Assessment Manual


Summer Readings 2009 | Summer Readings 2008 | Summer Readings 2007 |
Summer Readings 2006
| Summer Readings 2005 | Summer Readings 2004

Summer readings for faculty and staff began in 2004. The purpose of the readings is to inform campus conversations focused on enhancing and sustaining an environment that supports student success, development of higher order reasoning skills, and achievement of intended learning outcomes. The readings for this year, organized around four themes, were selected (i) to provide an update on current issues in higher education, (ii) to enhance academic advising processes, (iii) to guide the development of reflection, metacognitive strategies, and critical thinking abilities in students, and (iv) to facilitate curricular and pedagogical innovations.

I. Current Issues in Higher Education

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, chapter 2, pp. 15-25. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass / The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
In this chapter, Ernest Boyer argued that “the time has come to move beyond the tired “teaching versus research” debate and give the familiar and honorable term “scholarship” a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work.” The author advanced a model of faculty work that encompasses “four separate, yet overlapping, functions. These are: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.”

Tagg, J. (2008)
. Changing minds in higher education: Students change, so why can’t colleges? Planning for Higher Education, 37(1), 15-22.

The author argues that if colleges and universities are to prepare changing students for a changing world, all campus constituencies must be learners who can shape higher education institutions for new tasks in new ways. Learning is change. Colleges and universities can only propagate it if they practice it by embracing an institutional culture of inquiry – a culture of intentional engagement of informed campus constituencies in the continuous processes of individual, professional, and organizational learning and innovation.

Hossler, D., Ziskin, M., & Cross, J.P.K. (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention: Research-based lessons on effective policies and practices. About Campus, 13 (6), 2-11.
Getting serious about student retention and persistence—serious enough to significantly improve learning, success, persistence, and graduation rates for all students—requires more than an ambitious plan. Getting serious about student persistence requires that educators connect what they know about institutional retention practices with an empirically grounded sense of what works. In this article, the authors share what they have learned in two research projects that focus on institutional efforts to enhance student persistence and graduation. Together, these studies present a fuller picture of how institutions organize themselves to enhance student persistence as well as the extent and effectiveness of those efforts.

II. Advising

Allen, J.M., & Smith, C.L. (2008). Importance of, responsibility for, and satisfaction with academic advising: A faculty perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 49(5), 397-411.
A convenient response to the perennial problem of student dissatisfaction with academic advising is to simply say that faculty members need to do more and better advising. In this study, faculty were surveyed about their attitudes toward and experiences with academic advising. Results showed that faculty, although generally satisfied with the advising they provide, do not necessarily feel responsible for all of the kinds of academic advising they believe are important for students to receive. These findings point to a gap in advising services that the authors suggest might best be bridged through partnerships between faculty members and academic support/student affairs professionals.

Hemwall, M.K., & Trachte, K.C. (2005). Academic advising as learning: 10 organizing principles. NACADA Journal, 25 (2), 74-83.
Framing academic advising as learning, and as such, part of a faculty member’s teaching responsibilities, changes the way faculty and administrators approach the task of advising students. The authors of this article propose ten organizing principles that faculty, professional advisors, and administrators can use to design effective academic advising strategies and processes. The first three principles define a curriculum for academic advising and are based on the premise that the goals and values of advising should be derived from the institutional mission statement and assist advisees in developing higher-order reasoning skills. The other principles focus on pedagogy: creating and organizing situations that assist students in meeting learning goals.

III. Critical Thinking and Cognitive Development

Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31 (2), 8-19.
In this thought-provoking article, the author argues three interesting points. First, critical thinking is not a skill; there is not a set of critical thinking skills that can be required and deployed regardless of specific context. Second, there are certain metacognitive strategies that, once learned, make critical thinking more likely. Finally, the ability to think critically – to actually do what the metacognitive strategies call for – depends on subject domain knowledge and practice.

