Application for the New Leadership Alliance`s EPSLA

Transcription

ST. PETERSBURG COLLEGE
Application for the New Leadership Alliance’s
Excellent Practice in Student Learning
Assessment (EPSLA) Certification
October 2010
New Leadership Alliance (NLO) Application for EPSLA Certification
2010
Introduction to St. Petersburg College
In September 1927, Florida's first two-year institution of higher learning, St. Petersburg Junior College,
opened in an unused wing of the then-new St. Petersburg High School: enrollment was 102, taught by a
faculty of 14. Since that time, the college has expanded to ten (10) learning sites, and now has one of
the largest distance learning programs in the nation. Total non-duplicated enrollment for 2008-2009 was
37,273 credit seeking students and another 24,141 students were enrolled in non-credit classes during
this time.
St. Petersburg College is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and is governed
by its local Board of Trustees. According to the college catalog, “St. Petersburg College stands astride an
82-year tradition of excellence wrought by dedicated faculty and visionary leadership. Affordable,
accredited, comprehensive in its offerings, responsive to community needs and committed to student
success, SPC has been a major player in Pinellas County's pursuit of progress” (St. Petersburg College,
2010).
In 2001, St. Petersburg Junior College (SPJC) led a significant change in Florida’s post-secondary
education system as it became the first community college in Florida granted authority by the State
legislature to offer Baccalaureate degrees. Three initial Bachelor’s degrees were offered: Education,
Nursing, and Technology Management. These three degrees addressed critical shortage areas in the
Florida workforce at the time. On June 1, 2001, the Board of Trustees of St. Petersburg Junior College
changed the name of the institution to St. Petersburg College (SPC) to reflect its expanded degree
offerings. In 2009, St. Petersburg College was designated a “State College”. Today the baccalaureate
programs account for approximately ten percent (10%) of SPC’s enrollment.
Institutional Effectiveness at St. Petersburg College
Given that student learning is the core of St. Petersburg College, developing and measuring effective
student learning outcomes are the corner stone of the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) processes.
Institutional Effectiveness is the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented process of measuring
performance against the SPC mission for the purposes of continuous improvement of academic
programs, administrative services, and educational support services offered by the college.
Operationally, the institutional effectiveness process ensures that the stated purposes of the college are
accomplished. In other words, did the institution successfully execute its mission, goals, and objectives?
At SPC, the Offices of Planning, Budgeting and Research work with all departments and units to establish
measurable statements of intent that are used to analyze effectiveness and to guide continuous quality
improvement efforts. Each of St. Petersburg College's units is required to participate in the institutional
effectiveness process.
“Closing the Loop”
Mission
Evaluations/
Assessments
Strategic & Unit
Planning
Budget Planning
Operating Results
Figure 1. The alignment between the mission and the phases of the Institutional Effectiveness process
Page 2 of 42
St. Petersburg College
2010
The overarching goal of SPC’s institutional effectiveness process is improvement in student outcomes.
The defined straightforward assessment process ensures a realistic consideration of the intended
outcomes that the institution has set and an explicit evaluation of the evidence to determine the extent
to which the institution is achieving that intent.
There is no single right or best way to measure success, improvement, or quality. Nevertheless,
objectives must be established, data related to those objectives must be collected and analyzed, and the
results of those findings must be used to improve the institution in the future. Educational assessment is
a critical component of St. Petersburg College’s institutional effectiveness process.
While there are a number of SACS and state requirements related to assessment and evaluation, SPC as
a highly functioning educational institution seeks to exceed accreditation and state requirements by
adopting a philosophy of performance improvement throughout the college.
Community
College Leadership
Program Directors
Faculty
Students
Assessment
Data
Reports
SPC
Data
Information
Knowledge
Improved Outcomes
Improvement
Figure 2. From Compliance to Performance Improvement
Information for Reviewers
This document contains live links (denoted by blue underlined text) to artifacts that document and
support information presented in the report.
St. Petersburg College has provided evidence in the following four sections that clearly demonstrates
the role of student learning within the institutional culture.
Rubric Area 1 – Student Learning Outcomes
St. Petersburg College publicly presents a common set of student learning outcomes
that apply to all undergraduate students, as well as specific student learning outcomes
for academic and co-curricular programs. These learning outcomes reflect the
institution’s mission and are consistent with generally accepted higher education goals.
They also clearly articulate what (and at what level) students should be able to do,
achieve, demonstrate, and know upon graduation. These outcomes are a focal
commitment of faculty, administrators, staff, and students. St. Petersburg College also
demonstrates the points in the curriculum and co-curriculum at which undergraduates
achieve these learning outcomes.
Page 3 of 42
2010
Rubric Area 2– Gathering Evidence of Student Learning
St. Petersburg College has a documented, clearly articulated, intentional, and systematic
process for gathering and analyzing evidence of achievement of its overall and
programmatic (academic and co-curricular) student learning outcomes. These processes
employ sound evidence-gathering approaches and yield results that meet appropriate,
externally-informed standards or benchmarks. These assessment efforts are ongoing
and integrated into the work of faculty, administrators, and staff. There is appropriate
support for conducting assessment (staff, infrastructure, and professional
development), and St. Petersburg College uses widely accepted principles of good
analytical practice – including using multiple measures, employing sound approaches,
and using systematic quantitative or qualitative methods.
Rubric Area 3– Reporting on Evidence of Student Learning
St. Petersburg College makes relevant evidence readily available to the public in an
easily understandable way. The institution reports on how well it is achieving its
student learning outcomes through information that is transparent, accessible, and
understandable; and/or through events or meetings that are widely-publicized and wellattended.
Rubric Area 4– Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
St. Petersburg College’s leadership (including academic, student affairs, executive, and
governing bodies), faculty, and administrators use the evidence generated by
assessment to continuously improve academic programs, co-curricular programs, and
support services. In addition, the institution continuously reviews, reflects on, and
monitors the changes that it has made over time to ensure their continuing
effectiveness.
Page 4 of 42
Page 5 of 42
2010
2010
Table of Contents
Section
NLO Rubric Area 1 – Student Learning Outcomes
NLO Rubric Area 2 – Gathering Evidence of Student Learning
NLO Rubric Area 3 – Reporting on Evidence of Student Learning
Summary of NLO Rubric Area 4 - Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
Appendix
NLO Rubric Area 1 –Student Learning Outcomes
NLO Rubric Area 4 – Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
Page 6 of 42
Page Number
7
11
17
22
27
31
35
37
2010
Institutional Effectiveness at St. Petersburg College
Given that student learning is the core of St. Petersburg College, developing and measuring effective
student learning outcomes are the corner stone of the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) processes.
Institutional Effectiveness is the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented process of measuring
performance against the SPC mission for the purposes of continuous improvement of academic
programs, administrative services, and educational support services offered by the College.
Operationally, the institutional effectiveness process ensures that the stated purposes of the college are
accomplished. In other words, did the institution successfully execute its mission, goals, and objectives?
The overarching goal of SPC’s institutional effectiveness process is improvement in student outcomes.
The defined straightforward assessment process ensures a realistic consideration of the intended
outcomes that the institution has set and an explicit evaluation of the evidence to determine to what
extent the institution is achieving that intent.
Figure 1-1. The St. Petersburg College Performance Improvement Cycle
While there are a number of SACS and state requirements related to assessment and evaluation, SPC as
a highly functioning educational institution seeks to exceed accreditation and state requirements by
adopting a philosophy of performance improvement throughout the college.
Institutional Student Learning Outcomes-General Education Competencies
The assessment of the general education competencies is designed as a collegial process wherein faculty
and program administrators review general education and discipline-specific programs, validating the
outputs and proficiencies based on the college’s General Education Goals. Attention is focused on
