Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
LEARNING
2016
HANDBOOK
SWIC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASSESSMENT FUNDAMENTALS
WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?
10
15
LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT
16
18
19
CLASSROOM/COURSE ASSESSMENT
COURSE SYLLABI & DEVELOPING COURSE OBJECTIVES
20
21
23
25
27
30
DISCIPLINE/PROGRAM/DEGREE ASSESSMENT
33
34
37
38
39
41
43
DISCIPLINES COMMITTEE
45
47
INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT
CORE COMPETENCY & GEN ED COMMITTEES DUTIES
48
50
52
53
54
55
56
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
OA FORUM PROGRAM REVIEW
57
58
59
60
61
67
68
APPLIED EXPERIENCES
69
71
APPENDICES
74
A OA COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
75
76
C BLOOMS CLASSIFICATION
81
82
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
LOA TIMELINE
91
92
93
O SYLLABUS SURVEY
97
99
Q-TCOLLEGE-WIDE RUBRICS
107
111
112
113
CONTACT INFORMATION
115
3
ASSESSMENT
FUNDAMENTALS
WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?
Assessment is an ongoing process aimed at measuring and improving student learning. It involves making our
expectations explicit and public; setting appropriate criteria and high standards for learning quality;
systematically gathering, analyzing and interpreting evidence to determine how well performance matches
those expectations and standards and using the resulting information to document, explain, and improve
performance. Assessment helps us create a shared academic culture dedicated to assuring and improving the
quality of higher education.
The assessment process involves both gathering information and using that information as feedback to modify
and improve student outcomes.
o Types
Informal Faculty use various activities/techniques to determine if the class understands
what is being taught and adjusts the instruction based on students ability to know, do or
behave as identified in the objectives of a course. Changes to instruction/delivery of
content occur within the same class. No reports are submitted.
Formal Faculty use various methods/means which are directly linked to objectives, to
determine if the class knows, does or behaves as the objectives identify. Forms to report
student learning are submitted. Details follow in subsequent sections of the handbook.
Levels of assessment
o Classroom
o Course
o Discipline, Program/Degree
Disciplines, Programs/Degrees generally have 6-8 program/degree objectives or goals
Course objectives should be linked to Discipline, Program/Degree objectives/goals
Program/Degree goals must include at least one competency from each of the general
education core competencies categories (Communication, Reasoning, and Citizenship)
o Institutional
Institutional assessments are conducted of the general education core competencies (core
competencies are identified below)
Communication Skills
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Citizenship
Department Chairs/Program Coordinators, in collaboration with the faculty, submit a Curriculum Map and
Core Competency maps, identifying the courses in which of the educational goals & core competencies
are taught with a program/degree or discipline to the Outcomes Assessment Coordinator for review and
approval of SWICs Discipline Committee. See Appendix G- for a Curriculum Map and Appendix P for
Core Competency maps.
Requests for change/new curriculum requires submission of updates curriculum maps, and/or educational
goals to curriculum committee.
C. Choosing Methods to Assess Student Learning
1. Assessment Measures are tools which indicate how well the students learned what faculty expect. Faculty
determine the method to assess learning. Determination of student learning is based on the performance of
how well the class performed on the grading criteria (rather than the number/percent of students passes the
exam, performance, written paper, etc)
o Assessment Measures
Direct Tools/measures using actual student work for assessment
Rubrics for written papers, performances, presentations, practical exams,
portfolios, etc.; tests, service learning, licensure/certification pass rates,
standardized tests, course embedded questions, etc.
Specify important criteria on tool and share with faculty & students
We have found pulling assessment information from graded assignments generally
collects the students best attempts. Assessment from graded work is called
embedded evidence of student learning vs. standardized testing.
Indirect tools which measure opinion or second hand data
Examples - Student, Graduate, Employer surveys, Faculty surveys, performance at
transfer institutions, analysis of enrollment/completion trends (tracking of cohorts)
Surveys are useful in measuring students attitudes/beliefs
Blackboard has statistical analysis tools available for graded assignments.
Develop a plan to assess all your program/discipline goals & core competencies at least 2 times over a 5 year
period.
Identify educational goals to assess & which courses have objectives which feed information into each
educational goal.
o What work will be collected
o Which semester and courses
o Who is responsible for collecting data
o How it will be analyzed full faculty involvement
How many students to include in an assessment?
o Large programs use simple random sampling
o Smaller programs assess all students
o Refer to the Classroom/Course assessment section for sample size information
Repeat assessments to develop trend data assessment isnt a one-time event.
7
Assess the same goal using multiple measures to confirm data isnt an oddity
o If there is a Capstone course it is helpful to complete assessments at the end of a
program/certificate this may work for some occupational programs. Consider:
Comprehensive program exam - to assess knowledge of educational goals
Practical/Performance exam to assess what a student can do
Survey conduct a graduate survey to see how well students believe they have mastered the
educational goals
Specify important criteria & define it share the criteria and definitions with faculty and students for the
assignment given
o Faculty development activities on use of a tool (criteria) improves the consistency in how each
faculty member grades a student
o Students performance is better with clear identifiers on what is being evaluated on their work
Determine standards/expectations a benchmark of desired outcomes for each of the criteria
o Examples
95% of students will follow safety procedures (from a procedures class)
90% of students use proper conventions in their writing (from the writing rubric)
90% of students will communicate effectively non-verbally (from the oral
communications rubric)
95% of students will grasp a concept through spoken or written means (from the critical
thinking rubric)
o Compare the actual performance to the benchmark/expectation analysis will show faculty where
students are performing well and falling short. From this implications for changes will be
determined by
Sharing results and consulting with all the faculty
Student Learning Reports are submitted to the Outcomes Assessment Coordinator for review and
approval of SWICs Discipline Committee. See Appendix H & I for the Assessment of Student
Learning Report.
Following the above will assist faculty in meeting expectations of Program Review.
5. What Outcomes Assessment Committees exist and what are their purposes?
See Appendix A for OA Committee Structure
OA Steering Committee
The OA steering committee is responsible for the oversight and evaluation of the efforts of the General
Education and Disciplines Outcomes Assessment Committees and the Outcomes Assessment
Coordinator. The committee establishes annual goals for OA Coordinator, provides feedback for OA
related events scheduled on the Faculty Development & Assessment Day, and assists with the
preparation of the OA Program Review. The committee will report to the Vice President of Instruction
10
regarding its findings and make recommendations to improve student learning related to outcomes
assessment.
General Education Outcomes Assessment Committee
The General Education Outcomes Assessment Committee is entrusted with the responsibility of
implementing principles and an agenda that will assist Southwestern Illinois College faculty in further
development and use of tools and procedures that will be used to assess student learning.
The General Education "core competencies" for all degree graduates to be assessed are: communication
skills, reasoning skills, and citizenship.
In addition, the committee will identify and facilitate the allocation of college resources to support
faculty outcomes assessment efforts.
Disciplines Committee
The purpose of the Disciplines Outcomes Assessment Committee is to improve and support student
learning by assisting faculty in articulating mission and goals for each academic discipline, in
developing methods to gain feedback on the discipline's progress in meeting those goals, and by
assisting faculty in using feedback to modify the course and/or program to ensure that the goals are
being met.
AA/AS Degree Champion Committee
The mission of the Associate in Science Degree at Southwestern Illinois College is to prepare students
with the well-rounded education in core competencies needed to transfer to a four-year institution to
complete a baccalaureate degree in a discipline related to business, science, or mathematics. Through a
system that continually assesses student learning, students will be provided the educational excellence
necessary to continue their individual growth as life-long learners. Additionally, this committee may
track student success upon graduation and/or transfer.
.
The mission of the Associate in Arts Degree at Southwestern Illinois College is to prepare students with
the well-rounded education in core competencies needed to transfer to a four-year institution to
complete a baccalaureate degree in a liberal arts related discipline. Through a system that continually
assesses student learning, students will be provided the educational excellence necessary to continue
their individual growth as life-long learners. Additionally, this committee may track student success
upon graduation and/or transfer.
Citizenship, Communication Skills, and Reasoning Skills Committees
These Core Competency committees oversee the assessment projects for the institutional competency
skills: writing, oral communications, computer literacy, quantitative literacy, critical thinking, civic &
social awareness, and accountability. The members of these committees develop assessment tools;
plan, pilot, and implementation process; review and analyze the data collected; and write a final report
recommending any changes, if needed.
Citizenship
Civic & Social
Accountability
Personal Accountability
Communication Skills
Computer Literacy
Oral Communications
Writing
11
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
All Programs and Disciplines are encouraged to complete at least one competency skill map within each of
the three core competency categories, and all degrees are required to assess at least one competency from
each category.
Co-Curricular OA Committee
The Co-Curricular Outcomes Assessment Committee works collaboratively with the Instructional OA
committees to promote, improve, and support student learning and development outside of the
classroom. The committee provides oversight for co-curricular assessment by reviewing assessment
plans, providing feedback to improve them, and approving completed plans.
The committee assists departments in developing and articulating mission statements and goals for each
co-curricular area, in devising methods to gain feedback on progress in meeting departmental goals, and
in determining strategies for using feedback to modify the program, service, activity, or department in
order to ensure that goals are met.
examination, clinical evaluation, etc. Indirect measures include survey results, transfer rates, employment
rates, retention rates, completers, etc.
The Higher Learning Commission encourages colleges to set benchmarks and analyze data over a period of
time to establish trends or patterns related to student learning outcomes.
10. When is a discipline or program finished collecting data for outcomes assessment?
Outcomes assessment is a long-term quality improvement program meaning that the outcomes assessment
process will also be on-going to assure continuous improvement in student learning, academic
achievement, and personal development.
11. What role will part-time employees play in the development and implementation of assessment
plans?
All faculty are encouraged to utilize classroom assessment techniques to improve student learning. The
level of involvement by adjunct/part-time employees in the development of assessment plans is voluntary
and will vary amongst the disciplines and/or areas within the college. All faculty must be aware of the
core competencies and of all the educational goals within his/her discipline as the student learning will be
assessed in a multitude of courses-including full- and adjunct/part-time faculty classes.
12. Is outcomes assessment related to AQIP?
Outcomes Assessment activities are a requirement of any accreditation process, whether it be the
traditional model or AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Project). Accreditation agencies are no
longer primarily looking at an institutions resources to grant accreditation. Rather, they are requiring
institutions to be accountable for providing the necessary services for student learning. The data generated
from our outcomes assessment activities will only be a part of the AQIP process.
13. What are the expectations of the Higher Learning Commission, our regional accrediting agency,
regarding Outcomes Assessment?
The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) has developed six fundamental questions related to student
learning outcomes that colleges will need to address.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
level. If you are interested in serving on a committee at the institutional level, you could contact the OA
coordinator, and/or your department chair, program coordinator, or dean.
You can learn more about outcomes assessment at swic.edu/outcomes or Faculty Homepage.
14
PROGRAM/DISCIPLINE LEVEL
Occupational Program Coordinators/Dept. Chairs
AA and AS Degree Champions
CORE COMPETENCIES
Communication Skills
Reasoning Skills
Citizenship
OA Steering Committee
2 administrators and 9 faculty
members on the committee
SWIC College
President
SWIC Board
Of Trustees
15
LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT
16
Institutional Level AssessmentsThe core competencies are assessed at the institutional level. Utilizing the core competency curriculum
maps and random sampling to identify potential courses involved in the assessment, the OA coordinator
collaborates with the teaching faculty to collect student work (artifacts) related to the assessment. The
work is reviewed using a common rubric by a team of faculty. The faculty are trained in using the rubric
(instrument) to assure consistency in the assessment conducted by the various team members. A
standardized nation-ally normed purchased test is another option for assessment at the institutional level
as well as student surveys (i.e. Community College Survey of Student Engagement).
