Performance Funding Report · Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2006-07 Performance Funding...

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, RESEARCH & PLANNING

Pellissippi State Technical Community College

Performance Funding Report

2006 – 2007

REVISED 31 July 2007

Submitted by:

Dr. Sharon L. Yarbrough

Director


Contents

Performance Funding Annual Report for 2006-2007 Summary of Points Requested..........................................................................................................................................

1

Standard One – Assessment

General Education Standard 1.A: General Education Outcomes – (Template) ........................................................................................................ (Supporting Documents: )

CBASE cover letter................................................................................................................................................................

2

3

Standard 1.B: Student Learning – Major Field Assessment – (Template)....................................................................................... 4 (Supporting Documents: ) Major Field Test Results.......................................................................................................................................................... Individual Scores – OPAC Exam...............................................................................................................................................

5 6

Program Accountability Standard 1.C.1: Accreditation of Academic Programs – (Template) ........................................................................................... 7 Standard 1.C.2: Program Review (Undergraduate – (Template) ................................................................................................. (Supporting Documents: ) TBR Evaluator’s Program Review Scoring Sheet/Checklist.......................................................................................................... TBR Program Review Evaluator’s Summary Report.................................................................................................................... 2007 Academic Audit – AAS General Technology Team Report……..............................................................................................

8

9 12 15

Standard Two – Alumni Survey

Standard 2A: Student Alumni Survey – (Template)............................................................................................ 19

Standard Three – Planning and Collaboration

Standard 3.A: Retention and Persistence – (Template) ............................................................................................................ (Supporting Documents: )

20

Standard 3.B: Student Success – (Template) ...........................................................................................................................

21

Standard 3.C: Student Persistence Planning Initiative – (Template) ............................................................................................. (Supporting Documents: )

22

Student Persistence Planning Report: 2006-2007.....................................................................................................................

23

Standard Four – Student Outcomes and Implementation

Standard 4.A: Institutional Strategic Planning – (Template) ........................................................................................................ (Supporting Documents: ) FLAG Center Report.............................................................................................................................................................. Private Giving Memo..............................................................................................................................................................

33 34 36


Contents

Standard 4.B State Strategic Planning – (Template).................................................................................................................... (Supporting Documents: ) Financial Aid Awards……………………………………………........................................................................................................................ Media Technology Courses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

37 38 39

Standard 4.CJob Placement – (Template).................................................................................................................................. (Supporting Documents:) Placement Status Report………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

40 41

Standard Five – Student Outcomes and Implementation

Standard 5.A: Assessment Pilot – (Template) ............................................................................................................. (Supporting Documents: ) Use of the Kansas Cost Study................................................................................................................................................

42 43

Standard 5.B Assessment Implementation –(Template).............................................................................................................. (Supporting Documents: ) First Year Experience at Pellissippi State……………………..….………………………………............................................................................ Bibliography of Links…..………………………………...............................................................................................................................

52 53 63

Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2006-07 Performance Funding Report

PELL/SS/PP/ ,!?a??' Summary of Points Requested

11 STAN1 JDENT I. :NT ANC OUTCC IMES

Standard l.A: Student Learning - General Education

Standard l.B: Student Learning - Major Field Assessment

Standard l.C.l: Accreditation - Academic Programs

Standard 1.C.2: Undergraduate Program Review

STANDARD TWO - STUDENT SATISFA(:

Alumn i Survey

STANDARD T H h b - 3 I'UDENT PERSISTENCE

Standard 3.A: Retention and Persistence

Standard 3.B: Student Success

Standard 3.C: Student Persistence Planning Initiative

STANDARD FOUR - STATE MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES

Standard 4.A: Institutional Strategic Planning

Standard 4.B: State Strategic Planning

Standard 4.C: Job Placement

STANDARD FIVE - STATE MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES

11 Standard 5.A: Assessment Pilot 1 0

11 Standard 5.B: Assessment Im~lentation I 10 0

Institutional Comments (General - Optional)

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of 1 71 1612007

1 of 64


Standard l.A: Student Learning - General Education

Points Requested: 15

Test Type: College BASE

Graduates Tested: All or Sample? AII p ~ ~ i i s s / p p / F~?FE I - - .* . ,---_-- -

Total Eligible Graduates: 666

No. Graduates Tested: 600

Percent Tested: 90%

1 Institution 279.0 279.0 Mean Score

% Institution to National Average

1 100% 1 100%

2005-06

National Diff (I-N)

Institutional Comments (Optional): Please place any comments in this text box.

College BASE excluded 5 students from the analysis due to one or more of these reasons: students scored below chance, students who indicated they were in a year of school other than sophomore, and students who took more or less subjects on the exam than they were assigned.

2006-07

275.0 -

4.0

Tennessee Higher Education Commission

277.0 2.0

Page 1 of 1

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

2 of 64

Assessment Resource Center University of Missouri-Columbia 2800 Magire Blvd.

Columbia, MO 652 1 1

PHONE (573) 8 8 2 4 9 4 FAX (573) 882-8937

June I , 2007

Dr. Sharon Yarbrough Pellissippi State Community College Director of Institutional Research 1091 5 Hardin Valley Rd. Knoxville, TN 37933-0990

Dear Dr. Yarbrough:

Enclosed is information for your institution regarding student performance on the College Basic Academic Subjects Examination (College BASE) during the 2006-2007 academic year. The 2006-2007 results for Pellissippi State Community College are as follows:

2006-2007 institutional composite mean 279 Number of students (net*) 600 Number of subjects tested per student 4 Mean of 2006-2007 national reference group 277

* Students who did not meet all of the selection crieria are excluded from the final ptrformance data. Please note that 5 of your students who took College BASE were not included in the final data because of one or more of these reasons: students scored below chance, students who indicated they were in a year of school other than sophomore, and students who took more or less subjects on the exam than were assigned.

Please refer to the performance funding standards provided by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission for additional details on how points are awarded for the General Education Standard.

Enclosed is an Extract Summary Report reflecting your students' performance for 2006-2007 and a booklet indicating the performance of the National Reference Group. If you have any questions regarding these reports please call me at 1-800-366-8232.

Sincerely,

b-- Pamela A. Hum~hrevs Senior College BAS^ Coordinator

xc: Dr. Betty Dandridge-Johnson, THEC Joan Newman, Pellissippi State Community College

3 of 64


pELLlSslPPI : :';!. '= P ~ W I J ~ ~ I 11.411 I I ( Y I I ~ A ~ comovnnv mumr

Standard 1.B: Student Learning - Major Field Assessment

I Pdlissippi Sfate Technical Com~ns~~i(y CoIlege

Aaaac$ate F7ogmrn Exempt from Major Fkld Aaaeramcnt

Points Requested: 10

hlnjur tianw MCDIA2C~101.ffiIF& llGH~EWO_oRUUA~~Cl

I wEn TECIP.~OLOGY -- 'NF~WORKI~G & COMM SYS TECH

14 ZR 4s.0702 IM - - ~ I . O G R A P I I I C ~ ~ ~ R M A ~IOU SYSTFMS , 2 - J AAL I 07 I5 30.50 0402 00 ICOMLIWICATIONS (;?P!iICS TECII t- -04

2 3 M S *---_ I6 30 50 0602 00- ~ - ! v l n T O PRODUCTION_TTCliNOI OGY - 2 1 M S M


I 1% 5' UDI 00 OFFICE 6YSTbMSTFCHUOl OGV - 2 1 A A F 2005 -0h1 -17 I I I ? lOll%, - 96 25- ; 70 100% ZOPISOSO5GO MFCHA41CAL TNGI>EERlNG TECH 7.1 h \ b 2006-07 1 39 iW------- I2 i T: 67% ! _ 2 3 - r- 65-11- _-loo% 3 14 22 0102 M PARALEGAL STUDIES 2 3 A A S 2007-08 , - -- I . 0% . .- -- 0% - 4 I? 12030201 COMPxER bCCOLNT1VG L I A G . Z(Kn-08 , - - - I ?

0% , 0% 1 09 1 % 1101 00 + COUPlrrER IKTFG D R t ~ P S ~ G N QAAS . 2648-0'1 4 I 0% I 0% 6 On 1 1 0101 00 - - COUP SCIBNCEfihPOTECtI -_ _ - r M S 2008.09 ,--_ 4R , - 0% , 0% 7 \(I $11 $YO$ 00 IWCKIOR Dl2SIG\ TFCWNOLOGY -- _ 2 J M S - ._ 2oO'l-lO , I--. - - . * on&_ 0%

I . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cow. Score hlajor Clnlc

T---" ,Exemotion Coda 101 - New Program j04 - Phase out 107 - Low producing 110 - lnterdisciplinaryor MultMisclplinary i

% lnrt lo Comprr+ron %ore U Tested

Tennessee Higher Eduarllon Commission

11~1. Score hlalor Firm

Page 1 of 1

Degree T w t Ycrr Test Code NO.

Crn& NO.

Tested

4 of 64

ENTER PROGRAM INFORMATION HERE

Institution: Pellissippi

Program name: Mechanical En? Tech

Test name: ~ a ~ s t o n e

Test type: 65 @'=pass rate or

leave blank)

National Mean1 Pass Rate:

OR Previous Meant

Pass Rate:

Begin entering scores here --=z

2006-07 MAJOR FIELD TEST RESULTS Institution:

Program name:

Test Name:

Test Type:

Number of student scores: National MeanlPass Rate:

OR Previous MeanlPass Rate:

Institutional Mean:

Instl Mean - Natl Mean: Final Score:

Fil Score (Pass Rate):

% Inst to Comparison %re

Pellissippi Mechanical Eng Tech

Capstone

Pass Rate

8 #N/A

#N/A 92.63

92.63

100.00%

5 of 64

Grading Scale

A 92-100 B+ 88-91 B 83-87 C+ 79-82 C 74-78 D 65-73 F Below 65

d i n g \c IIIC, \UIIIV /or

rill Lurrl TC\

Fall 2005 Number grade

MET 2820 (not taught) Spring 2006

MET 2025 (Riddle) 1 Delk, Gerald, Whiting 1 B+ 90

MET 2740 (Sisk)

Letter Grade Course Student

MET 2025 (Riddle)

80 92 98 93

Narvaez, Carlos Alfonso Renfro, Austin Lee Schmidlin, Joshua York, Douglas, Todd

C+ A A A

92 96 94 92 97

Brewer, Eric Craig Cox, Christopher Todd Fielden, James R Rigby, Alan Philip Walker, Jonathan David

MET 2820 (nor tauglrt) l s a l l 2006

MET 2025 (Riddle) I Cole, William Michael I A I 95

MET2740 (not taught) MET 2820 (Ricldle)

A A A A A

MET 2740 (Sisk)

93 92

Jenkins, Dennis Joseph Kcck, Bobby Edgar

A A

88 94 92 85 89 96

Dagley, Justin David Fielden, James R Markham, Frank Turner Salim, Ahmad Temalilwa, Paulo Walker, Jonathan David

Slv l n y 2007 MET 2025 (Riddle)

B+ A A B

B+ A

Ash, Jeffrey Michael Bruce, Christopher Bryant, Dav~d Eugene Campbell, Steven I Icln~, Scott David

MET 2740 (not taught) MET 2820 not mrrgh!)

B+ B+ A A A

88 88 98 93 94

6 of 64


Standard I.C.l: Accreditation - Academic Programs

Number of Accreditable Programs: 10

Number of Accredited Programs: 10

Percent Accredited: 100%

Points Requested: 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,., :~ . , : ,~ , : , : , :~ :~: , : , : , : , : , : , :~ : , : , : , : , :~ : , :~ :~: , :~ :~:~: , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , : , :~ : , :~~e1~ i s I '~~~~~~~IF~~1ca1~Canrmprr i ty ,~o l tege:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I I 1 ] Acrreditation I Accreditation 1

Program terminated eflective August 2007 with a December ZM)9phase-oul dale.

Program

lnstitutlonal Comments (Optional):

Please place any comments in this text box.

