1 Institutional Assessment Report 2012-13 The primary purpose for assessment is the assurance and improvement of student learning and development; results are intended to inform decisions about course and program content, delivery, and pedagogy. The Institutional Assessment Report summarizes annual assessment processes, results and success indicators at the program, co-curricular, core and institutional levels. I. Program assessment A total of 117 degree and certificate programs and 13 co-curricular units assessed student learning in 2012-13. Assessment reports reside in the Assessment Reporting Management System (ARMS). Most programs measured multiple learning outcomes and used multiple measures. Direct measures examine or observe student knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviors. The most frequently used direct measures in undergraduate programs are written assignments and locally developed exams, tests or quizzes. Commonly used direct measures in graduate programs include oral presentations or exhibition, research papers/projects, and locally-developed exams, tests or quizzes (Table 1). Table 1: Percent of Academic Programs Reporting Direct Measures in ARMS Undergraduate Graduate N = 52 N = 65 (3 certificate) Standardized instruments 29% 14% Locally-developed exam/test/quiz 40% 40% Essay question on exam 29% 17% Pre- and post-measures 10% 3% Written assignment 42% 32% Portfolio 4% 12% In-class discussions 10% 11% Oral presentation or exhibition 23% 51% Thesis / Dissertation 32% Simulations 4% 2% Formal evaluation of practical skills 12% 22% Research paper/project 25% 40% Final Project 29% 14% Other 17% 14% 2 Indirect measures evaluate perceived learning, and may be used to supplement direct measures. Surveys are commonly used indirect measures; in graduate education, student self-assessments are most frequently used (Table 2). Table 2: Percent of Academic Programs Reporting Indirect Measures in ARMS Undergraduate Graduate Surveys 17% 11% Interviews or focus groups 2% 2% Data indicators (job placement, admission to graduate education) 4% 9% Comparisons with peers 4% 3% Student Self-Assessment 2% 15% Other 4% 8% Co-curricular programs, especially those in the Division of Student Affairs, are more likely to assess student learning and development through self-report (surveys and student self-assessments) than through direct measures (Tables 3 and 4). Table 3: Percent of Co-curricular Units1 Reporting Direct Measures in ARMS (N = 13) Reflection 15% Academic written assignment/Research questions 23% Exam 8% Oral presentation 8% Observations 23% Supervisor ratings 15% Performance reviews 8% Other 31% Table 4: Percent of Co-curricular Units1 Reporting Indirect Measures in ARMS Surveys 69% Student Self-Assessment 62% Data Indicators 8% Benchmarks/Compa ...

1. 1
Institutional Assessment Report
2012-13
The primary purpose for assessment is the assurance and
improvement of student learning and
development; results are intended to inform decisions about
course and program content, delivery,
and pedagogy. The Institutional Assessment Report
summarizes annual assessment processes,
results and success indicators at the program, co-curricular,
core and institutional levels.
I. Program assessment
A total of 117 degree and certificate programs and 13 co-
curricular units assessed student learning
in 2012-13. Assessment reports reside in the Assessment
Reporting Management System (ARMS).

2. Most programs measured multiple learning outcomes and used
multiple measures. Direct measures
examine or observe student knowledge, skills, attitudes or
behaviors. The most frequently used
direct measures in undergraduate programs are written
assignments and locally developed exams,
tests or quizzes. Commonly used direct measures in graduate
programs include oral presentations
or exhibition, research papers/projects, and locally-developed
exams, tests or quizzes (Table 1).
Table 1: Percent of Academic Programs Reporting Direct
Measures in ARMS
Undergraduate Graduate
N = 52 N = 65 (3 certificate)
Standardized instruments 29% 14%
Locally-developed
exam/test/quiz
40% 40%
Essay question on exam 29% 17%
Pre- and post-measures 10% 3%

3. Written assignment 42% 32%
Portfolio 4% 12%
In-class discussions 10% 11%
Oral presentation or
exhibition
23% 51%
Thesis / Dissertation 32%
Simulations 4% 2%
Formal evaluation of practical
skills
12% 22%
Research paper/project 25% 40%
Final Project 29% 14%
Other 17% 14%
2
Indirect measures evaluate perceived learning, and may be used
to supplement direct measures.