The results of assessment are shared with the General Education Committee as well as the Curriculum
Committee to discuss and reflect on findings, trends, and any recommendations regarding improvements
or follow up.
17
SWIC.edu/outcomes The college website for outcomes assessment provides faculty with access to OA forms
and templates for reporting, videos on How to Assess Student Learning, program mission and educational
goals. Faculty Homepage provides faculty access to discipline, program/degree learning reports.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment Established in 2008, the mission of the National
Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) is to discover and disseminate ways that academic
programs and institutions can productively use assessment data internally to inform and strengthen
undergraduate education, and externally to communicate with policy makers, families and other stakeholders.
http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/
Association for the Assessment of Learning in Higher Education (AALHE) The Association for the
Assessment of Learning in Higher Education (AALHE) is an organization of assessment practitioners
committed to documenting and improving student learning in higher education. http://aalhe.org/
2016 Assessment Institute includes presentations from national assessment leaders. The concurrent sessions
provide a more in-depth perspective on specific topics. There is also, time for networking with colleagues
throughout the world. http://assessmentinstitute.iupui.edu/
The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is an independent corporation and one of two commission
members of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), which is one of six regional
institutional accreditors in the United States. The Higher Learning Commission accredits degree-granting postsecondary educational institutions in the North Central region. http://www.ncahlc.org/
The Lumina Foundation Publishes reports describing the quality of learning in higher
education.http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/other_pubs.html
Annual Assessment Fair for Illinois Community Colleges This assessment fair is hosted by different
Illinois community colleges each year.
http://theassessmentgroup.weebly.com/illinois-annual-assessment-fair.html
18
CLASSROOM/
COURSE LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Recommendations for Assessing Learning at the Classroom Level:
Refer to the course objectives to know what the students will be able to know, do, and
Quizzes/Memory Matrix
Use of iClickers technology
Use formal assessment tools to assess and report student learning. Formal tools
gather the most accurate results of student performance if they used on graded
assignments, projects, or activities.
Examples of Formal Assessments:
Rubrics/Scoring Guides
Exams/tests questions linked directly to course objectives and/or programmatic educational
goals
Use of all or some consistent questions for the final exam in all class sections of the same
course
Surveys with Likert rating scales in which students rank how well they believe they can
perform each of the course objectives.
19
The course objectives are the student learning outcomes for the course. They identify what the students will
KNOW, DO, and/or THINK by the completion of the course.
To assure consistency in what is being taught in all courses at all locations, every faculty member must
follow the departmentally approved course syllabus which identifies the course objectives.
Every course syllabus must match the departmentally approved course syllabus in the following:
Course Name & Number
Description
Course Objectives
Method(s) for evaluating/grading student performance
Topical outline
Syllabi surveys are conducted regularly to assess consistency of the syllabi when multiple sections
are taught. See Appendix N Course Syllabus Template and Appendix O- for the Syllabi Survey
Course objectives must be consistent with the master syllabus for the course.
Each degree/certificate has graduate learning outcomes/objectives. The ability of graduates to successfully
meet those learning outcomes is directly related to the students ability to achieve the course objectives.
Every course is important in building successful graduates and cannot be isolated experiences.
Communicate with your department chair or program coordinator about the objectives, assessments being
conducted by the department, discipline or program, and how to get more involved.
The following sections describe how to determine and write student/graduate learning objectives and tools
which can be used in the classroom to formally assess and report student learning.
20
Learning objectives specify both an observable behavior and the object of that behavior.
For example: Students will be able to write a research paper.
In addition, the criterion could also be specified: Students will be able to write a research paper in the
appropriate scientific style.
Optionally, the condition under which the behavior occurs can be specified: At the end of their field
research, students will be able to write a research paper in the appropriate scientific style.
Note that the verb you choose will help you focus on what you assess. For example: Students will be able
to do research.
The verb do is vague. Do you mean identify an appropriate research question, review the literature,
establish hypotheses, use research technology, collect data, analyze data, interpret results, draw
conclusions, recommend further research, or all of those? Each of the verbs in those statements is
appropriately specific.
More examples: The more specific example is easier to assess than the broad example:
Broad: Students will demonstrate knowledge of the history, literature and function of the theatre,
including works from various periods and cultures.
More specific: Students will be able to explain the theoretical bases of various dramatic genres and
illustrate them with examples from plays of different eras.
Even more specific, specifying the conditions: During the senior dramatic literature course, the students
will be able to explain the theoretical bases of various dramatic genres and illustrate them with examples
from plays of different eras.
Broad: The student will be able to discuss philosophical questions.
More specific: The student is able to develop relevant examples and to express the significance of
philosophical questions.
Broad: Students will be able to think in an interdisciplinary manner.
More specific: Asked to solve a problem in the students field, the student will be able to draw from
theories, principles, and/or knowledge from other disciplines to help solve the problem.
Broad: Students will understand how to use technology effectively.
21
More specific: Each student will be able to use word processing, spreadsheets, databases, and
presentation graphics in preparing their final research project and report.
22
Cognitive Domain:
Cognitive Domain (knowledge and intellectual learning)
Knowledge
recall and
recognition
of facts and
information.
Comprehension
process of fully
understanding the
information.
Application
using the
information in
new and
concrete
situations.
Analysis
breaking down
information into
components/par
ts.
Synthesis
combining
parts of
information
to form a new
whole.
List
Name
Identify
Show
Define
Recognize
Recall
State
Visualize
Summarize
Explain
Interpret
Describe
Compare
Paraphrase
Differentiate
Demonstrate
Classify
Solve
Illustrate
Calculate
Use
Interpret
Relate
Manipulate
Apply
Modify
Analyze
Organize
Deduce
Contrast
Compare
Distinguish
Discuss
Plan
Devise
Design
Hypothesize
Support
Schematize
Write
Report
Justify
Evaluation
judging the
value of
information
based on
specified
criteria.
Evaluate
Choose
Estimate
Judge
Defend
Criticize
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Vol.1: The cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Affective Domain:
Affective Domain (attitudes, values, feelings, and emotions)
Receiving
willing to
accept or attend
to information.
Listen
Attend
Accept
Receive
Be aware
Favour
Perceive
Responding
actively
participate and
react to
information.
List
Complete
Obey
Volunteer
Record
Select
Write
Valuing perceive
the information to
be worthwhile, try
to get involved.
Recognize
Participate
Increase
Attain
Influence
Assume
Indicate
Organization
assess the
information and
become an
advocate.
Organize
Associate
Relate
Find
Determine
Formulate
Correlate
Characterization
incorporate the values
and beliefs of the
information into your
behavior.
Display
Judge
Demonstrate
Identify
Practice
Maintain
Develop
Krathwohl, D. R., et. al. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, book 2: Affective domain. New York: McKay.
23
Psychomotor Domain:
Psychomotor Domain (deals with physical skills)
Action elementary
movements of the legs
and arms.
Lift
Load
Reach
Carry
Swing
Sweep
Close
Coordination
synchronized
movements using the
eyes, hands, and feet.
Adjust
Type
Operate
Align
Connect
Assemble
Construct
Formation nonverbal
expressive movements
e.g., facial expressions,
and gestures.
Gesture
Posture
Express
Perform
Show
Convey
Conduct
Production combine
verbal and nonverbal
movements.
Speak
Present
Direct
Produce
Coach
Form
Balance
Kilber, R. J., et. al. (1981). Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Grasp
Conscious of
Apply
Perceive
Appreciate
Increase knowledge of
Decrease awareness of
Aware of
Increase understanding of
Think
Become
Interpret
Enjoy
Believe
Know
Understand
Comprehend
Learn
Familiar with
Conceptualize
Master
Want
24
Rubrics are one of the tools that can be used to assess student learning. They are highly effective because
they can be used for grading an individual students performance as well as assessing how well the class is
performing in each of the components of the overall skill.
A rubric can be defined as a descriptive guideline, a scoring guide or specific pre-established performance
criteria. Rubrics are used to guide the rating of performance, products or processes of student learning at
various levels of performance (Figure 1). Levels of performance are typically divided in three- to sixpoint scales and given labels such as basic-proficient-advanced, needs improvement-meets expectationsexceeds expectations, seldom-sometimes-usually-often, poor-good-excellent-superior, beginning-basicproficient-advanced-outstanding or no effort-below average-low average-high average-above averagesuperior. The rubric for a particular level describes the performance outcome at that level, and each
subsequent rubric describes the quality of performance at each subsequent level in the series.
Level 1:Rubric performance criteria; description of performance at level 1
Level 2:Rubric performance criteria; description of performance at level 2
Level 3:Rubric performance criteria; description of performance at level 3
Figure 1 Generic set of rubrics
Performance outcomes can be assessed across various attributes or elements of the performance using a
rubric for each attribute at each level (Figure 2). The specific attributes applied to a set of rubrics can be
scored individually and summed together or the overall performance can be scored at once.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Performance Attribute 1
Rubric 1.1
Rubric 1.2
Rubric 1.3
Rubric 1.4
Performance Attribute 2
Rubric 2.1
Rubric 2.2
Rubric 2.3
Rubric 2.4
Performance Attribute 3
Rubric 3.1
Rubric 3.2
Rubric 3.3
Rubric 3.4
The number and type of rating scales and attributes are determined based on the objectives and standards
of the performance task. Most any learning task can be considered as a performance for which rubrics can
be written. Performance tasks can be a written paper, an oral presentation, daily classroom attendance and
participation, attitude or disposition, practice performance in a professional role such as musician, athlete,
counselor, attorney, teacher, scientist or mathematician and can even include descriptions of performance
on an exam.
Though the levels of performance can be traditional letter grades, the descriptive criteria for each level of
performance and the specific attributes of the learning task move the assessment process beyond
traditional grading to reinforce clearer criteria for grading. Rubrics can put into objective terms a
25
teachers subjective judgments and clearly state underlying assumptions of the learning process that
typically remain unwritten.
References:
1. Mertler, Craig A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(25). Available online: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25
2. Moskal, Barbara M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3).
Available online: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3
26
There are many methods available for measuring learning directly as well as indirectly. Direct assessment
tools and strategies include: portfolios, licensure exams, internships and other measures of student
learning. Indirect assessment tools and strategies include external reviewers, student surveys, exit
interviews, alumni surveys, employer surveys, and curriculum and syllabus analysis. Refer to
SWIC.edu/OA_HOWTO for videos on: Choosing Assessment Measures and Matching Assessment to
Teaching & Learning.
Surveys
In student surveys and exit interviews students are asked to reflect on what they have learned in their
majors in order to generate information for program improvement. Through using this method,
universities have reported gaining insight into how students experience courses, what they like and do not
like about various instructional approaches, what is important about the classroom environment that
facilitates or hinders learning, and the nature of assignments that foster student learning.
Why use a survey?
1. To meet policy and/or program needs.
2. To evaluate the effectiveness of programs to change people's knowledge, attitudes, health
welfare.
3. To collect data for use by a program.
or
Survey design
There are specific criteria that must be followed when designing any survey. The resource listed
below can assist those interested in designing a survey that measures student learning outcomes.