Jackson, R. (2008). Information literacy and its relationship to cognitive development and reflective judgment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 114, pp. 47-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Institutional strategies for developing intended student learning outcomes, such as information literacy competencies, must be based on an understanding of patterns of student intellectual development throughout the college experience. In this article, the author argues that a student’s level of cognitive development or reflective judgment directly affects said student’s ability to learn and apply the information literacy competencies. The author provides examples of mapping information literacy competencies with cognitive development levels and discusses which competencies are appropriate for which level of cognitive development.

IV. Curricular and Pedagogical Innovations

Whetten, D.A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What I wish I had known about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31 (3), 339-357.
The most important things faculty members can do to influence student learning involve designing learner-centered courses or carefully planning what students—not their teachers—will do before, during, and after each class. In this article, the author draws on literature on the scholarship of teaching and learning to summarize a framework for designing courses as “significant learning experiences” and to discuss the three key components of course design — learning outcomes, learning activities, and learning assessments.

Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitating student reflection. College Teaching, 57 (1), 15-22.
Faculty are being called upon by many inside and outside of academia to encourage students to reflect as a means of developing critical thinking and reasoning skills. However, the research and practice show that it is often difficult for faculty to design and facilitate effective assignments that engage students in meaningful reflections. This article provides an overview of research and theoretical frameworks that have helped the author design assignments that have led to more productive, reflective papers. It also includes examples of student responses to these assignments from several courses.

Academic Affairs is pleased to announce the reading list for summer 2008. Summer readings for faculty and staff began in 2004. The purpose of the readings is to provide an update on current issues in higher education and to guide the implementation of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), “Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students.” The readings for this year, organized around three themes, are designed to inform campus conversations focused on enhancing and sustaining an environment that supports student success and student achievement of the QEP outcomes (R.E.A.S.O.N.).

Current Issues in Higher Education

Johnson, J.H., & Kasarda, J.D. (2008). Jobs on the move: Implications for U.S. higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 36 (3), 22-33.
Global job shifts will affect the future shape and function of American higher education. To respond effectively to twenty-first century realities, colleges and universities must diversify their curricula and research, becoming nimbler and more entrepreneurial agents for change. Further, to maintain a competitive edge in an increasingly technology-reliant and changing global society, the U.S. needs more people with advanced capabilities in science, technology, engineering, and math, and a ubiquitous acceptance of lifelong learning.

Schneider, C.G. (2008). Liberal education takes a new turn. NEA 2008 Higher Education Almanac, pp. 29-40. Washington, DC: NEA.
This article examines the often contradictory perspectives on contemporary liberal education. The author criticizes reform efforts that are limited to a focus on developing marketable skills and job readiness. Drawing on the AAC&U LEAP initiative, the author instead suggests a developmental approach to learning that emphasizes habits of mind, breadth of perspective, and capabilities. This approach integrates liberal education values with the practical focus of professional education.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (2006). Academic freedom and educational responsibility: A statement from the Board of Directors of AAC&U. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
This statement clarifies the vital role of diverse perspectives in helping students develop critical thinking skills and enhance intellectual capacities. The authors argue that the college classroom is not a talk show. It is a dedicated and deliberative critical thinking context in which students and teachers intentionally engage in difficult and contested questions with the goal of reaching beyond differing viewpoints to a critical evaluation of the relative claims of different positions.

Critical Thinking Pedagogies

Browne, M.N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5 (3), 301-309.
The authors of this article provide guidance for faculty members who are trying to infuse more critical thinking in classroom teaching and learning practices. This article outlines common characteristics of an effective critical thinking classroom: frequent questions, developmental tension, fascination with the contingency of conclusions, and active learning. These attributes reinforce one another to provide developmental stimuli for enhanced critical thinking.

