Kaua‘i community college

Self Evaluation

Program reviews measure the effectiveness of programs through analysis of statistics on transfer data, retention, persistence, number of degrees and certificates awarded, and job placements as well as from qualitative research from student and employer focus groups.

Sources of qualitative and quantitative data include results from assessment testing, County of Kaua‘i’s Kaua‘i Economic Development Plan/Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, Hawai‘i’s Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Hawai‘i Workforce Informer, Exhibit II-3: EMSI, and the University of Hawai‘i’s Management and Planning Support (MAPS), community advisory councils for various programs (culinary, nursing, early childhood, accounting, hotel operations, technology, etc.), student, graduate, and employer focus groups, student and faculty surveys, and KCC’s data in the form of Program Health Indicators (PHI). The program review process facilitates dialogue to review data, assess programs, and identify areas for improvement. An integrated program review, planning, budgeting and decision-making process is focused on understanding student learning needs and assessing Student Learning Outcomes and student achievement.
Data is analyzed on an ongoing basis to determine course offerings and course scheduling that optimize students’ ability to complete degrees and programs in a timely manner (Exhibit II-4: Minutes/agendas of ongoing Semester/Course Offering Meetings with the Dean of Instruction, counselors, and division chairs and Multi-Year Plan of Offerings (MYPO) for each instructional program). The processes and tools that ensure students can get the classes they need to meet their educational goals have recently been updated.
The overall scheduling process and calendar are defined in a multi-part series of procedures.  Four parts are posted online in CampusDocs:

• 
  Part 1--Checklist of Questions for Making Good Scheduling Decisions (Scheduling Process and Timetable Part 1)
  

• 
  Part 2--Setting the Spring Schedule (Scheduling Process and Timetable Part 2)
  

• 
  Part 3--Developing the Multi-Year Plan of Offerings for Each Program (Scheduling Process and Timetable Part 3)
  

• 
  Part 4--Scheduling Process (Scheduling Process and Timetable Part 4)
  

• 
  Part 5--Setting Summer Schedule (Scheduling Process and Timetable Part 5)
  

The Multi-Year Plan of Offerings (MYPO), which projects the schedule of offerings for two years, is updated each fall, “rolling over” the calendar to include the next year. The process is predicated on the assumption that the “heart” of the campus is the schedule of courses, i.e. the educational offerings of the college. The listing of resource needs, curricular changes, and staffing all proceeds from an analysis of the MYPO. The MYPO itself is one of the main references for the Annual Program Review Update (APRU). The APRU (described in KCCM 1-6 ) is then reviewed by College Council, which makes recommendations to the chancellor as to the priority of all the funding requests from all the programs. With the overall scheduling structure in place, data can be used more effectively to make scheduling decisions and requests for resources. The timing of this process was changed after the College Council reviewed the first full implementation of this integrated evaluation, planning and budgeting cycle. Previously, the APRU was due in the spring semester. However, the dates were moved up to the end of the fall semester, to better coordinate with UH System budget processes and the state legislative schedule.

Kaua‘i Community College uses research and analyses, not only to identify learning needs, but also to make changes where needs are not being met. For example, in the past in any given semester there were approximately 150-180 pre-nursing students. Analysis in 2002-2003 showed that only about 10-15 percent of local students preparing for the KCC Nursing Program were ever accepted, primarily because they were not able to meet admission requirements in math and science. With the critical shortage of nurses locally, statewide, and nationally, pre-entry preparation to enhance entry and success in the Nursing Program was essential in meeting manpower needs. National Science Foundation EPSCOR grant funds were obtained for a three-year pilot project to prepare pre-nursing students who were academically at risk (placed in remedial and developmental courses, ESL, first- generation college, single parents, etc.). The Academy for Future Nurses learning community was formed to provide contextual and experiential learning, a life/learning skills curriculum, and personalized instruction and guidance to enhance math, science, technology and critical-thinking skills. Mean critical thinking scores for Cohort 1 improved 28 percent (pre-test and post-test). Eighty-eight percent of Academy students received passing scores on the NLN-RN Preadmission Test compared with 55 percent of all other applicants. In Year 2 Skip Downing’s curriculum in On Course: Strategies for Success in College and in Life was integrated into the first two capstone courses. Project findings shown on their website (Hawai‘i EPSCOR) indicates that student retention and success rates improved significantly.