4. Surveys are commonly used indirect measures; in graduate
education, student self-assessments are
most frequently used (Table 2).
Table 2: Percent of Academic Programs Reporting Indirect
Measures in ARMS
Undergraduate Graduate
Surveys 17% 11%
Interviews or focus groups 2% 2%
Data indicators (job
placement, admission to
graduate education)
4% 9%
Comparisons with peers 4% 3%
Student Self-Assessment 2% 15%
Other 4% 8%
Co-curricular programs, especially those in the Division of
Student Affairs, are more likely to
assess student learning and development through self-report

5. (surveys and student self-assessments)
than through direct measures (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3: Percent of Co-curricular Units1 Reporting Direct
Measures in ARMS
(N = 13)
Reflection 15%
Academic written assignment/Research
questions
23%
Exam 8%
Oral presentation 8%
Observations 23%
Supervisor ratings 15%
Performance reviews 8%
Other 31%
Table 4: Percent of Co-curricular Units1 Reporting Indirect
Measures in ARMS

6. Surveys 69%
Student Self-Assessment 62%
Data Indicators 8%
Benchmarks/Comparison with peers 23%
Interviews or focus groups 0
Other 23%
3
1 Co-curricular units include: Campus Ministry, Residence
Life, Career Services, English as a Second
Language, Les Aspin Center, Service Learning, Student
Educational Services, Study Abroad, Counseling
Center, Recreational Sports, MU Medical Clinic, Student
Athlete Academic Support and Student
Development.
The assessment process concludes with an evaluation of the
evidence and decisions on follow-up
action. Often several years of data are needed to proceed
confidently with warranted changes to

7. curricula, instruction or resources. In this assessment cycle, a
number of programs have
reconsidered their assessment approaches and will make
revisions to the process itself (Tables 5 and
6).
Table 5: Percent of Academic Programs Reporting Changes
based on Assessment Results
Undergraduate Graduate
Changes to curriculum 9% 19%
Changes to pedagogy 11% 3%
Revisions to learning
outcomes
16% 11%
Changes to resources 0 3%
Revisions to assessment
process
25% 12%
Monitor 16% 26%
Other 0 7%

8. Table 6: Percent of Co-curricular Units Reporting Changes
based on Assessment Results
Changes to programs/services 31%
Changes to pedagogy 7%
Revisions to student learning outcomes 24%
Changes to resources 0
Revisions to assessment processes 38%
Monitor 15%
Professional development 15%
Other 0
Programs use many and varied approaches to assessing student
learning and results of those
assessments cannot be aggregated across programs. Instead,
programs are monitored for their
implementation of measures and intended use of results. In
addition, program assessment reports
are reviewed each November at the annual Peer Review
Seminar. In 2013, program assessment
leaders from 125 academic and co-curricular programs met to

9. present results of their assessments
and give feedback to colleagues. Peer feedback is recorded in
ARMS.
Standardized licensure and certification exams offer the
opportunity to monitor student achievement
of learning outcomes and benchmark results against external
data. Table 7 shows the past four years
of pass rates on certification exams with national or state
benchmark comparisons.
4
Table 7: Pass Rates on Certification Exams
Program, Name of Test Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Accounting, Certified Public Account Exam
2010 2011 2012 2013
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
Undergraduate (first-time test-takers) 65% 53% 71% 50% 68%
54% 74% 55%
Number of MU students participating 94 n/a 80 n/a 96
n/a 95 n/a
Graduate (first-time test-takers) 74%

10. 69%
(WI)
47%
56%
(WI)
59%
65%
(WI)
65%
69%
(WI)
Number of MU students participating 22 n/a 11 n/a 14
n/a 17 n/a
Program, Name of Test Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Finance, Certified Financial Analyst Exam
2010 2011 2012 2013
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
Level 1 75% 39% 87% 38% 75% 38% 65% 38%
Number of MU students participating 16 n/a 16 n/a 16
n/a 17 n/a
Program, Name of Test Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

11. Education
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
Undergraduate – Praxis II Content Area
Knowledge Test
100%
100%
(WI)
100%
100%
(WI)
100%
100%
(WI)
100%
100%
(WI)
Number of MU students participating 86 n/a 106 n/a 99
n/a 113 n/a
School Counseling – Praxis II School
Counseling and Guidance Exam
100% n/a 100% n/a 100% n/a 100% n/a

