APAC Guidelines Revised Fall 2015 FINAL WITH APPENDICES

SUNY Oneonta Academic Program Assessment Committee Guidelines for Academic Program Assessment at SUNY Oneonta: Developing Meaningful and Efficient Assessment of Student Learning Fall 2009, revised Spring 2013, revised Fall 2015 Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… Alignment Within Institution …………………………………………………………………… Assessment Cycle Timelines and Reporting Deadlines ……………………………………… Developing an Assessment Plan in Four Steps (for undergraduate and graduate programs) …… Step 1: Developing Student Learning Outcomes Step 2: Curriculum Mapping Step 3: Finding Measures Step 4: Closing the Loop Guidelines for Writing Annual APAC Reports …………………………………………… … 11 Programmatic Use of Assessment at SUNY Oneonta …………………… ………………… 12 Institutional Use of Assessment at SUNY Oneonta ……………………… ………………… 13 Appendix A: APAC Report Checklist ……………………………………… ……………… 14 Appendix B: APAC Plan Checklist, Step ………………………………… ……………… 15 Appendix C: APAC Plan Checklist, Step ………………………………… ……………… 16 Appendix D: APAC Plan Checklist, Full Plan ……………………………… ……………… 17 Appendix E: Sample Curriculum Maps ……………………………………… …………… 18 Appendix F: Sample Aggregated Data ………………………………………… …………… 19     Introduction The Academic Program Assessment Committee (APAC) was established by the Provost and College Senate to facilitate academic program assessment The committee consists of nine faculty members: the College Senate elects five as representatives from each school; the Provost appoints the remaining four members APAC assists faculty and academic departments in applying best practice principles to procure meaningful assessment data in the most efficient manner APAC regards faculty in departments and programs as experts in their fields who are best able to determine meaningful educational experiences for students and are in the best position to assess the impacts of those experiences The guidance from APAC is designed to assist the institution in meeting the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Standards for Accreditation and Requirements for Affiliation.1 The SUNY Board of Trustees resolved in March 2010 that all campuses must have in place assessment plans that meet or exceed Middle States standards or those of specialized accreditors All learning experiences, regardless of modality (such as distance education), program pace/schedule, level and setting are to be consistent with higher education expectations.2 This document guides members of all academic programs to plan and assess in a collaborative, inclusive, and participatory process It encourages alignment with SUNY’s Master Plan (a document revisited every four years as required by NYS Education Law section 354) as well as local college plans College leaders (e.g., vice presidents, deans, etc.) should communicate these comprehensive expectations to academic programs to build and sustain understanding as well as advance interactions and cooperative efforts among divisions As conditions change, these guidelines and periodic peer reviews are intended to advance the “consideration and use of assessment results for improvement of educational effectiveness.”3 Advice and assistance is available upon request from the Academic Program Assessment Committee (APAC) via its representatives from each academic division                                                                                                                  Notably  Standard  V,  Educational  Effectiveness:  Assessment  of  student  learning  and  achievement   demonstrates  that  the  institution's  students  have  accomplished  educational  goals  consistent  with  their   program  of  study,  degree  level,  the  institution's  mission,  and  appropriate  expectations  for  institutions  of   higher  education  (MSCHE  Standards  for  Accreditation  and  Requirements  of  Affiliation,  thirteenth  edition  ,   2014    MSCHE  Standard  III    MSCHE  Standard  V,  3       Alignment                                       SUNY  Plans   Ex:    Rethinking  SUNY,  Power  of  SUNY,  SUNY  Excels,  etc   SUNY  Oneonta  Strategic  Plan   Other  College   Plans   SUNY  Oneonta  Academic  Master   Plan   Program   Plan  and   Review     Program   Assessment   (APAC)   Self-­‐study  at                       Plan   Ex:  Facilities   Master  Plan,     Strategic   Enrollment   Management   Plan,    etc     7-­‐year  intervals    or   according  to   approved   specialized   accreditation   review  cycle   Three-­‐year   cycle   with  annual   reports   to  APAC  &   Dean   Assessment plans and processes are related to the annual reports required of each academic unit at the end of the year and programmatic reviews that must be conducted at least every seven years They provide content for the annual report assessment plans to help academic programs describe goals and objectives for the year as they relate to overall campus direction and summarize major accomplishments as well as challenges These complementary documents help academic programs plan ahead and enable them to use feedback for justifying adaptations and change Assessment also guides strategic planning, resource planning, and sustained improvement     Assessment Cycle Timelines and Reporting Deadlines Long-term Academic Program Assessment