Course-embedded Assessment
Course-embedded assessment refers to techniques that can be utilized within the context of a classroom
(one class period, several or over the duration of the course) to assess students learning, as individuals
and in groups. For example, faculty members teaching multiple sections of an introductory course might
include a common pre-test to determine student knowledge, skills and dispositions in a particular field at
program admission.
Additional Examples:
Primary Trait Analysis: instructor identifies ideal student achievement on an assignment, unit,
course or curriculum, then measures student achievement against it using a single, holistic grade.
Directed Paraphrasing: students summarize in well-chosen (own) words a key idea presented during
the class period or the one just past.
Muddiest Point: students write one or two ideas that were least clear to them from the current or
preceding class period.
Minute Paper: students identify the most significant (useful, meaningful, disturbing, etc.) things they
learned during a particular session.
27
Characteristic Features: students summarize in matrix form those traits that help define a topic and
differentiate it from others; useful for determining whether students separate items or ideas that are
easily confused.
Transfer and Apply: students write down concepts learned from the class in one column; in another
column provide an application of each concept.
RSQC2: in two minutes, students recall and list in rank order the most important ideas from a
previous day's class; in two more minutes, they summarize those points in a single sentence, then write
one major question they want answered, then identify a thread or theme to connect this material to the
course's major goal.
Portfolio Assessment
Assessment portfolios are purposeful collections of student works that exhibit effort, progress and
achievement. Portfolios should:
Be part of a capstone course/experience (e.g., internship, student teaching, practicum, etc.).
Be based on program outcomes
Include documentation that students have demonstrated each outcome
Be scored by faculty with a common rubric
Essential Components of a Portfolio
1. Table of Contents with page numbers
2. Personal introduction describing the students background and capstone experience
3. Program outcomes, with artifacts linked to the outcomes
4. Each artifact is described in a short narrative (included with artifact) reflecting upon what it
is, how it demonstrates obtainment of the objective, and what the student learned as a result
(self-reflective).
5. Requiring more than one artifact/objective increases scoring reliability
Types of Portfolios
Showcase Student only puts best example or best product in for each objective
Cumulative Student places all work relevant to each objective into the portfolio
Process Student places pre/post-samples of work for each objective into the portfolio
Each type of portfolio should include all of the essential components of a portfolio listed
above.
Test/Exams
Normally tests are used to assess determine an individual students grade, but it can also be used to
assess how well the students can perform the course objectives IF:
The questions on the comprehensive examination are linked to the course objectives
Review of the results is based on correct responses to each of the questions vs. individual student
performance.
For example:
An instructor builds a comprehensive final.
While building it, (s)he writes questions 1-5 so they are related to Course Objective #1
and questions 6-10 are related to Course Objective #2, etc.
28
Generally upon completion of the course, the instructor reports individual grades and
notes that 80% of the students pass with a 70% or better. That is great, BUT it doesnt
tell you how well the students can meet the course objectives.
To use the test for assessment reporting purposes, the instructor needs to review how
many of the students correctly answered Questions 1-5 to determine how well they can
perform Objective #1, questions 6-10 how well they can perform Objective #2, etc..
The instructor may now find that although 80% of the students passed the course
only 30% understand/can apply concepts of Objective #1.
References:
1. Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
2. Campbell, D., Melenyzer, B., Nettles, D., & Wyman, R. (2000). Portfolio and Performance Assessment in Teacher Education.
Needham Heights,
3.
4.
Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5.
6.
Meyers, C. & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mandell, A. & Michelson, E. (1990). Portfolio Development and Adult Learning: Purposes & Strategies. Chicago: Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning.
North Carolina State University assessment website. Internet Resources for Higher Education Outcomes Assessment. (2003, February.)
http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/archives/assmt/resource.htm
29
(2003, February).
follow that line across to the right to get a percentage. Then multiply the number of students by the
percentage to obtain what would be an appropriate sample size to test.
Example: You are trying to ascertain the number of students to test in your literature class, which has 35
students. The percentage that you will work with is 80%. So multiply 35 x .80 and your sample size
should be approximately 28 students.
Example: You have a multi-sectioned class that has:
23 in Section 001
19 in Section 002
21 in Section 003
25 in Section 004
17 in Section 005
22 in Section 006
19 in Section 007
24 in Section 008
21 in Section 009
15 in Section 010
The total number of students is 206. Following the left hand side to the right side your percentage is 56%.
So multiply 206 x .56 for a sample size of around 116 students.
Sample Size Chart*
Number of students to be sampled
0-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-700
701-900
901-1100
1101-1600
1601-2200
2201-3000
3001-6000
6001-10000
10001-15000
*Modified from Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Thanks for the assistance to Dr. Thomas Moore, Department of Institutional Research, University of Mississippi Medical
School.
31
Sample
Size
10
14
19
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
59
63
66
70
73
76
80
86
92
97
103
108
113
118
123
127
132
136
Number of
Students
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1100
Sample
Size
140
144
148
152
155
159
162
165
169
175
181
186
191
196
201
205
210
214
217
226
234
242
248
254
260
265
269
274
278
285
Number of
Students
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
15000
20000
30000
40000
50000
75000
100000
Sample
Size
291
297
302
306
310
313
317
320
322
327
331
335
338
341
346
351
354
357
361
364
367
368
370
375
377
379
380
381
382
384
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological
Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Thanks for the assistance to Dr. Thomas Moore, Department of Institutional Research, University of
Mississippi Medical School.
32
DISCIPLINE/
PROGRAM/DEGREE
ASSESSMENT
Disciplines and programs/degree have identified mission statements & measurable student
performance educational goals specific to the discipline or program/degree.
Go to estorm: Under Main Menu>Outcomes Assessment>Outcomes AssessmentInfoshare>Disciplines, Degrees, Certificates to find each areas mission statement,
educational goals, curriculum maps, student learning results and actions.
Faculty Homepage:
The SWIC website identifies to the public each program mission & educational
goals at http://www.swic.edu/outcomes/disc-prog-assessment/
Student learning within a degree, program, or discipline is a required component of
program review. Meet with the Outcomes Assessment Coordinator and/or the
Divisional Dean to prepare for the student learning component of Program Review
and the OA Forum.
33
Step One:
Faculty plan and define student learning outcomes (SLO)/educational goals and make them public.
All disciplines and programs/degrees have identified mission statements & measurable student
performance educational goals specific to the discipline or program/degree. These are made public at
http://www.swic.edu/outcomes/disc-prog-assessment/.
o In eStorm go to Faculty Homepage to see each areas mission statements, educational goals,
and reports of student learning.
Communication Skills
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Citizenship
Step Two:
Choosing Methods to Assess Student Learning Knowledge, Skills & Attitudes/Beliefs
Specify important criteria & define it share the grading criteria with students
before an assignment is given
Example grading rubric
Graded assignments generally stimulate students to do their best work this is
embedded evidence of student learning vs. standardized testing
Assessment s of students learning is based on performance of how well the class
performed on each of the grading criteria rather than % of individual students passing
the exam, performance, written paper, etc.
Step Three:
Collecting Assessment Data/Evidence Ideas
Develop a plan to assess all your program/discipline goals & core competencies over a 5 year period.
Assessment a minimum of every 2 years is recommended to identify trends.
Identify:
o Identify educational goals to assess & which courses have objectives which feed information
into each educational goal
o What work will be collected
o Which semester and courses
o Who is responsible for collecting data
o How it will be analyzed requires full faculty involvement
How many students to include in an assessment?
o Large programs use simple random sampling
o Smaller programs assess all students
o Refer under Classroom/Course assessment section for sample size information
Repeat assessments to develop trend data assessment isnt a one-time event
Assess the same goal using multiple measures to confirm data isnt an oddity
o If there is a Capstone course it is helpful to complete assessments at the end of the program
Comprehensive program exam - to assess knowledge of educational goals
Practical/Performance exam to assess what the student can do
Survey graduate to see how well students believe they have mastered the educational
goals
The OA Timeline is used to report a timeline of when the assessments will occur.
Step Four:
Analyzing Evidence of Student Learning
Specify important criteria & define it When multiple faculty are using an assessment tool, make
sure all faculty are consistent in their interpretation of the criterion on the tool. It improves intertester reliability for the assessment.
Determine standards/expectations of student performance for the educational goals a benchmark of
desired outcomes
o Example
95% of students will follow safety procedures (from procedures class)
90% of students will use proper conventions in their writing (writing rubric)
90% of students will communicate effectively non-verbally (Oral communication
rubric)
87% of students will grasp a concept through spoken or written communication
(Critical Thinking rubric)
35
Compare the actual student performance to the benchmark/expectation analysis will show
faculty where students are performing well or falling short. From this implications for
changes will be determined by
Sharing results and consulting with all the faculty
Step Five:
Using Evidence of Student Learning for Improvement Closing the Loop
36
Mission Statements:
Each discipline, program/degree defines their mission. In addition to describing the areas specific
mission, the statement must also identify a commitment to the assessment of student learning and have a
link to the college mission. Go to http://www.swic.edu/outcomes/disc-prog-assessment/ for examples to
mission statements.
Determining Graduate Learning Outcomes
Steps
1. Examine the program/discipline/college/university mission.
2. Determine what graduates of that program should know, what skills they should be able to
demonstrate, and what professional values they should hold. (Know, Do and Think/Behave)
3. Convert the list of expected outcomes for graduates into a list of general objectives.
4. Convert the general objectives into statements of specific learning outcomes (you may have more
than one for each objective).
Hints
37
Indirect
Alumni interviews
Certification exams
Alumni surveys
Completion rates
Competition ranks/ratings
Comprehensive exams
Employer interviews
Nationally-normed tests
Employer surveys
Licensure exams
Exit interviews
Performances
Field experiences
Portfolios
Focus Groups
Pre-test/Post-test evaluations
Placement of graduates
Rubrics
Student organizations
Student surveys
References:
1. Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. New Mexico Standards Web site (Multiple Methods of Assessment).
http://www.nnhu.edu/standards/primer/cur/multiple.htm
3. Palomba, C.A. & Banta, T.W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing and Improving Assessment in Higher
Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38
Identify the core competency skills addressed in your program. Check all that apply.
Citizenship Skills
Civic & Social Accountability
Personal Accountability
Communication Skills
Computer Literacy
Oral Communication
Writing
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Please attach the appropriate core competency skill maps for your program.
IV. OA Timeline 2017 & 2022
A. Attach your established assessment timeline for the past 5 years.
B. Attach your assessment timeline for the next 5 years. The expectation is that each
goal will be assessed a minimum of two times over the next 5 years.
V. What methods does this program utilize to evaluate the quality of student learning in its
AAS degree/certificate(s)? Check all that apply.
Direct
Indirect
B. Attach the 2017 Assessment Summary Chart for your program. (See Appendix M)
C. Attach all of the assessment of student learning reports submitted over the last 5
years.
39
VII. How was the data about student learning shared and used to make decisions?
Check all the areas, if any that the decisions made for this program impacted the
following:
Admission Criteria
Facilities
Requisite Requirements
Methods of Delivery
Equipment
Mode of Delivery
Curriculum Changes, please
Other Aspects which Impact learning,
specify:
please specify:
VIII. Summarize the program or course level changes made based on the data
collected during the last five academic years? [Note: The response to this question is
printed in a public document, the OA Report, posted on www.swic.edu without the above
information. Please write this response for summary stand-alone statement that the public
will understand what was assessed, analysis of results, and plans for action.]
