Kaua‘i community college
Yüklə 1,69 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Descriptive Summary
- Self Evaluation
- Planning Agenda
Planning Agenda
II.A.1.c. The institution identifies student learning outcomes for courses, programs, certificates and degrees; assesses student achievement of those outcomes; and uses assessment results to make improvements. Descriptive Summary Much of the campus effort on SLOs and their assessment will be put into practice over the next few years. There are three ways the institution identifies, assesses and uses SLO assessment results to make improvements. The first is a plan to focus on one of the five campus-level SLOs each year for the next five years. The five campus-level Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) focus on communication, cognition, information competency, social responsibility, and personal responsibility; they are posted on the college’s website (Student Learning Outcomes) and also in the college’s catalog (KCC Catalog).
The college has generated a new curriculum form called the Course Action Form (CAF) and requires each new course or course modification to provide SLOs. According to the plan, each year during the fall semester the campus would focus on workshops to help faculty develop SLOs aligned with the campus-level SLO that is being focused on for that year. During the spring semester the campus will implement and assess the SLOs identified for that academic year. 2004-2005 – Communication 2005-2006 – Information Competency 2006-2007 – Cognition 2007-2008 – Social Responsibility 2008-2009 – Personal Responsibility The second means of identifying SLOs and assessing them and using the results to improve programs is through the program review process. As of May 2006, according to the Program Review Calendar, sixteen programs have completed full program reviews. The remaining programs have completed mini-program reviews and by 2008, all programs will have completed full program reviews (Program Review Calendar). Part of the program review process involves examining the effectiveness of the program in meeting the program SLOs. Programs or units will then make changes and improvements based on the assessments of the SLOs and other data to make decisions on changes in curriculum, budget, staffing, etc. The final step in the program review process that links data analysis and decision making to resource allocation is the annual review of action plans and resource needs. Each program submits to the College Council its action plans with resource requests, either from its comprehensive program review or from their APRUs (Program Review Action Plans and Resource Allocations). The third means of reviewing SLOs at the college is the Course Action Form (CAF) process, although it is important to note that course assessment of SLOs is ensured by the CAF, the CAF form itself does not assess SLOs. Every year for the next five year is 20 percent of existing courses must go through the CAF process. All new course proposals, modifications and deletions, beginning in Fall 2005, must also go through the CAF process. Part of the CAF form requires that course SLOs be listed along with how course SLOs align with both program level and campus-level SLOs. Self Evaluation The campus has had workshops, meetings within divisions, and conversations across the campus to discuss and develop SLOs. They have become a significant priority of the whole campus. The college, through extensive dialogue, developed five campus-level SLOs, and established a timeline to develop, implement and assess the SLOs. The Assessment Committee, with representatives from all divisions, developed a rubric to measure written communication skills. The Committee piloted two assessments, in Spring 2002 and Spring 2003, of graduating students, writing samples, after a professional was brought in to train faculty volunteers. After the two pilots, no further campus-wide writing assessments were done. The English department has made some minor changes to the rubric for use with the department courses. In the 2004-2005 academic year, there were several workshops sponsored by the Assessment Committee on developing communication SLOs, as well as expectations that all faculty would include at least one written communication SLO in Spring 2005, in at least one of their courses. The Dean of Instruction asked that all faculty members send all course syllabi electronically to the Dean’s Office to ensure that communication SLOs have been developed. This allows the dean to annually compile the Course Tracking Form. This form records, for example, course offerings, courses to be deleted, courses scheduled to be moved to the new CAF form, course SLOs listed in course syllabi, and assessment of SLOs as defined in course syllabi. The purpose of this form is to inform students, faculty, and others about