J

/CML ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY , 2 . 3 . M ABET . -- - - yu . 2006-07 - 2011-12 + 201 1 !COMPUTER MTEG DMIDESIGN - - - ABET-- . _ - Yea _ 2006-07- _ a 201 1-12 201 1 ELECTRICAL ENCMEEYG TECH ,= ABET . - - - A

Yes 2006-07 - . - 2011-12 201 1 MECHANICAL ENGNEERING TECH - ,2.3.AAS _ - . - ABET Yes 2006-07 . - - * -- .- 2011-12 j 2011 COMP SCIENCE & MFO TECH ' 2 . 3 . M ACBSP Y u 2002-23 ,- ACBSP , --. - . . -- 2011-12 .I 2012

COMPUTER ACCOUNTlNC -. 2 . 3 . M , Y u 2002-03 I

2011-12 1 2012 >

-- 4 E-COMMERCVMARKETMC t2.3.AA.S ' ACBSP Y u 2002-03 I 2011-12 2012 -- BUSMESS ADMINISTRATION 2012 OFFICE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY A- 2.3.AAS 2012 . -- PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 2009

Degree level

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of 1 7/30/2007

Accrediting Agency

Accredited? Cycle - Begin Date

Cycle - End Date Next Site Visit

7 of 64

Tennessee Higher Education Commission 200647 Performance Funding Report pErr~ss/p~~$z!m

~ l l l l I ~ l p u l r L I l fl(Ymfal fDM*m (OIUCI Standard 1.C.2: Undergraduate Program Review

Points Requested: 5

* Evaluation Type: Academic Audit (AA) or Program Review (PR)

lnstitutlonal Comments (Optional):

I 3010 0408 00 ' N T _ E p I O ~ D _ E S I ~ ~ C t i N O L O G Y , ' 2 3 A 6 - - . 2005-06 - P K - + _ _ 25 i 2 13- - - r - 1wn

2 1321 0101 Ol _'G€NkKAl. TkCkIUcLOGY - - - . 2 3 A4S - 2006-07 A:\ + 20 i i lll.l i 1/05 IOOIOSOO ~MFDIATECIINOLOGI~S _ - . 2 3 AAS -- , 2008-09 I'R . _ _ - _ . . -- 4,12 190706 00 ,EARLY Ctill.D110011 FDUCATION - +

IYa 4 2 3.AAS . 2~08-09 ."R - * - t- / - Na_

5 ; 16 24 0102 02 --PROPESSIOUAL SnlDlES .... .......... -- . 2 3.a5-.-_zoos-ot P A --- _ . - . _ 4. -w=---. 6 I h 24 OI?! Ol--_U>lVERSlTY-P4_Rfi&I:L , 2 3 AS, At4 _- 200')-10- 1 PR-- ~1

7 27 43 01 1s ,SI:CURIWL1.NGIN1.PHMG - 2 3AAS 2009- 10 PK- i na . 8 08 13 0101 00 11 ACllIV(j 2 1 A h . ScWuled for rcvicw whcn program hmomm marurc

45 2 46 '=

"NA" Standards CIP Code

8'06 1 1 0401 00 HIGH PERFORMANCE TOHPIl'rING -2 3AAS ! P h m m ~ I?,W : 9 Oh I I .IN01 (XI ,YBTWORKMCi & COMM SI'S TECll 2 3 M S - 1 h a e o r l2;o9 __-(

Degree Mnjor Pldd Name

Programs Exempt from Program Review Standard


X Slsnd. Met

2000 CIP

Y. M t l Ycar Fv.luallo~~

Reviewed Type. 'IoIaI N h Scandrrds

1,06.11.0801.00 - WEB TECHNOLOGY 12.3.AAS , Phastoul by 12/07 ' ,- . - 2,30.50.04(n.00 - _COMMUNICATIONS GRAPHICS TECH '23.AAS , Phzscoul by 12/07 1 3 30.50.M02~0000VlDEO~PRODUCT10N TECHNOLOGY." ;G ---- Phase 0111 by 12/07

Pwmm Dcsree Level Comments

8 of 64

Academic Audit Onsite Evaluation Checklist

Inntitotinn: Pe I 1 55 ; - a+@

program: C+nwd lechn CTPCode: 13. dl - Oi)01.~1 Degree Lcvel: D Certificate 6 Associate 0 Baccalaureate CI Mastu's 0 Doctoral

Instructions for Audit Chairs and Teams

Part I: Academic Audit Viiitinp Team Report - Record of Commendations. Affirmations. and Recommendations This form must be completed by each audit review team prior to concluding the visit. The ori~nal will be forwarded to TBR but a cow must be left with the department urior to de-pasture. All observations included on this form should be represented as commendations, aflirmations, or recommendations. Please be concise in your descriptions as you will have opportunity to expand upon your justification for each item in your written report due to TBR by May 15th.

Part 11: Academic Audit S n m m w Sheet (only for use if vrogram is beine reviewed for Performance Fundine purposes) This form is only to be completed if the program review is senring as the performance funding review. Using the Academic Audit Summary Sheet complete the 25 elements on the evaluation results checklist (marking "met" or 'hot met'). This exercise must be completed and signed by t l~e team prior to the Exit Session. The original will be forwarded to TBR but a copy must be Ief't with the department prior to 0 departure.

Part JIk Narrative Evaluation and Written Remrt The Audit Chair and Team will use their evaluations indicated on the Audit Visiting Team Report and Academic Audit Summary Sheet (if used for Pedonnance Funding purposes) as the basis'of a written report. Summarized findings from the self-study report and on-site visit wiIl represent a narrative report of the team's conclusions and the ha1 responsibility of the visiting team. The template for completing 'this report (limited to 10 pages) is attached. his report is due to TBR on May 15.

The Audit Evaluation will become part of the fecord of the academic program review and will be shared with the academic departmentlunit, the college, and the central administration, as well as the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. Each comment on the written report.

Audit Chair'r name, title+ and institution:

Audit Chair's signature: 4 1 Date Y/J+&;?

Names, titles, insthtions, and signatures of other Audit Team members:

9 of 64

C, Academic Audit Visiting Team Report Record of Commendations, Affirmations, and Recommendations

This form must be com~leted by each audit review team ~ r i o r to concluding the visit. AU . observations included on this form should be represented as commendations, affirmations, or recommendations. Please be concise in your descriptions as you will have opportunity to expand upon your justification for each item in your written report due to TBR by May 15th.

This document should serve as the outline of information to be disclosed during the exit session with the department. The original signed copy is to be forwarded to TBR with gne CODY left with the camDus audit contact or department c h a i m o n ~ r i o r to leavin~ campus.

Total Number of Commendations

(3 Co-cndation#l-The f l e r ; b ; ~ 5 0 f yhr pmgrcm and me ILCI'%

4-0 d d ~ e s d a i fk stddord n ~ e d 4 ~ n d 5er& as Qn incuba3-w P\x no- %veep t o c h n i l 4 1 PlugrcimS

Commendation#2- ne d b; ~5 mop k in d uhfry and en' f'a S U ~ C16 a W % address 5peci f i .c l n d u d r y n r e d S and 6 p m m ~ h f b r ~ d ~ ~ / y n q p ~ + O T h e q u a 3 of' TW i;i;n and r q b v e n t

SUPW*:" me program Commendation #4 -

.................................................................. Total Number of ATfinnations

assac t e t e d )n i + i a f ; k ~ ~ i d c n t , & o d on paqp / Y o-f h e nud ,S Se l f - s tud r . h l ~ f e : need to e*paod ; t p m # r / ; mc

@Wlana%ry narra- f ;vp.

('- ) Affirmation #4 -

-'

10 of 64

Total Number of Recommendations rn

11 of 64

.. . Academic Audit Summary Sheet Effective Fall Semester 2005 and Required for Performance Funding Exercises

Program: M W ~ Tc .hno l tmu - LIGS ~0~ 'I'ltlt

Instructions for External Reviewers:

In accordance with the 2005-10 Performance Funding guidelines of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), each non- amditable undergraduate program undergoes either an academic audit or external peer review according to a pre-approved review cycle.

The criteria used to evaluate a program appear in the following "Academic Audit Summary Sheet." The Summary Sheet lists 25 items grouped into eight categories. TKEC will use the items designated with an asterisk (*) to assess Standard 1C when the Academic Audit pmcess is used. The criteria in the eighth category, Support, may be used by the institution and submitted as part of the Performance Funding report. If the Academic Audit process did not include information about items 8.1 - 8.3, they should be marked N/A. These items will not be included in the THEC Performance Funding points.

These summary items have been selected based on the Academic Audit Focal Ateas to be consistent with the spirit and process of the Academic Audit. The program faculty has provided a self-study document that incIudes information for each item within the Focal Areas. Supporting documents will be available as specified in the self study. As the Academic Audit Team Leader, you should assess this and other evidence observed during the site visit to determine whether the process has met each item within a category. A checkmark should be placed in the appropriate box to indicate whether you believe that a program has "met" or "not met' each item in the table. If a particular item is inapproprjate or not applicable to the program, the item should be marked 'WAn.

Academic Audit Summary Sheat will be sent to the appropriate campus official for inclusion in the Annual Perfonnance Funding port. When combined with the self study and the written report prepared by the visiting team, the Sllmmary Sheet will facilitate

institutional development of a program action plan to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Your judgment of the criteria designated by an -risk on this form (see categories 1-6) will be used in allocating state funds for the community college or university's budget,

Name, Title, and Institutional m i a t i o n of Visiting Team Chair:

Title: \/ P

Institution: wL/+ Q 6

12 of 64

Academic Audit Summary Sheet

and delivery of the teaching an_d_I

)?. ,QUALITY ASSURANCE 1 Met I I 5.1

There is a evident commltrnent to making continuous quality improvements In the program a top priortty. J

d

13 of 64

: J. OVERALL ASSESSMENT "I I 1

The Academic Audit process was faculty driven

6.2 The Academic Audit process (self-study and visit) Includes descriptions of the program's quality processes, Including all five domains. --- The faculty accurately identified the program's level of Quality Process Maturity as a result of

6.3 the Academic Audit process. * The p w s s resulted in a candid description of weaknesses in program processes and

6.4 suggestions for improvements. I

Overall, the visiting team affirms the honesty and thorwghness of the program faculty in 6.5 cornpleflng the academic audit of this program.

Met

I1 ('3 SUPPORT \/

The program regularly evaluates its equipment and facilities, encouraging necessary 8.1 improvements within the context of overall college resources.

1 1 8.2 1 The program's operating budget is consistent with the needs of the program. 1-1

Revised 9/26/2005 "Criterion included in the performance funding calculation.

14 of 64

Pellissippi State Technical Community College 2007 Academic Audit - AAS General Technology

Team Report

Introduction

This written report for the Academic Audit of the Associate of Applied Science General Technology program at Pellissippi State Technical Community College (PSTCC) is a follow up for the on-site visit conducted at the institution's main campus on Tuesday, April 24,2007. Members of the audit team included:

1. Dr. Debra Scott, Vice President for Planning, Research and Assessment, Walters State Community College

2. Dr. Walter W. Boles, Chair and Professor, Engineering Technology & Industrial Studies, Middle Tennessee State University

3. Dr. Charles Pinder, Professor and Dean, College Of Graduate Studies, Austin Peay State University

The Associate of Applied Science, General Technology, degree is a two year technical program designed to allow maximum flexibility for students with specific career-related objectives. The goals of the program are to provide a strong foundation in general education, including problem-solving skills, computer- utilization and functioning as a productive member of society, while giving the student the opportunity to select those courses most closely aligned to hislher personal career goals (PSTCC 2006-2008 Abridged Catalog).

The program is a cross-disciplinary program allowing students to combine courses from engineering technology, business technology or computer technology programs in order to meet career goals that are unique to each student. To develop these career goals, students meet with an advisory to develop an individualized sequence of courses. There are no common courses other than the general education core, typically 15 to 18 hours from the general education courses specified in the college catalog. The program has special articulation arrangements for Tennessee Technology Center credits and traininglapprenticeship programs with businesses and industries in the service area.

During the on-site audit, the team met with campus administrators, faculty who teach in the program, currently enrolled students, and alumni.

Overall Performance

The conclusion of the academic audit team is that the general technology program at PSTCC meets the needs of a specific population of students in keeping with the institution's mission of "training to meet specific needs of businesses, industries and individuals".

The audit provided opportunities to engage the campus constituents in thinking about their processes and to identify areas of strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Page 1 of 4

15 of 64


Team Report

The cross-disciplinary nature of the general technology program permits each student to define his or her learning objectives and align them with personal or career goals. Faculty advisors work with the students to outline a program of study that fulfills these goals. Students are supposed to consult with the assigned advisor before registering each semester; however the students interviewed by the team did not indicate that they had these meetings. Students also indicated that the advising process could be improved. For example, one student was advised by a general education faculty member who did not appear to understand the career technical program requirements. Students also felt that information about the program was not widely disseminated, and that much of the information was by word of mouth.

The high percentage of students working in a field related to their major core substantiates the fact that students who complete the general technology degree are fulfilling their career objectives.

Curriculum and Co-curriculum

Faculty teaching courses that may be the major core of the general technology program collaborate with other faculty in associated disciplines or business and industry representatives when designing the curricula. One of the unique aspects of this program is the articulation agreements with business and industry training and apprenticeship programs; these arrangements facilitate interaction between faculty and workers knowledgeable in the field thus courses may be updated to current standards. The general education core was developed in accordance with TBR guidelines. Other courses that comprise the co-curriculum were selected to provide general business skills, technical writing and computer skills that students completing any career technical program need. The self- study provided evidence of changes in the general technology curriculum based on feedback from industry partners and students.

Teaching and Learning Process

Faculty affirmed that they discuss learning methods based on informal feedback from external groups such as employers and the faculty from programs such as those provided by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). Student learning activities within the major may include apprenticeships, group projects, and individual presentations. Students that were interviewed by the audit team were particularly with the hands-on opportunities and included hazardous materials training and the use of lathes and other industrial equipment in the machine shop. Another student highlighted field trips and evaluation of a local business as part of her customer service training.

Student Learning Assessment

Page 2 of 4

16 of 64


Team Report

The faculty acknowledges that assessing the general technology program presents challenges since there is no on major core for the associate degree. In lieu of a major filed exit examination, faculty focus on assessment within individual courses, placement rates, and informal employer feedback.

The institution also administers the CBASE exit exam to all associate degree level graduates. The exam provides an assessment of general education competencies and skills, and is accepted for one of the State of Tennessee's performance funding standards. While the institution as a whole typically scores above the national mean on the exam, no one has been reviewing the results for this particular program. The institution recognizes that CBASE results for the general technology graduates should be studied in more detail. The institution proposes that the review of these exam results would be completed by the internal advisory committee as previously discussed.