IX. Identify the programs immediate plans for improving student learning in its
AAS degree/certificate(s)?
X. Are there other findings from this Program Review which impact student learning within
your program?
Yes
No
If yes, please provide detail.
40
Communication Skills
Computer Literacy
Oral Communication
Writing
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Please attach the appropriate core competency skill maps for your program.
IV.
V. What methods does this department or discipline utilize to evaluate the quality of student
learning in its courses and/or their contribution to the general education component of the
colleges degrees and certificate programs?
Check all that apply.
Direct
Indirect
Program developed assessments
Student surveys
Standardized assessments
Graduate surveys
Student work/artifacts
Faculty surveys
Portfolio evaluations
Performance at transfer institutions
Course embedded questions
Analysis of enrollment/completion trends
(tracking of cohorts)
Rubrics
Other, please specify:
Other, please specify:
41
VI. A. Describe what evidence you have that demonstrates that course completers are
meeting the educational goals of the department or discipline.
B. Attach the 2017 Assessment Summary Chart for your Discipline. (See Appendix M)
C. Attach all of the assessment of student learning reports submitted over the last 5
years.
VII. How was the data about student learning shared and used to make decisions?
Check all the areas below, if any, that were impacted by the decisions made for this discipline
Placement cut scores
Facilities
Requisite Requirements
Methods of Delivery
Equipment
Mode of Delivery
Curriculum Changes, please
Other Aspects which Impact learning,
specify:
please specify:
VIII. Summarize the program or course level changes made based on the data
collected during the last five academic years? [Note: The response to this question is
printed in a public document, the OA Report, posted on www.swic.edu without the above
information. Please write this response for summary stand-alone statement that the public
will understand what was assessed, analysis of results, and plans for action.]
IX. What are the departments or disciplines immediate plans for improving student
learning in its courses or their contribution to the general education component of the
colleges degrees and certificate programs?
X. Are there other findings from this Program Review which impact student learning
within your program?
Yes
No
42
Assure the student learning of AA and Associate of Fine Arts (AFA) Degree students aligns with
the colleges core competencies, the students transfer institutions, and my applicable
requirements.
Track student success upon graduation and/or transfer.
Systematically, assess the educational excellence of the AA & AFA Degrees and advocate change
as needed.
AA DEGREE EDUCATIONAL GOALS
The successful Associate in Arts Degree graduate at Southwestern Illinois College will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Read critically
Write clearly and effectively
Think critically and analytically
Demonstrate general math skills
Use computing and information technology
Identify the roles and responsibilities of the individual in society and make ethical decisions
Demonstrate awareness of cultural and social issues
AS DEGREE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the Associate in Science Degree at Southwestern Illinois College is to prepare students
with the well-rounded education in core competencies needed to transfer to a four-year institution to
complete a baccalaureate degree in a discipline related to business, science, or mathematics. Through a
system that continually assesses student learning, students will be provided the educational excellence
necessary to continue their individual growth as life-long learners.
43
44
45
Syllabi Survey
In addition, the Disciplines Committee oversees a project to achieve greater consistency in the syllabi of
multiple section courses with different instructors. In the spring of 2003 the committee collected the
syllabi of all of the multi-section classes and looked at the percentage of consistency in such items as,
objectives, text statement, catalog description, attendance policy, etc. This assessment was repeated in
spring of 2005, fall of 2007 and spring of 2012. The committee recommended that the next College-Wide
Syllabi survey take place during fall 2017. The Disciplines Committee has used this information to
develop a greater awareness & consistency of the syllabi among multiple section classes.
46
INSTITUTIONAL
ASSESSMENT
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
Reasoning Skills
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Citizenship
47
COMMUNICATION
SKILLS
REASONING SKILLS
CITIZENSHIP
COMPONENTS OF COMPETENCY
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
Chairperson
3 Specialists (writing, oral
communication, computer
literacy)
Representative from each
instructional division
Adjunct Faculty
Representative
Chairperson
3 Specialists (reading,
quantitative literacy, critical
thinking)
Representative from each
instructional division
Adjunct Faculty Representative
Chairperson
2 Specialists
Representative from each
instructional division
Adjunct Faculty
Representative
*Since many components within each category are interdependent, collaboration among the 3 categories will be
encouraged.
48
49
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
The following are the criteria which more explicitly defines each of the competencies.
Deduction - The ability to derive ideas or consequences from a set of assumptions or a given
scenario.
Conceptualization - The ability to grasp a concept through spoken or written communication.
Application - The ability to see a concept in experience, human behavior, or in the production of
something.
Evaluation - The ability to judge the worth or success of a concept, theory, or method.
Reflection - The ability to see oneself in relation to a concept, theory, or practice, one may profess.
Critical
Thinking
Reasoning Skills
Quantitative
Literacy
P = Pilot
I = Implement College-wide E = Evaluate R = Report
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022
Fall
Sp Su Fall Sp Su Fall Sp Su Fall Sp Su Fall Sp
Su
P1
Pl
P1
P1
P1
Pl
Pl
P1
Pl
Pl
Pl
Pl
Pl
Pl
Plan (Pl) - This semester the committee will research and investigate potential new assessment tools. The previously used assessment tools
will be reviewed and revised, if needed. Discussions should also take place regarding investigating any areas of concern related to student
learning college-wide.
Pilot (P) A pilot study will be conducted by each committee, is needed. The purpose of this study is to assure the methodology and/or
student artifacts or tool that will be used is appropriate for assessment of competency skill definitions and that the assessment rubric designed
by focus group members is appropriate and reproducible. All necessary changes, as indicated by the lot, will be made accordingly before
college-wide assessment of the competency skills is conducted.
Implement (I) A college-wide study of the competency skill will be conducted using a random sampling of entering and exiting students.
Faculty volunteers will be contacted and asked to participate either by providing student artifacts, or class participation in an assessment
activity.
Evaluate (E) Tools or student artifacts collected for the college-wide assessment of the implemented competency skill(s) will be evaluated
using a rubric designed by the competency committee members. The committee should reflect on the assessment results and decide what
intervention, if any, might be needed to improve student learning in areas that are below expectations.
Report (R) All competency skill results of college-wide assessments will be reported to the faculty and administration using the Assessment
of Student Learning Reporting Form. The final report will be reviewed by the members on the Curriculum Committee and posted on the
college website on estorm.
52
Revised 8/2014
53
54
This poster (or a similar one) is posted in all classrooms to identify to students our core competencies:
55
FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES
56
OA Forum
Program Review
Purpose: Provide Program Coordinators and Department Chairs completing Program Review in FY 2014
with an opportunity to share the assessment results with the Instructional Leadership Team and colleagues
and to make budget requests based upon assessment results.
General Guidelines:
All program coordinators and department chairs completing program review in 2014 will be
invited to participate in the annual OA Forum.
Each coordinator/chair will be given 15 minutes to share their OA results from Program Review
2014 allowing time for questions at the end of the presentations.
A list of suggested discussion topics will be provided to each coordinator/chair prior to the forum.
There will be more than one opportunity for a program coordinator/department chair to attend a
forum. The forum will take place during selected Curriculum Committee meetings during Fall
/Spring semesters. The coordinators/chairs will have an opportunity to request a budget item to aid
in the improvement of student learning outcomes.
The coordinators/chairs will have an opportunity to request a stipend for assistance from an
adjunct faculty member to assist with outcomes assessment projects.
The coordinators/chairs will have an opportunity to request a release hour for assistance from a
full-time faculty member to assist with outcomes assessment projects.
OVERSIGHT,
HISTORY &
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
59
60
Assessment of student learning at Southwest Illinois College had its informal beginning in the
early 1990s. The original Plan for the Assessment of Student Academic Achievement was
developed in 1992 and 1993 in preparation for the Colleges NCA ten-year accreditation. While
a plan was created, it remained in draft form with no measurement criteria (quantifiable
performance standards) established. In addition no time table was established and the scope
needed to be more institutional and more clearly linked to the Colleges mission. Also it was
administratively driven.
2000-2001
June 2000, AAHE Assessment Conference in Charlotte, NC. Administrators and faculty attended
their first conference.
November 2000, Assessment in Indianapolis, IN. Assessment Leadership attended this conference.
Original Outcomes Assessment Committee split into General Education Committee (Members
predominately transfer faculty) and Occupational Committee (Members occupational/career faculty)
General Education Committee-focused on developing its mission statement.
Occupational Committee-surveyed faculty about assessment activities already in place.
2001-2002
Fall 2001, Trudy Banta presented to SWIC faculty during opening week.
Occupational Committee:
1. Changed name from Occupational to Disciplines OA Committee.
2. Focused on learning and presenting to the faculty classroom assessment
techniques.
3. Promoted the development of program/disciplines Mission Statement and Educational Goals.
General Education OA Committee:
1. Faculty surveyed to determine general education competencies.
2. Competencies identified: Writing, Reading, Oral Communications, Computer Skills, Civic and
Social Responsibilities and Analytical Skills.
3. Summer 2002, OA Leadership Team attended Alverno College Workshop.
2002-2003
Focus Groups formed around competencies:
Instructional Deans solicit faculty volunteers to serve on six competency focus groups.
Identified specialists are asked to serve as a consultant to group.
General Education Committee Members are selected to chair focus groups.
Developed evaluation rubrics.
Developed college-wide instrument for assessing competency.
Developed survey questions.
Defined introduced versus reinforced.
Conducted training for faculty.
Spring 2003, conducted Syllabi Survey across the institution.
61
2003-2004
Fall 2003, Susan Hatfield spoke to all instructional division and OA Leadership during opening
week.
Spring 2004, Writing across the curriculum assessment was piloted in fall and implemented.
January 13, 2004, competency map survey conducted.
January 2004, Presentation to faculty explained the current assessment activities.
Spring 2004, Oral Communication assessment was piloted.
Development of Competency Curriculum Maps.
May 14, 2004, SWIC hosted Compare and Share Roundtable discussions.
End of spring 2004, OA advisory committee dissolved and the AQIP OA Steering Committee began
overseeing OA activities.
2004-2005
Fall 2004, Oral Communications across the curriculum assessment was conducted.
Fall 2004, Computer literacy and Reading across the curriculum assessment was piloted in fall and
implemented in Spring 2005.
August 17, 2004 shared results of Common Competency Map survey with the faculty.
August 17, 2004 Opportunities for discussion across the curriculum and within disciple.
Spring 2005, conducted Syllabi Survey across the institution.
2005-2006
October 2005, SWIC hosted Share & Compare Roundtable Discussions
October 24, 2005 SWIC Dr. Shauna Scribner and Joyce Ray presented Assessment of an Industrial
Technology Program at SWIC: A Continuous Cycle for Improvement, at the 2005 Assessment
Institute in Indianapolis, IN
March 2, 2006, A team of SWIC faculty attended the Tenth Annual Assessment Fair at Moraine
Valley Community
Spring 2006, Disciplines OA Committee developed new reporting form and a rubric checklist to
better assist faculty
Spring 2006, conducted Computer Literacy, Critical Thinking, Mathematical Literacy and English
101 Portfolio Assessments.
2006-2007
August 2006, Conducted survey to determine college-wide core competencies. 98% of full-time
faculty responded.
October 30, 2006, SWIC faculty members Dr. Linda Dawkins, Dr. Shauna Scribner and Joyce Ray
presented, Were Not in the Dark Anymore: SWICs Approach to the Assessment Process, at
the 2006 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN
Fall 2006 & Spring 2007, entering and exiting students in 4 occupational programs participate in
Community College Learning Assessment (CCLA).
