply discipline-based subject matter in writing and verbally. These attributes reflect the ability to locate primary and secondary source material, understand source integrity, and use that information in an effective manner.
2. Students possess effective problem-solving strategies. These skills promote effective use of textual material and scientific and quantitative reasoning and the ability to adapt strategies relevant to changing contexts.
3. Students are engaged in discipline-based professional practice in a socially responsible manner. Development of these skills were, in part, shaped via the myriad of experiential learning opportunities offered to students.

ILOs related to professional dispositions

1. Students demonstrate strong leadership and communication skills. These skills manifest in group activities, fostering effective change, augmented by values that respect opinions of others.
2. Students understand and value diversity. These skills have been shaped by civic engagement activities and an understanding of social justice issues.

The above undergraduate ILOs are the culmination of a developmental process that began in May, 2021 with the formation of an inclusive ILO team. Both New York and Westchester faculty councils were represented by their assessment liaisons on the team and faculty representatives from every school/college curriculum committee were team members as well. We collected systematic data, both quantitative and qualitative, over the course of the Fall, 2021 semester, from the �̾�����Ƶcommunity (faculty, students, staff), and developed a comprehensive report of our findings and recommendations. This report was shared with the �̾�����Ƶcommunity in Spring, 2022. We presented a summary of the process, findings, and recommendations at both faculty councils, as well as at both staff location councils and student governance meetings. In addition, colleagues were given the opportunity to comment on the report during a two-week public comment period. Our activities this past year have been fully transparent and available for review on this website. These ILOs represent the culmination of this intensive, year-long process.

The Joint Faculty Council (JFC) formally approved these ILOs on May 11 with an overall 93% approval rate.

The undergraduate Institutional Learning Outcome (ILO) working group would like to provide a summary of our progress to date to the �̾�����Ƶcommunity. As background, we developed the charge document, which has been presented to administration, staff, and the process of ILO approval (through formal resolutions) was approved by faculty governance bodies.

Background

Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO) can be generally defined as: Knowledge, skills, and attitudes undergraduate students are expected to develop from their entire experience at the university. Undergraduate University experiences include, broadly speaking, both academic (i.e., core, majors, minors, certificates, badges) and non-academic (i.e., �̾�����ƵPath, student life activities, UNV 101) programs.

Back To Top

Our Charge

Engaging in an ILO development process allows us to explore the interrelationships among student learning outcomes (SLOs) across both academic and non-academic, or student-facing, programs and how SLOs inform the creation of ILOs. Additionally, this inquiry process will help inform our current work on strategic planning.

Our general goal is to generate a set of ILOs in collaboration with the university community. We will initiate a process of undergraduate ILO development unique to �̾�����Ƶand offer three principles guiding this inquiry process:

1. ILOs should represent student learning competency that is commensurate with the institution’s mission.
2. ILOs should be clearly operationalized defined and their assessment achievable via a range of methodological approaches.
3. The number of ILOs should be reasonably small (say, 5 or less), which would allow for sustainable and efficient assessment.

Back To Top

Structure of Working Group

The goal of forming the working group was to represent as representative a list of key stakeholders in ILO development as possible. To meet that aim, group membership included:

1. University Director of Assessment (Alfred Ward)
2. Faculty representatives (5); one from Dyson, Lubin, Seidenberg, Education, CHP school or college undergraduate curriculum committees.
3. Two or more faculty members from the Strategic Planning Steering Committee.
4. Two location faculty council assessment leads Three current undergraduate students.
5. One alumnae, graduating with an undergraduate degree within the past ten years.
6. Seven staff members from the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (two members) and Student Experiences Assessment (five members) committees.
7. Four at-large faculty members.

Back To Top

Preparatory Work for 2021-22 Academic Year

Over the summer, four smaller working groups were formed and charged with summer “homework” assignments in the following areas.

1. Working Group 1: Survey universities who have developed ILOs and summarize those activities.
2. Working Group 2: Consolidate SLOs at �̾�����Ƶfrom both academic and non-academic programs. SLOs will be culled from 2020-21 end-year academic (majors, core) and non-academic program based reports. Recommendations on how to categorize these SLOs will be developed.
3. Working Group 3: Survey the higher education scholarly literature on ILOs and prepare a white paper. This inquiry would involve, in part, surveying the peer-reviewed literature on this topic
4. Working Group 4: Develop processes for reaching out to �̾�����Ƶcommunity regarding ILO development this Fall. Prepare an action plan for Fall.

Back To Top

Back To Top

Fall 2021 Activities

We engaged with the �̾�����Ƶcommunity in the following activities throughout the Fall semester:

1. Developed an ILO website.
2. Conducted focus groups with �̾�����Ƶstakeholders.
3. Developed an ILO survey in order to gain feedback and insights from faculty, staff, and undergraduate students. The survey qualtrics link had been shared with the �̾�����Ƶcommunity via (1) a general announcement placed on the homepage on November 19, and (2) via emails sent separately to faculty, staff, and undergraduate students from the Provost’s Office on November 22.

We look forward to working with the faculty, staff, and students throughout this process.

Back To Top

Spring 2022 Activities

1. Analyze ILO survey data and focus group narratives collected during Fall 2021
2. Prepare a report presenting survey and focus group results and ILO Recommendations
3. Make report available for public comment for a two-week period (see ILO Report & Public Comments)
4. Present a roadmap for reviewing the full report to faculty and staff councils, and student organizations
5. Adjust ILO recommendations, if needed, based on public comments
6. Submit final ILO recommendations to a formal vote at faculty councils and review by staff and student groups

Back To Top

The ILO Team

• Alfred Ward (Faculty, Dyson, Provost’s Office), Chair
• Emily Bent (Faculty, Dyson)
• Vinnie Birkenmeyer (Staff/Alum, Student Affairs)
• Sarah Burns Feyl (Staff, Library)
• Jocelyn Caballero (Student)
• Dennis Faiello (Student)
• Brianne Gonzalez (Student)
• Millie Hepburn-Smith (Faculty, CHP)
• Jennipher Lombardo, Staff, CHP)
• Kimberly Mars (Student)
• Aditi Paul (Faculty, Dyson)
• Medaline Philbert (Staff, Library)
• Raquel Plotka (Faculty, SOE)
• Kate Richardson (Faculty, Lubin)
• Mariajose Romero (Staff, Dyson)
• Kaustav Sen (Faculty, Lubin)
• Anna Shostya (Faculty, Dyson)
• Natalie Stepanian (Faculty, CHP)
• Adelia Williams (Faculty, Dyson)
• Jun Yuan (Faculty, Seidenberg)

Back To Top