Timeline Fall 2009-Spring 2011 First APAC plans created Fall 2011-Spring 2014 – Implemented the first 3-year cycle Fall 2014 – Created new 3-year assessment plans/timelines, with revisions if necessary Fall 2014-Spring 2017 – Implementation of 2nd 3-year cycle Fall 2017 – Create new 3-year assessment plans/timelines, with revisions if necessary Fall 2017-Spring 2020 – Implementation of 3rd 3-year cycle Fall 2020 – Create new 3-year assessment plans/timelines, with revisions if necessary Annual Reporting Timeline March – Annual APAC Reports are due to APAC via Office of Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness April – APAC members submit feedback to Deans and Department Chairs (APAC members will schedule face-to-face meetings with departments that receive low rankings before forwarding their recommendation to the Dean) May – Final approval and feedback from Deans to Department Chairs and APAC via Office of Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness New 3-year Assessment Deadlines (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, etc.) October 15 – New or updated 3-year assessment plans/timelines are due to APAC via Office of Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness November 15 – APAC members submit feedback to Deans and Department Chairs (APAC members will schedule face-to-face meetings with departments that receive low rankings before forwarding their recommendation to the Dean) December 15 – Final approval and feedback from Deans to Department Chairs and APAC via Office of Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness     Developing an Assessment Plan in Four Steps (For undergraduate and graduate programs) The Academic Program Assessment Plan establishes the knowledge base, skills, behaviors, and perhaps even attitudes that students of an academic program can be expected to exhibit/hold/master/demonstrate upon graduation Each plan should also address how the content and design of the program’s curriculum lead to students’ achievement of program expectations, how the program has assessed the effectiveness of its curriculum, and how it has used assessment information to improve the academic program Mission, Goals, and Objectives Each academic department should have a clear mission statement that is publicly disseminated and aligned with the College mission Departments should have program goals that provide a focus for faculty, administrators and other constituencies on intentions, purposes, and delivery Distinguishing Among Goals , Objectives, and Outcomes4 Goals: • General intentions/purposes that are broad and more long-range in scope and not changing over the planning horizon • May use words or phrases directly out of unit mission statement • Not directly measurable • Often a “process” statement (i.e., begin with verbs such as establish, provide, enhance) Objectives: • Specific and measureable based on measures of expected outcomes • Typically there are multiple objectives for each overall goal • Often a change-oriented statement that shows directionality compared to moving up/down, or maintaining high/low levels when a ceiling/floor exists (i.e., include words such as increase, decrease, improve, maintain) Outcomes: • Very specific statements translate into assessable measures • Expected outcomes refer to anticipated results and include criteria for determining success • Actual outcomes refer to the actual results of the assessment                                                                                                                  The  College  uses  a  common  operational  language  and  definitions  for  outcomes  assessment         Step I Establishing Objectives: “What knowledge and competencies we expect students to gain from our program?” (See Appendix B: APAC Plan Checklist, Step 1) Faculty members should arrive at a consensus around the desired student learning outcomes associated with the programmatic objectives of their discipline as well as what it means to be in synchronicity with institutional expectations regarding students’ intellectual growth The following question assists in developing the consensus: “What difference we intend to make in our students as a result of their experiences with us and our curriculum with respect to knowledge, behaviors, skills, and attitudes?” Faculty should: • Examine and review existing program objectives • Elicit and discuss faculty members’ perceptions of program objectives (both actual and aspirational) • Analyze and compare program objectives with stated institutional expectations regarding students’ intellectual growth; the College's mission and strategic plan; the Academic Master Plan; programmatic objectives at comparable peers or aspirant institutions; expectations expressed by the field at large (e.g., as determined by examination of current textbooks, communication with national organizations in the discipline); criteria and standards of certification and accreditation agencies and/or national associations in the discipline if applicable; and results from the most recent program review • Make the objectives understandable to students The assessment plan should include approximately 4-8 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Note that creating too many learning objectives will make assessment formidable