12. Number of MU students participating 5 n/a 6 n/a 8 n/a 6
n/a
Community Counseling and Clinical
Mental Health Counseling, National
Certification Exam
100% 83% 96% 83% 96% 83% 96% 84%
Number of MU students participating 34 n/a 19 n/a 24
n/a 27 n/a
5
Program, Name of Test Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Board of
Certification Exam
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
92% 75% 90% 77% 100% 77% 100% 84% 92% 86%
Number of MU students participating 13 n/a 10 n/a 15
n/a 13 n/a 13 n/a

13. Physical Therapy, PES National Licensure
Exam (first-time test-takers)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
97% 90% 95% 91% 93% 90% 93% 91% 98% 93%
Number of MU students participating n/a n/a n/a n/a 61
n/a 61 n/a 59 n/a
Athletic Training, National Athletic Trainers’
Association (first-time test-takers)
**Information is not yet available.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
100% 61% 100% 82% 92% 81% 100% 75% 100% **
Number of MU students participating n/a n/a 12 n/a 12
n/a 11 n/a 10 n/a
Physician Assistant Studies, National
Certification Exam (first-time test-takers)
**Information is not yet available.

14. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
100% 94% 100% 91% 100% 93% 100% 94% 100% **
Speech-Language Pathology, Praxis Exam
(first-time test-takers)
**Numbers on the ASHA website do not
represent “first time pass rates”. Rather they
include all test administrations for a given
interval. To the graduate Director’s
knowledge, these scores are not yet available
on a national level. 2013-2014 are not yet
available.
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2014
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
100% 86% 100% 86% 100% 86% 100% 90% 100% **

15. 6
Program, Name of Test Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Nursing
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l MU Nat’l
NCLEX-RN (all first-time test takers) 90% 88% 90% 87% 84%
88% 92% 90%
Number of MU students participating 156 n/a 126 n/a 133
n/a 133 n/a
American Nurses Credentialing Center
(ANCC) – Adult Primary Care NP Certification Exam
or American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
Certification Program (AANPCP) Adult Primary Care
NP Certification Exam
92%
82%
(ANCC)
94%
82%
(ANCC)
100%

16. 91%
(ANCC)
100%
85%
(ANCC)
Number of MU students participating 12 n/a 17 n/a 14
n/a 26 n/a
ANCC – Adult Acute Care NP Certification
Exam
94%
90%
(ANCC)
95%
92%
(ANCC)
95%
92%
(ANCC)
100%
87%
(ANCC)

17. Number of MU students participating 18 n/a 19 n/a 12
n/a 16 n/a
ANCC – Pediatric Primary Care NP
Certification Exam or Pediatric Nursing
Certification Board (PNCB) Pediatric Primary
Care NP Certification Exam or ANCC
Pediatric CNS Certification Exam
83%
88%
(PNCB)
88%
90%
(PNCB)
100%
90%
(PNCB)
86%
91%
(PNCB)
Number of MU students participating 6 n/a 8 n/a 15 n/a 7
n/a

18. PNCB Pediatric Acute Care NP Certification
Exam
n/a 77% 86% 81% 80% 81% 75% 84%
Number of MU students participating n/a n/a 7 n/a 5 n/a
4 n/a
ANCC Gerontology NP Certification Exam or
AANPCP Gerontology NP Certification
Exam
100%
85%
(ANCC)
100%
86%
(ANCC)
100%
96%
(ANCC)
n/a n/a
Number of MU students participating 3 n/a 2 n/a 3 n/a
n/a n/a
American Midwifery Certification Board
(AMCB) Nurse Midwifery Certification

19. Exam
100% 84% 100% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%
Number of MU students participating 2 n/a 7 n/a 8 n/a 8
n/a
Commission on Nurse Certification (CNC)
Clinical Nurse Leader Certification Exam
100% 68% 100% 70% n/a 75% 100% 75%
Number of MU students participating n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a 1 n/a
7
II. University Core of Common Studies Learning Outcomes
Assessment
The core of common studies is the foundation of all
undergraduate degrees, constituting 36 credits
required for graduation. Core outcomes are assessed within
each of nine knowledge areas on a
rotating basis, and through the Integrated Core Learning
Outcomes (ICLO).
In 2012-13, the knowledge areas of Human Nature and Ethics