Quality Assurance

The audit team believes that the institution and the faculty are committed to quality as evidenced by the recommendations for improvement identified in the self-study. Interviews with student, faculty, and academic administrators affirm the commitment to quality and innovation within the program.

Overall Assessment

The General Education Academic Audit provided an opportunity for dialogue among the faculty from the numerous career technical programs that can comprise the major core of an AAS - General Technology degree. Through the audit process, the faculty recognized the need for more formal processes for external feedback and internal reviews of various assessments promulgated by the college. Faculty participation in the audit process and their involvement with the degree programs was evident through discussion with both faculty and staff.

Support

The facilities and equipment to support the program do not belong to the general technology program and there is no specific budget to support the program. Nevertheless, students in the program have full access to all resources that are available through other departments. The facilities and equipment are one of the outstanding aspects of the AAS - General Technology. The building, laboratory facilities and technical resources are state of the art.

Commendations

Page 3 of 4

17 of 64


Team Report

The audit team commends the institution for the following aspects of the General Technology program: - the flexibility of the program and the ability to address specific student needs

and serve as an incubator for new career technical programs - the ability to work with industry and entities such as the IBEW to address

specific industry needs and promote workforce development - the quality of the facilities and equipment supporting the program.

Affirmations

The audit team concurs with the five recommendations and associated initiatives identified on page 14 of the audit self-study with a suggestion that Item 4 of the list "Obtain regular formal feedback from graduates - through alumni surveys or focus group" be expanded in the explanatory narrative that immediately follows the list.

Recommendations

The audit team recommends the following actions to improve the General Technology program: - articulate program outcomes and associated assessments and provide

examples in catalog and elsewhere of what program graduates might do upon completion of the degree. (These suggested examples should be consistent with those described for other program listings in the 2006-2006 Abridged Catalog)

- develop a written assessment plan with action items specifying responsibilities for carrying out the plan and when the plan will be completed (e.g. who is going to do what and with what information and when). This written plan will provide documentation for the next audit visit and for closing the loop in the continuous improvement cycle.

- strengthen program advising so that expectations and outcomes are clearly explained to students and assign an individual leadership responsibility for monitoring the program.

Page 4 of 4

18 of 64


Standard 2.A: Alumni Survey

IlT'otal number of associate degrees awarded in 2001-05

YNumber of alumni surveyed:

II Number of alumni in data file:

II~ercenta~e of alumni surveyed:

Percentage of alumni responded:

Number of successful question items:

Institutional Comments (Optional):

Please place any mments In this text box.


19 of 64


Standard 3.A: Retention and Persistence PE~LISSIPPI:~'~':~~~

Data wlll be

updated

Data wlll be

updated

Average Attainment: 87% - Number

I

4

Notes:

Benchmark - Internal or External

62.8?/.

46.9%

26.,fl.

19.8%

Indicator

Proportion of 2005 cohort who returned to any Tennessee public institution (institutional comparison)*.

Proportion of 2004 cohort who returned to any Tennessee public institution (external comparison - NCCBP)

Proportion of 2000 cohort who graduated from any Tennessee public institution within six years (institutional comparison)*

Proportion of 1999 cohort who graduated from any Tennessee public institution within three years (external comparison - NCCBP)

*Benchmark institutional com~arison is based on a three vear rollinn average. The 3 year rolling average for the relention indicator is based on 2002, 2003 and 2004 cohorts. - - The 3 year rolling average for the persistence to graduation indicator is based on 1997, 1998 and 1999 cohorts.

Attain - PSTCC

63.7%

46.4%

32.8%

9.5%

Benchmark external comparison is based on peer institutions that participated in the 2005 National Community College Benchmark Project (NCCBP). Peer institutions include public, single-campus institutions with enrollment of 7000-12000

Percent Attalned

100%

99%

100%

48%

students.

Peers for Pellissippi State Technical Community College Bucks County Community College (PA) Lane Community College (OR)

Chananoaga Slate Technical Community College (TN) Onondaga Community College (NY)

Delaware County Community College (PA) Paradise Valley hmunity College (AZ) Dutchess Community College (NY) Xoltsdale Community College (AZ)

Fashion lnslituteof Technology (NY) SoWest Tennessee Community College (TN)

Gateway Commmity College (AZ) Weslchester Community College (NY)

Hudson Valley Community College (NY)


Pbce comments in lhis text box (double click to begin entering text).

1 nEz~- 1 I Percent 1

1 2 1 Proportion of2004 cohort who returned to any Tennessee 46.9% / 46.4% I 99% 1

public institution (external comparison - NCCBP)

Number

I

Average Attainment: X5%

Indicator Proportion of 2004 cohort who returned to any Tennessee public institution (institutional comparison)*.

4

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page I of 1

External

63.4%

Proportion of 1999 cohort who graduated from any Tennessee public institution within six years (institutional comparison)*

Proportion of 1999 cohort who graduated from any Tennessee public institution within three years (external comparison - NCCBP)

Attain - PSTCC

60.0./.

25.5%

19.8%

Attained

95%

30.0%

9.5%

100%

48%

20 of 64


Standard 3.B: Student Success p~[[ /ss/pp/ "i?~? 2 . ULL .... z

Number

1

2

3

Average attainment: 94%

Indicator

Completion of English Composition I1 course

Completion of College Algebra course

4

Source: National Community College Benchmark Project (2005 Report)

Completion of D R course and subsequent completion of Math college-level course

Peers for Pellissippi State Technical Community College Bucks County Community College (PA) Lane Community College (OR)

Chananooga State Technical Community College (TN) Onondaga Community College (NY)

Delaware County Community College (PA) Paradise Valley Community College (AZ)

Dutchess Community College (NY) Scottsdale Community College (AZ)

Fashion Institute of Techndogy (NY) Southwest Tennessee Community College (TN)

Gateway Community College (AZ) Weskhester Community College (NY)

Hudson Valley Community College (NY)

Benchmark- Peers

85.5%

77.1%

Cumulative first-year gTade point average at transfer institution


79.3%

Place comments in this text box (double click to begin entering text).

Attain - PSTCC

75.6%

68.6%

2.86

I I I I percent 1

79.2%

Percent Attained

88%

89%

3.08

I 3 l Completion of DIR course and subsequent completion of Math colleee-level course

1 79.3% 1 79.2% 1 100% 1

Data wlll be

updated

Data will b e

updated

100%

Number 1

2

1 4 1 Cumulative first-year grade point average at transfer institution

1 2.86 1 3.08 I 100% I

Data will be

updated

100%

Averaee attainment: 94%

Data wlll be

updated

Indicator Completion of English Composition I1 course Comvletion of College Algebra course


Benchmark- Peers 85.5%

77.1%

Attain - PSTCC 75.6%

68.6%

Attained

88%

89%

21 of 64


Standard 3.C: Student Persistence Planning Initiative

Did institution submit a comprehensive report on student persistence? Report format should include the following sections: introduction,

problem statement, methodology, summary and interpretation of findings and conclusion. Did institution develop three goals related to student persistence? Report should also contain goals and a timeline for the implementation of strategies to improve student persistence. Report

should not exceed ten pages, including appendices.

Yes

Please provide an electronic copy of the report and student persistence goal submission forms. The three goals (and benchmarks) must be

related to the areas identified in the Student Success standard. (Reminder goals should be submitted on the Student Persistence Goal Form.)

Institutional Comments (Optional): Place comments in this text box (double click to begin entering text).


22 of 64

Student Persistence Planning Report: 2006 - 2007

A Report to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission for Standard 3C: Phase I1 - Findings for the Second Year of the

2005- 10 Performance Funding Cycle

Introduction

Pellissippi State Technical Community College used the self-evaluation guides of the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) as protocol for tracking the performance of students in courses in the Developmental Studies Program (DSP) and in subsequent college-level courses. The DSP self-study analyzed both cohort and non-cohort data to assess student performance and program outcomes. The study covered fall 2000 through spring 2005. The four DSP goals for student success and the results of assessing these goals were reported to THEC in Phase I of the student persistence planning initiative (2005-06 submission for Standard 3C). In spring 2007, NADE awarded the Pellissippi State Developmental Studies Program certification at the distinguished level for all subject areas: mathematics, reading, study skills, and writing.

Desim of this report: Multiple problem statements are presented, one for DSP and one for improving General Education Outcomes at the College. The DSP problem statement covers four separate but related strategies to improve student success: 1) DSP Redesign Project, 2) flexible scheduling of courses offered in the FLAG Center, 3) linked or "combination" courses taken in learning communities, and 4) Enhanced Learning Communities to provide extra support for students who are placed in basic DSP courses. The College's proposal for the DSP Redesign Project was submitted to the Tennessee Board of Regents in July 2007 and is pending TBR approval after evaluation by the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT), which is working with TBR on this project. Because the Redesign Project is a work in progress, the methodology and assessment plan are presented, but there are no findings or conclusions. Findings and conclusions are presented for the other items, as required by THEC for this report. Goals and Timelines are presented last.

Problem Statement: Developmental Studies Program

The self-study revealed that although DSP students experienced the same or better success in the first college- level course as students who do not require the developmental course of study, the rate of completion of the DSP course was declining due to system changes in the DSP program. Completion rates in developmental studies courses are defined as the percentage of the number of students with grades of A, B, and C out of the number of students enrolled. All DSP course completion rates fell dramatically fall 2003 when the course credit hours changed to 3 hours. By fall 2006, however, completion rates in basic math, basic reading, and basic writing (DSPM 0700, DSPR 0700, and DSPW 0700, respectively) and in elementary algebra (DSPM 0800) were all back at or even above the 2002 level. The problem is that success rates in the culminating courses in each subject have not returned to the 2002 fall level. See Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, Intermediate Algebra (DSPM 0850) had a completion rate of 57.1 % in 2002 and of 43.5% in 2006. Developmental Studies Reading (DSPR 0800) had a completion rate of 67.5% in 2006, which

Table 1. Fall Semester Success Rates in Culminating DSP Courses, 2002-2006

Standard 3C, 2005-10 Performance Funding Cycle Pellissippi State Technical Community College, July 2007

2002F 2003F 2004F

DSPM 0850 57.1% 53.1 45.0

DSPR 0800 67.5% 56.9 57.0

DSPS 0800 68.1% 61.8 62.2

DSPW 0800 61.5% 57.1 57.4

23 of 64

fell to 53.1 % by 2006. Developmental Study Skills (DSPS 0800) had a success rate of 68.1 % in 2002, and 58.4% in 2006. Developmental Studies Writing had a success rate of 61.5% in 2002, and 57.9% in 2006.

Because of low completion rates in developmental studies, DSP students were not being retained at the College and were not attaining their educational goal of graduation. The following action plans were implemented to improve student persistence.

Action Plans and Strategies To Improve Student Success in the DSP Program

1. Redesign the Developmental Studies Program at Pellissippi State

In summer 2007 Pellissippi State submitted its proposal to TBR to redesign the courses in its Developmental Studies Program. The opportunity to redesign the curriculum arose of out a TBR strategic goal to increase the speed and success of students who are required to take DSP courses for college readiness. The strategy is to establish a system-wide developmental program in TBR community colleges that is substantially driven by technology, is composed of language arts and mathematics, and allows students to identify and focus on the academic areas in which they are deficient. The initiative is sponsored at TBR by a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). The goal of the Pellissippi State project is to improve student success in DSP courses. Both the percentage of students completing the courses and the success of DSP students in subsequent courses will be used to measure the result.

Pellissippi State submitted two grant proposals to NSF in spring 2007: one proposes to increase the representation of students with disabilities in careers related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) by using enhanced technology, flexible scheduling, and modularization of the mathematics curriculum to accommodate various learning styles. The second proposal is multidisciplinary, focusing on developing a new, modular-based DSP curriculum in writing, reading, and math. Goals are 1) to increase student success in DSP and college-level courses by using more student-centered, active learning projects that tie to real-world problems, ideas, and language in STEM fields; and 2) to provide professional development activities and training to faculty who teach the redesigned curriculum.

Methodology: The proposed DSP Redesign Project embraces the five principles of successful course design developed by NCAT: 1) redesign the whole course; 2) encourage active learning; 3) provide students with individual assistance; 4) build in ongoing assessment and prompt, automatic feedback; and 5) ensure sufficient time on task and monitor student progress. Learning materials include textbooks and online tools, computers with appropriate software (including interactive, self-monitoring, and visual-based materials), mini-lessons by faculty, and Internet materials. The curriculum for all DSP subjects will be modularized and tied to active learning projects. The redesigned DSP Math program will incorporate a Math Center to accommodate the various backgrounds and learning styles of students. Problem solving and conceptual understanding will be emphasized.

Assessment will use beforelafter comparison of student performance in the traditional and redesigned courses. The evaluation plan is summarized in Table 2.

Standard 3 C, 2005- 10 Performance Funding Cycle Pellissippi State Technical Community College, July 2007

24 of 64

2. Design 32 learning modules for DSP reading

Table 2. Evaluation Plan for DSP Redesign Project

(lo), writing (10) and math (12) to be delivered with technology (through the Web or in computer labs) for individualized learning.

A. Project Goals and Progress Indicators 1 . The DSP Redesign Project will increase success rates of Pellissippi State students enrolled in developmental reading, writing, and math courses by using more student- centered, active learning activities that tie to real- world problems. The success rate will be increased by 5 percent.