and threatens its success Undergraduate programs may focus on objectives that cover: • Demonstration of knowledge from different areas of subject matter • Demonstration of writing and presentation skills • Demonstration of synthesis of various theories • Demonstration of analytical/critical thinking skills • Demonstration of research skills and/or original thought Graduate programs may find it useful to focus on broader objectives such as:5 • Demonstration  that  students  develop  as  professionals  in  the  field   • Demonstration  of  mastery  of  the  research  skills  of  the  discipline                                                                                                                      Baker,  Marilyn  J.,  Assessment  and  review  of  graduate  programs:  A  policy  statement  Washington,  D.C.:  Council   of  Graduate  Schools,  2011,  p  30     Step II Activities and Strategies: “How courses and other experiences built into the curriculum relate to each other and contribute to programmatic goals?” (See Appendix C: APAC Plan Checklist, Step 2) Faculty should review all activities that are aimed at accomplishing programmatic objectives First and foremost, this step requires a focus on a different question: “Do we offer activities and experiences in our curriculum that make it possible for students to achieve programmatic objectives?” In addition, it is important that faculty members reach consensus on the rationale for individual courses, program requirements, and program structure when undertaking this step (See Appendix E: Sample Curriculum Maps) In attempting to accomplish this step, faculty should consider the following actions: • Determine the extent to which program objectives are embedded in specific courses and make adjustments as appropriate (e.g., strengthening the coverage of objectives that are not sufficiently addressed, de-emphasizing objectives that are covered excessively) • Review and analyze curricular coherence, focusing on the role individual courses are intended to serve, the rationale for all program requirements (including distribution requirements in the major and cognates), and rationales for pre-requisites • As appropriate, review program components that serve different purposes in the curriculum (i.e., major, minor, concentration, service courses) • Determine strategies for assuring comparability of multiple sections of the same course with respect to programmatic objectives • Examine the relationship of the program to other College requirements (e.g., General Education) • Determine that curricula delivered by distance education are, “coherent, cohesive, and comparable in academic rigor to programs offered in traditional instructional formats.”6 Step III Assessment: “How we know students are achieving programmatic goals?” (See Appendix D: APAC Plan Checklist, Full Plan) Collect information that will provide direct feedback regarding the effectiveness of a program in terms of its stated learning objectives Implementation involves first asking the question: “What evidence we have to demonstrate whether students are meeting our expectations for their learning?” Each department should have clear expectations about what constitutes good assessment practice and have strategies in place to help faculty develop or acquire effective tools for assessing learning outcomes Faculty members – especially those teaching different sections of the same course – should be encouraged to use comparable methods for assessing student learning outcomes Relying primarily on course-embedded assessment can be the least time-and labor-intensive, is sometimes most economical, and assures student motivation to well                                                                                                                  MSCHE  “Distance  Education  Programs:  Interregional  Guidelines  for  Evaluation  of  Distance  Education,”  2011,   p  9       All departments need to collect and compile student data that are relevant to each programmatic objective These tasks could be assigned to either an individual or a group (e.g., a departmental assessment committee) (See Appendix F: Sample Aggregated Data) It is important to note that there are differences between undergraduate and graduate education, and in terms of assessment those differences are most likely reflected within the assessment tools In research-based graduate programs, a larger portion of student learning takes place outside of the classroom than in undergraduate programs Therefore, graduate program assessment is seldom as course-based as undergraduate assessment may be Graduate programs may determine that there are many acceptable tools for measuring outcomes out of the classroom Some such tools are:8 • Graduate placement information • Evaluation rubrics from preliminary exams and final defenses • Number of student publications • Results of certain exit interview questions • Surveys of recent graduates • Updated student CVs Departments and academic programs should: • Establish expectations for measures being used to assess student performance, relying on existing literature on good assessment practices to assure valid, reliable, and representative data • At most, focus on 3-4 student-learning outcomes each year • Encourage faculty to use a wide variety of