Fall 2006 & Spring 2007, conducted Civic & Social Awareness, Math 094 embedded five
questions on final exam, Oral Communication, and Writing Student Focus Groups assessments.
Spring 2007, General Education Committee proposed a new set of core competencies to include:
Communication Skills, Reasoning Skills, and Citizenship.
May 7, 2007 Farewell to Focus Groups Reception at Schmidt Art Center.
62
2007-2008
New Core Competency committee structure implemented in August, 2007.
5 Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) workshops are conducted in fall 2007.
College-wide Syllabi Survey conducted during fall 2007.
October 19, 2007, OA Coordinator visits Sinclair Community College in Dayton, OH to discuss
the possibility of joint assessment projects.
November 6, 2007, Tom Lovin, Cory Lund, and Joyce Ray led the session Building Consensus
through Outcomes Assessment at the 2007 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN.
January, 2008, Title III grant funds first group of Core Competency Projects.
Spring, 2008, Citizenship Committee members lead discussion for Accountability definition.
April 1, 2008, OA Coordinator met with student group in College Activities.
2008-2009
Full-time faculty unanimously approved the definition for Accountability during opening week,
August, 2008.
October 28, 2008, Jane Miller, Melissa Rossi, & Joyce Ray presented How CATs Enhanced
Assessment at SWIC at the 2008 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN.
Core Competency signs are posted in all classrooms on all campuses at SWIC.
April, 2009, Steve Moiles, Cory Lund, and Joyce Ray presented Building Consensus through
Outcomes Assessment at the Annual Meeting of the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago, IL.
2009-2010
Training for Class Climate begins during opening week August, 2009.
12 faculty pilot e-portfolios as part of a Title III grant.
October 26, 2009, Keven Hansen, Robin Anderson, and Joyce Ray from the Mathematics
Department presented Closing the Loop of Assessment & Boosting Student Success and Kim
Snyder, Jane Miller, and Lisa Stejskal from the PTA program presented, Assessing Core
Competencies via Established Program Specific Tools in an Allied Health Program at SWIC at
the 2009 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN.
May, 2010, OA Coordinator and OA Dean Liaison meet with Director of Assessment at SIUE to
discuss joint ventures.
2010-2011
The Communication Skills Committee members led by Steve Moiles conducted an online faculty
survey during September, 2010 regarding evaluating writing assignments college-wide. 118
faculty participated in this survey.
On October 25, 2010, Matt McCarter and Cory Lund presented Assessing Literature at SWIC at
the 2010 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN. They described how they changed their course
objectives and developed an assessment tool to measure the student learning outcomes in the
literature courses.
The members of the Citizenship Committee headed by Mitch Robertson, have been working on
revising the definitions for Civic and Social Accountability and Personal Accountability. 80% of
revising the faculty responding to the survey approved the revised definition during January, 2011.
On February 25, 2011, Robin Anderson from the Mathematics Dept.; Chris Hubbard-Valentine
from Institutional Research; Dana Woods from Medical Assistant Program; and Joyce Ray, OA
Coordinator attended the 15th Annual Assessment Fair at Heartland Community College. A
message that we all heard was that assessment means nothing without being connected to action.
63
2011-2012
August, 2011, OA coordinator collected data from department chairs and program coordinators
related to opening week OA activities.
During October, 2011 the OA team attending the 2011 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN
were: Debbie Alford, Julie Muertz, Donna Holesinger, Mitch Robertson & Joyce Ray. Presenters
at this conference focused on key issues about assessment related to the Degree Qualifications
Profile, Portfolio assessment and use of rubrics.
February 24, 2012 Janet Fontenot, Robin Anderson, Michael McClure & Joyce Ray attended the
16th Annual Assessment Fair at Oakton Community College. Robin, Michael & Joyce were
presenters at the session Critical Thinking, Reading, and Quantitative Literacy: A Three-Part
Assessment.
During Spring 2012, the college-wide syllabi survey was conducted. We had 100% participation
from all programs and disciplines.
On April 12, 2012, the OA Team including: Julie Muertz, Donna Holesinger, Donna Trone, Sherry
Wimmer, and Joyce Ray visited St. Charles Community College to discuss freshman orientation
classes and capstone courses related to assessing student learning outcomes.
2012-2013
The members of the Citizenship Committee promoted Citizenship Activities during Fall, 2012
semester. Faculty was provided with a list of activities that encouraged community
involvement. A contest was conducted to encourage student to design posters to design a poster or
make a film emphasizing the importance of the upcoming presidential election.
The 1st OA Forum was held on September 7, 2012. Diane DiTucci and Tina Dierkes from the
Business Division, and Rick Spencer from the Liberal Arts Division were the presenters.
The Title III Grant officially ended on September 30th. This grant provided support for many
student learning outcomes projects during the past 5 years. Some of these grant activities have
been incorporated into the assessment process at SWIC such as: funding and support for approved
assessment projects.
During October, 2012 the OA team attending the 2012 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis, IN
was: Robin Anderson, Michael McClure, Julie Muertz, Carolyn Myers, Mitch Robertson & Joyce
Ray. Robin, Michael & Joyce were presenters at the session Critical Thinking, Reading, and
Quantitative Literacy: A Three-Part Assessment. Carolyn and Mitch were presenters at the
session Civic and Social Accountability: Assessment and a Rewarding Collaboration.
The second part of the OA Forum was conducted on November 16, 2012 as part of the Curriculum
Committee meeting. Dan Cross, Film Department, Christie Highlander, Paralegal Program, and
Tim Brown, CIS, were the presenters.
February 15, 2013 Keven, Hansen, Nick Kolweier, and Colleen White attended the 17th Annual
Assessment Fair at Elgin Community College.
64
2013-2014
The 2nd Annual OA Forum was held during selected Curriculum Committee meetings in the Fall
2013 semester. Keven Hansen from the Mathematics Department, Leisa Brockman from Culinary
Arts and Food Management, and Karyn Houston and Susen McBeth from the Sign Language
Studies Program were the presenters.
The AA/AS Degree Champions hosted focus group sessions for SWIC transfer graduates on
December 18, 2013. Andrew Wheeler from the Psychology Department led 3 one hour sessions
to determine how well SWIC prepared them for their transfer institutions.
On February 21, 2014, Marijo Klingler, Liz Alvarez and Tami Hughes attended the 18th Annual
Illinois Community College Assessment Fair at Moraine Valley Community College.
On February 21, 2014, the Co-Curricular OA Committee conducted their first meeting. The
committee represented Counseling, Success Center, Disability & Access Center, College
Activities, Athletics, Library, Financial Aid, Veterans services, and Enrollment services.
On June 2-4, 2014, Julie Muertz and Joyce Ray attended the AALHE 4th Annual Assessment
Conference in Albuquerque, NM. This conference focused on Emergent Dialogues in
Assessment. Many presenters discussed significant changes taking place in higher education and
how principles of learning outcomes assessment are at the center of these changes.
Program Review for OA was completed in Spring 2014. The results from the AQIP systems
appraisal identifies the processes OA has in place can be a model for other areas of the institution.
2014-2015
The new MOU designates two days in each academic year dedicated to teaching and learning
events.
Begin development of activities to prepare/support faculty for the Share & Compare Day
scheduled for May 11, 2016.
The 3nd Annual OA Forum was held during selected Curriculum Committee meetings in the Fall
2014 semester. Keven Hansen from the Mathematics Department; Sue Taylor from Accounting;
Linda Dawkins from Physical Sciences; Steve Moiles, Cynthia Hussain, and Chantay WhiteWilliams representing Developmental English Program; Jean Deitz from Medical Laboratory
Technology and Joyce Ray from Outcomes Assessment were the presenters.
The OA Leaders at SWIC joined the Networking & Illinois OA Leaders on June 25, 2015 for the
first The Assessment Group (TAG) Meeting.
On March 6, 2015, Paula McAteer, Art Department Chairperson and Tim Brown, CIS Program
Coordinator, attended the 19th Annual Illinois Community College Assessment Fair at Waubonsee
Community College.
On June 1-3, 2015, Julie Muertz, Brad Sparks, and Joyce Ray attended the AALHE 5th Annual
Assessment Conference in Lexington, KY. This conference focused on Actionable Assessment.
A number of sessions emphasized the How of Assessment by providing many examples of what
faculty are doing to take action to improve student learning.
65
2015-2016
On October 1, 2015, Julie Muertz and Joyce Ray attended the 2nd Annual Assessment Conference
SIUC in Carbondale, IL. A variety of teaching faculty shared assessment project results from
SIUC classes.
On October 6, 2015, faculty participated in the first Faculty Development/ Outcomes Assessment
Day. The OA workshops included: Assessment 101, Customizing College-wide Rubrics and
Utilizing Blackboard, How to Interpret Data, Modeling Share & Compare Day, and What our
Students Need after SWIC Panel Discussion.
October 25-27, 2015, Brad Nadziejko, Associate Professor of English and Writing Program
Director, represented SWIC at the 2015 Assessment Institute in Indianapolis. He
attended presentations on integrating electronic portfolios with core competencies, and sessions
on the efficacy of capstone courses in certificate and tech programs.
On February 26, 2016, Keven Hansen, Mathematics Department Chairperson and Brad Nadziejko,
Associate Professor of English and Writing Program Director, attended the 20th Annual Illinois
Community College Assessment Fair: Assessment in Focus at Harper College.
On April 1, 2016, the Assessment leaders at SWIC applied for the Excellence in Assessment
Designation award sponsored by NILOA.
On May 11, 2016, the second Faculty Development/Outcomes Assessment Day, 58 faculty
representing the various programs, disciplines and a co-curricular area presented the results from a
recent assessment project to all the full-time faculty.
On June 6-8, 2016, Julie Muertz, Keven Hansen, Chantay White-Williams and Joyce Ray attended
the AALHE 6th Annual Assessment Conference in Milwaukee, WI. This conference focused on
Assessing What We Value: A Focus on Student Learning. A number of sessions emphasized
keeping the assessment process meaningful, asking the right question when beginning an
assessment project, and conducting data conversations.
66
During the Spring 2004 semester, the assessment leaders made the following four recommend-dations to
the existing curriculum committee. These recommendations were discussed and approved by the
Curriculum Committee.
1. The Outcomes Assessment Committees recommend that the Curriculum Committee require
all course objectives for newly developed courses be written using measurable verbs defining
student performance. (See list of verbs and Blooms Taxonomy on OA web site on s-net.)
Recommendation: Implement immediately.
2. The Outcomes Assessment Committees recommend that the Curriculum Committee require
all general education courses intended to serve as an institutional graduation requirement
identify the common competency (ies) taught within the courses objectives. Departments
or programs submitting new or changed courses for approval should also include an updated
common Competency map. (A template for the writing competency map can be found on Snet under Outcomes Assessment>Forms and Templates.)
Recommendation: After April 1, 2004 any general education course addressing the writing
competency needs to include a writing course objective in the syllabus. As each common
competency is more thoroughly defined and finalized, the Outcomes Assessment Coordinator
will request the same for each additional competency.
3. The Outcomes Assessment Committees will report to the curriculum committee the compiled
and interpreted data resulting from assessment measurements of student learning. The
Curriculum Committee will recommend curriculum changes when deemed appropriate.