20. and Histories of Cultures and
Societies were assessed. The Philosophy Department assessed
the outcomes for its two core
courses, PHIL 1001: Philosophy of Human Nature and PHIL
2310: Theory of Ethical Theory,
which together comprise the Human Nature and Ethics
knowledge area of the University Core of
Common Studies. The History Department assessed the
effectiveness of its core courses through a
student exit questionnaire. Complete reports can be accessed
at: http://www.marquette.edu/core-
of-common-studies/outcomes-assessment.php
The four cross-disciplinary ICLOs are measured using senior
experience and capstone course
assignments. In 2012-13, a total of 272 students in 15 courses
participated in this assessment. The
criteria measured within the courses differed; for example, more
students were measured on the
second criterion of ICLO #1 than the other two. Table 8
displays ratings by ICLO criterion.
Table 8: Ratings for Integrated Core Learning Outcomes

21. ICLO #1
Apply the perspectives, concepts and traditions of multiple
disciplines to personal,
professional, intellectual and societal challenges.
Outstanding Proficient Adequate Unacceptable
Independently synthesizes
or draws conclusions by
combining examples, facts,
arguments or theories from
more than one field of study
or perspective.
8 (23%) 15 (43%) 12 (34%) 0
Demonstrates ability to
problem-solve; uses
information from diverse
sources to understand a
problem, generates
alternative solutions,
evaluates alternatives,

22. implements solutions,
evaluates outcomes.
34 (40%) 29 (33%) 23 (27%) 0
Demonstrates a sense of self
as a learner, building on
prior experiences to respond
to new and challenging
contexts.
17 (49%) 7 (20%) 9 (26%) 2 (5%)
Total 59 (38%) 51 (33%) 44 (28%) 2 (1%)
http://www.marquette.edu/core-of-common-studies/outcomes-
assessment.php
http://www.marquette.edu/core-of-common-studies/outcomes-
assessment.php
8
Across the criteria of ICLO#1, 38% of works were rated
‘Outstanding’, 33% ‘Proficient’ and 28%
‘Adequate’. Only 2 were rated ‘Inadequate,’ and that was on
the criterion of demonstrating a sense

23. of self as a learner.
ICLO #2 (oral communication)
Communicate in modes appropriate to various subjects and
diverse audiences.
Excellent Good Average Poor
Organization 114 (60%) 48 (25%) 24 (12%) 5 (3%)
Content knowledge 121 (57%) 72 (34%) 15 ( 7%) 5 (2%)
Central message 104 (54%) 68 (35%) 21 (11%) 0
Supporting material 101 (54%) 49 (26%) 31 (17%) 5 (3%)
Delivery of presenter(s) 111 (58%) 51 (26%) 26 (14%) 4
(2%)
Total 551 (56%) 288 (30%) 117 (12%)
19 (2%)
ICLO #2 (written communication)
Communicate in modes appropriate to various subjects and
diverse audiences
Excellent Good Average Poor

24. Context of and purpose for
writing
107 (49%) 84 (39%) 24 (11%) 2 (1%)
Content development 98 (44%) 83 (37%) 36 (16%) 5
(2%)
Organization 97 (45%) 78 (36%) 35 (16%) 7 (3%)
Sources and evidence 93 (43%) 88 (41%) 33 (15%) 3
(1%)
Control of syntax and
mechanics
88 (40%) 84 (38%) 30 (14%) 17 (8%)
Total 483 (44%) 417 (38%) 158 (14%)
34 (3%)
ICLO #2 was the most frequently assessed. Overall, students
were rated slightly higher in oral vs.
written communication. Among the criteria rated in oral
communication, “content knowledge” was
strongest; “supporting material” was lowest. 86% of ratings
were “excellent” or “good.”
In written works, 82% of ratings were “excellent” or “good.”
“Control of syntax and mechanics” was the
weakest area.