producing outcomes and assessment measures that provide evidence that the courses and curriculum
meet institutional goals for student learning and could be documented at the institutional level,
program level, and course level.
In July 2009, the general education outcomes were revised from an original set of 11 to 5 broader
general education outcomes that closely align with the State of Florida’s recommended student general
education outcomes. They are available from the Academic Effectiveness website.
Page 7 of 42
2010
The five current general education outcomes are:
1. Critical Thinking: Analyze, synthesize, reflect upon, and apply information to solve problems,
and make decisions logically, ethically, and creatively
2. Communication: Listen, speak, read, and write effectively
3. Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning: Understand and apply mathematical and scientific
principles and methods
4. Information and Technology Fluency: Find, evaluate organize, and use information using a
variety of current technologies and other resources
5. Global Socio-Cultural Responsibility: Participate actively as informed and ethically responsible
citizens in social, cultural, global, and environmental matters.
These new outcomes were established by the Educational Oversight Group, which is composed of the
general education deans, provosts, senior administrators, student affairs staff, and faculty representing
various disciplines (Ed Oversight May 1, 2009 meeting minutes). The outcomes were then recommended
to the President’s cabinet for review and provided to the Board of Trustees for final approval (July 2009
BOT memo).
Relationship of General Education Courses to College Goals
The General Education requirements for the Associate in Arts (AA) degree, the Bachelor in Applied
Science (BAS) degrees, and Bachelor of Science (BS) degrees consist of 36 semester hours of credit. The
AS and AAS programs have a minimum of 17 transferable semester hours of credit in General Education.
The goals of the General Education program are implemented through the General Education
curriculum as displayed in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2 .
Table 1-1: General Education Requirements and their Associated General Education goals
Page 8 of 42
2010
Table 1-2: General Education Program Sequence Map (click here to enlarge)
The General Education Program Sequence Map, shown in Table 1-3, details that relationship between
general educational goals and the courses within the Baccalaureate Veterinary Technology (BAS).
Table 1-3: General Education Program Sequence Map
Page 9 of 42
2010
Assessments were historically conducted within the individual courses using existing assignments and
projects scored by rubrics, imbedded test questions, and separate survey administrations. In Spring
2010, a new general education assessment model was created to evaluate students near their program
completion. Students who complete 45 credit hours are invited to participate in an online 50-item
assessment. The intent of this newer assessment model is to evaluate the college’s General Education
program and curriculum as a whole, rather than only looking at the competencies a student would
acquire within a single course. As part of the test development process, the established five general
education outcomes were operationalized in the creation of test specifications.
Additional data used to assess the goals include grade distributions for courses within each general
education area, graduation rates, transfer grade point averages, student survey (entering, enrolled and
graduating) data, recent alumni, and employer survey data. All completed Educational Outcomes
Assessment Reports and Action Plan Follow-up Reports are available electronically from the Educational
Outcomes Assessment website.
Academic Program Student Learning Outcomes
In addition to SPC being accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), a
number of programs are also externally accredited by discipline-specific professional and state
agencies. In these instances, program student learning outcomes are closely aligned with those
established by the accrediting bodies and, in some instances, they are stated verbatim. Each program is
required to establish specific, measurable, student learning outcomes to assist in providing program
focus and a means for evaluating the performance of the program, as shown in the College of Nursing’s
January 2009 Curriculum Workshop Minutes.
Major learning outcomes are used to develop a
program’s course sequence map and ensure that each student has been exposed to an adequate
amount of the curriculum in order to achieve the program’s major learning objectives (MLOs).
To provide an example of a program’s major learning objective’s, the eight major learning outcomes for
the A.S. degree in Paralegal Studies are listed below:
1. The student will demonstrate the ability to analyze a problem; identify and evaluate alternative
solutions; formulate logical solutions to problems; construct logical arguments in support of
specific positions; evaluate solutions and arguments; and determine which areas of law are
relevant to a particular situation. (Critical Thinking)
2. The student will demonstrate the ability to organize and manage information effectively and the
ability to manage time efficiently. (Organizational)
3. The student will demonstrate the ability to interact effectively, in person, by telephone and in
written correspondence with lawyers, clients, witnesses, court personnel, co-workers, and other
business professionals. (Communication)
4. The student will demonstrate the ability to competently use the tools of research available in a
standard law library, "cite check" the legal sources, run a computer assisted legal research
program, and incorporate the results of the research into a proper memorandum format. (Legal
Research)
5. The student will demonstrate the ability to write various types of documents, correspondence,
pleadings, memoranda, and briefs. (Legal Writing)
6. The student will demonstrate the ability to deal with a basic word processing program, a
spreadsheet program, and a database as well as presentation software; the student will apply
these to solving organizational and management issues in the office setting. (Computer and Law
Office Management)
7. The student will demonstrate basic interview and investigating skills including identifying and
locating witnesses, potential parties to a suit and experts; preparing for and conducting effective
Page 10 of 42
2010
interviews, locating information and obtaining records and using the Internet to obtain relevant
and reliable information pertaining to a given situation. (Interview and Investigation)
8. The student will demonstrate knowledge of the types of work paralegals/legal assistants
perform, the nature of supervision that must be present, the manner in which their conduct is
directed by the ethical guidelines of the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, and the
ethical guidelines for paralegal/legal assistants. (Professionalism and Ethics)
Program student learning goals are available to students and stakeholders in a variety of ways. These
include marketing materials, program websites, and within their program philosophy.
Co-curricular Student Learning Outcomes
SPC believes in and supports students’ life and leadership activities not only through outstanding
academic programs, but also through many co-curricular opportunities that are designed to build
students’ leadership skills by enhancing the following college wide general education areas.
1. Critical Thinking: Analyze, synthesize, reflect upon, and apply information to solve problems,
and make decisions logically, ethically, and creatively
2. Communication: Listen, speak, read, and write effectively
3. Global Socio-Cultural Responsibility: Participate actively as informed and ethically responsible
citizens in social, cultural, global, and environmental matters
These three general education outcomes themes were evident in a St. Petersburg College Student
Leadership Collaborative Lab that was conducted in August.
The co-curricular opportunities offer various supplemental programs and activities outside of the
classroom to enhance these skills. Although co-curricular activities, such as the Student Government
Association and the international honors society Phi Theta Kappa (PTK), have a long history at SPC, the
college is only now in the process of measuring the impact of co-curricular programs. The first step is
developing co-curricular sequencing maps which clearly show how the programs support the three
areas stated above. To assist in this endeavor, a new assessment specialist (housed within the
Department of Academic Effectiveness) is in the process of being hired to work with appropriate cocurricular stakeholders.
Summary of NLO Rubric Area 1 – Student Learning Outcomes
St. Petersburg College publicly presents a common set of student learning outcomes that apply to all
undergraduate students, as well as specific student learning outcomes for academic and co-curricular
programs. These learning outcomes reflect the institution’s mission and are consistent with generally
accepted higher education goals. They also clearly articulate what (and at what level) students should
be able to do, achieve, demonstrate, and know upon graduation. These outcomes are a focal
commitment of faculty, administrators, staff, and students. St. Petersburg College also demonstrates
the points in the curriculum and co-curriculum at which undergraduates achieve these learning
outcomes.
Page 11 of 42
NLO Rubric Area 2 - Gathering Evidence of Student Learning
2010
Evaluation and Assessment Processes
St. Petersburg College employs a variety of evaluation/assessment methods to improve the
effectiveness of academic and co-curricular programs. Assessment and evaluation measures are used at
various levels throughout the institution to provide the college community with vital information on