the status of the curriculum. The program review process has been going forward in a timely way following the timetable for full and mini program reviews (Program Reviews). The college is in the initial stages of implementing the use of Student Learning Outcomes as part of the program review process. The culture on the campus has changed and the dialogue and the commitment to change are evident in the program review documents. The Annual Program Review Updates (APRUs) are due in February 2006. Future program reviews and APRUs will reflect whether programs have begun to use the assessment of SLOs to make improvements. The timetable of the APRUs has been advanced at the recommendation of the College Council to better align with UH System budget timelines. The college is in the beginning stages of reviewing all courses offered at the college through the Course Action Form process. The college has developed a Handbook for Preparing Course and Program Action Form to guide faculty in developing SLOs. The Curriculum Committee has also distributed a set of “tips.” The first 20 percent of existing courses are scheduled for division review and Curriculum Committee review during the spring of 2006. The current distance learning courses—courses offered through distance education format as well as on site format—English 22, English 253, English 254, Spanish 201-202, Information Computer Science 100, Information Computer Science 101, and Linguistics 102 have already completed this process. A number of issues are currently under discussion between members of the Curriculum Committee, the division chairs, the program coordinators and the Dean of Instruction related to the appropriate numbers of SLOs for each course, the format of SLOs, and the assessment methods of SLOs. There is now a document covering this and it will soon be distributed. There have been several workshops on developing SLOs during the past two years with the majority of faculty members in attendance. Instructors have been assessing course-level SLOs or learning objectives. It is expected that this more formal and structured approach to SLO assessment at the course, program and campus-levels will affect the teaching of courses. However, it is too early to tell how these assessments have impacted/changed courses. Since many CAF forms are yet to be written and approved, the college is not yet prepared to conduct a program-level assessment. Some programs will be externally evaluated, for example, the American Culinary Federation (ACF) will evaluate the Culinary Art’s program in Spring 2007. This program’s goal is to receive accreditation from the ACF. The ACF evaluation will consider the Culinary program’s SLOs. The Nursing program is probably the furthest along, as their external accreditation has long required close attention to learning outcomes. Planning Agenda
II.A.2. The institution assures the quality and improvement of all instructional courses and programs offered in the name of the institution, including collegiate, developmental, and pre-collegiate courses and programs, continuing and community education, study abroad, short-term training courses and programs, programs for international students, and contract or other special programs, regardless of type of credit awarded, delivery mode, or location. II.A.2.a. The institution uses established procedures to design, identify learning outcomes for, approve, administer, deliver, and evaluate courses and programs. The institution recognizes the central role of its faculty for establishing quality and improving instructional courses and programs. Descriptive SummaryKaua‘i Community College has established procedures for course development. KCC’s academic courses and degree/certificate programs are approved through an extensive process that involves the teaching faculty, counselors, the Curriculum Committee, division chairs, program coordinators, the Dean of Instruction, the Registrar, and the chancellor. As stated in the Kaua‘i Community CAF Handbook, all curriculum actions brought to the Kaua‘i Community College Curriculum Committee for review will follow the CAF guidelines and will reflect the college’s curriculum-building foundations, including campus mission, goals, and Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs); degree, certificate, and hybrid programs; and active learning, principles of good practice in undergraduate education, and workplace basics. In the CAF process, other input is sometimes sought from advisory committees, employers, professional organizations, program coordinating councils, and focus groups. Research is conducted on similar courses in the University of Hawai‘i Community College System, University of Hawai‘i System, and non-system and out-of-state colleges, and on workforce data and other statistics. The CAF format requires that the proposer provide program and