1. Who designs modules for the Developmental Studies Program 2. What resources/references/be st practices were reviewedJused for development of modules

B. Evaluative Questions 1 . What are the instructing methodologies 2. How are students in the Developmental Studies Program assessed 3. How are success rates determined

3. Develop 96 activities (3 for each of the 32 modules)

I I technolorn used

1. Who designs modules for the

for DSP reading, writing and math will be developed that address the needs of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners.

5. DSP reading, writing, and math instructors will receive professional development activities and training in using the redesigned educational curricula.

C. Assessment

Developmental Studies Program 2. What resources/references/ best practices were reviewedused for development of modules 1. What methods are used for training faculty 2. What support is needed for training faculty 3. Was training effective 4. How was accessible

Measures 1 . Enrollment-All DSP Courses a. Math: DSPM 0700,

DSPM 0800, DSPM 0850

b. Reading: DSPR 0700, DSPR 0800

c. Writing: DSPW 0700, DSPW 0800

2. Success rate of students in redesigned DSP courses 3. Demographics of students in DSP courses Review of curriculum, educational materials, activities, and supportive technology

Review of curriculum, educational materials, activities, and technology support

1 .Degree of engagement of faculty and staff in implementation 2. Participation in training 3. Faculty evaluations 4. Faculty interviews

Limitations: The FOCUS programs that extracted data from the Student Information System (SIS) for the NADE self-study had to be revised in summer 2007 after TBR modified the 1 4 ' ~ day census file (changes were

Standard 3C, 2005- 10 Performance Funding Cycle Pellissippi State Technical Community College, July 2007

25 of 64

needed for Lottery Scholarship reporting). Although this caused a delay in collecting and analyzing data for fall 2006, the FOCUS programs have now been revised and verified, and data analysis will continue. In fall 2008, the College is scheduled to move from SIS to BANNER. Programs to collect data on student success in DSP courses will have to be evaluated and revised at that time.

Findings and Conclusions: Work is in progress.

2. Expand Courses Offerings in the FLAG Center

Students now have the option of enrolling in developmental and college-level courses through the FLAG Center (Flexible Learning through Achievement and Growth), which began in spring 2004. The FLAG Center offers computer-based instruction, instructional approaches to accommodate various learning styles, and flexible scheduling (including flexible starting dates and the opportunity for early completion of course materials). FLAG courses include Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra, Developmental Writing, and Developmental Reading. College and Lifetime Learning (Developmental Study Skills, DSPS 0800) was added spring 2006, and College Algebra (MATH 1 130) was added fall 2006. A new strategy in fall 2006 was to identify students whose only required DSP course was Developmental Reading (DSPR 0800). These students were placed in a pilot section of DSPR 0800 FLAG.

Methodologv: Table 3 shows the enrollments in new FLAG offerings in spring and fall 2006.

I DSPS 0800 1 9 students 1 2 1 students I

The pass rates of students enrolled in FLAG sections were compared to the pass rates of students enrolled in sections of the course delivered traditionally. Data on grades was collected from the Student Information System (SIS). The goal is that students enrolled in the flex-schedule sections will pass the course at the same rate as students enrolled in traditional classes.

Findings: In spring 2006, the pass rate of DSPS 0800 FLAG students was 44.4% compared to a pass rate of 52.6% for students enrolled in traditionally delivered classes. In fall 2006, the pass rate of DSPS 0800 FLAG students was 33% compared to a pass rate of 58.9% for students enrolled in classes delivered traditionally. In fall 2006, the pass rate of MATH 1 120 FLAG students was 46% compared to a pass rate of 60.6% for students enrolled in classes delivered traditionally. The pass rate in fall 2006 for DSPR 0800 FLAG course was 77.8% compared to 53.1% for students in traditionally delivered classes.

13 students 22 students

MATH 1 130 FLAG students with DSPR 0800 as their onlv reauired DSP course

ConclusionsNse of Outcome: After evaluation of the FLAG sections of DSP and college-level courses, the DSPS and MATH courses will be revised with better student support and offered in 2007-2008. The data showed the success of the DSPR 0800 FLAG course and it will be offered again in 2007-2008. In fall 2007, basic mathematics (DSPM 0700 will be offered through FLAG. In spring 2008, ENG 1010 will also be offered through FLAG. Also proposed for spring 2008 - as part of the DSP Redesign project that is pending approval - students who enroll a second time after failing in developmental reading or writing (DSPR 0800 and DSPW 0800) will be scheduled in FLAG where individual learning needs can be better met.

n/a

3. Fall 2003: Offer Combination Courses in Learning Communities


26 of 64

Students can enroll in two related courses in the Developmental Studies Program in the same semester, and participate in Learning Communities designed to increase student success and persistence. The combinations offered are basic and developmental math; elementary and intermediate developmental math; intermediate developmental math and MATH 1 130; basic and developmental writing; and developmental writing and English Composition I.

Methodology (Sample/Data Collection): The success rates of students in each course that was linked were compared to the success rates of students taking the non-linked courses. Data was collected and evaluated for fall semesters 2003 through 2006. One limitation is the small sample size, both for the number of linked courses for the number of students enrolled in community.

Findings: The results are uneven because of varying outcomes for the first and second courses in the linkage: In general, success rates were higher for students in the combination courses for the first course in the linked sequence and lower for the second course, compared to success rates of students in non-linked courses.

Conclusions/Use of Outcome: The strategy is viewed as successful because of the success rates of students who passed the first course in the combination. All of these course combinations offered in fall 2003 will again be offered in fall 2007. After 2007-2008, the combined math courses will no longer be offered because the Math Center will be operative and is designed to meet individualized needs. Pending approval by TBR after evaluation by NCAT, the College will offer the linked basic and developmental writing courses as a single new course under the rubric DSPW 0870. The linked developmental writing course and college-level composition course will be offered as one 5-hour course (2 credit hours for DSPW 0800 and 3 credit hours for English Composition I). Both of these new writing courses are designed to meet the TBR goal to increase the speed and cost to students who are completing their DSP courses.

4. Fall 2006: Enhanced Learning Communities Piloted

One of the findings of the self-study conducted for NADE certification was that less than 25% of students needing five or more DSP courses persist to 24 credit hours (this measure of persistence was chosen because the renewal criteria for the Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship program requires a cumulative GPA of 2.75 or better after 24 credit hours attempted). The study also found that less than 2% of the students required to take four or more DSP courses persist to graduation in three years; however the 3-year timeframe is not realistic considering the extra coursework that these students are required to take to prepare for success at the college level.

Methodolom: To help these at-risk students with multiple DSP requirements, they are now remanded to Enhanced Learning Communities that provide greater support services. Two enhanced learning communities were developed and offered: one for students placed in basic reading and in basic writing; and one for students who require both basic mathematics and developmental study skills. Due to a lack of enrollment the learning community for basic reading and writing was cancelled.

Sample: In Fall Semester 2006,38 students enrolled in the DSPM 07001 DSPS 0800 learning community. The goal is that students enrolled in learning communities will pass the course at the same rate as students enrolled in classes delivered traditionally.

Findings: The pass rate of 44.7% for DSPM 0700 in the learning community was comparable to that for traditional DSPM 0700 sections (45.5%). The DSPS pass rate of 66.7% was higher than for students enrolled in the traditionally delivered sections (53.1%).

Conclusions/Use of Outcome: Due to its successhl student outcomes, especially in study skills, the DSPM 0700lDSPS 0800 learning community will be offered in 2007-2008. It will not be offered after 2007-2008


27 of 64

because of the DSP Redesign Project that is currently pending TBR approval. Because of a need to strengthen math study skills, content from the study skills course has been added to the DSP math curriculum in the proposal for redesign. The Enhanced Learning Community for basic reading and basic writing will be offered in 2007-2008, but after this it will exist as a new course, DSPW 0725.

Problem Statement: Improving General Education Outcomes

The College's performance funding is tied to student performance on the College Basic Academic Subjects Examination (CBASE) exam, which the College uses to help assess whether general education goals are being met. As part of its Performance Funding initiative, the College designed assessments to measure and improve specific student learning outcomes in General Education Goals. One object is to improve the performance of its graduates on the CBASE exam. The courses selected for this intervention and analysis are English Composition 11, College Algebra, and Intermediate Algebra. The evaluation model uses a "5-Column" assessment format that links 1) the College's mission statement with 2) a student outcome, 3) assessment methods used to measure success, 4) the results of the assessment, and 5) use of the results to improve the student outcome the following year.

Action Plans and Strategies To Improve Student Success in General Education Outcomes

1. Improving General Education Outcomes in English Composition I1

Methodolonv: Successful completion of this English Composition I1 (ENGL 1020) is one of the student persistence planning goals that is being submitted by the College on the THEC goal template. The English Department identified two general education outcomes and two course objectives of ENGL 1020 to assess whether student outcomes are being met. To assess attainment of this planning goal, the English Department required all students in the course to write a report on the short story "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker for the final exam.

Sample: 80 exams were scored in spring 2006 and another 80 in fall 2006. This represented approximately 10% of the students enrolled in ENGL 1020 in each semester.

Data Collection Methods Used: A designated group of faculty evaluated the exams in each sample using specific criteria such as organization and demonstration of an understanding of literary elements.

Assessment Tools or Instruments: Exams were evaluated by the readers as either adequate or inadequate using the grading rubric. The criterion for success in meeting the objective was that 60% of students would write an adequate exam.

Findings: In spring 2006,72.5% of the sample was rated as adequate; in fall 2006,62.5% were scored as adequate. The English Department has formulated a hypothesis for this problem involving entering skills of the cohorts for fall and spring semester.

Conclusions: Although the target of 60% adequate exams was achieved, the English Department will adjust their target upward for spring 2007.

2. Imvrovinn General Education Outcomes in College Algebra

Methodolonv: For this evaluation, the Math Department identified three General Education Outcomes for students in College Algebra (MATH 1130): building on math competencies learned in prerequisite math


28 of 64

courses, solving problems and assessing the reasonableness of the solution, and using technology to solve problems. Problems to measure these outcomes are on the final exam.

Assessment Tools or Instruments: The criterion for success in meeting each general education objective was that at least 70% of students would answer the question correctly. In spring 2006, the scores of 238 students were assessed.

Findings: The criterion for success was met for all three assessments (71%, 76%, and 79%, respectively, for the three outcomes described).

Conclusions: Because 71 % is considered a borderline result, the Math Department will continue to implement strategies to lead to further improvement (such as teaching exponential and logarithms earlier in the semester).

3. Imvroving General Education Outcomes in Intermediate Algebra

Methodolonv: The goal of the Developmental Studies Mathematics Program is to provide students with skills that support their success in college-level curricula and enable them to achieve their educational goals. The General Education Outcome selected to assess this goal is that students will apply mathematical concepts to solving real-life problems.

Data Collection: Each semester students in Intermediate Algebra (DSPM 0850) take a pre- and post-test that includes five real-life application problems. Results are analyzed by the Math Department each spring semester. Data is collected on the percentage of students who are successful on each of the five targeted problems (students must also achieve a total score of 70% or higher on the post-test to pass the course).

Findings: In spring 2006, students taking the DSPM 0850 post-test met the criteria for success for three out of the five real-life application problems. The pass rates for the items meeting the goal were 83%, 74%, and 76%. For the two items where goals were not met, 58% and 66% of students taking the test were correct.

Conclusion: The Math Department is still working to improve these results. The lead teacher for DSPM 0850 will produce videotapes that students can use to review the concepts for which fewer than 70% of the students have demonstrated mastery. The videos will be available on the "Math Help" Web site.

Timelines for Goals and Strategies for the Student Planning Initiative

The College has developed four goals related to areas selected from the Student Success Indicator. These goals are being submitted on the student Persistence Goal Form provided by THEC. The goals and timelines for meeting the benchmarks from the National Community College Benchmark Project (NCCBP) peer group are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 also presents timelines for the DSP Redesign Project, FLAG Center goals, Learning Community strategies, and the 5-column assessments to measure and improve the General Education Outcomes for the students at Pellissippi State.


29 of 64

Table 4. Timeline for Implementation of Student Persistence Planning Initiative


2005-2010 Performance Funding Cycle GoalsIStrategies PF 3- 1 a (non-cohort): Math students in DSPM 0850 will complete the course at the same or higher rate each year PF 3-lb (cohort): Students who complete DSPM 0850 and enroll in College Algebra (MATH 1 130) will meet or exceed the national benchmark completion rate PF 3-2 (non-cohort): Students in College Algebra (MATH 1 130) will meet or exceed the NCCBP national benchmark completion rate. PF 3-3 (non-cohort): Students in English Composition I1 (ENGL 1020) will meet or exceed the NCCBP national benchmark completion rate. TBR Strategic Plan, Objective AS: Redesign the Developmental Studies Program (DSP) to increase the speed and success of DSP work for students requiring it. The new program should incorporate current best practices, be substantially driven by technology, and allow students to identify and focus on their own areas of academic

2009F- 2010s

60% a

79.3%a

77. l%a

85.5%a

2005F2006S 2006F-2007s

44% (Baseline)

74% (Baseline)

62.4% (Baseline)

79.4% (Baseline)

Complete the new plan for DSP (end of 2006)

2007F-2008s

50%

75.8%

67.3%

81.5%

Implement the program at 7 TBR community colleges (end of 2007)

2008F-2009s

55%

77.6%

72.2%

83.5%

Implement the program at all TBR community colleges (end of 2008)

30 of 64


2009F- 2010s

2008F-2009s

May-Aug. 2008: Lessons Learned

Workshop Prepare sites for

implementation Train on new

software Hire Tutors Train faculty and

tutors Fall (Aug.-Dec. 2008): Implement design at the site campuses Spring (January-May, 2009): Continue to assess plan and use results to implement new action plans as needed to improve student success in DSP courses.

