EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

November 20, 2025

• Kari Thierer, EdD, Assistant Teaching Professor, Northeastern University, Graduate School of Education
• Ellen Vujasinović, Ph.D., Director of Student Learning Assessment, South Puget Sound Community College

This article explores the comprehensive development, assessment, and continuous refinement of Institutional Learning Outcomes, called College Wide Abilities (CWAs), at South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC). The collaborative, faculty-driven process underpinning CWAs is described as well as how these outcomes are integrated across curricula, aligned with strategic planning, and assessed using both rubric-based methods and artifact collection. SPSCCs evolving model serves as a case study in fostering institutional accountability, informing assessment across the college at all levels, and enhancing student learning.

Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) define fundamental skills and values all graduates should possess, regardless of their area of study. Beyond aligning coursework with post-graduation success, ILOs create unified educational experiences, ensure accountability, and prepare graduates to contribute meaningfully to society (Jankowski & Provezis, 2011; Jankowski & Marshall, 2023; Walvoord & Banta, 2019).          

South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC), a mid-sized college located in Olympia, WA, has developed a robust, faculty-driven approach to assessing student learning. At the heart of this work is the Student Learning Assessment Committee (SLAC), which oversees a two-pronged assessment strategy examining both student mastery of the College Wide Abilities (CWAs), the institutional name for ILOs, and course and program completion data. SLAC includes faculty representatives from each of the college’s seven academic divisions and is co-chaired by a faculty member and the director of student learning and assessment. The committee convenes monthly to refine and update institutional rubrics for the CWAs, ensure strategic plan alignment, and support effective assessment processes.

CWA Development

Driven by feedback from area employers and advisory boards as well as articulation agreements with state universities, SPSCC's College-Wide Abilities (CWAs) provide a comprehensive foundation of knowledge, skills, and abilities.  CWAs are integrated into curricula across diverse disciplines, including professional/technical and transfer degree programs.

The concept of ‘leveled’ CWAs was originally proposed by faculty and aimed to account for the varying skill requirements across different courses regarding the CWAs.  Signature CWA assessments are designed and driven by faculty, with unique approaches tailored to each discipline and level of study. CWA data is collected directly from faculty’s Canvas courses, and the resulting institutional dashboard data is openly available to the instructional and administrative staff. CWA data is also used to inform program reviews, faculty professional development plans, and to support and guide changes and improvements to teaching and learning approaches and methods. Faculty are very invested in all aspects of the CWA development and assessment process. When new CWAs are developed, a collaborative committee develops, solicits feedback, and refines CWAs to align with the strategic plan. This work is compensated as part of faculty service to the college.

Ongoing support comes through SLAC, which includes full-time faculty from each division who meet monthly to review data collection processes and identify improvements. Additionally, time is allocated for faculty to map CWAs to ensure that students are assessed on each CWA over a two-year degree, with highest-level assessment required prior to graduation.

While SPSCC has established a faculty-driven process for assessing CWAs, there is still room to deepen faculty engagement and enhance efforts to close the loop. One way this is being addressed is through required departmental self-studies or Data Action and Analysis Plans (DAAPs), which include a dedicated section for evidence of CWA assessment. That said, effectively communicating the relevance of CWAs to students and linking them to course-level outcomes remains a persistent challenge.

Assessment of CWAs

The CWAs are assessed in two ways. First, CWAs are assessed and documented in Canvas (learning management system), by all faculty, every quarter, based on the CWAs that are indicated on the course outlines, using a common rubric that is attached to a signature assignment. To reduce faculty burden, assessment uses a simple three-point rubric: Met, Not Met, Not Attempted. This data is then pulled quarterly, reviewed by the Office of Institutional Research, and fed into a data dashboard that enables multi-level analysis (institution, program, course, and instructor). SLAC reviews this data to assess collection thoroughness and determine needed support.

In addition to the rubric-based assessment, SPSCC employs artifact collection to deepen understanding of student achievement across the CWAs. The purpose of artifact collection is to understand how students meet the different CWA levels across all disciplines and programs.  Due to the broad nature of the CWAs, artifact collection is essential for calibration of the CWA descriptions and levels. The CWA artifact collection also provides faculty with the opportunity to shape and contribute to the college's CWA assessment processes and policies during professional development sessions and fosters a sense of shared responsibility for educational quality at the college. Artifacts typically include student work samples, rubrics, assignment instructions, etc. for signature assignments such as final projects, capstones, or performance evaluations.