Recommendation: As each common competency is assessed college-wide, the Outcomes
Assessment Coordinator will report the compiled and interpreted data, and recommend
curriculum changes, if deemed necessary. This process will be on going.
4. The Outcomes Assessment Committees recommend that the Curriculum Committee require
that any program/discipline submitting a new or revised course be able to show where it fits
into their Program/Discipline curriculum map. This will be accomplished by the submission
of an updated curriculum map that directly links the courses objectives to the
Programs/Disciplines Mission Statement and Educational Goals.
Recommendation: After September 1, 2004 any course change (additions, revisions, or
withdrawals) will require submission of a new or updated Program/Discipline curriculum map
to the Disciplines Outcomes Assessment Committee. This curriculum map will be posted on
http://www.swic.edu/outcomes
67
As an institution offering greater than 60 degrees with considerably different missions and goals, defining
a set of core competencies has been a challenging process. Recognizing that core competencies must be
threaded throughout a degree program and not solely addressed in a single class or through only a few
assignments, SWIC must identify competencies that are common to all. Through the efforts of a great
number of faculty, the groundwork for establishing these core competencies has been accomplished. As a
result of much debate and a desire for a more simplified process, it has been decided by the General
Education OA Committee and the OA Steering Committee to move forward with 3 core competency
categories. It will be expected that all degree programs will report student learning outcomes annually
from assessment data collected in each category. Only those competencies within each category
appropriate to the program will need to be assessed. Many degrees will find it necessary to select more
than one competency from each category. Following this process will allow assessment to remain faculty
driven and afford AA and AS Degree Champions in collaboration with Department Chairs, and Program
Coordinators the flexibility of addressing competencies that will provide rich, meaningful assessment
consistent with an individual degree programs mission and goals.
68
APPLIED EXPERIENCES
Learning environments that provide in-the-field, hands-on learning and training experiences can provide
valuable assessment information. Applied experiences integrate what the student has learned in their
academic studies with real-life situations and further develop the student as a professional, citizen and
life-long learner.
Examples of Applied Experiences include:
Practicum
Service Learning
Internship
Experiential Learning
Field Experience
Student-teaching
Co-op
In the types of Applied Experiences listed above, different assessment instruments can be used. Some
examples include:
Weekly Journal
Progress Reports
Portfolio
Midterm Evaluation
Cumulative Report
Site Visit
Performance evaluation by
mentor
Final project/creative
project/presentation
References:
1.
Arthur, M.A. & Thompson, J.A. (1999). Problem-based learning in a natural resources conservation and
management curriculum: A capstone course. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education,
28, 97-103.
2. Banta, T.W., Lund, J.P., Black, K.E. & Oblander, F.W. (1996). Assessment in practice: Putting principles to work on
college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
3. Bolinger, K.D., et al. (2001). Ten years of change: The evolution of a senior seminar. Primus, 11(4), 347-358.
4. Brooks, J.E. & Greene, J.C. (1998). Benchmarking internship practices: Employers report on objectives and outcomes
of experiential programs. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 59(1), 37-39, 52-60.
5. (The) capstone course. (1993). Teaching Sociology, 21, 209-258.
6. Chew, E.B., et al. (1996). The business administration capstone: Assessment and integrative learning. Liberal
Education, 82, 44-49.
7. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: McMillan. (Classic work)
8. Durel, R.J. (1993). The capstone course: A rite of passage. Teaching Sociology, 21, 223-225.
9. Greenberg, J.S. (2002). A community-based capstone course: Service-learning in health education. American Journal
of Health Education, 33(2), 118-121.
10. Gulati-Partee, G. & Finger, W.R. (Eds.). (1996). Critical Issues in K-12 Service-Learning: Case Studies and
Reflections. Raleigh, N.C.: National Society for Experiential Education.
11. Harbor, J.M. (2000). A capstone course in environmental geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 48(5), 617623.
69
12. Hefferan, K. P., et al. (2002). Integrating field trips and classroom learning into a capstone undergraduate research
experience. Journal of Geography, 101(5), 183-190.
13. Inkster, R. & Ross, R. (1995). The Internship as partnership: A handbook for campus-based coordinators and
advisors. Raleigh, N.C.: National Society for Experiential Education.
14. Keil, J.C. & Olivo, J.J. (1996). A student teaching capstone course. Business Education Forum, 51, 33-35.
15. Kerka, S. (2001). Capstone experiences in career and technical education. Practice Application Brief No. 16, ERIC
Publications.
16. Kolb, D. (1994). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
17. Morse, J.G. (1999). An integrative science capstone course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(1), 53-57.
18. North Carolina State University assessment website. Internet Resources for Higher Education Outcomes Assessment.
(2003, February). http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/archives/assmt/resource.htm
19. Obringer, J.W. (1998). The senior biology seminarA capstone course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27,
263-266.
20. Prushiek, J., et al. (2001). Transforming professional development for preservice, inservice and university teachers
through a collaborative capstone experience. Education, 121(4), 704-712.
21. (The) senior capstone experience: Voices of the students. (1999). The Journal of General Education, 48(2), 97-102.
22. Steele, J.L. (1993). The laden cart: The senior capstone course. Teaching Sociology, 21, 242- 245.
23. Walters, B., et al., (1997). Simulation games in business policy courses: Is there value for students? Journal of
Education for Business, 72, 104-107.
Useful Websites:
http://www.nsee.org - National Society for Experiential Education
http://csc.dept.uncg.edu - University of North Carolina Greensboro
http://www.eric.ed.gov - ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation
70
GLOSSARY
Assessment: "Assessment is the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs
undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development." (Palomba & Banta, 1999)
Artifact: is the actual tool used for the assessment; test, paper, presentation, survey, demonstration, portfolio.
Assessment of Student Learning Reporting Form: a discipline/programs reporting of assessment data and
resulting recommendations for change. The questions on this form link to the questions on the Program ReviewEvidence of Quality template.
Assessment Task: The assignment learners are asked to complete to demonstrate achievement of one or more
outcomes. The students performance in the task is measured by using explicitly stated criteria.
Benchmark: a sample of work that illustrates a category or score on a scoring rubric.
Classroom Portfolio: a collection of student work at different stages of development during a course or over a
series or courses. Classroom portfolios included work from one course or discipline. They draw together samples
from a variety of genres within the discipline. Classroom portfolios also generally include examples of selfreflective assessment.
Core Competency: a skill expected of all SWIC graduates.
Course objectives: are measurable learning objectives, which address the specific content of the course. These
must be assessed using some method that will evaluate whether or not student learning has taken place. Each
course objective should have a link to one or more discipline/program goal.
Criteria: Clearly stated characteristics of performance/level of achievement of students. These characteristics
provide the basis for judging if performance is acceptable.
Direct Measure of Learning Outcome: Students demonstrate an expected learning outcome. (Allen, 2002).
Discipline Curriculum Map: an identification where in each course each goal is introduced, emphasized, or
reinforced for all courses in a discipline or program.
Domains: Refers to a taxonomy developed by a group of educational psychologists, headed by Benjamin Bloom in
1956. This is a classification of levels of thinking behaviors thought to be important in the processes of learning.
The three domains include: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective.
Educational Goals: are broad statements addressing what the instructional faculty want the students to understand
when they finish their course(s)/program.
Educational Objectives: include the knowledge, skills, abilities, capacities, attitudes or dispositions students are
expected to acquire as a result of completing your academic program. Objectives are sometimes treated as
synonymous with outcomes, though outcomes are usually more detailed, behavioral in nature, and stated in precise
operational terms (see Learning Outcomes).
Emphasize (for discipline specific goals/objectives): Students apply concept(s) in varying/multiple situations of
greater complexity than when initially introduced.
71
Evaluation: The use of assessment findings (evidence/data) to judge program effectiveness; used as a basis for
making decisions about program changes or improvement.
Faculty Evaluation: a process of administrative review and consultation with faculty concerning performance in
the faculty role. The feedback and insights developed through outcomes assessment are not an appropriate
foundation for faculty evaluation.
Formative Assessment: is continual assessment of student learning aimed at improving student learning and thus
increase the chances for the student to succeed.
Goals: are the general aims or purposes of a program and its curriculum. Effective goals are broadly stated,
meaningful, achievable and assessable. Goals provide a framework for determining the more specific educational
objectives of a program, and should be consistent with program and institutional mission.
Grading: a process of faculty review and evaluation of student learning that is used as a basis for rating
performance.
Holistic Scoring: a scoring process in which a score is based on an overall impression of a finished product
compared to an agreed-upon standard for that task.
Indirect Measure of Learning Outcome: Students or others report their perception of how well a given learning
outcome has been achieved.
Introduce (for discipline specific goals/objectives): Student is first exposed to concept/idea and is requested to
apply concept in limited scope.
Introduce (for general education competency skills): occurs when college level competency skills as they apply
to a specific discipline are first presented to students and these skills are assessed by the faculty member.
Learning Outcomes: are operational statements describing specific student behaviors that evidence the acquisition
of desired knowledge, skills, abilities, capacities, attitudes or dispositions. Learning outcomes can be usefully
thought of as behavioral criteria for determining whether students are achieving the educational objectives of a
program, and, ultimately, whether overall program goals are being successfully met. Outcomes are sometimes
treated as synonymous with objectives, though objectives are usually more general statements of what students are
expected to achieve in an academic program (see Educational Objectives).
Learning Objectives: a subset of skills, abilities or knowledge that supports an outcome.
Mission Statement: is a clear and concise statement describing the facultys commitment to the assessment of
discipline specific student learning outcomes in conjunction with the mission of the college.
OA Timeline: a timeline linked to the program/discipline program review cycle. P= Plan, I=Implement, and
R=Report (includes discuss and analyze results) See Appendix L
Objectives: specific statements of measurable attainments.
Observer Effect: the degree in which the presence of an observer influences the outcome.
Open-response Items: items requiring short written answers.
Outcome: Broadly defined skills, abilities or knowledge learners are expected to gain in a given learning
environment.
72
Performance-based Assessments: items or tasks that require students to apply knowledge in real world situations.
Performance Events: assessment tasks that require students to apply what they have learned.
Portfolio: a representative collection of a students work, including some evidence that the student has evaluated
the quality of his or her own work.
Program goal: related to the overall mission of the program and typically is stated in broad and rather abstract
terms.
Prompt: a short statement or question that provides students with a purpose for writing, also used in areas other
than writing.
Reinforce (for discipline specific goals/objectives): Student may be expected to understand the concept upon
taking the course and utilizes the concept in conjunction with other concepts/ideas to solve problems.
Reinforce (for general education competency skills): occurs when students have been previously introduced to a
skill as it applies to a specific discipline and is expected to use that skill without further explanation.
Rubric: a set of scoring guidelines that can be used to evaluate a students work.
Summative Assessment: is assessment at the end of a term aimed to issue a final grade, degree, certificate or letter
of recognition.
Syllabi Action Report: the reporting form for disciplines/programs to report their plans to gain greater consistency
in multiple section courses.