quantitative and qualitative measures to assess student performance, including senior thesis/research projects, student portfolios, preand post-assessments within courses, departmentally generated exams, standardized tests, oral proficiency exams, and student teaching or internship evaluations • Leave the final selection of measures to be administered in a course-embedded fashion up to the faculty members teaching the course • Examine program effectiveness through comparisons with information provided by other programs or other groups of interest (e.g., certification agencies, national organizations in the discipline) • Consider capstone courses as a good place to collect outcomes assessment data • Evaluate student perceptions of the program through strategies such as senior exit interviews and alumni surveys • Ensure that assessment of student learning in distance education courses and programs follow processes used in onsite courses or programs, reflect good practice in assessment methods, and are amply supported by analysis and evidence.9                                                                                                                  Baker,  Marilyn  J.,  Assessment  and  review  of  graduate  programs:  A  policy  statement  Washington,  D.C.:  Council   of  Graduate  Schools,  2011,  p  36    Baker,  Marilyn  J.,  Assessment  and  review  of  graduate  programs:  A  policy  statement  Washington,  D.C.:  Council   of  Graduate  Schools,  2011,  p  31-­‐32    MSCHE  “Distance  Education  Programs:  Interregional  Guidelines  for  Evaluation  of  Distance  Education,”  2011,   p.10       Step IV Closing the Loop: “How can we use assessment of student learning to improve our program?” (See Appendix D: APAC Plan Checklist, Full Plan) The assessment process now provides the opportunity to compare expected outcomes with actual outcomes relative to objectives and activities This final step asks: “What are we doing well, what could we better, and how can we improve?” Faculty in the program must review assessment data and discuss findings with each other and perhaps other stakeholders Decisions should then be made on the continuation of activities that lead to the realization of program objectives and the discontinuation or revision of activities that are not It is also possible that the assessment process may lead to the revision or elimination of old objectives and/or the development of new ones Faculty should consider the following actions: • Provide aggregate data to faculty for review and discussion (individual faculty data should never be shared with other faculty members) • Reach conclusions regarding program effectiveness as revealed for each learning objective, identifying both strengths and weaknesses revealed through the assessment • Offer recommendations for changes in curriculum and teaching as appropriate • The development of a new statement of departmental objectives for next assessment round as appropriate   10   Guidelines to Writing Annual APAC Reports When writing the Annual APAC Report, departments should reference Appendix A-Annual Report Checklist, and provide the following (preferably in the following order): • The entire 3-year data collection plan timeline (for reference, when is each SLO assessed) • Summary of how the department participated in assessment within the last two semesters (due to the change in the reporting cycle, this should reflect the previous calendar year) • Aggregated data for each SLO assessed within the last two semesters • Narrative describing what the data for each SLO reveals • Summary of departmental reflections on what the data reveals (positive and negative) o For this area, DO NOT be afraid to indicate ‘negative’ results; remember that the data is not tied to individual instructors • Summary of planned curricular or other program-related changes, and justification for changes o Be sure to reference both the old and the new, so the changes are clear to someone not completely familiar with your plan o Include justification for the changes (from departmental reflections) o Include timeline for implementing changes • Summary of changes that need to happen beyond the department to accommodate the needs of the department o It is very possible that data proves that students are not meeting expectations in certain areas; if this happens, consider all possible reasons for not meeting expectations Is it class sizes that are too large? Is it out-of-date lab equipment? NOTE: APAC members are available to assist departments at any point during the process of creating a plan, or writing an annual report If you not know who the current members are, please contact the Office of Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness or consult the Senate website   11   Programmatic Use of Academic Program Assessment at SUNY Oneonta The development and implementation of assessment plans can easily and advantageously be incorporated into existing planning, evaluation, and reporting requirements, in particular the Annual Reporting process which is specific to the College and the Self-Study Process that is part of SUNY’s Assessment of the Major and required for external accrediting agencies Each academic program at the College is required to provide an Annual Report at the end of the academic year, and