how successful their efforts have been.
The Evaluation and Assessment Processes are centered in the following areas:
• 29 organizational units comprising 39 academic programs (lower division),
• 9 Colleges and Schools comprising 24 baccalaureate programs (upper division),
• Key administrative and educational support services, and
• Co-curricular programs.
Program Assessments include internally and externally developed direct measures for General Education
(e.g., Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress-MAPP), AAS/AS Program Assessments, BAS/BS
Program Assessments, Program Reviews, as well as the Co-curricular Program Assessments (currently in
development).
Academic/Services Assessments include indirect measures for Entering Students, Enrolled Students,
Graduating Students, Recent Alumni, Employer surveys, and Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE).
Assessing Student Learning Outcomes
While the focus of a particular assessment area may change, the assessment strategies remain
consistent and integrated to the fullest extent possible. The General Education based assessments focus
on the general learning outcomes from all degree programs, while Program Review looks at the viability
of the specific academic programs. Each of the individual reports, while unique in their individual nature,
are nevertheless written to address how the assessments and their associated action plans have
improved learning in their program. As mentioned in Rubric Area 1, although co-curricular activities
have a long history at SPC, the college is only now in the beginning process of measuring their impact.
The first step is developing co-curricular sequencing maps which clearly show how the programs support
the three common co-curricular learning outcomes. The second step will be developing assessment
reports that focus on how individual co-curricular programs enhance students’ academic programs. All
co-curricular processes will mirror the established academic processes.
The Educational Outcomes Assessment Reporting process was initiated college-wide in 1999 and is
centered on mission-driven outcomes. Academic effectiveness at SPC currently assesses all degree
programs, as well as all student services to ensure students are provided the best support possible to
ensure student success. Currently, the co-curricular programs are being integrated into the academic
effectiveness assessment schedule. Analysis of outcome results is on-going and captured in various
assessment reports. It is the intent of St. Petersburg College to incorporate continuous improvement
practices in all areas. Assessment reports provide comparisons of present and past results which are
used to identify topics where improvement is possible. SPC has used assessment reports as a vital tool in
achieving its commitment to continuous improvement.
Page 12 of 42
2010
Academic and Co-curricular Program Assessment Methodology
The student learning outcomes in the academic workforce programs and co-curricular programs are
primarily evaluated using the Academic/Co-curricular Program Assessment process. This process
contains various direct and indirect student outcome measures. It is completed according to a threeyear cycle and consists of the following eight sections:
1) Use of past results
2) Major Learning Outcomes – program specific
3) Assessment methodology
4) Criteria for success
5) Summary of assessment findings
6) Discussion and analysis
7) Action plan and time table
8) Budgetary and planning implications
The analysis contains the use of past results in improving the program performances based on historical
program action plans. This information provides the foundation for examining the current year’s
assessment performance. The analysis also includes the programs’ major learning outcomes or nonacademic co-curricular goals and assessment specifics such as methodology, criteria for success, and the
summary of assessment findings.
The discussion and analysis process details the comparison between the current year’s assessment
results and the established thresholds set in the criteria of success section of the document. This
information is used to drive change and improvement in the program by highlighting the learning
outcome areas which do not meet established thresholds and establishing appropriate action plans.
Figure 2-1. The relationship between the three-year academic program assessment and academic
program review cycles
Program Review Process
The program review process at St. Petersburg College (SPC) is a collaborative effort to continuously
measure and improve the quality of educational services provided to the community. The procedures
described below go far beyond the “periodic review of existing programs” required by the State Board of
Community Colleges; and exceed the necessary guidelines within the Southern Association of
Community Colleges and Schools (SACS) review procedures.
Page 13 of 42
2010
Comprehensive Academic Program Review
The Comprehensive Academic Program Review (CAPR) is specifically designed to be a summative
evaluation of the various technical programs at the college. The CAPR was developed to meet three
objectives within the academic assessment process; specifically,
• To provide a comprehensive report that summaries all elements of the program’s viability and
productivity from a 360-degree perspective,
• To provide comprehensive and relevant program-specific information to key college
stakeholders, such as the President’s Cabinet members, in order to make critical decisions
regarding the continued sustainability of a program, and
• To provide program leadership a vehicle to support and document actionable change for the
purposes of performance improvement.
The development of the CAPR was a multi-departmental effort and involved numerous academic
programs as well as all administrative offices in the area of institutional effectiveness. The evolution of
the CAPR process has intentionally remained dynamic allowing for changes and adjustments to
measures, definitions, and types of attachments with each new program review. New revisions to the
document are weighted between the best measures to describe and evaluate an individual program and
the global impact of the revisions on future program reviews. SPC reduced the recommended program
review timeline to three years to coincide with the long-standing, three-year academic program
assessment cycle, producing a more coherent and integrated review process. Figure 2-1 represents the
new integrated three-year assessment cycle.
The CAPR was designed to be representative of a program’s quality and as such, contains measures
involving a number of stakeholder perspectives. These measures include the program description,
program performance measures, program profitability measures, academic outcomes, stakeholder
perceptions, occupation trends and information, state graduate-outcomes information, and the
program director’s description of program issues, trends, and recent success.
Student Surveys
One measure used for indirectly evaluating educational outcomes as well as student services is
surveying students. Student surveys are used to evaluate administrative and educational support
services annually. Results of college wide student surveys are further refined and augmented through
additional departmental-specific assessments.
Figure 2-2. Student survey assessment points
During their tenure at St. Petersburg College, students are surveyed multiple times, at specific points
throughout their education as shown in Figure 2-2. Academic/Student Services Assessments include
indirect measures for Entering Student Survey, Enrolled Student Survey, Graduating Student Survey,
Recent Alumni Survey, Employer Survey, multiple Point of Services Surveys (including advising,
enrollment management call center, veteran’s affairs, financial aid, career services, etc.), Survey of
Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement
(CCSSE).
Page 14 of 42
2010
The primary purpose of the Entering Student Survey is to develop a demographic profile of the students
entering the college, discover what factors influence their decision to apply to the college, discern how
they learned about the college, and measure their perception of the importance of various academic,
student support services, and tutoring areas provided to them by the college.
The focus of the Enrolled Student Survey is to ascertain how our enrolled students perceive the college
and determine both the level of importance and level of satisfaction of enrolled students with the
college's academic and student support services. Subsequently, this information is to be used by the
faculty and administration to establish quality improvement initiatives that benefit our students.
The Graduating Student Survey is part of a comprehensive college-wide assessment program developed
to examine the demographic profile of the responding graduates, assess their perceptions of the
educational experience at the college, and to determine how the educational process at the college has
changed their behavior and/or their knowledge as it relates to some specific areas of inquiry
(educational outcomes).
The Recent Alumni Survey was designed to gain insight into alumni’s perceptions of the quality of
general education and career preparation and determine the current activities of former students, such
as employment information and educational status. The Employer Survey was designed to gain insight
into an employer’s perceptions of hired SPC graduates in the areas of key general education
competencies and foundational skills, identify the employee’s major job responsibilities and wage
information, as well as the employer’s willingness to hire another SPC graduate, and identify the
employer’s willingness to support various college activities.
The Student Survey of Instruction is a course evaluation assessment designed to provide stakeholders
