1 / 38

A Team-Based Assessment Model

A Team-Based Assessment Model . October 12-14, 2008 San Antonio, Texas . Annual Conference on First-Year Assessment. John N. Gardner Executive Director, Policy Center on The First Year of College. Focus on the Institution. What students do Student success.

armina
Download Presentation

A Team-Based Assessment Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Team-Based Assessment Model October 12-14, 2008 San Antonio, Texas Annual Conference on First-Year Assessment John N. GardnerExecutive Director, Policy Center on The First Year of College

  2. Focus on the Institution What students do Student success Institutional Policies, Structures, Practices, Procedures What we CONTROL What we can CHANGE What we can CONTINUE

  3. First-Year as a Single Unit of Analysis Students experience “the college” as a whole – not as an array of units/divisions. Assessment, historically, has chopped up the first year into artificially distinct programs.

  4. What is the Foundations ofExcellence® Self Study? • Builds on 30 year First Year Experience reform movement • Takes a holistic approach to the first year • Aspirational, not minimum, standards • Model for assessment and improvement • Voluntary, comprehensive self study • May be linked to reaccreditation • New form of task force based assessment

  5. The Standards ModelFoundations of Excellence® in the First College Year Rationale FYE—a 20 year old reform movement A victim of its own success First-year orientation seminar Focused on retention Fragmented activities Foundations Project—an attempt to move beyond narrow, program-level assessment Aspirational model Measurement model

  6. Foundations of Excellence® Project began in 2003 with four-year sector (with 124 pilot and 24 “Founding Institutions”) Extended in 2005 to two-year institutions (with 88 pilot and 10 “Founding Institutions”) Currently, 20 four-year and 10 two-year participants To date, 147 institutions, both four-year and two-year, have participated in Foundations of Excellence

  7. FoE Key Components • Foundational Dimensions® • Performance Indicators • Faculty Staff & Student Surveys • Current Practices Inventory (CPI) • Policy Center Written Feedback

  8. Foundational Dimensions® Philosophy All Students Organization Diversity Roles & Purposes Learning Improvement Faculty/Campus Culture Transitions

  9. Philosophy • The problem: Many approaches to the first year have no underlying philosophical base, no purpose beyond retention. • Why this Dimension is important: The experience of first-year students should be crafted with a sense of educational purpose. • Performance Indicators: • Whether the campus has a philosophy/rationale • Whether it has an influence on policy/practice • Whether it is disseminated

  10. Organization • The problem: No one in charge; inefficient and confusing “silos” • Why this Dimension is important: Organization is essential to the realization of purpose. • Performance Indicators: • Existing organizational structure(s); evaluation • Level of funding • Whether structure provides an integrated approach • Role of structure in faculty/staff development

  11. Learning • The problem: Inadequate attention to learning • Why this Dimension is important: Learning is the primary purpose of going to college. • Performance Indicators • The existence (and assessment) of articulated first-year learning goals • Use of effective pedagogies in high-enrollment courses • Measures of out-of-class learning • Appropriate course placement

  12. Transitions • The problem: Uneven attention to elements of successful transition • Why this Dimension is important: The success of the initial transition predicts future collegiate success. • Performance Indicators: • The quality of communication to students – setting appropriate expectations • The quality of communication to support networks • Helping students establish connections • Academic advising

  13. Faculty/Campus Culture(Four-Year/Two-Year) • The problem: Need for more meaningful faculty and staff involvement with first-year students • Why this Dimension is important: Without involvement of faculty and staff, first-year initiatives are difficult to launch and sustain. • Performance Indicators: • Institutional or unit encouragement of faculty and staff involvement • Expectations at the point of hire • Rewards for first-year involvement

  14. All Students • The problem: Many initiatives reach only certain students; others do not reach populations with special needs. • Why this Dimension is important: All new students have developmental needs that should be addressed. • Performance Indicators: • What you know about the needs of particular students • What you do to meet those needs • How well you meet the needs of all students

  15. Diversity • The problem: Institutions vary in the degree to which they successfully address diversity issues. • Why this Dimension is important: Education about human difference is an important component of the beginning college experience. • Performance Indicators: • Students’ exposure to diverse ideas • Students’ exposure to diverse people • Whether the institution conveys “standards” for behavior in a civil and open environment

  16. Roles & Purposes • The problem: Students’ narrow view of the purpose of higher education • Why this Dimension is important: The first year is the time for exploration of roles and purposes. • Performance Indicators: • How well you communicate the institution’s notion of purpose • Whether you provide students the opportunity to explore their motivation for higher education • How well you communicate the institution’s rationale for its requirements – courses, skills, competencies

  17. Improvement • The problem: Too few initiatives are subjected to rigorous assessment. Institutional isolation – lack of exposure to others • Why this Dimension is important: Improvement is vital to sustainability and effectiveness. • Performance Indicators: • The practice of assessment • The use of assessment for improvement • Other strategies for improvement

  18. FoETask Force: The engine of the process

  19. Review the Foundational Dimensions® Access FoEtec® Consider Task Force Membership and Leader Options Design the Work Flow Target Dates - Survey Administration Decisions Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Dimension Review Steering Committee Established & Meets Regularly Coordinates the Current Practices Inventory (CPI) Oversees the Foundations of Excellence Surveys Manages the Process and Campus Communications Steering Committee Pulls It All Together Final Foundations of Excellence Report ExecutiveSummary ReportCard ReportNarrative PrioritizedActions Implementation Plan Communicate Findings and Advocate for Improvement Implementation Periodic Review Adjustment

  20. FoE tec® Foundations of Excellence® Technology

  21. FoEtec® - Hands-on Assessment • Password protected online site– accessible 24/7 • Access to the Current Practices Inventory & Performance Indicators specific to each Dimension • Access to FoE Faculty/Staff & First-Year Student Surveys and Results • Self-study materials are developed and stored in one central location that is accessible to everyone on the task force. • Maintains a record of the self study and action item recommendations

  22. Software supports and structures the self-study process Manages Task Force Membership Designed to insure long-term campus ownership of the resulting improvement plan Progression Tracking Self-Study Home Base

  23. The CPI is a comprehensive audit of all policies, practices, and programs affecting first-year students Accessible to all task force members, the CPI is updated throughout the process and provides a basis for evaluation Current Practices Inventory

  24. CPI Table A- Defining the CPI First-Year Student Cohort

  25. CPI Table B- Inventory of FY Programs/Interventions

  26. CPI Table E – DFWI % for High Enrollment Courses

  27. CPI Table F – FY Cohort Student Profile

  28. CPI Table G1: Inventory of First-Year Data and Assessments

  29. Systematic evidence provides validation of the Dimensions Software provides a variety of resources for understanding and managing the survey process Survey results are integrated into the software to aid evaluation of institutional performance Data Tools

  30. The surveys are managed using an advanced suite of tools called the Web Enabled Survey System (WESS) E-mail Distribution Variety of Tracking & Reporting Features Managing the Surveys

  31. Filtering Results by Demographics

  32. The Dimensions provide general guidelines for an intentional design of the first year Task force members use specific Performance Indicators to evaluate institutional achievement of the nine Foundational Dimensions® Dimensions

  33. Unique Performance Indicators (PIs) are used to examine institutional achievement of each Dimension PIs guides committee discussions and interaction Record of evaluations and recommendations Performance Indicators

  34. The Evidence Library is a central location for task force members to archive sources of evidence These documents and links are used in evaluating institutional achievement of the nine Dimensions. Evidence Library

  35. A Generic Self Study Template • We specifically recommend that a campus undertake a “self study” (yes, the two most dreaded words in the higher ed lexicon!) • And that this self study be conducted by a campus-wide task force charged to develop a strategic action plan for improvement • Evaluate institutional performance using some aspirational measures (we suggest those of excellence, and connected to the institutional mission statement) • Collect existing and new evidence, educate task force members, and use to make judgments and recommendations

  36. Conduct an inventory of current policies, practices, high enrollment courses, high DWFI courses and student characteristics • Engage in a collegial, inclusive, intellectually stimulating process of analysis and decision making • Affirm what is working well • Recommend changes for what is not working well • Develop a vision, an intentional plan for your beginning college experience

  37. Key Elements of a Generic Study of the First Year • Make the first year a unit of analysis-- in its entirety. • Discover and USE the data that you already have about the first year. • Develop, implement, and continually evaluate your plan. • Consider linking with procedures for assessment incorporated into reaffirmation of accreditation.

  38. Contact Information John N. Gardner, 828-966-5309 gardner@fyfoundations.org www.fyfoundations.org www.firstyear.org

More Related