Nelson, C. E. (1999). On the persistence of unicorns: The trade-off between content and critical thinking revisited. In: Pescosolido, B. A., & Aminzade, R. (Eds.), The social worlds of higher education: Handbook for teaching in a new century, pp. 168-184. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
This publication provided the foundation for the development of the QEP and is “a must read” for anyone who desires to understand the central concepts framing the QEP. This chapter summarizes Perry’s model of student intellectual and ethical development and argues that the trade-offs between the teaching of critical thinking and the teaching of content are as imaginary in practices as unicorn’s horns. The author illustrates the model by describing effective critical thinking pedagogical approaches. The central lesson and challenge for educators is that learning to think critically requires an incremental series of major reorganizations in students’ views of knowledge and knowing.

Curricular and Co-Curricular Learning

Fried, J. (2007). Higher education’s new playbook: Learning reconsidered. About Campus, 12 (1), 2-7.
The rules that dictate educational practice on most campuses were written long before scientists fully understood learning as an integrated and context-specific process. The integrated learning outcomes include the construction of knowledge, construction of meaning, and construction of self in society. Construction of knowledge refers to creating a system of connected facts, while construction of meaning is concerned with consequences, implications, and application of that learning. Construction of self in society involves ongoing choices individuals make to define their roles in communities. The author argues that educators, faculty and student affairs professionals alike, must develop collaborative ways of defining, delivering, and assessing integrated curricular and co-curricular learning experiences.

Gallien, L.B., & Hikes, Z. (2005). The fusion of curricular and co-curricular affairs at Spelman College: An administrative case study. Journal of College & Character, 6 (7), 1-12.
The authors posit that distinctive HBCUs maintain vibrant holistic campus environments for educating future leaders. The key strategies for developing leadership and critical thinking skills in students include pedagogical philosophy, the counter-narrative nature of the curriculum, the successful integration of student and academic affairs programs, and effective administrative strategies. The authors describe the partnership between academic affairs and student affairs at Spelman College as a model for developing curricular and co-curricular learning experiences.

Ash, S.L., & Clayton, P.H. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29 (2), 137-154.
The value of reflection on the learning process has been advanced for decades; however, many educators find it difficult to apply reflective practices in curricular and co-curricular learning activities. This article describes a practical and meaningful learning model that pushes students beyond superficial interpretations of complex issues and facilitates academic mastery, personal growth, critical thinking, and documented demonstration of learning.

Academic Affairs is pleased to announce the reading list for summer 2007. The readings are designed to engage the campus in conversations focused on enhancing and sustaining an environment that supports student achievement of learning outcomes.

The purpose of the readings for summer 2007 is to provide an update on current issues in higher education and to provide a foundation for participation in:

1. Reviewing the NSU general education program;
2. Developing the NSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) in 2007-2008 (the QEP theme is Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students); and
3. Enhancing the quality of student learning outcomes.

Allen, M. J. (2006). Alignment of General Education Programs. In: Allen, M.J., Assessing General Education Programs, pp. 91-120. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Alignment is a key concept in the design and assessment of general education curricula. University faculty have the responsibility to offer a cohesive curriculum that systematically and intentionally fosters the agreed-upon general education learning outcomes. Alignment strategies allow faculty to examine curricular pathways students take and determine the effectiveness of curricular designs in achieving outcomes, thus providing information for curricular reviews and improvements.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2006). Value-Added Assessment: Accountability’s New Frontier. Perspectives, 2.
Amid increasing pressure to document student learning outcomes, this report argues that public colleges and universities, working with states and accreditors, should lead the movement toward value-added assessment. In the interest of promoting a better understanding of the value college adds, such a model would advocate use of standardized instruments to measure student achievement of core outcomes, focus on achievement and measurement of general intellectual skills, and employ a multi-faceted approach to determine the value an institution adds to student success.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
This report, part of the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, highlights the essential aims, learning outcomes, and guiding principles for advancing and strengthening college education in the 21st century. Liberal education develops habits of study and thought and builds a broad knowledge base, transferable skills, and a strong sense of value, ethics, and civic engagement. The essential learning outcomes described in this report apply to professional and occupational majors as well as traditional liberal arts education. This publication focuses on the promises America makes — and needs to keep—for all who seek a college education and for the community that depends on the “economic creativity and democratic vitality” that results.

