LCCC AQIP Action Project No 3 Cycle 1- Fall 2002/2005 Cycle 2- Fall 2005/2008 Presented by

1. LCCC AQIP Action Project No 3 Cycle 1- Fall 2002/2005 Cycle 2- Fall 2005/2008 Presented by Assessment Design Team

2. education economy community cultural Lorain County Community College Mission LCCC’s Four Cornerstones Lorain County Community College, an innovative leader in education, economic, community and cultural development, serves as a regional catalyst for change in a global environment through accessible and affordable academic and career-oriented education, lifelong learning and community partnerships. Education Economic Community Cultural

3. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

4. General Education Assessment Steering Committee- GEASC • This committee, with ten faculty representatives from academic divisions, counseling, and the library, was appointed in 1998. • It was charged to develop and implement an assessment plan for the 11 General Education Outcomes (GEOs) devised in 1995. • Subcommittees were formed for each GEO. Beginning in Fall 1999, two new faculty subcommittees, consisting of five to seven FT faculty members, were appointed each year by VP/LS (CAO). GEASC guided them in developing assessment plans and piloting assessment methods. A total of 8 subcommittees were formed with 40 faculty members. • In fall 2001, a survey was conducted to evaluate the status of faculty perceptions on HLC defined Patterns of Assessment Characteristics and Levels of Implementation at LCCC. • Faculty subcommittee assessment plans, pilot test results, successes, frustrations and unsuccessful experiences were shared periodically during faculty annual development day meetings.

5. General Education Assessment Steering Committee- GEASC cont.. • In March 2002, four GEASC members participated in the AAHE and NCA-HLC workshop “Assessment: A Shared Commitment” in Chicago. On return, this team proposed an assessment action plan for GEASC for year 2002/03. • 1. Improve faculty and administrator perceptions of assessment characteristics and institutional processes. • 2. Define measurable learning competencies for each of 11 GEOs. • 3. Train faculty for improved assessment of student learning. • 4. Increase student involvement in assessment process. • 5. Digitize assessment data management

6. AQIP Accreditation Plan • A new LCCC institutional team comprised of 8 members participated in the AQIP strategy Forum in Lisle Illinois – June 5th to 8th , 2002. • The team selected an Action Project entitled: “Achieve Excellence in Learning and Teaching Through Analysis and Use of Assessment Data.” • The GEASC proposed assessment plan was used to establish initial measurable “stretch targets” for this action project. • A design team comprised of 10 academic division directors, ten divisional faculty representatives, representatives from IEP and UP was established to test, modify, and implement the stretch targets for the first three-year cycle. • An over-ambitious 8 different stretch targets were established for the first three-year implementationplan. • Encouraging faculty professional development in assessment was given priority, and frustrating experiences encountered were carefully considered for possible improvements – Next slide explains

7. ASSESSMENT IS FOR IMPROVEMENT VISION CHANGE SKILLS INCENTIVES RESOURCES ACTION PLANS RESULTS Disaster Confusion Anxiety Resistance Frustration Treadmill

9. 2002/2005 first three-year cycle • The action project annual updates documented the successes, modifications, barriers encountered, incremental improvements achieved. • Feed back evaluations were reviewed by the design team and respective actions implemented. • Stretch Target 1 -Professional Development Overall, 92% (89/96) of full time faculty, 80% (339/424) of adjunct faculty, 51% (11/21.5) of support staff, and 100% (9/9) of administrators attended one or more assessment-related professional development programs. • Stretch Target 2 - Course Assessment Record(CAR) By the end of three years, 80.8% (93) FT faculty, 44.6%(220) adjunct and part time faculty completed CAR documentation in 43.8% (283) of courses offered at LCCC. • Stretch Target 3 – Course Assessment Record Database (CARD) for Measuring Student Learning Institution-wide CARD indicated assessment of 2707 course learning outcomes, reaching 69% of the expected learning benchmarks. • Stretch Target 4 – Program Assessment Record (PAR) As targeted, 24% of programs, including course clusters, completed program review reports using analysis of learning outcomes achievement through CAR documentation.