25. In addition, 28 programs related their coursework to ICLO #2.
A total of 4,247 students were
assessed. Students demonstrated their learning through a variety
of assignments, including case
studies, oral presentations, midterms, and final exams. Their
content knowledge on coursework was
measured with rubrics, evaluations, and standardized
instruments, like licensure or certification
exams.
9
ICLO #3
Pursue an integration of knowledge into a comprehensive,
transcendent vision of life
Exceeds
expectations
Meets
expectations

26. Does not meet
expectations
Identify assumptions and implications of
different ethical perspectives; state an ethical
position and effectively defend it.
10 (56%) 7 (39%) 1 (5%)
Evaluate potential consequences of a specific
method/practice/approach used in a discipline
or field.
10 (56%) 7 (39%) 1 (5%)
Discuss and analyze core beliefs and the
origins of one's core beliefs.
11 (61%) 7 (39%) 0
Review prior learning to reveal significantly
changed perspectives about educational and
life experiences, which provide the
foundation for expanded knowledge, growth,
and maturity over time.
21 (48%) 19 (43%) 4 (9%)

27. Total 52 (53%) 40 (41%) 6 (6%)
ICLO #3 is the most difficult to operationalize and was the least
assessed. Overall, 53% of criteria
ratings were judged to have exceeded expectations, and 41%
met expectations.
ICLO #4
Act as responsible members of the global human family, with
knowledge of, and respect
for, individuals and cultures in their diversity
Capstone
4
Milestones
3 2
Benchmark
1
Cultural self-awareness 16 (62%) 7 (27%) 3 (11%) 0
Understanding complexity
of other cultures
23 (59%) 14 (36%) 2 (5%) 0

28. Curiosity 28 (67%) 12 (29%) 2 (4%) 0
Valuing diversity 25 (86%) 4 (14%) 0 0
Action and reflection 18 (64%) 8 (29%) 2 (7%) 0
Total 110 (67%) 45 (27%) 9 (6%)
0
Across criteria, 94% of ratings were on the upper end of this
scale for ICLO #4. ‘Valuing diversity’
scored highest, and ‘Cultural self-awareness’ lowest.
III. Institutional Undergraduate Learning Outcomes Assessment
Marquette has defined six Institutional Undergraduate Learning
Outcomes (IULOs):
1. Pursue an integration of knowledge into a comprehensive,
transcendent vision of life.
10
2. Apply the knowledge and skills of an academic discipline,
program, or profession to a career
or graduate study.

29. 3. Utilize critical thinking and reflection to effect positive
change in themselves, others and
their communities.
4. Communicate in modes appropriate to various subjects and
diverse audiences.
5. Exercise just, responsible and competent leadership in
professional, intellectual, and social
contexts.
6. Act for social justice within the diverse global human family.
Assessment of these outcomes relies on student self-reports,
primarily through the Graduating
Senior Survey (GSS), National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) and survey of students
participating in service learning.
Student responses to relevant items on the GSS are used to
assess both core and institutional
outcomes. The first set of items in Table 9 includes student
self-assessment on progress in
achieving knowledge area outcomes. The second set relates to
IULO assessment.
Table 9: 2013 Graduating Senior Survey (N = 778)

30. How much did your Marquette education contribute to
your ability to:
A
great
deal
Somewhat A little
Not at
all
Write clearly and logically 53% 39% 7% 2%
Analyze quantitative information 54% 33% 11% 2%
Appropriately use the technology and tools of your field 52%
35% 9% 4%
Locate evaluate and effectively use research and information
resources
49% 37% 12% 2%
Give effective oral presentations 46% 42% 10% 3%
Use knowledge from the social sciences to understand
individual and social behavior
45% 37% 16% 2%
Use scientific inquiry to understand problems and evaluate

31. information
43% 36% 17% 5%
Appreciate the value of history in understanding the past and
present
32% 37% 24% 7%
Enjoy works of literature 28% 34% 28% 9%
Appreciate great works of art, music and drama 22% 28% 32%
18%
11
Compared to when you entered Marquette, how much
have you grown in your ability to:
A
great
deal
Somewhat A little

32. Not at
all
Assume leadership responsibilities in your professional and
community life
67% 26% 6% 1%
Apply what you have learned in class to personal, professional
or societal challenges
66% 28% 5% 1%
Take responsibility for your own behavior 67% 23% 7% 2%
Contribute effectively to a group or team 58% 33% 7% 2%
Practice ethical decision-making 60% 30% 8% 2%
Identify your own core beliefs 57% 30% 11% 2%
Recognize injustice in society 57% 31% 10% 2%
Act in accordance with your core beliefs 55% 33% 9% 2%
Understand the value of community involvement and
contributing to the greater good
53% 34% 10% 2%
Understand and appreciate different cultures 53% 30% 15% 2%
Exhibit compassion toward others in your actions 49% 38% 10%
3%