Triangulation: involves the collection of data via multiple methods in order to determine if the results show a
consistent outcome
73
APPENDICES
74
OA Steering Committee
Clay Baitman Co-Chairperson
Julie Muertz Co-Chairperson
OA Leadership Team
1. Math & Science
2. Liberal Arts
3. Dean Representative
4. OA Coordinator
Disciplines Outcomes
Assessment
Committee
DOA Committee
Members
1. L.A.
2. B.D.
3. M.S.
4. H.S. & H.S.
5. T.E.
6. Dean Representative
Citizenship
Chair
Specialists:
Personal Accountability
Civic & Social
1. L.A.
2. B.D.
3. M.S.
4. H.S. & H.S.
5. A.F.
Co-Curricular OA Committee
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Academic Advisor
Athletics
Success Center
College Activities
Financial Aid
Disability & Access
Library
Career Services
Veterans Services
General Education
Outcomes
Assessment
Committee
1. Citizenship Chair
2. Reasoning Skills Chair
3. Communication Skills Chair
4. Resource Person(s)
5. Dean Representative
6. IR Representative
Communication Skills
Chair:
Specialists:
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
1. L.A.
2. B.D.
3. M.S.
4. H.S. & H.S.
5. A.F.
Reasoning Skills
Chair:
Specialists:
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
1. L.A.
2. B.D.
3. M.S.
4. H.S. & H.S.
5. A.F.
75
Members
Communication Skills
Chairperson
Reasoning Skills
Chairperson
Citizenship Chairperson
Institutional Research
Representative
Resource Person(s)
OA coordinator & GEOA
Chairperson
Dean Representative
Selection Process
Elected by current members of
Committee
Elected by current members of
Committee
Elected by current members of
Committee
VP appointment
Terms
2 year term
Permanent Member
2 year term
Permanent Member
2 year term
2 year term
2 year term
Selection Process
Elected by Division
Terms
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Resource Person(s)
2 year term
OA Coordinator &
DOA Chairperson
Dean Representative
Permanent Member
VP appointment
2 year term
76
Members
Vice President of Instruction
Selection Process
By position
Terms
Permanent Member
Dean /Co-chairperson
VP appointment
Permanent Member
OA Coordinator
Disciplines OA Chairperson
General Ed. OA Chairperson
Health Sciences Division
Representative
Homeland Security Division
Representative
Business Division
Representative - Occupational
Business Division
Representative - Transfer
Liberal Arts Division
Representative
Chair of AA Committee
Liberal Arts Division
Representative
Math & Science Division
Representative
Chair of AS Committee
Math & Science Division
Representative
Support Services
Permanent Member
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
By Position
Permanent Member
Elected by Division
2 year term
By Position
Permanent Member
Elected by Division
2 year term
VP Appointment
2 year term
Technical Education
Representative
Elected by Division
2 year term
77
Members
Chairperson
Selection Process
Elected by committee members
Terms
2 year term
Dean Representative
VP appointment
Permanent Member
OA Coordinator
Permanent Member
Elected by Division
2 year term
Business
Academic Advisor
English/Literature/Journalism
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2 year term
2 year term
2 year term
Foreign Language
Elected by Division
2 year term
Elected by Division
2 year term
Life Science
Mathematics
Philosophy
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2 year term
2 year term
2 year term
Physical Science
Psychology
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2 year term
2 year term
Social Sciences
Speech/Communications/
Theater
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2 year term
2 year term
Anthropology/Archeology/
Sociology
Art/Music
78
2 year term
SELECTION PROCESS
Elected by committee members
VP Appointment
TERMS
2- year term
Permanent Member
OA Coordinator
Permanent Member
VP of Student Development
Volunteer Representative
Volunteer Representative
Library
Volunteer Representative
Academic Advising
Volunteer Representative
College Activities
Volunteer Representative
Athletics
Volunteer Representative
Volunteer Representative
Success Center
Volunteer Representative
Financial Aid
Volunteer Representative
SELECTION PROCESS
Elected by committee members
VP appointment with faculty search
2- year term
Permanent with appointment
Specialists:
Personal Accountability
Civic & Social
Liberal Arts
Business Division
Math & Sciences
Selected by OA Team
2- year term
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2- year term
2- year term
2- year term
Elected by Division
2- year term
Elected by Division
1-year term
79
TERMS
SELECTION PROCESS
Elected by committee members
VP appointment with faculty search
TERMS
2- year term
Permanent with appointment
Specialists:
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Liberal Arts
Selected by OA Team
2-year term
Elected by Division
2-year term
Business Division
Elected by Division
2-year term
Elected by Division
2-year term
Elected by Division
2-year term
Elected by Division
1-year term
SELECTION PROCESS
Elected by committee members
VP appointment with faculty search
TERMS
2- year term
Permanent with appointment
Specialists:
Writing
Oral Communication
Computer Literacy
Liberal Arts
Business Division
Math & Sciences
Selected by OA Team
2- year term
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
Elected by Division
2- year term
2- year term
2- year term
Elected by Division
2- year term
Elected by Division
1-year term
80
Definition
Related Behaviors
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
81
This form is to be completed by the OA Disciplines Committee Chair and is to remain with the Disciplines
documentation. Please place a or an in the box to the left of each item indicating that requirement has been
met/completed.
MISSION STATEMENT:
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Does the Discipline identify commitment to the assessment of student learning?
Is the Disciplines mission statement linked to the colleges mission statement?
Pending
EDUCATIONAL GOALS:
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Pending
The (Disciplines Name) at Southwestern Illinois College will graduate students that can: is contained
before the Educational Goals?
Do the Educational Goals utilize Blooms Taxonomy?
Do at least some Educational Goals link to the college-wide core competencies?
Are the goals measuring student performance upon completion of disciplines course(s)?
Are Division Name: and Submitted by: completed?
PROGRAM CURRICULUM:
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Pending
Are the Educational Goals listed the same as the Educational Goals from the Mission Statement?
Are the columns labeled with the Disciplines courses?
Are any columns left blank?
COURSE SYLLABUS:
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Pending
Is the Discipline using the Course Syllabus template or similar form, containing all the recommended
elements?
OA Timeline:
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Pending
Are the Educational/Learning Goals the same as the Educational Goals listed with the Mission Statement
and on the Curriculum Map?
Does the form indicate when planning will take place for a particular assessment project?
Does the form indicate when data will be collected?
Does the form indicate when the data will be analyzed and reported?
82
Attended meeting?
Accepted
Pending
Are the Educational/Learning Goals the same as the Educational Goals listed with the Mission Statement
and on the Curriculum Map?
Does the report explain how the data was analyzed?
Does the report explain what baselines for comparison where used?
Is the resulting data included?
Were there rationales for action from the resulting data?
Where there improvements or action taken as a result of the data?
Is there a need for further action?
83
DEGREE/PROGRAM NAME
Mission Statement
*Identify disciplines commitment to the assessment of student learning.
*Link disciplines mission to the colleges mission.
Educational Goals
The Discipline Name at Southwestern Illinois College will graduate students that can:
1. Educational goals are measurable student performance goals upon completion
of disicipline course(s).
2.
Reviewed: xx/xx/20xx
Division: Division Name
Submitted by: Faculty Member Name
84
85
PROGRAM CURRICULUM
COURSE PREFIX & NUMBER
THE STUDENT
(Discipline) SHALL BE
ABLE TO:
Educational Goals Listed
Here:
86
Student Learning Assessment Projects will help faculty to determine what our students are
learning and how well they are learning.
Student learning assessment projects should be linked to one or more of your course
objectives that are linked to the discipline/program educational goals.
Student learning assessment projects can help you to determine if your students are
meeting your course objectives or discipline/program goals.
Student learning assessment projects can be based on an issue or concern that needs to be
assessed only once or on a regular cycle.
All educational goals should be assessed at least once during a 5-year cycle by collecting
and reviewing student-learning data of goal linked course objectives.
5-Year formal program reviews will require submission of reports describing assessment
process and outcome of student learning for all discipline/program educational goals.
Budget requests will be linked to the needs resulting from the analysis of data collected
from the student learning assessment projects.
87
Contact Person:
Division:
1b. Identify the courses that were involved in this assessment study.
1c. Identify the mode of delivery for participating courses: (Check all that apply.)
face-to-face
online
hybrid
web enhanced
1d. Identify the course objective(s), program/discipline goal(s) or core competency involved in this
assessment.
2a. Describe how the assessment was conducted/completed.
2b. What tool was used to collect performance measures?
2c. What was the sample size of the group assessed & the number of possible students.
3a. What were the results of this assessment? (Organize data in a chart no interpretation needed here.) If
this is a repeat assessment, also share the previous assessment results.
3b. What was the cut-off point (benchmark) indicating satisfactory student performance for the goal/objective
assessed?
4a. What is the faculty analysis/interpretation of these results/trend results?
4b. Did the groups meet the benchmark?
4c. Were there differences in performance based on ethnicity, mode of delivery, GPA, participation in specific
support activities, etc.?
5. What changes, if any, do the faculty plan on implementing to improve student performance? [Note: The
response to this question is printed in a public document, the OA Report, posted on www.swic.edu without the
above information. Please write this response for summary stand-alone statement that the public will
understand what was assessed, analysis of results, and plans for action.]
Note: Attach relevant summary of data, rubric, or assessment tool.
Submitted by:
Date Reviewed:
D ivision:
Status:
Please submit this form electronically to: OA coordinator and Program Coordinator/Department Chair .
88
2. List the name of all faculty that are requesting compensation for this project.
3. Please describe the duties/responsibilities for each participant. Estimate the total
amount of time you anticipate the project will require for this semester.
Is this a project that you are planning to repeat in the future? Yes
or No
6. Explain how data will be collected to show how this project impacted student
learning in the indicated core competency, course objectives(s) or educational goal(s).
How will the data collected assist with the student learning component of Program Review? (Please
discuss with your department chair or program coordinator.)
7. List any materials or additional resources needed to implement this project.
89
Contact Person__________________________________
Title of Project__________________________________
Department/ Program__________________________________
Semester ___________
Total Points_________
Possible
Points
6
Assigned Points
3 pts.- Intent is to repeat the assessment in the future to
gain trend data for the program/discipline.
1 pt.-Project is linked to at least 1 program or discipline
goal.
1 pt.-Student learning concern/problem is clearly identified.
1 pt.-Clear description of the type of student performance
the faculty will be examining to assess student learning.
1 pt.-Collaboration of 2 or more faculty in development and
implementation.
1 pt.-Identifies how to share the project & results with
faculty within program/division.
1 pt. Clearly shows how project links project course
objectives.
1 pt. Clearly shows how course objectives link to
educational goals.
2 pts. Project includes development of an assessment tool
and training of faculty participating in assessment.
2 pts.- Project addresses program/discipline student
learning concerns from a different perspective of previous
assessments.
2 pts.- Project follows up from areas of concern addressed
in earlier assessments.
2 pts.- Project is the same from a previous semester but is
labor intensive and will be used to compare data from
semester to semester.
2 pts.- First application from program or discipline.
90
Evaluators Comments
APPENDIX L: OA TIMELINE
Contact Person
[Program/Discipline/Department]- OA Timeline
Pl=Plan
Year 2
Year 1
(2016-2017)
Fall
Sp
(2017-2018)
Su
Fall
Sp
I = Implement R = Report
Year 3
(2018-2019)
Su
Fall
Sp
Su
Year 4
Year 5
Year 1
(2019-2020)
(2020-2021)
(2021-2022)
Fall
Sp
Su
Fall
Sp
Su
Fall
Sp
Plan (P) - This semester the faculty/department will determine what they want to know about the objective/goal and identify the method they will use to assess this course/department
objective/goal. They should identify a benchmark/threshold of minimal satisfactory outcomes. If the faculty/department will be repeating an assessment to collect trend data, this step
may not be needed. Review the previously used assessment tool and revise as needed, but try to stay as consistent as possible so that previous years results are comparable. During a
planning stage a pilot study may be needed if the official assessment will be a very large sample of students. The purpose of this pilot is to assure the methodology and/or student
artifacts or tool is appropriate for the educational goal being assessed and norming of the instrument should be conducted. All necessary changes, as indicated by the pilot, will be
made accordingly before the official assessment is implemented.