Moore, W.S. (nd). “My Mind Exploded”: Intellectual Development as a Critical Framework for Understanding and Assessing Collaborative Learning.
[On-Line]. Available:
This chapter demonstrates how William Perry’s model of intellectual and ethical development can be utilized both for assessing and for understanding collaborative learning. Collaborative learning environments promote a wide range of cognitive and affective student learning outcomes. Perry’s model of intellectual and ethical development represents a broad, multidimensional indicator of student progress that can be utilized to assess collaborative learning approaches. This model provides a strategy for developing parsimonious and meaningful measures of academic performance and “success” to complement more readily accessible measures such as GPA and persistence rates to understand student development and success. The framework for the QEP is grounded in Perry’s model.

Twigg, C.A. (2005). Increasing Success for Underserved Students: Redesigning Introductory Courses. Saratoga Springs, NY: National Center for Academic Transformation.
The National Center for Academic Transformation’s (NCAT) project on course redesign is the most extensive demonstration to date of the effectiveness of infusing instructional technology and reconceptualized instructional practices. This report examines the impact of redesigned instructional techniques on the success of adult learners, students of color, and low-income students.

U.S. Department of Education (2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.
This ground-breaking report of the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education presents a series of findings across four key areas: access, affordability, quality, and accountability. The findings led to far-reaching recommendations aimed at 1) improving access to and affordability of higher education; 2) strengthening educational quality and encouraging an environment of innovation; and 3) making college and university processes and outcomes more publicly transparent and accountable.

The purpose of the readings for Summer 2006 is to provide an update on current issues in higher education and to provide a
foundation for participation in:
1. Evaluating and documenting curriculum coherence and alignment in the general education core in 2006-2007; and
2. Developing the NSU Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) in 2006-2007. The QEP theme is Creating Coherent Pathways to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students.

General Education Survey
Meacham, J. (1994). Assessing General Education: A Questionnaire to Initiate Campus
Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Assessing General Education is a well-established questionnaire that is designed to help cam initiate conversations about general education, reflect on the core curriculum, and begin a process of assessing the adequacy of the curriculum in terms of ensuring that students achieve the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed. Faculty and academic administrators are asked to rate the general education core program on twenty-eight dimensions such as clarity of student learning goals, coherence of the curriculum, and evidence of effectiveness. Results are used to focus attention on dimensions where there is much disagreement among faculty or on those dimensions with high or low scores. Campus discussions of the results should lead to an informed approach for conducting a comprehensive review of the general education core. NSU teaching faculty, department chairs, and deans are asked to complete the survey no later than August 1, 2006.

Please click here to start the survey

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005). Liberal Education Outcomes: A Preliminary Report on Student Achievement in College. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Student achievement of liberal education outcomes that are valued by the academy and employers are examined in this report (e.g., critical thinking, quantitative literacy, communication skills, ethical reasoning, civic engagement). The report finds that these outcomes have not been sufficiently addressed by colleges and universities in terms of documenting student learning and achievement. A set of learning outcomes is presented for consideration in cultivating and assessing student achievement of liberal education outcomes throughout the undergraduate experience.

Miller, C., & Malandra, G. (2006). Accountability/Assessment. Second Issue Paper. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.
Washington, D.C.
Accountability/Assessment is the second in a series of papers issued by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The Commission was established by the U.S. Department of Education to study key issues and to make recommendations by August 2006 that will lead to a comprehensive strategy for reform in higher education. This issue paper discusses key challenges faced in higher education today, including erosion in the quality and outcomes of the collegiate experience. Promising practices also are presented. Additional information about the Commission and the issue papers may be found at:

Benander, R., & Lightner, R. (2005). Promoting Transfer of Learning: Connecting General
Education Courses.
The Journal of General Education, 54(3), 199-208.
Benander and Lightner present a practical approach to addressing curriculum coherence and alignment through effective teaching practices in the general education core. The authors also discuss how an interdisciplinary team of faculty developed strategies to promote transfer of learning across the general education core and improved teaching as well as coherence and alignment in the general education core. This faculty-led learning community focused on understanding how the pieces of the core curriculum fit together and how faculty can work together to strengthen the connections and relationships between and among the core courses. Recommendations for teaching to promote transfer learning are presented (e.g., explicit expectations and outcomes, advising, course design, modeling – for example, math professors invited to discuss statistical analysis in an introductory psychology course). The purpose of the reading is to stimulate faculty to think of creative ways to build curriculum coherence and alignment in teaching and learning and to provide a context for reviewing and assessing the general education core curriculum.