33. Work for a more just society 45% 38% 14% 3%
Align your daily activities with principles of your faith 34%
32% 21% 14%
Cultivate a life or prayer and reflection 22% 29% 24% 25%
Graduating seniors are most likely to credit their Marquette
education with contributing to their
ability to write, analyze quantitative information, and use
technology. They have grown most in
their abilities to assume leadership responsibilities and apply
what they have learned to their own
challenges.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
The NSSE includes an engagement indicator for “Reflective and
Integrative Learning,” the results
of which are used to assess the extent to which seniors report
their progress toward achieving the
ICLOs. Table 10 reports item responses for the 544 Marquette
seniors who completed the 2013
NSSE, as compared to seniors in benchmark groups. The
average score for this engagement
indicator shows statistically comparable scores for the

34. Jesuit/Catholic and Carnegie Class
comparison groups, and a higher score compared to all
institutions included in this NSSE
administration.
12
Table 10: NSSE Reflective and Integrative Learning items
Percent of seniors who responded that they “Very often” or
“often”…
Marquette
Jesuit/
Catholic
Carnegie
Class
NSSE
2013
Combined ideas from different courses when

35. completing assignments
79% 75% 71% 71%
Connected your learning to societal
problems or issues.
71% 70% 70% 64%
Included diverse perspectives (political,
religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in
course discussions or assignments
61% 64% 63% 56%
Examined the strengths and weaknesses of
your own views on a topic or issue
71% 72% 72% 67%
Tried to better understand someone else’s
views by imagining how an issue looks from
his or her perspective
71% 74% 76% 70%
Learned something that changed the way
you understand an issue or concept
73% 75% 73% 70%
Connected ideas from your courses to your

36. prior experiences and knowledge
86% 87% 87% 84%
Mean comparisons for “Reflective and Integrative Learning”
(60-pt scale)
Marquette Jesuit/Catholic Carnegie Class NSSE 2013
40.9 41.0 40.9 38.9 *
* Statistically significant difference, p<.001
Service Learning Assessment Results
One way that students can acquire the ability to “Act for social
justice within the diverse global
human family” (IULO # 6) is to participate in service learning.
The annual assessment report for
the Service Learning program focuses on attaining the outcome
that pertains to student
understanding of and action for social justice.

37. In 2012-13, assessment focused on the extent to which students
demonstrated an increased sense of
vocation as a result of their participation in service learning.
The end-of-semester survey that was
sent to all placement model service learners (516 total
respondents) reported that:
and attitudes as they
determine a future career
path.
13
their academic life or in a future
career, with 38% of students honing skills in communication
(public speaking, group
facilitation, and interpersonal communication).
their choice of academic
major.
having an impact on the

38. community are the most important things that they will consider
when choosing a career.
As a result of this assessment, the Service Learning Program
has instituted a reflection
session that pushes students to reflect on their values while
delving into the connections
between their service learning experiences and their intended
career path and greater purpose
in the world.
III. Data Indicators of Student Success
Data indicators for retention, graduation, employment and
enrollment in further education are also
evaluated for evidence of success.
On average, 90% of freshmen are retained and about 80% of an
entering cohort graduates within 6
years. These rates compare very favorably to other selective
universities.
Table 11: Fall to subsequent fall retention rates of subsequent
cohorts

39. 2008 to 2009 2009 to 2010 2010 to 2011 2011 to 2012 2012 to
2013
Percent retained 89% 88% 90% 88% 91%
Initial cohort 1,950 1,946 1,928 2,056 1,927
Number retained 1,728 1,722 1,731 1,809 1,748
Table 12: Graduation rates of entering freshmen cohorts
Cohort Size
Total Percentage Graduating Within:
4 years 5 years 6 years
2003 1,882 59.8% 78.7% 79.9%
2004 1,802 62.0% 79.8% 81.0%
2005 1,775 61.0% 80.2% 81.4%
2006 1,842 59.5% 78.4% 80.2%
2007 1,811 57.3% 76.8% 78.2%

40. 14
IULO #2 addresses the ability to apply discipline knowledge to
a career or to graduate study.
Achievement of this outcome is verified in part by employment
data, and information indicating
successful admission to and completion of graduate programs.
The 2013 Undergraduate Post-Graduation Outcomes Survey
reports that six months following
graduation, 52% are employed full time; 22% are enrolled in
graduate or professional school full-
time; 4% are engaged in full-time post-graduation service, such
as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or
the Jesuit Volunteer Corps; 3% are in the activity military; 10%
are still seeking a post-graduation
activity; and 9% report another activity or are not seeking
employment.
Follow-up information from the Student Clearinghouse indicates
that after eight years, about 53%
of a given graduation cohort will have pursued additional

41. postsecondary education, and 40% will
have graduated with another degree.
October 8, 2014

42. ContractsEller Software ServicesContract Amounts, September
through December
Billable HoursEller Software ServicesBillable HoursClient
NameProduct/ServiceDateBillableHeather
GuyanTraining10/7/193.25Karen TalonAccounti ng
Software10/1/195.50Mike GundersonTechnical
Support12/18/194.50Thomas LarsonTraining12/5/195.00Wade
WhitworthAccounting Software11/14/195.00Paula
ValentineTraining11/15/194.00Richard MalinowskiTechnical
Support1/5/203.00Robert GneissERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning9/1/196.00Susan CharlotteERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning3/5/208.00Martin GreenAccounting
Software3/7/204.00Heather GuyanTraining2/3/204.50Craig
BrandTechnical Support10/1/198.00Glenn LadewigAccounting
Software9/1/195.00Terri OlanderPOS: Point of Sale
Software10/15/196.50Karen TalonAccounting
Software9/1/193.50Hilary MarschkeTraining3/8/205.00Shelly
VlckoAccounting Software9/15/195.00Wade
WhitworthAccounting Software2/2/206.00Michelle CroninPOS:
Point of Sale Software12/15/194.00Paula
ValentineTraining4/5/204.00Paula
ValentineTraining10/15/194.00Hilary
MarschkeTraining11/15/195.00Arthur WestonTechnical
Support5/5/206.00Christine BartonPOS: Point of Sale
Software11/15/194.00Charlie LindbergERP: Enterprise
Resource Planning4/5/206.00Hilary
MarschkeTraining11/15/195.00Shelly VlckoAccounting
Software11/16/195.00Mike GundersonTechnical
Support10/28/194.75Jeremie MidboePOS: Point of Sale
Software11/1/193.50Arthur WestonTechnical
Support10/1/193.00Susan CharlotteERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning11/1/196.00Thomas LarsonTraining3/18/204.00Arnold

43. RobertAccounting Software9/15/195.00Wade
WhitworthAccounting Software5/17/205.00Paula
ValentineTraining10/15/194.00Michelle CroninPOS: Point of
Sale Software12/15/194.00Amir
AtefTraining12/15/194.00Richard MalinowskiTechnical
Support10/1/194.50Charlie LindbergERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning9/1/194.00Christine BartonPOS: Point of Sale
Software11/15/192.00Robert GneissERP: Enterprise Resource
Planning2/5/207.00Martin GreenAccounting
Software12/15/195.00Jerri SalzmanPOS: Point of Sale
Software3/9/204.50Juan GarciaTraining11/15/194.00Elizabeth
JonesTechnical Support10/1/193.50Robert LawlorTechnical
Support1/8/202.75Patricia GlunzPOS: Point of Sale
Software12/15/193.25
Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4/ Final Paper/ Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Reviewed 3 current empirical studies related to assessment in
higher education. You provided High quality review of studies,
and all are original research studies from peer-reviewed
journals published within the past 5 years.
Summarized the purpose, goals, methods, and results for 3
studies. Summary of the purpose and goals for all three studies
was clearly articulated. However, the methods and results’
section require further development.
Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated
ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of
sources (i.e., APA); and displayed accurate spelling, grammar,
and punctuation. The reader can follow the author’s overall
intent as stated. The reader noticed a few errors in basic writing
conventions but these few errors do not interfere with reader
comprehension. Used Academic/APA format, accurately. Here
are the noticeable errors:
1 Your title page should be formatted according to APA

44. 7th edition standards.
2 No headers on subsequent pages.
3 Do not place the word Introduction on your report.
4 No levels of heading; include a few levels of heading
for better organization and structure of your ideas.
5 In text citation errors exist throughout your paper.
6 All papers must end with a comprehensive
conclusion.
7 All references must be formatted according to APA
7th edition standards