The first artifact collection (2018-2019) focused on Critical Thinking. Faculty submitted ‘met’ and ‘not met’ artifact examples from their courses and a selection of ‘met’ artifacts were curated into a packet with examples from across disciplines.  During a professional development day, faculty worked in interdisciplinary groups to discuss how ‘met’ appeared in artifacts, followed by time in their own division/discipline to reflect on CWA were embedding and assessment. This analysis revealed that proficiency varies with student progression, leading to a decision to level the CWAs (level 1, level 2, level 3) to demonstrate that proficiency looks different as students progress through their studies.

Assessment continued yearly with faculty utilizing rubrics and adding artifacts to a shared Canvas course. Data collected was analyzed by the Office of Institutional Research and fed into a dashboard that was used as part of program evaluation. The artifact collection requirement shifted to reduce the load on faculty. Rather than artifacts being collected for all CWAs and in all classes, faculty only submitted one artifact and only artifacts for one pre-designated of the five CWAs each year during a five-year cycle. Over time all CWAs are assessed with artifact collection, but the workload for faculty was reduced. The decision was also made to spread out the deep data analysis to every three years rather than every year, allowing time for data to shift based on faculty and department instructional changes that are made based on analysis of student success data.

Between 2018 and 2024-2025, the CWAs were updated by a committee made up of faculty, staff, and led by the Vice President for Instruction. During the 2024-2025 collection, ‘met’ student artifacts for the CWA of ‘Effective Communication’ were collected and submitted to a shared Canvas shell.

As with the previous artifact collection in 2018-2019, the effort to “close the loop” on the CWA artifact collection in 2024-2025 will involve professional development sessions.  Both adjunct and full-time faculty will be invited to participate in these sessions to discuss a random sampling of collected CWA artifacts in small, interdisciplinary groups.  Furthermore, a report based on the data collected at the professional development sessions will be shared with all faculty, relevant staff, and executive leadership. The findings from the report will aid the Student Learning Assessment Committee (SLAC) in determining if any improvements or changes are needed related to the College-Wide Abilities moving forward.

            In addition, feedback from the Fall 2025 professional development session has prompted the development of a plan for department-focused training, designed to support faculty in designing CWA assessments and aligning them more effectively with course-level learning outcomes.

Challenges of CWAs and Assessing ILOs

Community colleges offer students a wide range of educational opportunities, including direct employment preparation as well as four-year university transfer preparation, which can complicate ILO assessment. The general education transfer curriculum and specialized professional/technical skills differ significantly, making it challenging to both craft and “standardize” institutional learning outcome broadly applicable to both pathways – a persistent challenge at SPSCC. 

While SPSCC aims to develop distinct outcomes that effectively measure students' skills, the CWAs are quite broad to enable application across diverse fields of study. This lack of specificity can pose an obstacle for instructors designing CWA assessments. Support is available through the Center for Teaching and Online Learning and the Director of Student Learning and Assessment. SLAC evaluates CWA processes annually, proposing modifications and sharing reports that outline successes and areas for improvement. SLAC regularly tracks key metrics including ‘met’ rates, adjunct participation, faculty understanding of ILO-CLO connections, and faculty use of CWAs in program reviews and professional development plans.

Conclusion

The ongoing development and assessment of SPSCC’s CWAs demonstrates that meaningful ILO assessment requires sustained commitment, faculty ownership, and ongoing refinement. By centering faculty leadership and collaboration, SPSCC has created a dynamic assessment process that measures student achievement but also actively informs instructional practice and program development.

For institutions seeking to strengthen their ILO assessment, SPSCC’s model offers three essential takeaways: First, make time for and compensate faculty for assessment work to recognize its importance and sustain engagement. Second, design systems that balance rigor with sustainability – simple rubrics, rotating artifact collection cycles, and regular calibration make ongoing assessment feasible. Third, continually close the loop by connecting assessment data directly to professional development, program review, departmental planning, and institution strategic planning.

Faculty-driven assessment is both best practice and a necessity for authentic outcome assessment and student learning. While engaging faculty in assessment can be challenging, particularly when institutional assessment is perceived as externally imposed, empowering them to lead fosters greater investment, ownership, relevance, and impact. SPSCC’s evolving model demonstrates that when faculty owns the process, assessment becomes a catalyst for continuous improvement and effectively improves the quality of student learning.