National University
Graduation Rates, Retention Rates, and Assessment of Student Learning
2014 Academic Year
Graduation Rate - Bachelors
80%
75%
76%
72%
72%
2006
2007
71%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
2008
2009
Academic Year
150% Time to Completion (72 months)
Graduation Rate - Masters
80%
75%
70%
65%
65%
60%
61%
58%
57%
55%
50%
2008
2009
2010
Academic Year
150% Time to Completion (36 months)
2011
Retention Rate - Bachelors
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
70%
2006
2007
68%
70%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
2008
2009
Academic Year
Retention Rate - Masters
90%
85%
81%
82%
2008
2009
79%
79%
2010
2011
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
Academic Year
National University Assessment System
Embedded in National University’s program development process is the alignment of
institutional learning outcomes, program learning outcomes and course learning outcomes.
Program Learning Outcomes Assessment is based on a multi-year planning cycle that culminates
in a Five Year Program Review. Select Program Learning Outcomes are assessed with direct and
indirect measures on an annual basis, and the Program Annual Report (PAR) provides
recommendations for ongoing program improvement and resource allocation.
All PARs are reviewed at the school level by the School Assessment Committee to ensure that
all measures are valid and reliable. The members of the School Assessment committee act as
mentors for the faculty program leads. PARs are reviewed by the department chair, dean, and
graduate council or undergraduate council. Final recommendations to improve student learning
and improve program quality are also considered during the normal budgeting cycle.
As part of the PAR, data on achievement of student learning outcomes is provided and
disaggregated by online classes and on campus classes at the program and institutional levels.
Faculty review and reflect on any gaps and provide plans for improvement in their action
plans. Disaggregated data for online and onsite achievement of student learning outcomes is also
reviewed as part of the Five Year Program Review.
Five Year Program Reviews are based on an inquiry process in which program faculty create an
overarching question that will result in a study of a current issue to inform program change. In
addition, faculty review trend data that is provided by the Office of Educational Effectiveness
&Accreditation. External reviewers are required for the Five Year Review process to review
resources, curriculum and assessment plans.
A final set of recommendations is developed by the program faculty, taking into account
comments from the external review and the appropriate councils. These recommendations are
presented to the Provost, and together with the faculty, dean and council representative, a
Memorandum of Agreement that includes approved recommendations and budget allocations is
developed. Final MOAs are reflected on in the annual program assessment reports.
The use of a multiple-assessment approach is a best practice, and it is encouraged and widely
exercised at National University. Both qualitative and quantitative data are critical components
of PAR. Commonly used data, evidence, and information include, but are not limited to, analysis
of exam results, student portfolios, signature assignments, program exit reviews, and surveys
conducted of students, alumni, and employers.
As the program grows and students complete their degrees, it is important to ascertain the impact
their education has had on their career. This is achieved in two ways. First, alumni survey are
sent out, allowing former graduates a chance to reflect and provide feedback as to how the
curriculum and overall program design impacted their performance in the industry. In addition,
employers are surveyed to assess whether graduates have gained the necessary and relevant skills
to be successful in the specific field. Data from both surveys is summarized and used for
program improvement.
National University’s Assessment Cycle
 Exists in relationship with the Mission, Core Values, Strategic Planning, Five Year
Program Review, and the Assessment Summit.
 Evolves as a systematic yearly planning and review process consistently used by all
schools and departments.
 Contributes to a comprehensive, university-wide approach to assessment. Multiple
methods of data collection and analysis of student learning are used to assess progress
towards achievement of learning outcomes and to make informed decisions regarding
change.
 Provides for regular and ongoing opportunities for faculty engagement and reflection
based on learning results.
Assessment Methods
The assessment plan includes direct and indirect measures for evaluating the achievement of
program learning outcomes of historical, theoretical and research-based knowledge.
Benchmarking is included in the plan.



Direct measure – pre- and post-assessments: Individual items imbedded in course
assignments assess specific program learning outcomes throughout the program. The
Program Lead and the individual faculty member teaching the course will develop the
items. The pre- and post-assessment items measure how learning in a course addresses
the program learning outcomes by comparing program learning outcome-related
knowledge at the beginning of the course to knowledge after completion of the course.
Program Learning Outcomes are assessed at key points in the curriculum to determine
level of learning (Initial, Developed, Mastered).
Direct measure – assignment rubrics: Student scores on signature items in assignment
rubrics in individual courses measure specific program learning outcomes and will
provide direct evidence of learning. Scores will be returned to students with any
necessary suggestions for improvement.
Indirect measure – student program exit survey questions: Upon completion of the
program the students will participate in an exit survey which affords an opportunity to
evaluate the extent to which students have acquired the skills and knowledge outlined in
the program learning objectives.
Results Presentation
The Program Annual Reviews consist of results and comments viewable by all program faculty,
chairs, deans, as well as Undergraduate Council. These groups review and comment on
assessment and improvement. The University implemented Taskstream’s AMS system as a
collaborative work environment and a repository for recommendations from preceding years are
reviewed annually. Presentations on assessment improvements are made at the Annual
Assessment Summit.
Implementation of Results to Improve Program
Based on assessment findings and faculty feedback from the assessment retreat, the Program
Lead Faculty will develop and implement changes. Benchmarking will be included in the
assessment plan.
Program Participation in the Program Annual Review
National University programs are required to assess a minimum of 20 percent of Program
Learning Outcomes annually. Programs participating in a Five Year Review are not required to
complete a Program Annual Review for the same academic year. In addition, programs with
enrollment less than ten students are not required to participate in the Program Annual Review
due to low data.
Student Learning Outcome Data
General
Total
Education
14
47
57
1
119
Programs Participating in FY14 PAR
Eight programs were scheduled to complete a Five Year Review during the 2014 academic year
(5 bachelor, 3 master)
Associate Bachelor Master
2014 Program Annual Review: Outcomes, Measures and Findings
Overall Statistics for the 2014 Program Annual Review Cycle
 There are 119 participating academic degrees
 43% (359/834) outcomes were included (only 20% of outcomes are required per year)
 94% (338/359) of outcomes included have at least one measure specified
 83% (299/359) of outcomes included have measures with findings specified
929 Total Measures
Measure Type/Method
Student Artifact
Exam
Portfolio
Other
Total Direct
363 (39%)
96 (10%)
27 (3%)
139 (15%)
625 (67%)
Survey
Focus Group
Interview
Other
Total Indirect
529 (28%)
5 (0.54%)
5 (0.54%)
29 (3%)
298 (32%)
Unspecified Measure
6 (0.65%)
Measure Level
Course
Program
Institution
Other
Unspecified
389 (42%)
517 (56%)
0 (0%)
5 (0.54%)
18 (2%)
820 Total Measures with Findings
Acceptable Target Achievement
Exceeded
Acceptable
Needs Improvement
Undetermined
405 (49%)
162 (20%)
140 (17%)
113 (14%)
Ideal Target Achievement
Approaching or Met
Needs Improvement
Undetermined
582 (71%)
72 (9%)
166 (20%)