(Faculty, Program Administrators, etc.) student perception information to assist in making curriculum
related decisions.
Assessment Resources
College assessment staffing resources include an Academic Effectiveness Department which contains a
director, three assessment coordinators in the areas of general education, workforce programs, and the
quality enhancement plan (QEP), a co-curricular assessment coordinator (new position), and two
research analysts. In addition to this department, there is a director of Baccalaureate Program Support
Services and four directors of curriculum and student success that support Baccalaureate assessment.
There is also a director of the QEP.
Assessment professional development resources include the newly developed Center of Excellence for
Teaching and Learning, the activities developed as part of the Quality Enhancement Plan, and the
Professional Development Department.
The college also conducts college wide professional development training which includes the area of
assessment. This year’s professional development training, All College Day (Tuesday, Oct. 26), is
expanded to provide activities and seminars for all employees – faculty, career service and
administrative and professional. This year’s theme is "Our Role in Student Success." There will be three
educational tracks which include academic, student affairs, and general. The Center of Excellence for
Teaching and Learning will be working on the academic-focused sessions, the offices of Student Affairs
and Professional Development will be coordinating all others.
Page 15 of 42
2010
On-going Review of the Assessment Process
There are four assessment oversight groups (the Educational Oversight Group, the Educational Support
Services Oversight Group, the Student Services Oversight Group, and the Administrative Oversight
Group), which represent the main college areas and are charged with the following key tasks:
• evaluate whether the institution successfully achieved its desired outcomes from the previous
institutional effectiveness and planning cycle,
• identify key areas requiring improvement that were identified in the assessment analysis, and
• develop strategies and recommendations for quality improvement initiatives for the next
institutional effectiveness and planning cycle.
Each group has a different area of concentration. The Educational Oversight Group reviews key direct
and indirect measures of educational outcomes, such as Educational Outcome Assessment Reports,
State Accountability Measures Reports, and student survey reports; the Educational Support Services
Oversight Group reviews measures of assessment data and other key information concerning the
effectiveness of library services, information commons, and tutoring services; the Student Services
Oversight Group reviews measures of assessment data and other key information concerning the
effectiveness of student services; and the Administrative Services Oversight Group reviews measures of
assessment data and other key information concerning the effectiveness of administrative services and
the effectiveness of using technology at the college.
Summary of NLO Rubric Area 2 - Gathering Evidence of Student Learning
St. Petersburg College has a documented, clearly articulated, intentional, and systematic process for
gathering and analyzing evidence of achievement of its overall and programmatic (academic and cocurricular) student learning outcomes. These processes employ sound evidence-gathering approaches
and yield results that meet appropriate, externally-informed standards, or benchmarks. These
assessment efforts are ongoing and integrated into the work of faculty, administrators, and staff. There
are appropriate support for doing assessment (staff, infrastructure, and professional development), and
St. Petersburg College uses widely accepted principles of good analytical practice – including using
multiple measures, employing sound approaches, and using systematic quantitative or qualitative
methods.
Page 16 of 42
NLO Rubric Area 3 - Reporting on Evidence of Student Learning
2010
Educational Outcomes Assessment Reporting
Analysis of outcome results is on-going and captured in various assessment reports. It is the intent of St.
Petersburg College to incorporate continuous improvement practices in all areas. Assessment reports
provide comparisons of present and past results which are used to identify topics where improvement is
possible. SPC has used assessment reports as a vital tool in achieving its commitment to continuous
improvement.
Academic and Co-curricular Program Assessment Reporting
The student learning outcomes in the general education program, academic workforce programs, and
co-curricular programs are primarily evaluated using the Academic/Co-curricular Program Assessment
Report (APAR or CPAR). This report contains various direct and indirect student outcome measures.
The SPC General Education Outcomes Assessment is the primary internal direct measure of general
education. As mentioned in Rubric Area 1, this assessment began in Spring 2010 and was built
specifically to align with SPC’s general education goals. Although the assessment is new, reports from
the Spring 2010 and Summer 2010 administrations are available. In addition to these reports, the
individual general education areas receive their item analysis results and corresponding sub scores to
incorporate the results into their Academic Program Assessment Reports. Academic Program
Assessment Reports are completed according to a three-year cycle and consist of the eight sections
listed below. As noted in Rubric Area 2, the Co-curricular Program Assessment Reports are currently
under development, but will mirror the Academic Program Assessment Reports.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Introduction w/ use of past results
Major Learning Outcomes – program specific
Assessment methodology
Criteria for success
Summary of assessment findings
Discussion and analysis
Action plan and time table
Budgetary and planning implications
The introduction section includes use of past results in improving the program performances based on
historical program action plans. This information provides the foundation for examining the current
year’s assessment performance. The document also includes the program’s major learning outcomes
and assessment specifics such as methodology, criteria for success, and the summary of assessment
findings.
The discussion and analysis section details the comparison between the current year’s assessment
results and the established thresholds set in the criteria of success section of the document. This
information is used to drive change and improvement in the program by highlighting learning outcome
areas which do not meet established thresholds and by creating appropriate action plans.
Comprehensive Academic Program Review
The Comprehensive Academic Program Review (CAPR) process is specifically designed to be a
summative evaluation of the various technical programs at the college. The CAPR is produced for each
technical program on a three-year cycle which aligns with the three-year academic program assessment
cycle, producing a more coherent and integrated program review process.
Page 17 of 42
2010
The CAPR was designed to be representative of a program’s quality and as such, contains measures
involving a number of stakeholder perspectives. An example of this can be seen in the 2007-08
Respiratory Care CAPR. These measures include the program description, program performance
measures, program profitability measures, academic outcomes, stakeholder perceptions, occupation
trends and information, state graduate-outcomes information, and the program director’s description of
program issues, trends, and recent success.
To encourage the use of results, the program director and provost are required to provide an action plan
for improving the performance of the program. A follow-up report on these results is required the
following year. The CAPR process also includes a review of the CAPR documentation by the technical
advisory committee and the President’s Cabinet.
Dissemination of Information
SPC developed an Educational Assessment Website (see Figure 3-1) to provide a medium for completing
the educational assessment reports (including program reviews) as well as establishing a repository for
program specific information. As mentioned in prior sections, the new co-curricular assessment reports
will also be housed at this site (after a few minor modifications) and the collection, analysis, reporting,
and approval processes will mirror the current academic reports.
Figure 3-1. Screenshot of an Educational Outcomes Assessment website’s public access page
College administration and instructional staff are provided access to “completed” assessment reports.
This online access further encourages the use of assessment data as well as highlights “best practices”
across the college.
Once accessing the Educational Assessment Website, completed and approved Academic Program
Assessment Reports (APARs) can be obtained by selecting combinations of various selection criteria as
shown in Figure 3-2 below.
Figure 3-2. Screenshot of an Educational Outcomes Assessment website’s public access page
Page 18 of 42
2010
Program administrators have direct access to specific program pages within the Educational Outcomes
system as shown in Figure 3-3. Upon logging into the system, they can select among the programs for
which they have responsibility (see Figure 3-4).
Figure 3-3. Screenshot of an Educational Outcomes Assessment website’s program selection page
Figure 3-4. Screenshot of an Educational Outcomes Assessment website’s program page
The Educational Assessment Website provides the program administrator an online system in which to
enter the various elements within the Academic Program Assessment Report. This online model permits