2007F-2008s

August 2007: Finalize textbook and software selection

Fall (Sept.-Dee. 2007): Plan

Create modules Train on new

software Hire tutors Train faculty and

tutors

Spring (Jan. - May 2008): Pilot redesign at the main campus; document and address problems

Continue to offer DSP Study Skills and College Algebra with revisions and with better student support to increase the pass rate of students in the FLAG sections.

2005-2010 Performance Funding Cycle GoalsIStrategies deficiency. Redesign Pellissippi State DSP courses and delivery to improve student success in DSP courses

DSP Goal: Extend services of FLAG Center for flexible scheduling to include study skills and college-level courses. The FLAG Center opened in spring 2004 and offered DSP courses in math, English, and reading.

2005F-2006s

Spring 2006: Begin enrolling students in DSP Study Skills (DSPS 0800)

2006F-2007s

Spring 2007: Plan redesign; prepare and submit grant proposal to NSF to support redesigned DSP cumculum

Summer 2007: Write and submit proposal to TBR

Fall 2006: Begin enrolling students in College Algebra (MATH 1130). Spring 2007: Complete assessment of objectivelaction plan to see if students in the

31 of 64

I outcomes DSP Goal: Increase student success I I Fall 2006: Pilot a FLAG 1 Offer the DSPR 0800

2005-2010 Performance Funding Cycle GoalsIStrategies

DSP Goal: Develop and implement learning communities for basic writing and reading (DSPW0700/ DSPR0700) and basic math and developmental study skills (DSPM0700/ DSPS0800)


2005F-2006s

for students whose only DSP requirement is Developmental Reading (DSPR0800) by placing them in a FLAG course

Goal: Continue to assess student success in target courses selected for the national benchmark study using 5-column models.

a

2006F-2007s

flex-schedule sections pass the course at the same rate as students in traditional sections (they did not) Fall 2006: Pilot sections of each learning community (due to lack of enrollment, the DSP writingheading learning community was canceled) Spring 2007: Assess the

Benchmark for National Community College Benchmark Project (NCCBP) peer group

2006 Spring: prepare 5-column models for College Algebra, English Composition I1 and Intermediate Algebra (DSPM 0850)

2007F-2008s

Offer the basic mathfstudy skills learning community, which met success criteria

section of DSPR0800 for students with this as their only DSP requirement.

Spring 2007: Assess student outcomes Fall 2007: 5-column model for ENGL 1020 submitted. Targets are being met for all success criteria except for Intermediate Algebra (where students were successful in 3 of 5 outcomes)

FLAG course. The 22 students in the pilot had a success rate of 77.8%, compared to 53.1% in traditional sections. Continue to improve instruction by developing videos for students (DSPM), adjusting target upward (English), and implementing ideas to improve math.

32 of 64


Standard 4.A: Institutional Strategic Planning p ~ ~ ~ / s s / p p / !,., < ~ ~ ~ ~ ! v - $ -L-:.'!-

PIIIISIIPPI IPII ricnxrc~~ conmunr* coirror

Goal No. I 2005-10 Institutional Strategic Planning Goals I

Increase private giving to the college foundation by 10% of base year giving by the end of the cycle.

1 Increase enrollment in the FLAG enrollment 10% by end of cycle and compare success rates to that of traditional courses.

. -. .-

Average Attainment: 100%

Benchmark



Attain


Percent Attained

33 of 64

f lag-cent r -enr l -06 f . t x t 1 PAGE 1

COUNT OF FLAG CENTER COURSE ENROLLMENTS FOR 2 0 0 6 F TERM

SPE-STATUS D E TOTAL

COURSE ............................. DSPM0800 7 2 5 3 2 DSPM0850 5 17 2 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 8 0 0 8 3 7 4 5 DSPSo800 3 2 1 2 4 DSPWO~OO 1 10 11 MATH1130 1 1 3 14

TOTAL 2 5 1 2 3 1 4 8 1 PAGE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF GRADES I N FLAG CENTER SECTIONS AT END OF 2 0 0 6 F TERM

DATE: 06 /25 /07 FEX: IR-JHH-FLAGCENTR-ENRL

SPE-STATUS D E TOTAL

OFFICIAL-GRADE ...................................

TOTAL 25 1 2 3 1 4 8

Page 1

34 of 64

FLAG Report Fall Semester 2006 Summary

123 total students

Web Success Rate

2 1

Traditional Success Rate

45

Section(s)

DSPMO85OPXl

Total# Students Enrolled

17

W

1

FLAG Success Rate

47%/53%

I

2

Overall Success Rate

44

A B

3 2 3

C D F

6

35 of 64

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE GIVING FOR FY07 as of 6/30/07*


Institution

GIFTS TO INSTITUTIONS

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

Cash and Marketable Securities from

Cash and Marketable Foundations, Securities from Organizations,

Individuals Businesses. Etc. (1) In-Kind (2)

GIFTS TO CAMPUS FOUNDATIONS


Cash and Marketable

Securities from Cash and Marketable Foundations,

Securities from Organizations, Individuals Businesses, Etc. In-Kind (2)

Footnotes: *Note:

(1) The amount received from campus foundations included in Column 2 is:

(2) Includes all non-cash gifts such as equipment, supplies, services, etc.


Total Cash and Marketable Total

Securities from In-Kind Grand Total Gifts Gifts (2) All Gifts

Include only actual recorded private giving. Do not include grants and contracts.

Column 7 is the total of columns 1.2,4. and 5 Column 8 is the total of columns 3 and 6 Column 9 is the total of columns 7 and 8

Comments:

36 of 64


Standard 4.B: State Strategic Planning p ~ ~ ~ / s s / p p ~ fiyj?l~ Pl l l lS l IP l l S U l l l l<HNiU1 COMMUNIN COlltOf

Percent Attained

Access

To increase the number of need-based awards made to students by 25% during the cycle

State Partnership

Increase the number of non-traditional students by 5% (132 students) applying and enrolling by providing a variety of attendance options by end of cycle.

Student Preparation

Benchmark 2005-10 State Strategic Planning Goals

Enrollment in joint and dual enrollment programs will increase by 75 students over the cycle

Attain

Educational Excellence

1

Average Attainment: 100%

The number of Media Technologies courses in Computer Graphics Technology (CGT), Photography (PHO), Web Technology (WEB), and Video Production Technology (VPT) offered in online and hybrid format will increase by 10 by the end of the cycle

Educational Excellence


The number of WEB Media Technologies courses in Computer Graphics Technology (CGT), Photography (PHO), Web Technology (WEB), and Video Production Technology (VPT) offered in hybrid will increase 5 by end of cycle.



37 of 64

TITLE I V A I D AWARDS ACCEPTED I N 2007. tx t From: Heuer, John Sent: Monday, J u l y 30, 2007 5:04 PM TO: Yarbrough, Sharon sub jec t : TITLE I V A I D AWARDS ACCEPTED I N 2007

DISTRIBUTION OF SWFILE AWARDS BY STATUS AND TITLE I V FLAG 2007 TITLE I V FLAG

N Y TOTAL Meet ~ e e d STATUS ................................. N A 7 3 0 73

C 7 0 7 Y A 2062 5700 7762

C 202 848 1050 0 12 12 2 4 R 0 2 6 26

TOTAL 2356 6586 8942

his means t h a t , accordin t o data i n the SWFILE, 5700 need-based Awards were accepted by students i n t 1 e 2007 award (academic) year.

Page 1

38 of 64

of 1

Yarbrough, Sharon

From: Randolph, Linda

Sent: Tuesday, July 10,2007 1:38 PM

To: Yarbrough, Sharon

Cc: Randolph, Linda

Subject: RE: Performance Funding Things

Sharon, here you go. Let me know if I need to send syllabi. Linda

From: Yarbrough, Sharon Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:31 PM To: Randolph, Linda Subject: Performance Funding Things

Linda: These are the Performance Funding Objectives ... when you have a moment ... sy

1. The number of Media Technologies courses in Computer Graphics Technology (CGT), Photography (PHO), Web Technology (WEB), and Video Production Technology (VPT) offered in online and hybrid format will increase by 10 by the end of the cycle

WEB 2401 Accessible Web Design & Compliance - new online course for 07F VPT 1020 Special Topics Multicamera Field Production - new hybrid course for 07F PHO 1000 lntro to Photography - converted to hybrid from traditional for 07F

I have one other one that hasn't been offered yet, so it will count as an 07-08 course: VPT 1400 Scriptwriting for Mass Media--converted to hybrid from traditional

2. The number of WEB Media Technologies courses in Computer Graphics Technology (CGT), Photography (PHO), Web Technology (WEB), and Video Production Technology (VPT) offered in hybrid will increase 5 by end of cycle.

MDT 1000 Introduction to Media Technologies - currently offered traditional and online-onverted to hybrid for 07F

Dr. Sharon L. Yarbrough Director of Institutional Research Pellissippi State Technical Community College 6651694-6526 (Fx)865/539-7045

39 of 64


Standard 4.C: Job Placement

Total Number Programs: 29

Total Placeable

Total Placed

Placement Rate 95%

06 I I 0401 00 ]HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTMG I Z ~ A A S ! 2- - I I 06 11 0801 00 1 WEB TECHNOLOGY 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ 1 11 I 4 / 06 l l0901 00 NETWORKING & COMM SYSTECH 1 2 3 ~ ~ ~ 1 15 / 2 1 I

Percent 2005 E X E M P T I O N S

127.43.01 12.00 IsEcLJRITY ENGINEERING 1 L

2000 CIP Major Name Degree Graduates 1 1 1 I P l a c e a b l e P l a c e d P l a c e d

06.1 1.1002.00

08.13.0101.00

-- -

27 44 0201 00 SOCIAL SERVICES 23AAS 1 ! 28 45 0702 00 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2 3 AAS - - 5 1 7 1 30 50 0402 00 COMMUNICATIONS GRAPHICS TECH 23AAS I?- 1 1 30 50 0408 00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 23AAS 25 1 30 50 0602 00 VlDEO PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY 23AAS I 4 30 50 0605 00 PHOTOGRAPHY z 1 c l 2 r 30 50 0999 01 MUSIC TECHNOUXiY 23AAS

I I 0 "/ai

T o t a l

Note: Please report all non-respondents by program and note in the institutional comment section. The 2005 graduates should be adjusted to reflect the removal of non-respondents. Maximum of non-respondents is limited to 5% for all programs.

Redjont indicatesprogram has been terminated. Institutional Comments (Optional):

T o t a l

09.15.0201.00 CIVIL ENGINEERINGTECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 1 7 1 2 5, 100% pppp

09.15.0303.01 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERINGTECH 2.3.AAS 8 1 1 8 1 7 88'Y0_ 09.15.0507.00 ENVIRONMENTALTECH & SAFEN 2.I.CI 1 1 0 1 '!a 09.I5.0805.00 MECHANICAL ENGINEERINGTECH 2 . 3 . ~ 1 12 1 9 1 9 100%

LAN OPERATIONSIMANAGEMENT

TEACHING

Please place any comments in this text box ( d o u b l e c l i c k on box to enter text) .

Exemptions columns: E-Cont inu ing Education, F-Not S e e k i n g , G-Family, H-Military, and I-No Reponse

Tennasce Higher Educalion Commission Page I o f I 71IM2007

2 . 1 ~ 1 I I Z.J.AAS 1

n/a rda

40 of 64

PELLISSIPPI STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE

PLACEMENT STATUS REPORT

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY STATE Z IP

SOCIAL SECURITY NO. PHONE NO.

PROGRAM MAJOR CERTIFICATE

CIRCLE COMPLETION DATE FALL 2006 SPRING 2007 SUMMER 2007 FALL 2007 SPRING 2008

ENROLLED FOR FURTHER EDUCATION, PLEASE SPECIFY

CURRENTLY IN MILITARY SERVICE BRANCH

EMPLOYED AND USE SOME OR ALL PSTCC TRAINING ON MY JOB EMPLOYED, BUT USE NONE OF MY TRAINING UNEMPLOYED, BUT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYED, NOT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT REASON

EMPLOYER PHONE NO.

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

JOB TITLE

NAME OF IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR

CURRENT ANNUAL GROSS SALARY PLEASE CIRCLE

LESS THAN 15,000 15,000-20,000 20,000-25,000 25,000-30,000 30,000-35,000 35,000-40,000

MORE THAN 40,000

SIGNATURE DATE

41 of 64


Standard 5.A: Assessment Pilot P~11 l s s l ~ ~ r ,"72?7?

Did institution provide a report provide evidence of usage of the Kansas Cost Study for institutional planning and improvement?

Report format should include the following sections: introduction, problem statement, summary of findings, interpretation of findings, and recornrnendations/conclusions. Report should not exceed 10

pages, including narrative and appendices.

Please provide an electronic copy of the Assessment Pilot report.


Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of I 711 612007

42 of 64

USE OF THE KANSAS COST STUDY PELLISSIPPI STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Introduction In the second year of the 2005-2010 cycle for Performance Funding (THEC) and

Strategic Planning (TBR), Pellissippi State Technical Community College remained diligent in

the use of the Kansas Cost Study. While the rising cost of college is not a concern unique to

Pellissippi State Technical Community College nor to the 12 other community colleges within

the TBR system, it is a concern nevertheless. State and Federal legislation along with various

national initiatives and studies have evolved with straightforward directives that attempt to

address college cost.