10. 2002/2005 first three-year cycle cont. • Stretch Target 5 – Program/Cluster Review In all programs and clusters reviewed, continuous improvement plans were included pending inputs from external stakeholders. • Stretch Target 6 – Assessment of General Education Outcomes Pilot testing was undertaken for assessment of additional 2 general education outcomes through student perception surveys. However, this method was deemed unsatisfactory, and direct measure of general education achievement was warranted. • Stretch Target 7 - Students’ Understanding of Assessment Students’ participation and understanding of assessment process were far from satisfactory, and this stretch target was modified as “communication strategies” for the next three-year cycle. • Stretch Target 8 - Student retention Since no clear understanding of this target existed for two years, Institutional Effectiveness and Planning (IEP) implemented CCSSE and CCFSE and after analysis of the results, this target was revised to “student engagement” in the next three-year cycle.

11. What kind of CARs did we get in the first cycle?

12. 2005/2008 second three-year cycle • The AQIP Assessment design team selected an action project - Helping Students Learn: Improving General Education, Program Benchmarking, Communication, and Engagement. • Six Performance Targets were identified and, for each, three phases with corresponding action plans, persons responsible for implementation and dates for completion were outlined. • Progress was monitored by the design team at the bi-monthly meetings, and necessary modifications to the performance targets were incorporated. • Feedback evaluation reports on the previous Systems Portfolio and annual updates were reviewed, and action plans were refined continuously.

13. 2005/2008 second three-year cycle cont. • Performance Target 1 –General EducationRevision Two ten-member faculty committees drafted a general education purpose statement and a mixture of five infused general education outcomes and five core course outcomes. These were reviewed and refined by the Design Team, discussed by FSEC and approved by the faculty senate. Transition to new GEO is in progress and anticipate completion in courses by end of April and in programs by end of December. • Performance Target 2 –General Education Assessment A new ten-member GEASC was charged to develop assessment plan for the new general education outcomes. Difficulties were experienced in defining infused gen. ed. outcome statements, identifying measurable criteria, and developing a set of assessment tools and methods that could be adapted by teaching faculty. • Performance Target 3 –Communication of Assessment Results A subcommittee has worked to plan and implement communication strategies and to disseminate assessment information via newsletter, web portal, student assessment guide, faculty reference guide, assessment documentation forms, a tutorial video, and a Student Success Plan.

14. 2005/2008 second three-year cycle cont. • Performance Target 4 – Student Performance Benchmarks Following a survey of comparable institutions, performance indicators were identified. Benchmarks were established and data was collected for the AS degree program. Similar benchmarks were established for the AA degree, and data collection is in progress. • Performance Target 5 – Student Engagement CCSSE and CCFSE survey results were analyzed and shared with faculty. 19 faculty volunteers are pilot-testing their selected student engagement activities to enhance retention and improve learning. • Performance Target 6 – Institutional Alignment The AQIP Design Team and Curriculum Council have successfully developed and implemented a plan for aligning documentation, guidelines, and procedures. Course Description with Students Outcomes (Curriculum Council document) is now consistent with CAR, PAR and CARD (AQIP documents).

15. 2005/2008 second three-year cycle cont. • Achievements: • All effective practices, including CAR, PAR, and CARD are being continued, including ‘closing the assessment loop’ information. To improve adjunct participation, assessment is now a condition of employment. • The innovative practice of assessing student learning outcomes in all sections of one course has been continued each year: ACTG152, ENGL 162, BIOG 122, and PSYH 151. • A new ten-member faculty team participates in the assessment workshop or annual conference sponsored by HLC annually. • A faculty sponsored General Education Conference is held annually. • New workshops and tutorials are being presented to new and adjunct faculty on the use of CAR documentation in their courses including web delivery courses.

16. Continuous Quality Improvements • The assessment documentation forms CAR- PAR, and CARD were updated to record results of learning accomplished through improvement activities implemented in courses when evaluated a second and third time. [See improved forms next] • An academic culture for documenting assessment of student learning for institutional improvement and accountability has grown at LCCC. • Budgetary support for education and training in assessment processes for new, adjunct, and part-time faculty should be established for future success. • Vision Success ? Change

19. The Revised CARD

20. Celebration!!!! • 2nd AQIP three-year Cycle Completes in August 2008!! • Happy Birthday for new culture of assessment for student learning for institutional improvement ! at LCCC