the aggregation of student learning outcomes across educational programs. In the future, the site will
also provide co-curricular program leaders similar functionality. However, since all co-curricular
programs use the same three program goals (Critical Thinking, Communication, and Global SocioCultural Responsibility) the system’s built-in ability to aggregate data will then allow the college to easily
see how all programs enhance these goals.
In addition to the Educational Assessment Website, internal and external stakeholders also have direct
access to the other various student outcomes information through student and employer survey
reports. All student and employer survey reports and Comprehensive Academic Program Reviews are
Page 19 of 42
2010
available college wide via the Academic Effectiveness website. Although there are not any co-curricular
assessment reports at this time (due to the assessment process being a new endeavor) there is cocurricular assessment information available via the Student Success section within the Critical Thinking
Gateway as shown in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5. Screenshot of the Critical Thinking Gateway’s Student Success page
Student outcomes information is also presented to the SPC Board of Trustees and this information is
accessible through the SPC Board of Trustees portal. Workforce Program Advisory Board members are
another important stakeholder for the college. Advisory Board members have their own dedicated web
portal which contains membership manuals, market information, and access to college reports. Each
Advisory Board also has an individual page which contains meeting minutes, CAPRs, and viability reports.
As part of the new emphasis on co-curricular programs, the Advisory Boards will be asked to add a
standing item to their meeting agendas to discuss the possible use of such programs to enhance their
programs and increase student success.
Internal stakeholders can review student learning outcome information through the annual oversight
group reports. These reports are posted in the oversight group section of the Institutional Effectiveness
website. Individual assessments results are reviewed by the respective oversight group which in turn
aggregates the information and presents recommendations to the President’s Cabinet. These
recommendations are evaluated and are routinely summarized in the form of the Institutional
Initiatives.
In addition to the APAR/CPAR, the college also utilizes external measures of student success, such as a
national general education assessment Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP).
Research briefs are then used to communicate the results of such assessments to the college community
by publicly posting them on the Institutional Research site. On a broader scale, the State of Florida
provides resources to assist individual colleges in determining transfer student success, as well as how
Page 20 of 42
2010
SPC’s A.A. program compares to other similar programs in the State of Florida by means of the
statewide accountability measures. These reports are also available on the Institutional Research site as
shown in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6. Screenshot of Institutional Research, Planning and Budgeting’s website containing Research
Briefs chronologically
Summary of NLO Rubric Area 3 - Reporting on Evidence of Student Learning
St. Petersburg College makes relevant evidence readily available to the public in an easily
understandable way. The institution reports on how well it is achieving its student learning outcomes
through information that is transparent, accessible, and understandable; and/or through events or
meetings that are widely-publicized and well-attended.
Page 21 of 42
NLO Rubric Area 4 - Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
2010
NLO Rubric Area 4 – Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
Academic and co-curricular programs are evaluated on a three-year cycle. Administrative and
educational support services are evaluated annually. Results of college wide student surveys are further
refined and augmented through additional departmental-specific assessments. These various college
wide assessment results are then aggregated and presented to one of the four domain-specific oversight
committees at the start of the planning year, closing the loop with the planning and budgeting
processes.
Analysis of outcome results is on-going and captured through various assessment reports. The following
are the key assessments used in the IE processes.
Figure 4-1. The relationship between the SPC Mission components, evaluations/assessments, and areas
of responsibility
Each Academic Program Assessment Report (APAR) contains an action plan and time table to address
areas for improvement within the program. The action plan and time table are created by the program
administrator to address issues identified in the assessment findings and drive program improvement
(see screenshot in Figure 4-2). The college’s assessment cycle ensures that identified changes from the
action plans are implemented and measured in the subsequent APAR.
Although it is often difficult to determine when or how a specific institutional or programmatic change
impacted student learning, many programs have been able to show increases in student learning gains
over time. These changes are highlighted in the Summary of Assessment Findings section in individual
APARs. A few examples of such reports follow: 2008-09 Health Information Management APAR, 2009-10
Respiratory Care APAR, 2006-07 Ethical Issues General Education APAR, and the 2009-10
Technology/Information Literacy General Education APAR. In the future, the Co-curricular Program
Assessment Reports will mirror this same process.
Page 22 of 42
2010
The college’s SACS mandated current Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) focuses on increasing students’
critical thinking skills though a multi-faceted approach that includes institutional, instructional, and cocurricular activities. The most essential piece to the QEP is assessing the impact of the activities on
student learning gains and although the project is only in year three, gains have already been seen.
To better align program assessment and program review processes, SPC reduced the recommended
program review timeline to three years in order to coincide with the three-year academic program
assessment cycle, producing a more coherent and integrated assessment process.
Figure 4-2. Action Plan items from the 2009-10 General Education Critical Thinking Assessment
An automated email-based approval process ensures that the program administrator, the campus
provost, and the senior vice president of Academic and Student Affairs all review the assessments (see
screenshot in Figure 4-3). This online environment, while providing a standardization of the assessment
process, also permits college wide access to completed and approved assessment reports.
Page 23 of 42
2010
Figure 4-3. Screen shot from the Educational Outcomes website
A year after the publication of the APAR, a follow-up report is completed to document the status of the
action plan items and provide a focus for future improvement, as shown in Figure 4-4. Data collection on
student outcomes is an ongoing yearly process.
Figure 4-4. Action Plan follow-up from the 2008-09 Dental Hygiene Assessment Follow-up
Page 24 of 42
2010
Results from the Academic Program Assessment reports are aggregated each year and presented to the
Educational Oversight Group for review. The Educational Oversight Group develops action items in the
annual oversight group report to address areas for improvement in the area of student learning
outcomes as shown in Figure 4-5. The complete reports (with the action items) are presented to the
President’s Cabinet. These recommendations are evaluated and are routinely summarized in the form of
the Institutional Initiatives which are available on the strategic direction website.
Figure 4-5. Action Plan follow-up information from the 2010 Educational Oversight Group Report
New Committee Structure
Performance improvement processes are on-going at St. Petersburg College and while there is an
effective oversight group structure in place to address and review the assessment process, the college
continually looks for ways to improve processes. The Accreditation, Accountability, and Assessment
(AAA) Oversight Committee structure was developed in response to the institutional need for an even
greater focus on student learning and accountability, and the desire to increase the integration of
faculty within the institutional accreditation and assessment processes. The new committee structure
will allow the Institutional Effectiveness Committee to be the college wide communication point for all
student learning and accountability initiatives. The purpose of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
is to monitor and prioritize college initiatives to ensure that student success is the first priority. This will
include determining appropriate measures, reviewing the resulting data, and evaluating impact.
The AAA Oversight Committee will be an overarching standing committee that will align all college
initiatives involving accountability, accreditation, assessment, and student learning outcomes. This
comprehensive committee will meet quarterly and be composed of faculty and representatives from
each of the three main college areas: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Business and Administration
(see Figure 4-6).
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee will be the coordinating committee under the AAA oversight
committee. It will meet monthly and also be composed of faculty and representatives from each of the
three main college areas: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Business and Administration. IntraInstitutional areas such as SACS, budgeting, and planning will be facilitated at this committee level.