course SLOs, all the while ensuring that these SLOs align with program and campus goals. After approval is made at the Division Chair level, the Dean of Instruction, who is responsible for reviewing the proposal and its relation to the college’s foundations and alignment with the program action plan, approves the proposal and signs off, submitting the document to the chancellor for approval. The chancellor reviews the proposal and its relation to the college’s foundations and alignment with the program action plan, then approves and signs off, where upon the proposal becomes effective. The CAF has been extensively revised to address the need for SLOs and their measurement. This curriculum development tool helps the college ensure that the delivery of instruction is of good quality and that learning takes place. This year the campus has begun the process of moving 20 percent of its curriculum to the new CAF each year. All new courses being proposed use the new CAF. The college has established a procedure to evaluate the quality of its programs and courses via the program review process, which looks at a variety of qualitative and quantitative evidence: student achievement, enrollment, student demographics, student outcomes, course completion and transfers. The program review should be objective and data driven; collegial, inclusive, collaborative; focused on importance of outcomes; consistent and openly communicated to both internal and external audiences; and closely tied to operations and strategic planning and decision making. The program review process produced the Kaua‘i Community College Strategic Plan for 2003-2010 which was developed in tandem with the UH and UHCC System strategic plan efforts. That document placed the college goals firmly in the context of the system strategic plan (KCC Strategic Plan). The Assessment Committee was formed in 1999 in order to inform the strategic and operational decisions of the college and its component units through appropriate and systematic use of information in planning, evaluation, improvement, and the demonstration of accountability. Its goals were to:
The Committee offered two workshops in writing assessment and sponsored several assessment workshops. Since 2003, Kaua‘i Community College has provided education and training for all staff and faculty on the use of data for program review, developed and implemented a new program review process, and merged that process with planning and resource development. Dr. Linda Umbdenstock, by recommendation of Barbara Beno of the Accrediting Commission, was invited to our campus on June 18-20, 2003 to facilitate the conversation about developing SLOs while reinforcing the tie-in with Program Health Indicators and program review. Support services were targeted since they are present in the summer months. A total of 58 faculty and staff attended. Separate meetings were held for Student Services, Administrative Services, the Office of Continuing Education and Training, and Academic Support. Hawaiian Studies and Title III faculty reserved one entire day to develop several SLOs (Hawaiian Studies Program Review). Julie Slark was invited by the Accreditation Task Force to discuss SLOs with the entire campus during the College Convocation on August 18, 2003. In the afternoon of the 18th, she met with the Liberal Arts divisions and Student Services units and conducted a workshop on creating Program SLOs from the proposed campus-wide SLOs. The following day she met with all of the other Academic divisions and the Office of Continuing Education and Training. Each of the divisions has produced program SLOs as a result of these workshops. In addition, numerous workshops were held throughout the 2003-2004 academic year (Exhibit I-14: Sign-in Sheets):
Both the CAF process and the program review process emphasize the central role of faculty in decision making, establishing quality, and improving instructional courses and programs. Faculty conduct the program review for their programs, develop program action plans, assess budget needs and present these needs to the College Council and chancellor. Thus, faculty are the key developers of strategic goals and SLOs. Student Services faculty/counselors also participate in course and program development across the campus by meeting with divisions in their area to develop campus-wide systemic programs to address the needs of the diverse student population and also serve as liaisons to specific campus divisions and programs. This creates a system by which the teaching faculty, division chairs, administration and counselors can collaborate effectively in areas of program and course management; better analyze enrollment, data, statistics and trends; and provide for concise and accurate delivery of information and service to students and the general public (Student Services Program Review, pages 22-24).
