Beyond compliance: How assessment and accreditation drive continuous improvement at the U of A
For many faculty and staff, accreditation largely operates behind the scenes, a requirement handled elsewhere by someone else. Yet accreditation plays a critical role in ensuring academic quality, accountability, and student success across the University of Arizona.
At the center of that work is Laurie Sheldon, assessment coordinator for the University Center for Assessment, Teaching, and Technology (UCATT), who helps academic programs navigate the complex process of assessment and accreditation while using evidence to improve student learning.
“Assessment gets this mentality of a checkbox,” Sheldon said. “But ultimately, I want to be the coordinator of continuous improvement.”
What is accreditation?
Accrediting agencies require universities to demonstrate that students are achieving the learning outcomes promised by their degree programs. Rather than relying on assumptions, institutions must provide evidence that students are learning and progressing as intended.
At the U of A, every degree program is responsible for defining student learning outcomes and regularly assessing whether students are meeting them. Programs submit annual assessment reports in the U of A's central tool, Planning & Self-Study. From there, Sheldon and Ealine Marchello, the director of learning assessment, review them to ensure that they meet the accreditor’s standards. The U of A’s accreditor, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission (WASCUC), documents learning outcomes, assessment results, data analysis, and improvement plans.
Supporting more than 450 degree programs
The process begins with curriculum mapping, which helps programs examine the student learning journey from introduction to mastery. “We help the programs see the student journey through their program,” Sheldon said. “How, as students move through that program, are the learning outcomes introduced, reinforced, and mastered in the system?”
While accreditation may sound straightforward in theory, the scale of the work is significant. The university currently manages assessment reporting for approximately 455 undergraduate and graduate degree programs. Each program has its own curriculum, learning outcomes, assessment methods, and reporting needs.
According to Sheldon, every program is different, and each one has its own challenges. Some colleges employ dedicated assessment professionals. Others rely on faculty members, department staff, or administrative assistants to coordinate assessment activities. As a result, the support required varies widely across campus.
UCATT's assessment team helps programs develop assessment plans, align reporting practices with accreditor expectations, and navigate the university's assessment management system. The team also reviews annual reports using a rubric developed by a cross-campus Assessment Council composed of faculty representatives.
Turning data into stories
One of the biggest challenges Sheldon sees is helping programs move beyond reporting numbers and toward understanding what those numbers mean. Programs can often collect and present assessment results. The next step is using those results to tell a meaningful story about student learning and program improvement.
“They can gather their results, they can talk about that graph,” Sheldon said. “But they can’t tell a story with that.”
To address this challenge, Sheldon began analyzing both rubric scores and qualitative feedback from assessment reviews. That analysis helped shape the theme of this year's Assessment Conference: Stories of Impact: The Art and Practice of Storytelling. The goal is to help programs connect assessment data with curriculum decisions, instructional changes, and student outcomes. By connecting evidence, reflection, and action, programs can demonstrate not only what students learned but also how intentional improvements contribute to that learning.
Significant progress across campus
Over the last several years, the university has made substantial gains in assessment participation and compliance. When the current assessment framework was introduced, approximately 69 percent of degree programs were submitting assessment reports. Today, participation has reached approximately 98 percent.
The improvement has strengthened the university's standing with accreditors and demonstrated a growing institutional commitment to assessment. The assessment team has also improved oversight and reporting accuracy. Recent audits comparing assessment records with the Registrar's Office helped ensure that all active degree programs are included in assessment processes.
Looking ahead: Better data, better decisions
One of the most promising developments on the horizon is the integration of assessment reporting with institutional data systems. Currently, many programs spend considerable time collecting and organizing assessment data. Future integrations could streamline that process and provide new insights into student learning across different populations. The goal is to allow programs to examine outcomes by factors such as instructional modality, Pell eligibility, and first-generation status.
“One of the things we're doing is trying to integrate with D2L,” Sheldon said. “We'll pull the results right out of the tool.” The change could significantly reduce manual reporting while helping programs identify equity gaps and opportunities for improvement. “If we can get some of this integration done, then not all of this manual gathering of data,” Sheldon said. “I think that will be a big relief.”
The assessment team is also exploring ways artificial intelligence might support assessment work. While AI cannot replace the human judgment required for meaningful evaluation, it may help programs identify alignment issues between learning outcomes, assignments, and assessment tools before reports are submitted.
Assessment as continuous improvement
For Sheldon, accreditation is ultimately about far more than compliance. The real value lies in using evidence to improve teaching, curriculum, and student success.
“It’s using the data, using the evidence for improvement,” she said. “But to get there, we have to get through all the other steps. What can we do so that the programs can focus not so much on that housekeeping data-gathering thing, but on how to look at that and see where the gaps are so we can improve learning for our students?”
As assessment processes become more streamlined and data becomes more accessible, the goal is to help programs spend less time gathering information and more time acting on it.
