In line with its assessment plans, the College developed its principles of academic assessment in 1998. The assessment principles are:
- The primary aim of assessment at Georgia Perimeter College is to involve faculty in the evaluation of academic programs in order to (a) provide evidence of program quality, (b) permit documentation of changes in program quality, (c) establish a longitudinal database documenting consistently high academic standards, and (d) show evidence of student learning.
- The Georgia Perimeter program is designed to measure the skills, knowledge, and accomplishments specified in our mission statement.
- Assessment is an on-going process designed and implemented by the faculty in keeping with the mission statement of the College, and the departments in which the programs are located.
- Defining goals for each program area is the most important step in establishing an assessment program. For each academic major, goals are defined, students' progress toward these goals are monitored, and results are used to continue, modify, or reinforce aspects of the program to insure continuous advancement in program quality.
- No single approach to assessment is universally accepted. Therefore, different methods of assessment are appropriate for different programs. The faculty for each program is responsible for determining the methods and appropriateness of the assessment measures used.
- Assessment will focus on courses and programs, rather than individual faculty performance.(Program evaluation measures will be considered confidential. Identities of individual people will not be released.)
In Georgia, each institution of higher education is allowed to fashion its own accountability program and GPC has constructed a multi-faceted model which includes long- and short-term assessment of academic skills and knowledge related to courses, discipline, and programs. Following an adequate time for improvement to be incorporated into the course, a reassessment would be made to determine the impact. If the results are not satisfactory, it is expected that the improvement/assessment cycle would be repeated immediately; if the results are satisfactory, the cycle can be repeated in three to five years.
Modified: