Learning Outcomes Assessment in Student Services

1. Learning Outcomes Assessment in Student Services A Statewide Initiative in Maryland’s Sixteen Community Colleges

2. Context Maryland’s Community College Governance Structure • Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) • Maryland Association of Community Colleges • Liaison with MHEC • Government Relations • Community College Financing • Public Relations • Economic Development and Job Training • Research • Education

3. Context Nine Affinity Groups • Chief Academic Officers • Chief Student Services Officers • Chief Administrative Officers • Chief Planning and Institutional Research Officers • Continuing Education Officers • Development Officers • Public Relations Officers • Information Technology Officers • Facility Planning Officers

4. Context Student Services Affinity Groups • Registrars and Admissions Officers • Financial Aid • Intercollegiate Athletics • Student Life • Academic Advising/Counseling • Testing Centers • Career Counseling • Tutoring

5. Genesis • For 10 years, professional organizations have underscored the need to assess student services • Emphasis on learning outcomes assessment for accreditation • NASPA Conference –Emphasis on learning outcomes assessment in student services

6. Maryland LOA Project– Started June 2003 Student Learning Assessment Workshopwith State Deans/VPsFacilitated byMarilee Bresciani • Established goals for the project • Discussed concept of core indicators • Developed process for developing a statewide assessment plan

7. Project Goals • Shift focus of assessment from student satisfaction to student learning • Assist student services staff to learn to design, implement and analyze learning outcomes projects • Assist staff to improve student services and programs based on learning outcomes data • Create benchmarks for comparison of findings across institutions throughout the state

8. Process – October 2003 The Year of Assessment for Student Services in Maryland Community Colleges Workshop • 150 staff attended a workshop facilitated by Dr. Marilee Bresciani and guided by the Deans/VPs • An overview of learning outcomes assessment • Participants assigned to groups by functional area • Brainstormed core learning values and ways to gather evidence of learning • Identified one core value to start the process

9. Assist Students to BecomeSelf-Directed Learners Deans/VPs clarified • Clearly defined “core value” of self-directed learner • Developed a matrix to distribute to the Affinity Group chairs • Established what was wanted from Affinity Groups

10. Definition of Self-Directed Learner The student will: • Define a need or problem and employ effective decision-making to resolve it • Plan ahead/set goals • Acquire knowledge • Use available resources • Seek assistance from appropriate people/experts • Apply critical analysis to consider options • Evaluate decisions

11. Definition of Self-Directed Learner Affinity groups focused on: • Outcomes • Strategies • Measurements • Benchmarks • Feedback loops

13. Process – October 2004 • Deans/VPs sponsored a third workshop, another statewide meeting of student services staff with an assessment expert • Workshop focused on assessment methodology and measurement

14. Examples • Advising/Counseling Affinity Group • CCBC Academic Advising Project • Intercollegiate Athletics Affinity Group

19. CCBC ExampleAcademic Advising Project • See Handout –CCBC - Learning Outcomes Project for Academic Advising 2005-06

21. Spring/Summer 2005 • Deans and VPs sponsored a fourth workshop facilitated by assessment experts in April 2005 • Assisted affinity groups to finalize statewide projects • Developed time table for implementation of the project • Affinity groups finalized their work by the end of June and submitted their plans to the Chairperson of the Deans/VP group by June 30 • Campus plans were developed over the summer and submitted to Chairperson of the Deans/VP groups in September.

22. Transitioning from Statewide Projects to College Plans • Customized projects to fit mission, programs and services of the individual colleges • Integrated statewide project into the lexicon and structures for assessment at each institution

23. Montgomery CollegeGermantown Campus • Small campus in multi-campus college • Student services not organized like other colleges • Multiple outcomes projects • No tracking system

32. Montgomery College Example-First Year Experience Program • See Handout –Montgomery College - Learning Outcomes Plan for First Year Experience Program 2005-06

33. The College is Serious…. • Unit strategic objectives all have “outcomes” “outputs” “and “assessment results” attached • Strategic plan is the only way to get $$ or positions • Tracking system is on the way

34. CCBC’s Plan • Convened student services affinity group representatives across the college and staff from institutional research • Asked staff to review affinity group plan and submit college projects • Draft submitted to Deans in August 2005 • Draft submitted to Coordinator of Learning Outcomes Assessment for the College and College Vice Chancellor for Learning and Student Development • Plan approved September 2005

35. Harford’s Plan • See Handout –Harford Community College - Learning Outcomes Plan for Registration Services 2005-06

36. Challenges Encountered Instructing staff across functions and colleges how to develop learning outcomes assessment projects • Staff wanted to develop a menu of core indicators rather than focus on one indicator • Deans/VPs kept groups focused on one indicator as a way of helping staff to learn the outcomes assessment process

37. Research by Dr. Bob Baer (2005) The two most difficult learning college principles to implement in student services are • assessment of learning • inclusion of students as full partners in the learning process, i.e. developing students to be self-directed learners.

38. Next Steps • Colleges are now implementing projects • Colleges will analyze their data over the summer, refine their projects, and prepare to re-implement them in fall 2006 • Affinity groups will review college results over the summer, benchmark findings and prepare a report for the State Deans/VPs in September 2006