One of the Secondary Charges of the AIC on Degrees and Certificates/General Education and Student Learning Outcomes, states that the college will “Establish an Academic Assessment Committee…” Leeward chose to address this charge, not through a single Assessment Committee, but rather through the process and policy developed and adopted by the AIC on Program Review.
The following report will be filed with the campus when we meet for Convocation in the fall. It clearly delineates the steps taken by the college to address the intent of the secondary charge that we “establish an assessment committee.”
Year End Report
Assessment at Leeward Community College
Academic Year 2002-03
In response to the newly approved standards for accreditation by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, LCC initiated the following efforts in AY 02-03:
1. In late spring of 2002, 11 faculty members were sent to the PacPAIR conference held in Honolulu. Representatives from campuses on the mainland shared their experiences and expertise in writing student learning outcomes and determining outcome measures.
2. In the summer of 02, the college sent two representatives to the national American Association of Higher Education conference in Boston, the theme of which was assessment.
3. In September, 02, the college sent a representative to the California Assessment Institute which was cosponsored by the ACCJC, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, and the Research and Planning Group of the California Community Colleges. The institute was valuable in preparing for the new ACCJC standards.
4. In the fall of 2002, the college chose to focus on assessment as the topic for both the annual leadership retreat and for the fall convocation. The leadership retreat was attended by unit heads, division chairs, faculty senators, campus council members, and the admin team. The planning committee for the retreat chose to use the Mesa Community College (California) 4-layer model of assessment: institutional, program, course, and classroom levels. This model was presented at the all-day retreat and again at the fall convocation to members of the faculty and staff, along with a brief outline of the year’s agenda related to assessment:
Our goal for this academic year will be to design and institutionalize a system of regular, comprehensive review of all aspects of the college. Our intent is to build a culture of evidence on this campus over the next 5-7 years, looking at institutional effectiveness in both instructional and non-instructional areas.
· We will invite people to serve for one year on an advisory committee,
chaired by the asst dean of instruction.
· We will review our mission statement.
· We will document the assessment we’re already doing and design a system for documenting all further assessment activities.
· We will decide how we want to divide the college into units and/or
programs, formulate a timeline and a cycle for each program, and decide
who is responsible for each unit.
· We’ll consult with, report to, and seek advice from the Senate,
the campus council and other appropriate components of the campus.
· We’ll hold open forums to give everyone a chance to be heard and educated.
· We’ll use existing college structures and processes wherever possible
to conduct assessment.
· By the end of spring semester, 03, we’ll have policies and structures
in place that will provide decision makers with the data to make plans
and create budgets for years to come.
5. When the academic year began, the campus had in place two Accreditation Implementation Committees (AICs) directly related to the college’s assessment efforts.
The AIC on Curriculum Revision and Review had been working for a year to develop a process for institutionalizing and regularly reviewing all programs and courses. During the fall semester, they completed their draft, held a campus-wide open forum, and took the draft to each division for review and comment. After comments were received and a final version was prepared, the draft was sent to the Faculty Senate for their endorsement. With their approval and the Provost’s signature, it became campus policy on March 20.
· The policy places the responsibility for curriculum revision and review with the faculty, especially at the discipline level. Disciplines are to ensure the rigor and quality of the course’s learning outcomes, the accuracy and currency of core outlines and the continued articulation of the courses with UH system colleges. If revisions are necessary, they are to be handled through the normal Curriculum Committee processes. Disciplines will do this on a regular, systematic basis and document their work.
· The committee also addressed the standardization of course syllabi. Curriculum Central, the college’s curriculum database, has been modified so that the essential elements needed for the syllabi are standardized on the core outlines. The policy provides for each discipline to ensure that the core outlines and the syllabi are in compliance for all sections of a course, and to document their findings.
The AIC on Program Review likewise drafted a policy statement after more than a year of work and held an open forum before sending their ninth draft to the Faculty Senate for endorsement. It then went to the Campus Council and then the Provost for his signature on April ? The policy institutionalizes a formal and systematic process for conducting program reviews for all aspects of the college. It is a critical piece of the college’s assessment plan:
· The policy divides the college into units of review - the same units which were used by the last Strategic Planning Steering Committee and now reflected in the college’s Strategic Plan 2002-2007.
· It states that each administrator will be responsible for assessment in his/her own unit.
· Most importantly, it states that the Program Review subcommittee of the Faculty Senate will oversee the assessment and review process for all instructional programs, under the direction of the Dean of Instruction.
· It discusses the development of outcomes and outcome measures, sets up review procedures, and proposes an annual review of data.
· It appoints the Provost and the admin team as the Program Review Oversight Committee.
· It includes a template for data input and suggests potential outcome measures.
6. While the AICs were at work, the UH system-wide AA Degree Task Force reviewed the general education outcomes for the community college system (last reviewed in 1990). Since course objectives in core courses must demonstrate that they address the college’s general education competencies, the college awaited the results of the system committee’s work before disciplines began reviewing their courses.
7. An advisory committee was formed in fall 02. Members: Bob Asato and Lani Uyeno, chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee; Andy Rossi, Institutional Researcher; Gail Levy, Accreditation Liaison Officer; Nancy Buchanan, Curriculum Committee Chair; Kathy Hill, Chair of the AIC on Program Review Committee; Joe Igber, Perkins Researcher; Ron Flegal, past Chair of the Assessment Committee; Frank Sherry, Assessment/Placement Office; Cliff Togo, Administrative Services; and Bernadette Howard, Dean of Instruction’s Office. They met formally once during the fall semester, but were consulted on numerous occasions individually. They continued to be consulted in the spring.
8. The previous (2000-02) LCC Assessment Committee’s work on a rubric for speech and writing continued – albeit on a less structured basis - as did the math faculty’s work on an assessment instrument.
9. The IR office continued to do institutional level assessment. The college received funding through Perkins to hire a researcher part-time to assess vocational programs.
In spring 03,
10. Sixteen sessions were held with individual disciplines to update them on the campus’ assessment initiatives and to begin implementing the Policy on Curriculum Revision and Review.
11. The campus approved an amnesty period for faculty to input SLOs into Curriculum Central so that syllabi will comply with the new policy in fall 03. As a result, ___% of the courses offered in the fall of 03 had been modified by discipline coordinators to includes SLOs in the core outlines.
12. The Academic Profile from ETS was administered to 200 students. It tests college-level math and writing, reading and critical thinking in the context of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. This provides one direct measure of general education outcomes for the college. Results were received on May 30 - after the faculty duty period - so they will be evaluated in the fall after the Institutional Researcher prepares his report.
13. The administrative services unit began the program review process. Student Services began discussing program review and is reviewing their mission statement. The provost’s office conducted an evaluation of all administrators.
14. The Provost charged a committee to review the mission statement in fall 03.
15. The Faculty Senate activated their Program Review Committee (now the Instructional Assessment Committee), whose task it is to oversee assessment of all instructional programs of the college – credit and non-credit.
16. The Senate selected and appointed a chair of their Assessment Committee,
Professor Kathy Hill,
17. The college developed an assessment website.
18. A rough draft of an Assessment Handbook was completed for review in fall 03.
19. Three LCC representatives were invited to Kauai CC to present Leeward’s assessment initiatives to the faculty and staff of that campus.
20. The college sent Professor Kathy Hill to the AAHE conference on Assessment in Seattle in June 03.
21. Because the SLOs were input into Curriculum Central, and with modifications of the system to provide a syllabus template, ____% of the fall 03 courses met the new policy directive that the syllabus from each instructor of a course must match the core outlines.