With increased public concern over accountability, higher education institutions are

asked to defend their expenditures. Mandates are impending that will add new financial

commitments on institutions. As U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings stated at the

regional higher education summit in Boston on June 14, 2007:

…to better serve all our students we must inject more transparency into our higher education system. If we believe we must educate more Americans, how are we going to do that without adequate information about how well we’re serving our customer? Like any other investment or enterprise, we need meaningful data to better manage and improve the system.

We expect detailed information about nearly every purchase or investment we make, from choosing a doctor to buying a car or home. An in almost every area of our government – from prescription drug programs to welfare to K-12 education – we expect accountability for tax dollars.

Yet, when it comes to higher education, we’ve invested hundreds of billions of taxpayer money and just hoped for the best. Colleges and universities must be more transparent about cost, graduation rates, and learning outcomes, so that students and parents can make more informed choices. (The full text of her prepared remarks is available at www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/06/06142007a.html.)

5A, Cost Study, Performance Funding, 2006-07 Pellissippi State Technical Community College

43 of 64

http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/06/06142007a.html

National themes emerged from ongoing research on affordability of higher

education (e.g., importance of higher education, concerns about price, confidence about

accessibility, role of government, and ways to keep college affordable). Similarly,

embedded themes such as student access, student success, and accountability and cost

containment continued to prevail for Pellissippi State during the 2006-2007 academic

year. These national and institutional themes provided the momentum for higher

education institutions to review how they operate.

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) generalized its charge for

institutions to know and to confirm what is being done at their respective institutions. Pellissippi

State’s mission statement was designed to provide direction and thrust to the College, and serves

as an enduring statement of purpose. The primary assessment focus for Pellissippi State has

been to measure “who we are,” “what we do,” “what we stand for,” and “why we do it.” The

various initiatives addressed by Pellissippi State provided a secondary impetus to use creditable

assessment models that provided a review and a database of national norms among other

community colleges. Various standardized methods and protocols for measuring education cost

were developed. The Kansas Cost Study served as the formal assessment model used by

Pellissippi State’s administrators.

Problem Statement

To develop an understanding of who Pellissippi State is and what is being done,

the College used the Kansas Cost Study to examine the instructional cost at Pellissippi

State. Five questions, paraphrased below, guided Pellissippi State’s efforts in using the

Kansas Cost Study:

1. What are the characteristics of Pellissippi State’s profile?


44 of 64

2. What significant changes have occurred over the last three years?

3. How does Pellissippi State’s three-year profile compare to the three-year

profile of peer institutions?

4. What factors have contributed to or influenced change(s) at Pellissippi State?

5. Is Pellissippi State satisfied with factors influencing the institutional profile

and the peer comparisons?

How Pellissippi State uses the Kansas Cost Study annually will influence the preceding five

questions but will be more defined at the end of the third year of the Performance Funding 2005-

2010 cycle and again at the end of the fifth year of the cycle.

The pressing pursuit for the second year continues to be twofold: 1) how is Pellissippi

State currently using the Kansas Cost Study and 2) how will Pellissippi State use the Kansas

Cost Study in the future? While meeting the requirements of Performance Funding and Strategic

Planning initiatives, the Kansas Cost Study also addressed a critical information gap for

Pellissippi State’s administrators. It provided a means to implement a methodology that afforded

the administrators the opportunity to identify, define, and report costs, and then use the

aggregated data provided for both internal and external comparisons and benchmarking. A cost

study database was generated and is currently housing first and second year instructional cost

data as presented from the Kansas Cost Study report format.

Summary of Findings

Pellissippi State participated in the Kansas Cost Study during the first and second

year of the 2005-2010 Performance Funding cycle. While Pellissippi State also participated in

the 2004-2005 cost study, the data will not be included in this study’s timeline. However, the

2004-2005 data was used as a pilot study for collecting data and understanding reports resulting


45 of 64

from the pilot study. The Kansas Cost Study data-collection methodology and reporting

process established a comprehensive national cost-productivity database for community colleges.

This database continues to provide Pellissippi State with information to analyze faculty workload

and how much it costs.

Key indicators for the Kansas Cost Study are:

1. FTE (full-time equivalent) students taught per FTE instructional faculty by discipline

(Table 1.2 Kansas Cost Study Institutional Report)

2. Student Credit Hours (SCH) per FTE faculty as a percentage of National Norm by

discipline (Table 2.2 Kansas Cost Study Institutional Report)

3. Percentage SCH taught by full-time faculty (Table 3.2 Kansas Cost Study

Institutional Report)

Pellissippi State’s discipline costs are calculated using salaries, benefits, overload

pay, costs of release-time, and support costs.

Table 1 represents one portion of summary data in template format presented to the

President’s Staff, Division Vice Presidents, heads of departments, and program coordinators.

Table 1. PSTCC Cost Study 2006 (study based on 2003-2004 data) Program % FT Faculty

PSTCC/KS Cost per Credit Hour PSTCC/KS

FTE Student Per FTE Faculty PSTCC/KS

Accounting 84% 71% $76 $85 23.8 18.7 History 66% 56% $47 $50 28.3 24.7 Mech Engr Tech 96% 80% $201 $191 12.4 10.9

Annual presentations of this cost study are made to faculty and staff explaining Pellissippi

State’s results. In addition, annual Cost Study reports are housed on the Institutional Research

Web site available to administrators, faculty, and staff.


46 of 64

http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/institutional_research/reports.php

http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/institutional_research/reports.php

Planning and making institutional change requires Pellissippi State administrators,

faculty, and staff to review existing goals and objectives and to analyze active operating

procedures and practices. The Pellissippi State Integrated Planning Model was developed by the

office of Institutional Research in 2000 and was implements for use at the College in 2001. The

model sustains a process in which each department and service area in the College clarifies its

role within the context of the college mission and specifies the outcomes that should be achieved

annually. Results of institutional objectives are stated in quantifiable terms and evidence is

recorded. The Kansas Cost Study provides another data source for academic programs to review

instructional cost per program and to document that cost in annual planning forms as well as

respective program annual budgets.

The Kansas Cost Study provides evidence used to document SACS compliance at

Pellissippi State. Table 2 illustrates components of the Cost Study related to SACS Standards

used by the College during 2002 and will be revised for the upcoming reaccredidation study:

Table 2. Kansas Cost Study Compared to SACS Standards Kansas Cost Study Components (Tables) SACS Standards All Tables CR 2.5 Tables 1.2 & 2.2 CR 2.8 Tables 3.2 CR 2.11 All Tables CS 3.4.9

Through the Performance Funding (PF) program, Pellissippi State continues to promote

the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s (THEC) traditional principles of equity,

excellence, accessibility, and accountability. Annual submittal of evidence toward the

accomplishments of the PF Assessment Standard includes reporting on the key indicators

illustrated in Table 1. In addition, documentation of Pellissippi State’s use of the Cost Study for

institutional planning and improvement is submitted with Pellissippi State’s Performance

Funding Annual Report.


47 of 64

Pellissippi State developed an Institutional Strategic Planning objective that focused on

the use of the Kansas Cost Study as a resource in making management decisions. Table 3

presents the approved objective.

Table 3. Pellissippi State Resourcefulness Strategic Planning Objective Goal 4. RESOURCEFULNESS: The College will manage, support, develop and foster

accountability for financial, human, physical and information resources to respond to the interests and needs of the community and students.

Objective 4.1. Use of benchmarking tools in resource management decisions

4.1.1. Maximize instructional resource use and facilitate cost containment by using the Kansas Cost Study during annual budget cycles to compare academic and fiscal resource patterns.

2004-05 Base Year Objective Baseline

Review Instructional Cost data for PSTCC 2004-05; Benchmark 2004-05 data will be prepared and submitted in May, 2005.

2005-06 proj. progress Compare 2003-04 and 2004-05 instructional cost data; prepare and submit 2005-06 2006-07 proj. progress Compare instructional cost data for 2004-05, 2005-06; prepare/submit 2006-07 2007-08 proj. progress Compare instructional cost data 2003 –04 through 2005-06; prepare/submit 2007-08 2008-09 proj. progress Compare instructional cost data 2004-05 through 2008-09 2009-10 proj. progress Compare instructional cost data 2004-05 through 2008-09; prepare/submit 2009-10

For the Strategic Planning process at Pellissippi State, the Kansas Cost Study provides the

following:

1. Benchmark data

2. Annual monitoring of programs

3. Documentation of review

4. Basis for decision making

Interpretation of Findings

How Pellissippi State is currently using the Kansas Cost is best described as initial

implementation. While in the second year of building a Cost Study database, Pellissippi State

clearly demonstrated an understanding of the purpose of the Cost Study. Collection and


48 of 64

submittal of annual data, publication of cost study reports, presentations, and review by

administrators, vice presidents, department heads, and program coordinators are reflective of on-

going planning activities.

The review of 1) high and low instructional cost data internal to Pellissippi State as

presented in Table 4 and 2) comparative cost of programs nationally provided information to

administrators.

Table 4. PSTCC Programs High and Low Instructional Cost (2006 report using 2003-2004 data) Program PSTCC National Mean Mechanical Eng. Tech. $201 $191 Civil Engineering Tech. 193 159 Electrical Eng. Related Tech. 182 184 Anthropology 17 54 Geography 16 57 Sociology 20 43

Cost Study data also assists Pellissippi State’s decision makers in identifying strengths and

weaknesses during the annual review for compliance with the Performance Funding and

Institutional Strategic Planning initiatives. A library of evidence for SACS compliance is being

documented and retained on internal databases annually. The answer to the question, “How is

Pellissippi State currently using the Kansas Cost Study?” is that the Cost Study is being used to

build trend data. Cost Study data from 2004 and 2005 provides information but does not fully

present conclusive patterns of activity over the course of only two years. Investigation of and

decisions regarding the second question, “How will Pellissippi State use the Kansas Cost Study

in the future?” is more germane, however.

Future use of the Cost Study will include use of the data provided for internal

comparisons (i.e., what is Pellissippi State’s cost per instructional program?), and use of the

national data made available through the Cost Study will allow for external comparisons (i.e.,


49 of 64

how does Pellissippi State data compare with national data?). Although use of Cost Study results

have been identified at Pellissippi State, additional uses could be integrated in the Program

Review and/or Academic Audit process, in review of low enrollment programs, in staffing and

tenure decisions in all programs, and by comparison groups: associate degree programs vs.

career technology programs.

Recommendations/conclusions

Although Pellissippi State is using data from the Kansas Cost Study and is building a

database to use historical data, there is one glaring limitation to the use of this model. The

current procedure requires that institutions submit two-year-old data. Institutions administrators

do have information but are limited because of the data lag, thus prompting the gathering of

additional information. Reviews of the last year’s action plans are necessary to determine what

has taken place since that two-year-old collection. In additional, Pellissippi State will conduct a

more in-depth cost analysis during the third year. Items that will be added are number of courses

with enrollments, maximum enrollment per course, number of students enrolled in the program,

and success rates of programs.

The following are conclusions drawn from the second annual review of the use of the

Kansas Cost Study at Pellissippi State:

1. Continue to show that Pellissippi State is accomplishing its mission

2. Determine selected accountability measures specifically referenced in various

initiatives

3. Establish Cost Study trend data (for this report, second year data were used)

4. Continue to build evidence of use of Cost Study


50 of 64

5. Use Kansas Cost Study supplemented by National Community College

Benchmark Study in making institutional change

6. Use Cost Study to develop components needed for the Quality Enhancement

Plan that will be submitted to SACS

7. Continue to assess “who we are,” “what we do,” “what we stand for,” and

“why we do it.”

Developing action plans to address these seven items should provide an expanded direction for

Pellissippi State to address affordability and accountability issues. In addition, a more focused

campus use of the Cost Study will yield additional elements of evidence to assist decision

makers in making more informed decisions.


51 of 64


PEI f ISS/PPI ?T?~F 2006-07 Performance Funding Report PILIISSIPPI SUM i l ( n n ~ c r l C O M M U N I ~ ~ COI~IG~ Standard 5.B: Assessment Implentation

Provide title of Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) o r Student Learning Initiative (SLI): First Year Experience at Pellissippi State Technical Community College

O E P or SLI? SLI

STANDARD OVERVIEW

Standard 5B evaluates the maturity and effectiveness of an institution's assessment processes as they relate to one of two types of student learning quality initiatives: (I) an institution-defined Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) in response to SACS reafirmation processes or (2) an alternate

student learning initiative (SLI) of comparable weight.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

-- Make a case that benchmarks have been achieved using assessment protocols in support of a QEPISLI are mature and effective in an essay not to exceed 10 double-spaced pages

-- Address the essay to an audience of peer examiners. -- All claims in the narrative are supported by documented evidence. -- Encourage to use hyperlink to send the reader from the text to supportive data and evidence. -- Provide a "bibliography" of hyperlinked documents, data, evidence cited that follows the essay.