Another college entity, the College Council, plays a key role in reviewing the program action plans to determine that there is alignment with the college mission and strategic goals and to identify items which would be more efficient and effective if coordinated across programs (Exhibit II-9: KCCM 1-7). The Council prioritizes the resource requests in the action plans as a set of recommendations to the chancellor for budgeting purposes. The recommendations and priorities guide the development of the annual budget allocations of discretionary monies as well as the biennium and supplemental budget requests to the Board of Regents, and supply ideas for external grant requests and fundraising (Program Review Action Plans and Resource Allocations). Self EvaluationThe college’s recent focus on accreditation and program review has kept the campus units aware of the processes involved in measuring the quality and improvement of programs offered at the college. The new Course Action Form assures that Kaua‘i Community College uses established procedures to design, identify learning outcomes for, approve, administer, deliver, and evaluate courses and programs. It is a valuable tool to help the college ask the questions up front to identify the delivery of quality instruction. In both the program review and course approval procedures, many entities at the college are involved in establishing quality and improving instructional courses and programs. Faculty are committed to the accreditation goal of moving 20 percent of their program courses to the new Course Action Form (CAF) by the end of spring semester, 2006. The Multi-Year Plan of Offerings (Multi-Year Plan of Offerings (MYPO) and the APRU (KCCM 1-6, APRU Guidelines) processes promote continuous discussion of courses and program SLOs and program effectiveness. Planning Agenda
II.A.2.b. The institution relies on faculty expertise and the assistance of advisory committees when appropriate to identify competency levels and measurable student learning outcomes for courses, certificates, programs including general and vocational education, and degrees. The institution regularly assesses student progress towards achieving those outcomes. Descriptive Summary The course approval process and the program review process rely on faculty expertise in decision making and identifying the competency levels and measurable SLOs for courses and programs. In the development of the program review process, faculty and staff throughout the campus developed a set of campus SLOs and over the Fall 2004 semester faculty developed appropriate program SLOs and aligned them with campus SLOs. Faculty are in the process of documenting course SLOs and aligning them with program and campus SLOs. Faculty collaboration occurs across the community college system as well. For example, in the Business Education Division (BED), and the Information and Computer Science program, statewide meetings with counterparts from other campuses are instrumental in identifying SLOs systemwide, which assures articulation among the campuses. Various campus credit programs engage the resources of advisory committees, made up of professionals in the industry, who provide advice to help establish performance-level SLOs. There are advisory committees for all Career and Technical programs which meet regularly. Advisory committees provide input on the general trends in the industry and advise on skills, knowledge, and abilities that should be included in the curriculum. For example, the Office Administration Technology Program relied on their OAT Advisory Committee consisting of former graduates and employers in the hotel, law, and medical industries, to define the Professionalism and Business Etiquette guidelines. In another example, the Hotel Operations (HOPE) Advisory Committee met to evaluate communication SLOs (public speaking, writing, listening and reading) and define strategies for helping students achieve these skills (Exhibit II-10: HOPE Advisory Committee minutes). In addition to advisory committees, programs also form employer and graduate focus groups to assist in curriculum review as well as to examine the appropriateness of SLOs (Exhibit II-11: Focus Groups). Although Liberal Arts programs do not have advisory committees, the college has developed articulation agreements that facilitate the transfer of liberal arts students to four-year institutions such as Hawai‘i Pacific University, Chaminade University, UH West O‘ahu, UH Manoa, and UH Hilo (See Section II.A.6.a). The UH Manoa Hallmarks and the System AA Degree Taskforce report provide additional external input in defining relevant SLOs for the AA degree. For continuing and community education classes, the Kaua‘i Workforce Investment Board (KWIB) served as an advisory board for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) program that was administered by the County of Kaua‘i. The KWIB regularly reviews the college’s offerings to align the programs with current workforce trends and demands. More recently, the KWIB conducted focus group sessions by industry clusters to get more information from businesses and employers. Through its advisory role, KWIB has guided OCET to provide job-related skill courses that are accelerated, focused, and often customized to meet specific industry needs and nationwide trends. In addition, the Kaua‘i County’s WorkWise! One-stop Center provides continuous feedback on the vacancy demands that exist in various industries on the island. In 2004, they conducted an industry survey that focused on how agencies (Kaua‘i Community College, WorkWise!, Workforce Development Division, etc.) could further develop a skilled and productive workforce necessary for a healthy economy. Respondents were asked to identify the critical skills using skills and knowledge standards that were developed by the state and these results were shared among the training agencies/partners (Exhibit II-12: KWIB Industry Survey). The college uses the following tools to assess student progress towards achieving outcomes:
Yüklə 1,69 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|