Page 25 of 42
2010
Working subcommittees will reside under each of the three main college areas. The chairs of these
working subcommittees will serve as members of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and provide
monthly reports as well as status updates on the various institutional initiatives that are being
conducted within these areas.
Figure 4-6. The Accreditation, Accountability, and Assessment Oversight Committee Structure
Looking Forward/Next Steps
SPC’s assessment focus is to continue to standardize institutional performance and student outcome
measures (e.g., retention and progression) while emphasizing and encouraging quality improvement in
student learning outcomes through best practices and data driven decision-making. The ultimate goal is
to provide all college stakeholders ‘timely’, ‘relevant’, ‘accurate’, and ‘interpretable’ data through
formatted (dashboard) style reports, and on-demand customizable reporting, with valid, reliable, and
standardized measures.
Summary of NLO Rubric Area 4 - Using Evidence to Improve Student Learning
St. Petersburg College’s leadership (including academic, student affairs, executive, and governing
bodies), faculty, and administrators use the evidence generated by assessment to continuously improve
academic programs, co-curricular programs, and support services. In addition, the institution
continuously reviews, reflects on, and monitors the changes that it has made over time to ensure their
continuing effectiveness.
Page 26 of 42
Appendix-NLO Rubrics
2010
NLO Rubric Area 1 – Institutional Student Learning Outcomes
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
There are no institutional
learning outcomes.
Institutional learning
outcomes are being
discussed.
outcomes are being
established.
outcomes are established,
but not clearly defined.
Clearly defined institutional
learning outcomes have
been established.
None of the appropriate
stakeholders were involved.
Few of the appropriate
About half of the
appropriate stakeholders
were involved.
Most of the appropriate
All, or almost all, of the
were involved.
Institutional outcome statements are externally benchmarked
or informed, reflect generally accepted higher education goals,
and are of college-level rigor.
None of the institutional
outcome statements are
appropriate.
Few of the institutional
appropriate.
About half of the
institutional outcome
statements are appropriate.
Most of the institutional
appropriate.
institutional outcome
statements are
appropriate.
Institutional outcome statements are publicly presented in
venues that are easily located.
Outcome statements are
not shared publically.
Institutional outcome statements are publicly presented in
formats that are easily understood by interested audiences.
Outcome statements
cannot be understood.
difficult to understand.
somewhat understandable.
reasonably understandable.
easily understood.
The institution has a chart, diagram, map, narrative or other
document to identify the places in the curriculum and cocurriculum students encounter and/or achieve each of the
established overall student learning outcomes.
A map
does not exist.
Establishing a map is being
considered.
A map is being established.
A map exists, but it is not
comprehensive or
incomplete.
Map is comprehensive and
documented.
No one on campus is
committed to achieving
student learning outcomes.
Few on campus are
Some on campus are
Most on campus are
campus community is
CRITERION
Institutional student learning outcome statements clearly
articulate what students should be able to do, achieve,
demonstrate or know upon graduation.
Appropriate stakeholders were fully involved in establishing
A commitment to achieving stated learning outcomes is visible
in the actions of the entire campus community.
Page 27 of 42
shared publicly but cannot
be easily located.
shared publicly and can be
easily located.
2010
NLO Rubric Area 1 – Academic Program Student Learning Outcomes
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
No academic programs have
Few academic programs
have student learning
outcomes.
About half of academic
programs have student
learning outcomes.
Most academic programs
outcomes.
All, or almost all, academic
programs have student
learning outcomes.
About half of the
were involved.
All, or almost all,
of the appropriate
stakeholders were
involved.
None of the outcome
statements align.
Few of the outcome
statements align
About half of the outcome
statements align.
Most of the outcome
statements align.
All, or almost all,
of the outcome
statements align.
Academic program outcome statements are externally
benchmarked or informed, reflect generally accepted higher
education goals, and are of college-level rigor.
appropriate student
learning outcomes.
have appropriate student
learning outcomes.
programs have appropriate
learning outcomes.
programs have appropriate
Academic program outcome statements are publicly presented
in venues that are easily located.
No academic programs
share outcomes statements
publicly.
publicly.
programs share outcomes
statements publicly.
publicly.
programs share outcomes
statements publicly.
outcome statements that
are easily understood.
have outcome statements
that are easily understood.
programs have outcome
statements that are easily
understood.
programs have outcome
understood.
a map.
have
a map.
programs have a map.
have
a map.
programs have a map.
Faculty are not committed
to achieving student
learning outcomes.
Few of the faculty are
About half of the faculty are
Most of the faculty are
All, or almost all, faculty
are committed to
achieving student learning
outcomes.
CRITERION
Academic program learning outcome statements clearly
student learning outcomes within academic programs.
Academic program outcome statements are explicitly aligned
with the institutional level learning outcomes.
Academic program outcome statements are publicly presented
in formats that are easily understood by interested audiences.
Academic programs have a chart, diagram, map, narrative or
other document to identify the places in the curriculum and cocurriculum students encounter and/or achieve each of the
established institutional student learning outcomes.
in the actions of the academic programs’ faculty.
Page 28 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 1 –Co-curricular Student Learning Outcomes
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
No co-curricular
departments have student
learning outcomes.
Few co-curricular
learning outcomes.
About half co-curricular
learning outcomes.
Most co-curricular
learning outcomes.
All, or almost all cocurricular departments
outcomes.
About half of the
were involved.
were involved.
Co-curricular department outcome statements are explicitly
aligned with the institutional level learning outcomes.
None of the outcome
statements align.
Few of the outcome
statements align
About half of the outcome
statements align.
Most of the outcome
statements align.
outcome statements align.
Co-curricular outcome statements are externally benchmarked
or informed, reflect generally accepted higher education goals,
and are of college-level rigor.
No co-curricular
departments have
appropriate student
learning outcomes.
Few co-curricular
departments have
appropriate student
learning outcomes.
About half of
co-curricular departments
learning outcomes.
Most co-curricular
departments have
appropriate student
learning outcomes.
All, or almost all
learning outcomes.
No co-curricular
departments share
outcomes statements
publicly.
Few co-curricular
departments share
outcomes statements
publicly.
About half of
publicly.
Most co-curricular
departments share
outcomes statements
publicly.
All, or almost all
publicly.
No co-curricular
departments have outcome
understood.
Few co-curricular
understood.
About half of
Most co-curricular
understood.
All, or almost all
No co-curricular
departments have a map.
Few co-curricular
About half of
have a map.
Most co-curricular
All, or almost all
have a map.
Student affairs
administrators are not
Few student affairs
administrators are
Some student affairs
administrators are
Most student affairs
administrators are
All, or almost all student
affairs administrators are
CRITERION
Co-curricular learning department outcome statements clearly
student learning outcomes within co-curricular departments.
Co-curricular department outcome statements are publicly
presented in venues that are easily located.
Co-curricular department outcome statements are publicly
presented in formats that are easily understood by interested
audiences.
Co-curricular departments have a chart, diagram, map,
narrative or other document to identify the places in the
curriculum and co-curriculum students encounter and/or
achieve each of the established overall student learning
outcomes.
in the actions of student affairs administrators.
Page 29 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 1 – Overall Evaluation
Does not meet criteria
Almost meets criteria
Meets criteria
Comments:
Page 30 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 2 – Gathering Evidence of Institutional Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
A plan
does not exist.
Establishing a plan is being
considered.
A plan is being established.
Established plan is being put
into place.
Established plan is fully
implemented.
None of the approached
used
are sound.
Very few sound approaches
used
are sound.
About half of the
approaches used
are sound.
Most of the approaches
used
are sound.
approaches used are sound.
Principles of good practice
are never employed.
are infrequently employed.
are sometimes employed.
are frequently employed.
are always, or almost
always, employed.
None of these processes
have external benchmarks.
Very few of these processes
About half of these
processes have external
benchmarks.
Most of these processes
All, or almost all, of these
processes have external
benchmarks.
Processes do