to use that report to develop plans for the subsequent academic year According to the guidelines for preparing the Annual Report, academic programs are asked to describe the outcomes of student learning assessments conducted during the year, to include “a summary of the assessment methods that were used and the results, including benchmarking as appropriate Also, whenever possible, detail coursespecific student learning outcomes and their relationship(s) to departmental or programmatic expectations.” Programs ought to summarize other major accomplishments that took place during that year The Self-Study Process at SUNY Oneonta takes place for most academic programs on a year schedule as required by SUNY System Administration This process is comprehensive in nature and focuses on a wide range of issues and questions of interest to the program (e.g., facilities, faculty workload and credentials, resources, faculty presentations and publications, student awards, student enrollment, as well as student retention and graduation rates) As part of this process, according to SUNY guidelines, each academic program must include as part of its self-study the assessment of student learning If organized and managed appropriately, these processes all contribute to a single, important goal: enabling an academic program to plan, assess, and document its efforts on an ongoing basis To be specific, the Academic Program Assessment Plan delineates the specific student learning objectives a program intends to assess in a given year, since it is not necessary for programs to assess all objectives every year Annual Assessment Reports are also to be included in the departments’ Annual Report, presenting the outcomes of student learning assessments and other accomplishments, and stating which student learning outcomes are scheduled for the following year Finally, assessment results and evidence of program improvement are part of the program review self study   12   Institutional Use of Academic Program Assessment at SUNY Oneonta APAC intends to pave the way for greater institutional effectiveness These guidelines are intended to raise the importance and visibility of Academic Program Assessment at the administrative/executive levels: Provost, AMP, resource allocation, SP, President’s Executive Council, and the President’s Cabinet Assessment should be utilized in institutional planning (AMP, SP, resource allocation, etc.) In order for that to happen, departments must articulate data collected in programmatic assessment to indicate and justify their needs in their Annual APAC Reports, and Deans’ should forward relevant concerns   13     Reviewers: Appendix A: APAC Annual Report Checklist Program:   Scoring: = meets expectations = approaches expectations: no resubmission needed Approval recommended after addressing suggested changes = does not meet expectations: resubmission required NA = Not Applicable     Item from APAC Guidelines for Programmatic Assessment   Score     Context   The report includes the complete 3-year assessment plan, including list of all SLOs and the timetable for when each SLO will be assessed             All changes/amendments to the current assessment plan have been clearly documented, including a statement of the reason for making the changes/amendments, and it is clear that all changes/amendments are consistent with the integrity of the current plan             Comments from APAC Current Year Reporting                     The summary chart provided is complete and includes the total number of students evaluated The accompanying narrative notes trends or variations in performance as applicable               Data is of sufficient quality and comparability to allow for meaningful discussion of results Results are measured against external a n d / o r l o n g i t u d i n a l i n t e r n a l benchmarks, if applicable Student perceptions—based on interview or survey results—are discussed, i f u s e d     The report notes how each SLO is measured—within a course or courses, or using an external measure—and describes how the specific assignments, items within assignments, or other measures are used The performance criteria are clearly defined For example, definitions are given for terms such as “exceeding expectations,” “meeting expectations,” and “approaching expectations,” using language that allows a reader unfamiliar with the discipline to understand the expectations for acceptable performance Evidence is provided that data were used to inform reflection on the program, including discussion(s) by faculty “Next steps” are noted Evidence might include influence on curricular decisions, program design, or budget requests Language must clearly indicate where decisions were influenced by data (even if no change occurred) Overall Evaluation    Revised December 2015                                   14     Appendix B: APAC 3-year Assessment Plan Checklists, Step APAC  3-­‐Year  Assessment  Plan,  Step  1  Checklist   Program:                     Item  from  Guidelines   There  are  a  reasonable  number  of  SLOs     Reviewers:   _   Y/N     Comments           Collectively,  the  SLOs  are  appropriate  in  scope               Each  SLO  covers  a  distinct  competency  and  is  measurable                 The  process  for  arriving  at  the  SLOs  is  