-- Submit 6 CD copies of the report (for distribution to the peer readers) which captures all linked documentation

PEER SCORING AND POINT ALLOCATION

Reports will be assigned values based on a holistic evaluation conducted by trained peer readers applying these rubrics: 9-1 0 points - Based on the evidence provided, the institution consistentlv does all of the following: 7-8 points - Based on the evidence provided, the institution consistentlv does almost all of the following: 5-6 points - Based on the evidence provided, the institution does most of the following: 4 points - Based on the evidence provided, the institution does some of the following:

-- Provides a summary update of the evolution of the QEP or SLI -- Makes a case that the institution has met annual benchmarks -- Provides documentation for this claim by identifying patterns of evidence emerging

-- States annual benchmarks for the next year that are readily assessable and their assessment will yield information usable to support maintaining or modifying the planned course of action related to the QEPISLI


Please place any comments in this text box.

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of 1 711612007

52 of 64

FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE AT PELLISSIPPI STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2006-2007

Introduction

During the 2006-2007 academic year, the Student Learning Initiative addressed by Pellissippi State Technical

Community College continued to focus on the student’s first-college-year experience. The Foundations of Excellence (FOE)

project provided a national model designed to enhance the learning and retention of beginning students. This model enabled

Pellissippi State to envision a more effective experience for beginning college students and to assess the degree to which the

institution actually achieved excellence in the student’s first-year experience.

Overview of Foundations of Excellence (Student Learning Initiative)

The fundamental goals of the Foundation of Excellence project were (1) to develop a research-based, comprehensive

assessment model of the first year that is attainable and immediately usable by two-year institutions to increase student

learning, success, and retention; and (2) to develop a method for campuses to measure and evaluate their level of achievement

of the model. The concept of Foundations of Excellence focused on five philosophical and operational principles, as well as

nine Dimensions of Excellence:

1) The academic mission of the institution is preeminent.

2) The first-year experience is central to the achievement of the mission.

3) The institutional efforts in the first year have an impact on all or a significant proportion of students.

4) Systematic evidence provides validation for the Dimensions of Excellence.

5) Collectively, the Dimensions constitute a model of the “ideal” for improving the first year of college.

In the 2005-06 academic year, Pellissippi State established a 14-member Task Force to facilitate the undertaking of a

major study of the student's first year. The Task Force collaborated with Dimension Subcommittee members consisting of 144

faculty, staff, and students that conducted an audit of the College's current practices which most impact new students; used a

set of performance indicators to assess the campus's level of achievement of each of the Foundational Dimensions; and

developed an action plan that documented existing effective practices and prioritized initiatives (FOE Recommendations

submitted by Dimension Committees-unedited). The Task Force reviewed the findings and action items of the Dimension

Subcommittees and prioritized common themes. In Phase II (2006-2007) action plans were made which encompassed the First

Year Themes and initiatives presented in the Task Force Recommendations.

Pellissippi State’s Task Force used both qualitative and quantitative evidence to support its judgments of campus

achievement. A template for investigation called the “Current Practices Inventory” (CPI) provided a structure for each work

5B Standard, Performance Funding Pellissippi State Technical Community College

53 of 64

team to gather information about (a) various existing first-year policies and programs, their purpose, when they were

established, and how they are evaluated; (b) how the campus or various units define “first-year student” and when those

students enter the institution; (c) student demographic characteristics including gender, age, race or ethnicity, and first-

generation status; and (d) existing studies that provide data on entering students and their progress. This process of task force

education assured that all task force members had essential knowledge about the first year which enabled them to make

accurate judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of their institution’s first-year efforts and to plan for improvement.

Pellissippi State’s Evaluative Process

The implementation of Phase II of the FOE initiative centered on the Task Force Recommendations. The following

Statement of Philosophy (Table 1.) provided a base for the intent and direction of the 2006-2007 planning activities:

Table 1. Statement of Philosophy The Faculty and Staff of Pellissippi State Technical Community College believe that the first-year experience is critically important as it provides the foundation for college success and lifelong learning. To best serve the unique needs of the first-year students, we commit ourselves to the following: -Facilitating new student transition to the college campus -Providing high quality instruction during the first year -Establishing positive mentoring and advising relationships with beginning students -Supporting a vibrant college culture where students experience and express diverse world-views -Offering a comprehensive range of activities and opportunities to enhance learning and personal growth -Evaluating the results of efforts addressing first-year student needs In providing the first-year students exceptional opportunities for growth and involvement, we believe they will connect more deeply with the college community, achieve their academic goals, and gain a clearer, fuller vision of their lifetime direction.

While the four themes, 1) Connections, 2) Best Practices, 3) Academic Momentum, and 4) Common Academic

Experience, were targeted, a fifth theme, Evaluation, became evident during the 2006-2007 planning period. Pellissippi State’s

Integrated Planning Model provided the structure to format the goals, objectives, action plans, outcomes, and use of outcomes

during Phase II of FOE.

Data collected during the initial assessment period (2005-2006) provided a baseline for developing quantifiable

performance indicators. While in the formative stage of FOE, the assessment process during year two focused on determining

appropriate criteria and standards, developing action plans, and on collecting evidence that would be used to determine how

well performance met the criteria and standards. Measurable outcomes will be compared in 2007-2008 to baseline data

collected during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic periods.

5B Standard. Performance Funding Pellissippi State Technical Community College

54 of 64

The following goals, objectives, action items, and outcomes reflect the direction and collaborative efforts of multiple

FOE work teams during Phase II (2006-2007). The Fall 2006 semester was a period in which most of the planning models

were developed as a result of the Task Force Recommendations distributed in Summer 2006. Spring 2007 was a busy and

highly active semester for faculty, staff and students. Action plans were implemented in varying stages, and assessment

measures were used to evaluate efforts to achieve long-terms goals to improve student learning.

Goal 1. Facilitate the transition of first-year students – Theme: Connections Dimensions: Philosophy, Organization, Learning, Transitions, All Students

Students who establish relationships with each other and faculty/staff are more likely to persevere through the

unknowns and the unique challenges of the first year of college. Their academic success is directly influenced by the strength

of these connections. The emphasis will be on establishing focused and coordinated communication with first-year students

that is consistent, timely, and accessible. Early and intentional connections with faculty, staff, and current students help first-

year students make the transition to college, understand our expectations and their own motivations, set goals, find resources,

and create their own networks of support to achieve personal and academic success.

Objectives and Action plans: A. Establish focused and coordinated communication

1. Coordinate and communicate the efforts of the Learning and Testing Center, DSP program, and Curriculum and Advising department in order to increase faculty and student awareness of

a. testing requirements and related placement results b. the purpose and value of the DSP program c. the availability of options for students to accelerate their progress in the DSP program.

2. Add a sentence to master syllabi indicating where tutoring is available 3. Develop new strategies for progressing to the major (pilot fall 2007) 4. Revamp New Student Orientation (NSO), new student advising and first day of class communications to assist with disseminating information to new students and developing support networks

B. Provide first-year students the opportunity for connections with faculty, staff, and other students inside and outside the classroom

1. Expand the availability of student-led study sessions, supplemental instruction, and learning communities Outcomes: At the Magnolia Campus, students were surveyed regarding their level of interest in or need for various

Counseling Center workshops and the best times to offer workshops. The Magnolia Campus Counselor used the results of the

survey to identify topics (time management, test anxiety, and memory-building) and schedule workshops. A student mentor

developed eye-grabbing flyers and promoted the workshops. This resulted in seven students attending the time management

workshop, seven attending a study smart workshop, and eight attending test-taking strategies and test anxiety workshops in

fall 2006, compared to only three students attending fall 2005 workshops. (Student Success Coordinator: Patton, 07S)

2. Appoint Student Success Coordinators and Student Success Mentors in all academic departments and at

site campuses to assist first-year students with transitioning to college


55 of 64

Outcomes: Student Success Mentors assisted first-year students with accessing e-mail and P.S. Web accounts and by

disseminating information to undecided majors about using the Kuder Test Survey for career planning, conducting a survey of

needs of non-traditional students, assisting with New Student Orientation (NSO) and final registration on all campuses,

making phone calls to undecided students, and assisting in the formation of and on-going work of groups for non-traditional

students. The results of the Kuder Survey indicated non-traditional students have childcare needs, desire extended cafeteria

hours, and have transportation concerns. As a result of the survey, weekly meetings were established to discuss the needs of

non-traditional students, the cafeteria extended its hours in the afternoon, and a car pool service is being considered. (Student

Success Coordinator: Harper, 07S)

3. Provide activities, such as Fresh Fusion to help students meet other students while becoming acquainted with College resources

Outcomes: The Blount County Campus provided a three-week film series highlighting themes from the Lord of the

Rings trilogy to extend the themes of Mountains beyond Mountains (common book chosen for 2006-2007). The campus also

held a costume competition and essay contest and paired activities with student advising sessions. (Student Success

Coordinator: Boyd, 07S)

Outcomes: Fresh Fusion (Pellissippi campus) activities resulted in 54 participants; 19 or 35% submitted evaluations;

18 were first-year students; a) 80% of respondents met an average of 4.6 new friends; b) 75% stated they learned about 2 or

more new campus resources; c) 69% rated the overall quality of the program at least a 4 on a 5 point scale (5 highest); and d)

89% stated they felt more a part of the campus community as a result of the program. Fresh Fusion at Division Street had 42

students participate. Fresh Fusion was held at Magnolia; however, participation numbers were not collected.

Outcomes: The PassPort project for student involvement at all campuses reported the following results: a) overall

participation in PassPort increased 57% from 2005-06 to 2006-07; b) of the 1910 total participants, 56% were first-year

students; c) in the last two years, 24.5% of the student body participated; d) in 2006-07, 11.4% of first-year participants entered

the drawing (goal was 10%); e) average GPA of those entered in the drawing is 3.1 for two years; f) spring 2007 data reveal

that 46% participated in activities; 25% connected outside the classroom with faculty/staff/advisors/tutors; and 29% used

resources – Educational Resource Center (ERC), computer lab, learning centers, student assistance center, and Student

Recreation Center (SRC). (Director Student Life/Recreation: Bledsoe).

Outcomes: First-year engineering students were scheduled into common sections of MATH 1910 and ENS 1510,

providing them with the opportunity to develop relations with other engineering students. Next fall (07) a “block” schedule will


56 of 64

be developed for these majors that will allow students build connections and share experiences. (Student Success Coordinator:

Long, 07S).

Objectives and Action plans: C. Require New Student Orientation

1. Make NSO mandatory for new students 2. Revise NSO to a) emphasize the role of parents and significant others in facilitating student success and b) employ NSO Student Success mentors (9 returning students) to participate in NSO events and work with Student Success coordinators 3. Offer NSO sessions that accommodate working students 4. Include how to access e-mail accounts, e-mail etiquette, and library usage/information

Outcomes: NSO is required for all first-time students. Two sessions were held with students and parents. Agenda

items included a session for parents; a session on PS Web and student e-mail use (taught by student orientation leaders);

etiquette and library use; advising discussions related to student success in the first semester; common book experience; value

of involvement in co-curricular activities; and a campus resource information fair. Three evening NSO sessions were

presented for working students. (NSO Agenda).

Objectives and Action plans: D. Develop a New Student Manual

1. Replace fliers, packets, and other printed materials with a useful success-oriented manual in both print and electronic version 2. Included in the manual were specific strategies for connecting with other students, faculty, and staff; time management tips; deadlines and reminders; a month-by-month calendar with events; DSP information; information about the common academic experience; college expectations for student participation in the academic community; and instructions for accessing college resources

Outcomes: NSO participants were given an academic planner/calendar containing the new 18-page student manual. Objectives and Action plans:

E. Develop a comprehensive Campus Events Calendar (Student Manual, Calendars; Services). 1. Develop and maintain a monthly calendar of upcoming events, new course offerings, deadlines, etc., on the College’s Web site

Outcomes: A campus event calendar was developed by and housed on the Student Life and Recreation Web site. A new Campus Calendar of Events was established for all the items listed above. Objectives and Action plans:

F. Establish a Council on the First-Year Experience that will 1. Oversee the implementation of initiatives described 2. Coordinate the development of learning goals for first-year experience 3. Monitor progress towards achievement of goals and objectives related to the FOE project and its initiatives

G. Develop a Resource Center for first-year students that will coordinate with existing College offices (e.g., TRIO,

Student Assistance Center) and help students overcome barriers (transportation, child care, personal issues) to their education

1. Expand and strengthen existing services 2. Connect students with community and college resources 3. Provide support groups for specific populations (e.g., single parents, recovering substance abusers, ESOL) 4. Schedule workshops and other programming


57 of 64

Outcomes: Data was collected and plans were developed for creating a student resource center where students can

discover campus resources and use them to meet academic and personal needs. Informal interviews of students were

conducted at the main campus and other previously completed surveys (CCSSE and NASPA) were reviewed to document

student interests, needs, and comments about the awareness of, use of, and need for campus resources. A location for the

resource center was determined and plans to implement the program were developed. One result is the Carpooling

Connections Rideshare Board, established based on student response to needs. Other services being reviewed include

childcare information/assistance and programs for non-traditional students. Site campuses would establish their own local

resource information centers and refer students to main campus resources as needed. (Student Success Coordinator: Gray,

07S).