Facione, P.A. (2006). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment,
California Academic Press, 2006 Update, 1-22.
In this essay, the author provides a practical and approachable discussion of how to define, assess, and teach critical thinking. Facione contrasts a set of critical thinking skills needed by educated persons against “good thinking” and other myths from the popular culture.

van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching Critical Thinking. College Teaching, 53(1), 41-46.
Almost everyone in the academy agrees that one of the primary goals of education is to help students develop critical thinking skills. Almost everyone also agrees that students do not acquire these skills as much as they could and should. The difficult part is in knowing what to do about it. In this article, the author presents six key lessons from cognitive science for teachers of critical thinking. The lessons are about critical thinking, how critical thinking skills are acquired, and how critical thinking is taught best. The article also provides guidelines for teaching practice in light of the lessons.

Malx, M.D., & Reybold, L. E. (2005). A Pedagogy of Force: Faculty Perspectives of Critical
Thinking Capacity in Undergraduate Students.
The Journal of General Education, 54(4), 293-315.
Malx and Reybold explore faculty perceptions of critical thinking and preparation for developing critical thinking skills in students. A literature review focusing on faculty perceptions of critical thinking and pedagogical applications is presented. A case study, findings, and recommendations for teaching and learning practices also are discussed.

The purpose of the readings for Summer 2005 is to:
draw campus attention to student learning outcomes as the focus of the new SACS
reaffirmation of accreditation, and
emphasize the importance of using assessment results for continuous quality enhancement.

“The concept of quality enhancement is at the heart of the Commission’s philosophy of
accreditation; thispresumes each member institution to be engaged in an ongoing program of improvement and able to demonstrate how well it fulfills its stated mission.”
(SACS/COC, 2001/2004, p. 10)
SACS/COC (2001/2004). Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement.

The readings also will prepare faculty to:
participate in a comprehensive SACS compliance certification audit in 2005-2006,
participate in developing NSU’s Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP),
participate in reviewing the general education core, and
develop a comprehensive assessment plan for the general education core.

Association of American Colleges & Universities (2004). Our Students’ Best Work:
A Framework of Accountability Worthy of Our Mission.
Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Designed to help campuses respond to demands for greater accountability, this statement calls
for assessments that measure higher-order learning such as critical thinking, integration of
knowledge and ideas, and application of knowledge to real-world problems in different
disciplinary domains.
The report describes five key educational outcomes, offers a set of principles for higher
education accountability, and suggests a set of accountability questions every college or
university should ask.

Bresciani, M.J., Zelna, C.L., & Anderson, J.A. (2004). Introduction to the Importance of
Assessing Student Learning and Development. In: Bresciani, M.J., Zelna, C.L., & Anderson, J.A., Assessing Student Learning and Development: A Handbook for Practitioners, pp. 1-7.
Washington, DC: NASPA.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher
This chapter highlights the emerging indicators of institutional excellence and quality. These
indicators are linked to direct evidence that student learning and development are occurring. To assess the quality of undergraduate education at an institution, multiple sources of information are needed that together reflect students’ involvement in learner-centered contexts.