described                   The  SLOs  are  connected  to  the  College  Mission  Statement,  to   the  goals  of  the  programmatic  field/discipline,  or  to   certification  agencies/national  associations  as  appropriate           Revised December 2015     15     Appendix C: APAC 3-year Assessment Plan Checklists, Step    SUNY  College  at  Oneonta   APAC  3-­‐Year  Assessment  Plan,  Step  2  Checklist     Program:               Reviewers:             Item  from  Guidelines     The  process  for  developing  the   curriculum  map  is  described     The  document  includes  a  table  or   tables  mapping  the  SLOs  to  specific   courses   The  curriculum  map  demonstrates   the  program  is  addressing  all  SLOs   The  narrative  provides  a  rationale   for  the  program’s  requirements       The  narrative  describes  how  the   program’s  courses  relate  to  other   programs  and  the  College’s  general   education  requirements     The  narrative  describes  the  steps   taken  to  ensure  that  SLOs  are  being   consistently  met  in  courses  with   multiple  sections                                     Revised  December  2015       Y/N     Comments                             16     Appendix D: APAC 3-year Assessment Plan Checklists, Full Plan APAC  Program  Assessment  Plan  Checklist,  Full  Plan     Program:   _   Item  from  APAC  Guidelines  for  Programmatic   Assessment   The  plan  includes  a  contextual  narrative  that  describes   the  process  by  which  assessment  measurements  were   selected  and  approved  by  the  faculty     The  plan  includes  a  timetable  for  the  assessment  of  each   SLO  during  a  three-­‐year  period     The  plan:     describes  the  various  methods  (qualitative  and   quantitative)  to  be  used  for  assessing  each  SLO   describes  where  in  the  program  each  SLO  is  to  be   measured  and  assessed   provides  assurances  that  each  SLO  will  be  mapped   to  specific  assignments,  items  with  assignments,  or   other  measures  and  not  overall  course  grades     The  plan  indicates  the  benchmarks  to  be  used  to  help   assess  program  effectiveness  (programs  at  other   colleges,  related  national  organizations,  professional   certification  agencies,  etc.),  if  applicable     The  process  and  method(s)  of  the  student  assessment   are  described,  if  used     The  plan  describes  a  process  for  reviewing  the  results  of   the  assessment  process  and  incorporating  them  into   curriculum,  teaching,  departmental  objectives,  and   future  assessment  planning  as  appropriate         Reviewers:   _   Y/N   Comments  from  APAC                                       Revised  December  2015     17     Appendix E: Sample Curriculum Maps The  simplest  case:  Which  courses  cover  which  SLOs?   SLOs COURSE Introductory Course History/Theories Methods Required Course Required Course 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 Required Course Required Course Capstone 3 4 4   To  what  extent  do  courses  cover  SLOs?     SLOs COURSE Introductory Course History/Theories Methods Required Course Required Course X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Required Course Required Course Capstone X X X X X X X X X At what level courses cover SLO’s? SLOs COURSE Introductory Course History/Theories Methods Required Course Required Course I I I R R I R R R R M R R M R R Required Course Required Course Capstone M M M R M M M M M Assessment Key: I-Introduced R-Reinforced M-Mastery   How  do  courses  assess  SLOs?   SLOs COURSE Introductory Course History/Theories Methods Required Course Required Course E E E P Required Course Required Course Capstone P E, L E P E, L E P L E, P P P E PO PO PO E I, PO PO P I, PO PO Assessment Key: P-Paper E-Exam PO-Portfolio L-Lab Assignment I-Internship   O=Oral Presentation   18     Appendix F: Samples of Aggregated Data Simplest case (all that is required) Assessment Performance Courses Measure(s) Criteria All Portfolio 4-5=Exceeding 3=Meeting 2=Approaching 1=Not Meeting # of % Exceeding Students Standards 338 18% % Meeting Standards 59% % Approaching % Not Meeting Standards Standards 13% 10% By Course Level Courses All Assessment Measure(s) Portfolio Performance Criteria 4-5=Exceeding 3=Meeting 2=Approaching 1=Not Meeting # of Students 338 % Exceeding Standards 18% % Meeting Standards 59% % Approaching Standards 13% % Not Meeting Standards 10% By Competency Level Assessment Courses Measure(s) All Portfolio Performance Criteria 4-5=Exceeding 3=Meeting 2=Approaching 1=Not Meeting # of Students 338 % Exceeding Standards 18% % Meeting Standards 59% % Approaching Standards 13% % Not Meeting Standards 10%     19   ... Assessment Timeline Fall 2009-Spring 2011 First APAC plans created Fall 2011-Spring 2014 – Implemented the first 3-year cycle Fall 2014 – Created new 3-year assessment plans/timelines, with revisions... A: APAC Report Checklist ……………………………………… ……………… 14 Appendix B: APAC Plan Checklist, Step ………………………………… ……………… 15 Appendix C: APAC Plan Checklist, Step ………………………………… ……………… 16 Appendix D: APAC. .. revisions if necessary Fall 2014-Spring 2017 – Implementation of 2nd 3-year cycle Fall 2017 – Create new 3-year assessment plans/timelines, with revisions if necessary Fall 2017-Spring 2020 –