not exist.
Processes are episodic and
not related to faculty/staff
work.
Processes are becoming
regular and are somewhat
related to faculty/staff
work.
Processes are
regular and in most cases
related to faculty/staff
work.
Processes are pervasive and
well integrated into
faculty/staff work.
Institutional assessment has an adequate and appropriate
infrastructure to support assessment responsibilities.
No support exists.
Support is minimal or
inappropriate.
Support is present but not
yet adequate or
appropriate.
Support is substantial but
not completely adequate or
appropriate.
Support is both adequate
and appropriate.
Adequate and appropriate support exists for professional
development.
No support exists.
Support is minimal or
inappropriate.
Support is present but not
yet adequate or
appropriate.
Support is substantial but
not completely adequate or
appropriate.
Support is both adequate
and appropriate
The assessment plan does
not exist or has never been
examined.
There are plans for
reexamining the assessment
plan, but they have not
been implemented.
The assessment plan has
been reexamined at least
once.
The assessment plan has
been reexamined several
times.
The assessment plan is
reexamined on a regular
basis and changes are made
as warranted.
CRITERION
There is an articulated and documented assessment plan in
place which describes when, how, and how frequently each
institutional student learning outcome will be assessed.
Sound evidence-gathering approaches are employed.
Principles of good practice are employed.
Processes for gathering evidence yield results that meet
appropriate external standards or benchmarks.
Assessment processes are ongoing and integrated into the
work of faculty, administrators, and staff.
The assessment plan and process is regularly reexamined.
Page 31 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 2 – Gathering Evidence of Academic Program Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
Plans do not exist
in any academic programs.
Plans exist in few academic
programs.
Plans exist in about half of
academic programs.
Plans exist in most academic
programs.
Plans exist in all,
or almost all, academic
programs.
Sound approaches are not
employed in any academic
program.
Sound approaches are
employed in few academic
programs.
employed in about half of
academic programs.
employed in most academic
programs.
employed in all, or almost
all, academic programs.
are not employed in any
academic program.
are employed in few
academic programs.
are employed in about half
of academic programs.
are employed in most
academic programs.
are employed in all, or
almost all, academic
programs.
Processes for gathering evidence within academic programs yield
results that meet appropriate external standards or benchmarks.
processes that meet
external standards or
benchmarks.
Very few academic
programs have processes
that meet external
standards or benchmarks.
that meet external
have processes that meet
benchmarks.
that meet external
Assessment processes are ongoing and integrated into the work
of academic program faculty.
Processes do
not exist.
Processes exist in few
academic programs.
Processes exist in about half
of academic programs.
Processes exist in most
academic programs.
Processes are pervasive
across academic programs.
No support exists.
Support is minimal and
inappropriate.
Support is somewhat
appropriate.
Support is appropriate.
Support is more
than appropriate.
No support exists.
Support is inappropriate.
Support is somewhat
appropriate.
Support is more
than appropriate.
Assessment plans have
never been examined in any
academic programs.
been reexamined in few
academic programs.
been reexamined in about
half of academic programs.
been reexamined in most
academic programs.
been reexamined in all, or
programs.
CRITERION
Academic programs have articulated and documented
assessment plans in place which describe when, how, and how
frequently each of their student learning outcomes will be
assessed.
Academic programs employ sound evidence-gathering
approaches.
Academic programs employ principles of good practice.
Academic programs have adequate and appropriate
Appropriate support exists for faculty professional development.
Academic programs’ assessment plans and processes are
regularly reexamined.
Page 32 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 2 – Gathering Evidence of Co-curricular Student Learning
CRITERION
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
Co-curricular departments have articulated and documented
assessment plans in place which describe when, how, and how
frequently each of their student learning outcomes will be
assessed.
Plans do not exist
in any co-curricular
departments.
Plans exist in few
co-curricular departments.
Plans exist in about half of
Plans exist in most
Plans exist in all,
or almost all,
Sound approaches are not
employed in any cocurricular department.
employed in few cocurricular departments.
employed in about half of
employed in most cocurricular departments.
employed in all, or almost
all,
are not employed in any cocurricular department.
are employed in few
are employed in about half
of co-curricular
departments.
are employed in most
are employed in all, or
almost all,
No co-curricular
Very few co-curricular
departments have processes departments have processes
that meet external
that meet external
About half of
benchmarks.
Most co-curricular
departments have processes
that meet external
All, or almost all,
benchmarks.
Co-curricular departments employ sound evidence-gathering
approaches.
Co-curricular departments employ principles of good practice.
Processes for gathering evidence within co-curricular
departments yield results that meet appropriate external
Processes do
not exist.
Processes exist is in few cocurricular departments.
Processes exist in about half
of
Processes exist in most cocurricular departments.
Processes are pervasive
across
Co-curricular departments have adequate and appropriate
No support exists.
Support is somewhat
appropriate.
Support is more
than appropriate.
Appropriate support exists for faculty professional
development.
No support exists.
Support is somewhat
appropriate.
Support is more
than appropriate.
never been examined in any
co-curricular department.
Assessment plans have been
reexamined in few
reexamined in about half of
reexamined in most cocurricular departments.
been reexamined in all, or
almost all, co-curricular
departments.
Assessment processes are ongoing and integrated into the
work of student affairs administrators.
Co-curricular departments’ assessment plans and processes are
regularly reexamined.
Page 33 of 42
2010
Meets criteria
Comments:
Page 34 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 3 – Reporting on Evidence of Institutional Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR NONEXISTENT
OCCASIONALY AND/OR
EMERGING
OFTEN AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
MOST OFTEN AND/OR
EXPANDING
ALWAYS AND/OR
PERVASIVE
Reporting on institutional student learning outcomes is
directed at the appropriate audiences.
Reporting is never directed
at the appropriate
audiences.
Reporting is occasionally
directed at the appropriate
audiences.
Reporting is often directed
at the appropriate
audiences.
Reporting is most often
audiences.
Reporting is always
audiences.
Reporting on institutional student learning outcomes to
external audiences is accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
often accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
always accessible.
external audiences uses appropriate language for that
audience.
Reporting never uses
appropriate language.
Reporting occasionally uses
Reporting often uses
Reporting most often uses
Reporting always uses
internal audiences is accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
often accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
always accessible.
internal audiences uses appropriate language for that
audience.
CRITERION
NLO Rubric Area 3 – Reporting on Evidence of Academic Program Student Learning
OCCASIONALY AND/OR
EMERGING
OFTEN AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
MOST OFTEN AND/OR
EXPANDING
ALWAYS AND/OR
PERVASIVE
Reporting on student learning outcomes within academic
programs is directed at the appropriate audiences.
at the appropriate
audiences.
audiences.
at the appropriate
audiences.
audiences.
Reporting is always
audiences.
programs to external audiences is accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
often accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
always accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is often
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is always
accessible.
CRITERION
programs to external audiences uses appropriate language for
that audience.
programs to internal audiences is accessible.
programs to internal audiences uses appropriate language for
that audience.
Page 35 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 3 – Reporting on Evidence of Co-curricular Student Learning
OCCASIONALY AND/OR
EMERGING
OFTEN AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
MOST OFTEN AND/OR
EXPANDING
ALWAYS AND/OR
PERVASIVE
Reporting on student learning outcomes within co-curricular
departments is directed at the appropriate audiences.
at the appropriate
audiences.
audiences.
at the appropriate
audiences.
audiences.
Reporting is always
audiences.
departments to external audiences is accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
often accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
always accessible.
departments to internal audiences is accessible.
Reporting is never
accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
often accessible.
accessible.
Reporting is
always accessible.
departments to internal audiences uses appropriate language
for that audience.
CRITERION
departments to external audiences uses appropriate language
for that audience.
Meets criteria
Comments:
Page 36 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 4 – Using Evidence to Improve Institutional Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
A plan
does not exist.
Establishing a plan is being
considered.
A plan is being established.
Established plan is being put
into place.
Established plan is fully
implemented.
Discussions about evidence and its use occur at the institutional
level.
Discussions
never occur.
Discussions infrequently
occur.
Discussions
sometimes occurs.
Discussions
frequently occur.
Discussions regularly
(always) occur.
Evidence is used to make recommendations for institutional
improvement of academic programs and co-curricular
departments.
Evidence is
never used.
Evidence is
infrequently used.
Evidence is
sometimes used.
Evidence is
frequently used.
Evidence is regularly
(always) used.
A process
does not exist.
Establishing a
process is being considered.
A process is being
established.
Established process
is unclear or being
put into place.
Established process
is clear and fully
implemented.
Recommendations are
never implemented.
Recommendations
are infrequently
implemented.
Recommendations
are sometimes
implemented.
Recommendations
are frequently
implemented.
Recommendations
are always implemented.
Reallocation
never occurs.
Reallocation infrequently
occurs.
Reallocation sometimes
occurs.
Reallocation frequently
occurs.
Reallocation
always occurs.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
never occur.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
infrequently occur.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
sometimes occur.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
frequently occur.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
always occur.
There is no evidence of
improvement.
There is slight and
insignificant evidence of
improvement.
There is small but significant
evidence
of improvement.
There is some significant
evidence of improvement.
There is substantial and
significant evidence of
improvement.
CRITERION
A plan exists for using evidence at the institutional level to
improve student learning.
There is a clear decision making process for approving and
implementing recommendations for institutional improvement.
Recommendations for institutional improvement are
implemented.
Resources are reallocated at the institutional level in order to
implement recommendations for institutional improvement.
The impact of evidence-based changes in programs and
practices is continuously reviewed and evaluated.
There is evidence of improvement in student learning from
implemented recommendations for institutional improvement.
Page 37 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 4 – Using Evidence to Improve Academic Program Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
Plans do not exist in any
academic programs.
Plans exist in few academic
programs.
Plans exist in some academic
programs.
Plans exist in most academic
programs.
Plans exist in all, or almost
all, academic programs.
Discussions
never occur in any academic
programs.
Discussions
infrequently occur in some
academic programs.
Discussions
Sometimes occur in some
academic programs.
Discussions frequently occur
in most academic programs.
Discussions regularly
(always) occur in
all, or almost all,
academic programs.
Evidence is
never used in any academic
programs.
Evidence is
infrequently used in some
academic programs.
Evidence is
sometimes used in some
academic programs.
Evidence is
frequently used in most
academic programs.
Evidence is regularly
(always) used in all, or
programs.
A process
does not exist in any
academic programs.
Establishing a
process is being considered
in some academic programs.
A process is being
established in some
academic programs.
Established processes
are unclear or being
put into place in most
academic programs.
Established processes are
clear and fully implemented
in all, or almost all,
academic programs.
Recommendations
are never implemented in
any academic programs.
Recommendations
are infrequently
implemented in some
academic programs.
Recommendations
are sometimes implemented
in some academic programs.
Recommendations
are frequently implemented
in most academic programs.
Recommendations
are always implemented in
all, or almost all academic
programs.
Resources within academic programs are reallocated in
order to implement recommendations for improvement.
Reallocation
never occurs in any academic
programs.
occurs in some academic
programs.
occurs in some academic
programs.
occurs in most academic
programs.
Reallocation always occurs in
all, or almost all, academic
programs.
practices are continuously reviewed and evaluated within
academic programs.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
never occur in any academic
programs.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
academic programs.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
sometimes occurs in some
academic programs.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
frequently occur in most
academic programs.
Review, reflection, and
assessment always occur in
all, or almost all, academic
programs.
improvement in any
academic programs.
There is slight and
improvement in some
academic programs.
evidence
of improvement in some
academic programs.
evidence of improvement in
most academic programs.
improvement in all, or
programs.
CRITERION
Plans exist for using evidence to improve student learning
within academic programs.
Discussions about evidence and its use occur among faculty
within academic programs.
Evidence is used to make recommendations for
improvement of academic programs.
implementing recommendations for improvement within
academic programs.
Recommendations for improvement are implemented within
academic programs.
implemented recommendations for improvement within
academic programs.
Page 38 of 42
2010
NLO Rubric Area 4 – Using Evidence to Improve Co-curricular Student Learning
NEVER AND/OR
NON-EXISTENT
INFREQUENT
AND/OR EMERGING
SOMETIMES AND/OR
ESTABLISHING
FREQUENT AND/OR
EXPANDING
PERVASIVE AND/OR
IMPLEMENTED
Plans exist for using evidence to improve student learning
within co-curricular departments.
Plans do not exist in any cocurricular departments.
Plans exist in few
Plans exist in some
Plans exist in most
Plans exist in all, or almost all,
Discussions about evidence and its use occur among student
affairs administrators within co-curricular departments.
Discussions
never occur in any
Discussions
Discussions
Sometimes occur in some cocurricular departments.
Discussions frequently occur
in most co-curricular
departments.
Discussions regularly (always)
occur in all, or almost all,
Evidence is used to make recommendations for
improvement of co-curricular departments.
Evidence is
never used in any
Evidence is
infrequently used in some
Evidence is
sometimes used in some cocurricular departments.
Evidence is
frequently used in most cocurricular departments.
Evidence is regularly (always)
used in all, or almost all,
A process
does not exist in any cocurricular departments.
Establishing a
process is being considered
in some co-curricular
departments.
A process is being
established in some cocurricular departments.
are unclear or being
put into place in most cocurricular departments.
are clear and fully
implemented in all, or almost
all, co-curricular departments.
Recommendations
are never implemented in
any co-curricular
departments.
Recommendations
are infrequently
implemented in some cocurricular departments.
Recommendations
are sometimes implemented
in some co-curricular
departments.
Recommendations
are frequently implemented
in most co-curricular
departments.
Recommendations
are always implemented in all,
or almost all, co-curricular
departments.
Reallocation
never occurs in any cocurricular departments.
occurs in some co-curricular
departments.
occurs in some co-curricular
departments.
occurs in most co-curricular
departments.
Reallocation
always occurs in all, or almost
Review, reflection,
and assessment
never occur in any
Review, reflection,
and assessment
Review, reflection,
and assessment
sometimes occurs in some
Review, reflection,
and assessment
frequently occur in most cocurricular departments.
Review, reflection,
and assessment
always occur in all, or almost
improvement in any cocurricular departments.
There is slight and
improvement in some cocurricular departments.
evidence
of improvement in some cocurricular departments.
evidence of improvement in
most co-curricular
departments.
improvement in all, or almost
CRITERION
implementing recommendations for improvement within cocurricular departments.
Recommendations for improvement are implemented
within co-curricular departments.
Resources within co-curricular departments are reallocated
in order to implement recommendations for improvement.
practices are continuously reviewed and evaluated within
implemented recommendations for improvement within cocurricular departments.
Page 39 of 42
2010
Meets criteria
Comments:
Page 40 of 42
This page was intentionally left blank.
Data and information contained herein cannot be used without the express
written authorization of the St. Petersburg College. All inquiries about the use
of this information should be directed to the Director of Academic Effectiveness
and Assessment at St. Petersburg College.
 Copyright St. Petersburg College, October 2010. All rights reserved.

Application for the New Leadership Alliance`s EPSLA

Transcription

Similar documents

Al Majd Expressions Vol. 1 Iss. 1

Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute - Toronto District School Board

Fighting Yellow Jackets

www.intercharmspb.ru

RAZOR`S EDGE - Nova Southeastern University

Westside Secondary School - Upper Grand District School Board

Common Bases for Departmentation Chapter 7 Departmentation

HUGGINS BASEBALL FIELD - St. Petersburg Parks and Recreation

740 Carillon Parkway - Cardinal Point Management

British International School Lagos, Nigeria