Assessment of Student LearningProgram Level Enhancement…and more!

Sarah Robb – Coordinator of Assessment

Overview• Program Assessment Reports

• Review of Noel-Levitz/CCSSE data (faculty concerns)

• General Education

• Assessment and Program Review Committee

Program Assessment ReportsAccounting MarketingAllied Health MathematicsArt Medical AssistantBiology Medical CodingBusiness Administration Medical TranscriptionChemistry & Pre-Chemical Engineering MusicComputer Information Systems NursingComputer Support Specialist Occupational Therapy AssistantConstruction Technology Level I Office Technology (Office Assistant)Construction Technology Level II Office TechnologyCriminal Justice PhlebotomyElementary Education Physics & Pre-EngineeringEnergy Management Personal TrainerEnglish PsychologyForensic Science Secondary EducationGeneral Education Social ScienceHealth Information Technology SociologyHistory Surgical TechnologyIndustrial Engineering Technology TheatreIndustrial Engineering/Pre-Engineering Technology WeldingManagement

Program Assessment Reports – 10-11 RE-DO• New Questions

– Should any of the student learning goals and course/program outcomes be considered for revision and why?

– Which program assessment elements can be identified as being the strongest, and can those be used to enhance other program level elements? How?

– Are there any new program level assessment strategies that can be identified for future consideration, and how might these add value to the assessment process?

Program Assessment Reports – 10-11 RE-DO• Location

– T:\Assessment 10-11\10-11 Prgm Outcome Reports - Templates

• Save in – T:\Assessment 10-11\10-11 Program Outcome Reports - Sept 15

FINAL

• Be looking for an email with detailed instructions

DUE: September 15, 2012

11-12 Program Assessment Reports• Data and templates will be available in October for your

completion.

• Reports will be included in the HLC self-study process

DUE: December 17, 2012

Instructional Effectiveness (Noel-Levitz)

2000 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 20124.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

Instructional Effectiveness(Satisfaction Average)

Faculty Concerns (Noel-Levitz)• The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes

is excellent.

• Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.

(Remember, this is what the students perceive to be true…)

Faculty Concerns(CCSSE 2011)• Statistically Significant Low Scores

– Made a class presentation

– Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in

– Worked with other students on projects during class

– Exams that are challenging students to do their best work

– Encouraging students to spend significant amounts of time studying

– Using computers in academic work

Faculty Concerns (CCSSE 2011)• More Low Scores

– Acquiring a broad and general education

– Writing clearly and effectively

– Speaking clearly and effectively

– Thinking critically and analytically

– Solving numerical problems

GENERAL EDUCATION….

General Education Goals

• Analytical Thinking

• Practice Responsible Citizenship

• Communicate Effectively

• Live a Healthy Lifestyle

General Education - Scores

Analytical Thinking Citizenship Communication Healthy Lifestyle

2009/2010 0.76 0.81 0.92 0.72

2010/2011 0.73 0.87 0.88 0.81

2011/2012 0.72 0.85 0.88 0.83

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

Analytical Thinking• Think analytically through:

• Utilizing quantitative information in problem solving,• Utilizing the principles of systematic inquiry,• Utilizing various information resources including technology for research and data collection

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

70%

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

77%

What’s going on?• CSIS 100 – outcomes 6 and 7

– Spreadsheets and databases

• ECON 200 and 201 – outcome 2 (both classes)– Evaluate product markets and models of fiscal properties

• ENGL 113 – outcome 3– Evaluate the style of dramas, short fiction, and poetry

• MATH 113 – outcome 4– translation and solution for application (verbal) problems

Assessment/Program Review Committee• Provides a more efficient way to “close the

loop” of assessment at the program level

• New assessment requirements in the program review

• Review a possible new “schedule” for reports

Transfer Programs

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Collect Course Assessment Data Analyze Data

through comprehensive

Program Review and propose

changes for next cycle.

Program Assessment Program

Assessment

Career and Tech Ed

Program Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 All Programs Collect Course Assessment Data Analyze Data

through comprehensive

Program Review and

propose changes for next cycle.

Program Length 1 year or less

Program Assessment

Program Assessment

Program Assessment

Program Assessment

Program Length greater than 1 year

Program

Assessment

Program

Assessment

Assessment/Program Review Committee• Review of “Narrative”

– Peer review of your comments at the course level to provide appropriate feedback through program review

• Comments?

Questions?The End.