Gaff, J. (2004). What Is a Generally Educated Person? Peer Review, 7 (1), 4-7.
What is an educated person and how do institutions know that students have acquired the
essential knowledge, skills, and values expected of educated persons? It would be easy for
each individual to describe his or her concept of an educated person, but the reality is that it is a campus community that must reach agreement. This is the first and most necessary step in renewing a general education program, one that intentionally cultivates the essential qualities of an educated person.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Association (2004). Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Learning Experience.
Learning Reconsidered
is an argument for the integrated use of all of higher education’s
resources in the education and preparation of the whole student. It is also an introduction to new ways of understanding and supporting learning and development as intertwined, inseparable elements of the student experience. This report advocates for transformative education – a holistic process of learning that places the student
at the center of the learning experience.

Smith, P. (2004). FutureThink: Quality in the Learning Age. In: Smith, P., The Quiet Crisis:
How Higher Education Is Failing America
, pp. 127-143. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher
In the future, universities will be assessed on their ability to educate for observable outcomes
and succeed at quality assurance, enhancement reviews, and accreditations. In other words,
just as students and faculty are being asked to live in a results-oriented culture where evidence is
critical through outcomes-based education, universities also live in the same culture of
accountability and continuous quality enhancement as organizations committed to learning.

Tagg, J. (2003). The Golden Rule. In: Tagg, J., The Learning Paradigm College, pp. 342-356.
Bolton, M A: Anker Publishing.
Reprinted with permission of the publisher
For too long, colleges have expected too little of students. The author contends the reason is that institutions have expected too little of themselves. The chapter presents an interesting case of
how to change performance expectations of students and institutions.

Summaries of Professional Development Sessions, 2004 SACS Annual Meeting
Compiled by the members of the University Assessment Advisory Committee (UAAC) at NSU,
the summaries provide brief overviews of critical elements in the new SACS reaffirmation of
accreditation review. Topics include Faculty Qualifications Requirements, Requirements for Educational Programs, Compliance Certification Review, and Quality Enhancement Plan.

The purpose of the readings for Summer 2004 is to prepare faculty to :
1) participate in a comprehensive review of the general education core in Fall 2004
(aligning what is taught with what students are expected to learn),
2) assist in documenting the alignment of the general education core with the core competency assessments,
3) participate in developing a comprehensive assessment plan for the general
education core, and
4) orient faculty to the SACS Core Requirement 2.7.3 and Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1
addressing the general education core and documentation of compliance.

SACS Core Requirement 2.7.3
“The institution requires in each undergraduate degree program the successful
completion of a general education component at the collegiate level that (1) is a substantial
component of each undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of knowledge, and (3) is based
on a coherent rationale. . . . Credit hours are to be drawn from and include at least one course
from each of the following areas: humanities/fine arts; social/behavioral sciences; and natural science/mathematics. The courses do not narrowly focus on those skills, techniques, and
procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession. The institution provides a
written justification and rationale for course equivalency.”

SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1

“The institution identifies college-level competencies within the general education core and
provides evidence that graduates have attained those competencies.”
SACS (2004). Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement.

“Quality and Coherence in General Education”, Ratcliff, J.L. In: Gaff, J.G., Ratcliff, J.L., & Associates (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change, pp. 141-169. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass / AAC&U.
Not available in pdf format due to copyright restrictions.
Available from Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment

“ A Learning Paradigm College Aligns All of Its Activities Around the Mission of Producing Student Learning”, In: Tagg, J. (2003), The Learning Paradigm College, pp.280-306. Bolton, MA: Anker.

”Alignment”. In: Allen, M. J. (2004), Assessing Academic Programs in Higher Education,
pp.39-54. Bolton, MA: Anker.

“Afterword: Implications and Recommendations for Faculty and Accreditation,” Leskes, A. In AAC&U (2004), Taking Responsibility for the Quality of the Baccalaureate Degree, pp. 25-28. Available at:

“Strong Foundations: Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs,” Prepared by Participants in the Project on Strong Foundations for General Education, the Association of
American Colleges (1994). Available at:

For questions, contact Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment

-- ©Copyright Norfolk State University | All Rights Reserved.-
--- Norfolk State University | 700 Park Avenue | Norfolk, VA 23504 USA -
--- University Operator: 757-823-8600 -