Objectives and Action plans: H. Develop a pilot project to assist undecided majors with exploring and choosing a career path

Outcomes: Three major codes designating one of the technology departments and university parallel were

established for students who are undecided in their major but who have interests related to the coded area; these codes are used

to pair these students with advisors. Advisors were trained on using the Kuder Career Assessment software, interpreting results,

and identifying counseling services available to students. The Kuder Career Assessment, which assists undecided students with

matching their interests and skills with a career, was adopted for use in the DSPS classes and in NSO (in the future). A short

information session for undecided students was held during NSO but it was not well attended during the pilot. Undecided

students will be tracked to monitor their progression toward a major field of study and to determine improvement in

retention/persistence rates. (Student Success Coordinator: Barber, Penzkofer and Swayne, 07S)

Goal 2: Establish positive mentor and advisor relationships – Theme: Connections Dimensions: Learning, Campus Culture, Transitions, All Students Objectives and action plans:

A. Appoint Student Success Coordinators and develop a peer Student Success Mentor program 1. Coordinators and Mentors will be available in all academic departments and at site campuses 2. Pattern the voluntary mentor program after those implemented at local high schools with students paired by major, age, and circumstance

B. Expand student-led study sessions, supplemental instruction, and learning communities Outcomes: A University of Tennessee-Knoxville student was hired to work with two Magnolia Campus math

instructors to provide supplemental instruction/tutoring in two identified low-performing classes (DSPM 0800 M03 and

MATH 1130 M05). Students voluntarily met with the tutor. Twelve students received tutoring in DSPM 0800 and five received

tutoring in MATH 1130. (Student Success Coordinator: Patton, 07S)


58 of 64

http://www.naspa.org/

Objectives and Action plans: C. Increase participation of the following existing resources: Learning and Testing Center, DSP Program, and

Curriculum and Advising 1. Increase faculty and student awareness of testing requirements and related placement results, purpose and

value of the DSP program and availability of options for students to accelerate progress in the DSP program.

2. Require academic advising for first-year students. Outcomes: Evaluation of objectives and plan is in progress.

Goal 3: Provide a campus culture that facilitates diverse ideas, worldviews, and cultural awareness – Theme: Common Academic Experience (Target: Students) Dimensions: Campus Culture, Diversity, Learning, Roles and Purposes

By offering our students a common academic experience, we hope to help first-year students recognize the

connections between disciplines and to see the benefits of participating in a variety of curricular and co-curricular activities.

The central element of the common academic experience will be a common text utilized in English 1010, developmental

reading and writing courses, and other courses where meaningful connections can be found. The common text will also serve

as a springboard for a number of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities including conversation cafés, film discussions,

and author visits. (Director Student Life/Recreation: Bledsoe, 06F).

Objectives and action plans: A. Provide students with a common book experience that addresses diverse ideas worldviews and cultures select one book each year to be read by first-year students, faulty and staff

1. Incorporate the book in individual course sections where appropriate, by discussion/reading groups and in extra- and co-curricular activities

Outcomes: Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder was selected. 2600 books were distributed to ENG 1010,

COS 1010, BIO 1110, DSPW 0800 during the 2006-2007 academic year. By participating in the Common Book Experience

students were able to a) identify the book’s common themes; b) expand their sense of belonging to our campus community; and

c) be inspired to take “right action” in personal behaviors. Evaluations were distributed to all section. The 624 responses

received for fall semester indicate that 29.8 % read more of the book than was assigned; 49% participated in co-curricular

activities; 48% discussed the book outside of class with fellow students; 46% discussed the book outside of class with family

and/or friends; 16% discussed the book outside of class with faculty/staff; 27% discussed it with more than one of the above;

29% did not discuss the book outside of class; and 72.6% rated their overall experience with the book as valuable to very

valuable. (Director Student Life/Recreation: Bledsoe, 2006F; Common Academic Experience evaluation form).

2. Investigate creative strategies for providing academically talented students with opportunities for personal and intellectual growth

B. Provide activities to stimulate and nurture diverse ideas, worldviews and cultures


59 of 64

Outcomes: Blount County organized a series of four viewings of the recorded President’s Convocation (fall 2006).

There were 25 students who watched the convocation through the TWAV classroom and 63 additional students were able to

participate in it through additional showings. (Student Success Coordinator: Boyd, 07S)

Outcomes: The following activities were presented: President’s Convocation; Conversation Cafés; History & French

Film Series; International Week; PTK satellite DVD series – “Gold, Gods, Glory: The Global Dynamics of Power”; Visiting

author (novelist Touré); AIDS Awareness Day; Women’s History Month, and “Lord of the Rings” quest film series. A Web

site and discussion blog were developed.

Goal 4. To provide high quality instruction – Theme: Best Practice in Teaching and Learning Dimensions: Learning, Organization, Roles and Purposes, Improvement Objectives and action plans:

A. Provide high quality instruction

Our college-wide focus on Best Practices in Teaching and Learning will enhance our effectiveness in teaching first-

year students and will provide worthwhile professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. The Best Practices

program will include workshops, publications, opportunities for interdepartmental support and communication, and the

development of shareable resources such as a Best Practices database. The program will be designed to provide faculty and

staff with useable, innovative strategies for working with students in their first year at Pellissippi State. (Student Success

Coordinator: Barrett & Yamin, 06F; Agenda for Conference on Student Success, 06F; The Center for Teaching Excellence

Workshop; The Center for Teaching Excellence Mission Statement; Faculty Needs Survey).

1. Provide professional development for faculty 2. Continue to develop innovative teaching strategies 3. Develop an Excellence in Teaching Center

Outcomes: a) Twenty-seven sessions were offered to faculty/staff during the Fall Conference on Student Success.

Sessions included a variety of topics relating to the four FOE themes. The numbers in parenthesis indicate attendance:

Common Academic Experience (122), Best Practices (205), Connections (105), and Academic Momentum (234). b) More

than 40 people participated in a workshop entitled “Mind the Gap; Mine the Gap: Teaching, Managing and learning from the

Millennials.” c) A faculty needs assessment survey was distributed in October 2006. Results identified five topics: student

learning styles/multiple intelligences; increasing student motivation; developing students’ critical thinking skills; incorporating

active learning strategies; and self-assessment of teaching skills. Faculty preferred these topics to be provided by hands-on

workshops that are discipline-specific and presented by guest lecturers. d) A Mission Statement for the Center for Teaching

Excellence was developed.


60 of 64

Goal 5. Provide a campus culture that facilitates diverse ideas, worldviews and cultures – Theme: Teaching and Learning (Target: Faculty) Dimensions: Campus Culture, Diversity, Learning, Roles and Purposes Objectives and action plans:

A. Initiate publications for faculty and staff that provide innovative methods for adding diverse ideas, world views, and culture in the curriculum

Outcomes: Work is in progress. Goal 6. Establish positive mentor and advisor relationships – Theme: Academic Momentum (Target: Students) Dimensions: Learning, Campus Culture, Transitions, All Students

The focus on this goal is to refine and expand the College’s system and supporting processes for helping students avoid and

recover from academic difficulties. New strategies to identify and address issues common to first-year students will be

developed. The goal of this effort is to assist students in establishing patterns of achievement and in disrupting cycles of failure

through early feedback, warning mechanisms, and accessible support services. Primary emphasis will be given to the first

semester and the transition from first to second semester. (Student Success Coordinator: Gingrow, 2006F).

Objectives and action plans: A. Implement early feedback, early warning and intervention strategies

1. Require advising for first and second semester students defined as those who have not previously attended Pellissippi State, are degree seeking, and are enrolled in six or more credit hours

B. Develop program to identify and assist advising of undecided majors 1. Assign undecided major codes for easier identification by advisors 2. Centralize electronic and print career exploration resources

C. Add a First-Year Experience component to a new employee orientation Outcomes: Work in progress.

Goal 7. Provide high quality instruction – Theme: Common Academic Experience Dimensions: Learning, Organization, Roles and Purposes, Improvement Objectives and action plans:

A. Establish Learning Goals 1. Post goals around campus so that faculty and students easily recognize them 2. Make goals that

i. Are consistent with the College’s mission ii. Address student career plans iii. Respond to workplace expectations iv. Align with senior institution transfer

Outcomes: Work in progress.

Goal 8. Provide a campus culture that facilitates diverse ideas, worldviews and cultures – Theme: Best Practices in Teaching and Learning (Target: Faculty) Dimensions: Campus Culture, Diversity, Learning, Roles and Purposes Objective and Action Plan:

A. Initiate publications for faculty and staff that provide innovative methods for adding diverse ideas, worldviews and cultures in the curriculum

1. Provide students with a common book experience that addresses diverse ideas, worldviews, and cultures


61 of 64

Outcome: Work in progress. Goal 9. Evaluate the results of the First Year Initiatives – Theme: Assessment Dimension: Improvement An assessment plan will be developed to monitor and to summarize the progress of identified subpopulations of first-year

students (e.g., adults, African-American, under prepared) and to measure the effectiveness of first-year initiatives. The results

of the ongoing evaluation will be used to identify priorities for improvement and reassess proposed strategies.

Objective and Action Plans: A. Measurable outcomes will be compared in 2007-2008 to baseline data collected during the 2005-2006 and 2006-

2007 academic periods. 1. To develop an assessment plan for First Year Initiatives

a. Develop program goals and intended outcomes b. Identify individuals or groups responsible for assessment process c. Identify quantitative and qualitative instruments d. Design timeline for process e. Determine how information from data analyses will be summarized and disseminated f. Identify ways in which findings can be sued to leverage change for continuous improvement

Outcomes: Annual plans were prepared during the Spring 2007 semester that targeted major initiatives designated in

the Task Force Recommendations, Summer 2006. Links are provided for planning models and supporting documents that

reflect the progress toward those initiatives. In addition, outcomes have been identified for some of the action plans. Other

action plans disclosed work-in-progress. As a result of FOE Assessment Committee’s formative review of Phase II at the end

of Spring 2007, plans have been made to present training workshops to Student Success Coordinators for Phase III (2007-

2008) with a focus on planning and evaluation; this Assessment Workshop will be presented during Fall 2007 In-Service. In

addition, a formal evaluation component will be developed and implemented during 2007 Fall semester to review program

activities for Phase I, II, and III of the Foundations of Excellence program.

Conclusion

The Foundations of Excellence is an active initiative at Pellissippi State Technical Community College. The 2007-

2008 Fall and Spring semesters will continue the focus on first-year students during Phase III. This evaluative process

successfully mobilized Pellissippi State’s campus to improve a broad range of first-year policies, programs, and practices. The

FOE process added an essential component to a thorough analysis of the first year by enabling the institution to conduct a rich

and detailed examination of our environment and to connect findings to student-level input and outcomes data.


62 of 64

Bibliography of links p. 1 Dimensions of Excellence - Document describing the nine FOE Dimensions by which institutions are

to measure themselves p. 1 mission - Document describing Pellissippi State’s mission p. 1 FOE Recommendations submitted by Dimension Committee-unedited - Document describing the findings and recommendations of the Dimension

Committee p. 1 Task Force Recommendations - Document describing the findings and recommendations of the

Foundations of Excellence (FOE) Task Force p. 1 “Current Practices Inventory” (CPI) - Document detailing the Foundations of Excellence (FOE) Current

Practices Inventory p. 2 Pellissippi State’s Integrated Planning Model - Document used to structure the goals, objectives, action plans, outcomes,

and use of outcomes p. 3 Student Success Coordinator: Patton, 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence Surveys filled out by Rick

Patton, Student Success Coordinator p. 4 Student Success Coordinator: Harper, 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Marilyn

Harper, Student Success Coordinator p. 4 Student Success Coordinator: Boyd, 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Betsy

Boyd, Student Success Coordinator p. 4 Director Student Life/Recreation: Bledsoe - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Mary

Bledsoe, Director of Student Life & Recreation p. 5 Student Success Coordinator: Long, 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Beth

Long, Student Success Coordinator p. 5 NSO Agenda - Documents detailing the agenda of the New Student Orientations (NSO) p. 5 Student Manual with Academic Calendar- Documents that are given to new students during the New Student

Orientation p. 5 Services - Document that is given to new students during the New Student

Orientation p. 6 CCSSE - Community College Survey of Student Engagement


63 of 64

Bibliography of links, continued p. 6 NASPA - Homepage of NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher

Education p. 6 Student Success Coordinator: Gray, 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Annie

Gray, Student Success Coordinator p. 6 Student Success Coordinator: Barber, Penzkofer and Swayne 07S - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Rick

Barber, Denise Penzkofer and Ken Swayne, Student Success Coordinators p. 6 Dimensions - Document describing the nine FOE Dimensions by which institutions are

to measure themselves p. 7 Director Student Life/Recreation: Bledsoe, 06F - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Mary

Bledsoe, Director of Student Life & Recreation p. 7 Common Academic Experience evaluation form - Survey given to participants of the Common Academic Experience p. 8 Student Success Coordinator: Barrett & Yamin, 06F - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Tyra

Barrett and Sue Yamin, Student Success Coordinators p. 8 Agenda for Conference on Student Success, 06F - Document of the agenda of the Conference on Student Success, given on

August 16, 2006 p. 8 The Center for Teaching Excellence Workshop - Document announcing the workshop given by The Center for Teaching

Excellence on September 27, 2006 p. 8 The Center for Teaching Excellence Mission - Document detailing the mission of The Center for Teaching Excellence p. 8 Faculty Needs Survey - Survey which helped The Center for Teaching Excellence define the

nature and scope of the center. p. 9 Student Success Coordinator: Gingrow, 2006F - Document of the Foundations of Excellence survey completed by Sydney

Gingrow, Student Success Coordinator p. 10 Task Force Recommendations, Summer, 2006 - Document describing the findings and recommendations of the

Foundations of Excellence (FOE) Task Force


64 of 64

http://www.naspa.org/

Performance Funding Report · Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2006-07 Performance Funding...

Documents

Transcript of Performance Funding Report · Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2006-07 Performance Funding...