Faculty and staff from every division have attended On Course workshops. A Title III grant was obtained to implement campus-wide, various retention and college success efforts that had been successfully piloted by smaller grant programs. An On Course coordinator position was created to assist both faculty and students with implementation of success strategies.

Another program developed in response to unmet learning needs was a COMPASS Brush-Up pilot program. It was developed and implemented during spring semester 2005 and was funded by EPSCOR to help students improve their math placement scores. The six-week program included test-taking strategies, sample test questions, and individualized online math remediation. Students were able to improve their scores, facilitating entry into programs such as culinary arts and the pre-nursing learning cohort (Exhibit II-5: Highlights of Outcomes for Brush-Up Workshop).

A major initiative was developed at the college to meet the needs of under-prepared students. In Fall 2003, Noel-Levitz consultants recommended that the college unify its retention efforts under one umbrella to prevent duplication of efforts and to promote collaboration between different units on campus. Through a Perkins Vocational Grant, a pilot case management program was developed and implemented by several units of the college working under a Case Management Coordinator. Faculty members from Student Services, Instruction, and Academic Support researched and planned curriculum for remedial and developmental students. These pilot programs utilized a case management design and implemented many strategies from the pre-nursing pilot, including use of a life skills curriculum (Case Management Document).

In each semester since Fall 2004, KCC has offered a College Success program, which utilizes student assessment, intrusive counseling, cohort classes, intensive academic support, and the tracking of student data to improve student retention and program completion. The College Success program evolved from the Case Management pilot program. The College Council chose to focus on several of the recommendations in the Case Management System study, including the development of a freshman year experience, student success programs, and collaboration between faculty from Instruction, Academic Support and Student Services. Students were recruited to the cohorts through counselor recommendations, based on student COMPASS scores. There have been two remedial cohorts and one developmental level cohort. Initial data indicated that students enrolled in the College Success program showed increased retention and success. The UHCC System report for the 2004-2005 Perkins Core Indicators showed that as a system we met or exceeded six of the seven indicators. The Perkins indicators measure such things as successful completion of major courses, successful completion of general education courses, certificates and degrees conferred, and employment in one’s field. We are lagging only in the placement of graduates into employment/transfer (Exhibit II-6: College Success Program 2004-2005 Performance Data).
As a result of these pilot programs, in January 2005, a College Success Coordinator was hired to work collaboratively to develop programs to improve student achievement and retention. On April 28, 2006, the first of a series of college-wide campus conversations on the role of the College Success Center was held.
The college is engaging in research and analysis to identify student learning needs and to assess student achievement of learning outcomes. In order to assess the effectiveness of all college programs, the campus is in the process of formally documenting the alignment and implementation of campus-level, program-level and course-level Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). Course syllabi sent electronically to the division chairs and Dean of Instruction every semester will allow for an analysis of the syllabi to ensure that they contain SLOs. The curriculum review/proposal process has been revamped to ensure that SLOs are identified and documented and that assessment techniques to be used are mapped to the SLOs. A new template for the Course Action Form has been developed. Approximately 20 percent of course syllabi are being updated each year through the curriculum review process. SLOs continue to be evaluated as part of the program review process.
There was an action plan to address one campus-wide SLO each year, beginning with the Communication SLO in 2004-2005 (Assessment Committee Action Plan). The college is somewhat behind on this plan because of the extent of involvement with the program review processes and the Self study in this past year. The Assessment Committee, in consultation with the English faculty, developed a writing rubric to evaluate the SLO for written communication, and faculty from each division were trained in its use (Assessment Committee). In addition, a series of workshops has been offered on writing SLOs, assessment methods, and using assessment information to improve instruction.
In Spring 2005 the Assessment Committee recommended: 1) to follow up on the Communication SLO; 2) to focus on implementation of the Information Competency (including implementation of a “benchmarking” assessment for Information Technology skills); and 3) to facilitate faculty workshops in the spring with a consultant for the Technology SLO. The committee arranged a workshop with Ruth Stiehl, a consultant versed in developing SLOs. The focus was on Accounting, Automotive Mechanics Technology, Auto Body Repair and Maintenance, and the General Education programs. The aim was to create program SLOs. Professional development efforts to aid in the measurement of Student Learning Outcomes are still needed.
Other programs and courses developed in response to accreditation recommendations and research on the needs of under-prepared students include two Summer Bridge programs, a developmental science course (Science 97), two remedial English courses (English 18 and 19), and a remedial math course (Math 22). Currently there has not been a systematic analysis of the effectiveness of these courses and programs.