Implement (I) The assessment of students knowledge, skill and/or beliefs (for a sample group if the eligible pool is larger) linked to the objective/goal will be implemented.
Report (R) During this semester, faculty/department will discuss, evaluate and share the results of the assessment with their peers, as well as, any trend data or other related
assessments completed. Collectively, they will review the results, compare to benchmarks identified and describe what, if any changes should be implemented. A Student Learning
Report is completed to report findings and share planned changes. The final report is reviewed by the members of the appropriate assessment committee and ultimately posted on the
college website on eSTORM.
Note: Include the Assessment Project Title number when filling in the chart. Ex. Pl-1, I-1, R-1, etc.
REMINDER: After changes are implemented, use the same tool to re-assess the impact of the changes implemented.
*Examples of some assessment tools: rubrics course embedded questions, student attitude surveys, standardized exams, focus groups, employer surveys, student
performances, program developed assessments, certification/licensure results, etc.
91
Su
92
Type of
Assessment
Direct or Indirect
(D or I)
Assessment of
Knowledge, Skills,
Attitudes/Beliefs
(K,S,A)
Trend data
available?
(Y, N)
State the
Benchmark
Were any
changes
implemented?
(Y, N)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Instructor:
Class time:
Semester hours:
Class Location
Phone:
Toll Free in Illinois:
Office Hours:
Office Location:
E-mail:
Website:
[Instructors Name]
[Class time]
[Lecture Hours: [# of hours]
Campus: [Campus]
[Phone #]
1-866-942-SWIC (7942
[Office Hours
[Office Location]
[E-mail address]
www.swic.edu
COURSE DESCRIPTION
[Course description must match Catalog description. Include IAI code if appropriate.]
PREREQUISITES
[Prerequisites must match prerequisites in Catalog.]
COURSE OBJECTIVES
[Course objectives must match those listed in Official Department Course Syllabus.
Any core competencies taught in this course should be identifiable in the course
objectives.]
Personal Accountability
Oral Communication
Quantitative Literacy
Writing
93
TEXTBOOK(S)/COURSE MATERIALS
GRADING PROCEDURE
[Include a detailed list of expectations such as: grading scale, information about tests, quizzes, and assignments
that will be used to calculate the final grade.]
ATTENDANCE POLICY
[An attendance policy must be included in the course syllabus. Instructors may deviate
from the official college policy (written below) by providing their own written policy. ]
College Attendance Policy: You are expected to be present for all assigned classes, lectures or
laboratory sessions. If you are absent, you must show your instructor that your absence has
been for a good cause. If you are absent more times during the semester that the number of
times the class meets per week, you may be dropped from the course at the discretion of the
instructor. When a student is dropped by an instructor with an effective date before the
midterm date of the class a W will be recorded. When a student is dropped for nonattendance by an instructor with an effective date after the midterm date, the instructor will
have the prerogative to assign a grade of WF or W.
94
[Using the Topical Outline from the Official Department Course Syllabus provide students with the topics
covered each meeting period/week and assignments.]
This course is approved under the Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI). The IAI is based upon
the assumption that community colleges and universities are equal partners in delivering
lower-division baccalaureate courses. This course is considered equal in scope, quality, and
rigor to comparable courses offered at other colleges and universities in Illinois.
[The following are FREQUENTLY used but not required statements for a syllabus and may be included at the
discretion of the faculty member.]
Academic Support Services - Students needing assistance with tutoring, library research, study space, computers
and internet access may go to the Library or Success Center. Academic support is available district-wide with day,
evening, and Saturday service. For more details on each service, go to swic.edu/library or swic.edu/successcenter.
Phones in Classroom All cell phones and electronic devices should be turned off or silenced prior to entering the
classroom. Any permission for usage should be obtained prior to the start of class and is at the discretion of the
instructor.
95
New Student Orientation All new students are encouraged to participate in the online New Student Orientation,
where students learn about the many programs and services available to help them succeed in college. New
Student Orientation can be found at estorm.swic.edu.
Revised: 9-15-2015
96
SYLLABI SURVEY
Outcomes Assessment
Date: _________________
/__________________________=
Total # of course sections
____________%
/________________ ______ =
Total # of course sections
97
____________%
In the syllabi reviewed, please identify the percent of syllabi that included the following information:
Course Title:
Course Number:
Credit Hours:
Instructor Name:
Pre-requisites:
Instructor contact Information:
Course descriptor:
Course Objectives:
Text/Other Materials:
Course Schedule and/or Assignments:
Methods of Evaluating/Grading:
Attendance Policy:
Reference to Disability & Access:
__________/__________________=
# with title / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with number / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with number / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with Name / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with Pre-req / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with contact info / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with descriptor/ Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with objectives / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with text listed/ Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with schedule / Total # of syllabi
___________/____________________=
# with identifying methods / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with policy / Total # of syllabi
__________/__________________=
# with reference / Total # of syllabi
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
======================================================================================
4. In the syllabi reviewed, please identify the percent of syllabi that included the following information
Optional Section of Syllabus
Plagiarism Statement
Assessment Statement
Academic Rigor Statement
____________/__________________=
# with statement / Total # of syllabi
_____________/__________________=
# with statement / Total # of syllabi
_____________/__________________=
# with statement / Total # of syllabi
_________________%
_________________%
_________________%
5. Please list any changes or suggestions for improving the college-wide Syllabus Template.
98
Oral Communications
Writing
Computer Literacy
Civic and Social Awareness
Critical Thinking
Quantitative Literacy
Revised 08/01/07
99
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
1. Effectively communicates VERBALLY.
a. Maintains appropriate volume.
b. Maintains voice quality.
c. Demonstrates correct pronunciation/ articulation.
d. Vocal distractions are minimal.
e. Appropriate speed and effective use of pauses.
4. Maximizes CONTENT.
a. Reflects audience analysis.
b. Demonstrates preparation and research.
c. Uses appropriate presentation aids.
d. Gathers feedback and answers questions effectively.
100
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
1.
2.
3.
4.
101
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
1.
2.
Use production software such as a word processor program or presentation software to create a
document.
3.
4.
5.
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
1. Define the individuals local, national, and global roles and responsibilities.
Articulate how to fulfill the individuals roles, adapt the individuals roles to various
social, cultural, political, historical, and environmental contexts.
2. Express civic dispositions. Respect diverse individual and societal perspectives and
engage multiple perspectives for the good of the community.
103
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
1. Deduction - The ability to derive ideas or consequences from a set of assumptions or a
given scenario.
Course Question: Does the course ask students to use a set of rules to derive concepts,
solve problems, or analyze situations?
2. Conceptualization - The ability to grasp a concept through spoken or written
communication.
Course Question: Does the course emphasize the comprehension of concepts, or does
it emphasize the memorization of terms or procedures?
3. Application - The ability to see a concept in experience, human behavior, or in the
production of something.
Course Question: Does the course emphasize the visualization of concepts in
experience, etc., or does it emphasize the formal articulation of a theory or method?
4. Evaluation - The ability to judge the worth or success of a concept, theory, or method.
Course Question: Does the course ask students to question the worth of its concepts,
theories, or methods?
5. Reflection - The ability to see oneself in relation to a concept, theory, or practice, one
may profess.
Course Question: Does the course ask students to examine the relationship between
themselves, or their discipline, and the concepts, theories, or methods they practice?
I = Introduce , R= Reinforce, Blank = Not Applicable
104
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
2. Identify, extract, and use quantitative information from tables, charts, graphs, and/or
other relevant visual data.
3. Translate a given problem situation into a mathematical statement and find its solution.
105
Submission By:
Date:
Department/Program
Division:
Course Number
Competency Definition
3. Adapt as needed. Use knowledge and disposition to adapt the individuals behavior,
attitude, and/or actions to be personally accountable in all situations.
106
2-Needs Work
3-Competent
4-Excellent
NA
NA
4
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Comments:
NA
NA
NA
NA
Points______________
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Comments:
NA
NA
NA
Points______________
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Comments:
NA
NA
NA
NA
Adapt as needed:
Points______________
2-Poor
3-Proficient
4-Good
5-Excellent
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average__________
2. Effectively communicates non-verbally.
Uses appropriate gestures, facial expressions,
and movement to support message:
NA
NA
NA
Average___________
3. Presents material in an organized manner.
Attention getting opening:
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average___________
4. Maximizes Content.
Reflects audience analysis:
NA
NA
NA
NA
Average___________
Average the overall score for the final result. The minimum goal we would like to see students attain is a score of 3.
Overall Average________
109
Rating: ______
Rating: ______
Rating: ______
Rating: ______
110
Division:
Discipline/Program:
Report Title: (Example: Course Objective #2 Spring 20xx)
1a. Describe what you wanted to know about student knowledge, skills or behaviors describe what was initially assessed.
1b. Identify the courses that were involved in this assessment study.
1c. Identify the mode of delivery for participating courses: (Check all that apply.)
face-to-face
online
hybrid
web enhanced
1d. Identify the course objective(s), program/discipline goal(s) or core competency involved in this assessment.
2a. Describe how the assessment was conducted.
2b. What tool was used to collect performance measures?
2c. What was the sample size of the group assessed?
3a. What were the results of this assessment? (Organize data in a chart no interpretation needed here.)
3b. What was the cut-off point (benchmark) indicating satisfactory student performance for the goal/objective assessed?
Division:
Status:
Please submit this form electronically to: OA coordinator and Program Coordinator/Department Chair.
111
Missing
112
Unacceptable
Acceptable
OA Forum Rubric
Forum Criteria
1. Are your students learning what
you want them to learn?
Share educational goals
Indicate benchmarks
Meets/Exceeds
expectations
Developing
All program/discipline
educational goals were
assessed within 5 yr period
Assessment results clearly
identify student performance
relative to programs
benchmarks.
Actions relative to those
results were shared, and
actions implemented.
Trend data is available for all
program or discipline
educational goals.
Course objectives are clearly
linked to educational goals.
No assessment programs
completed related to the
educational goals of the
program/discipline.
113
Comments
Program/Discipline is
utilizing tools which assess 3
of the 3 forms of student
performance/behavior
(knowledge, skills, &
attitudes/beliefs)
Program/Discipline is
utilizing tools which assess1
or 2 of the 3 forms of student
performance/behavior
(knowledge, skills, &
attitudes/beliefs)
Program/Discipline is
utilizing tools which assess
none of the 3 forms of
student performance/behavior
(knowledge, skills, &
attitudes/beliefs)
Forum questions
Meets/Exceeds
expectations
Developing
Graduate performance in
transfer/employment is
available via two or more of the
following:
Employer surveys
Graduate surveys
Other
Graduate performance in
transfer/employment is
available via one of the
following:
Employer surveys
Graduate surveys
Other
114
Comments
CONTACT INFORMATION
Joyce Ray
Outcomes Assessment Coordinator
Southwestern Illinois College
2500 Carlyle Avenue
Belleville, IL 62221
Email address: joyce.ray@swic.edu
Office Phone -- 618-235-2700, Extension 5423
Fax -- 618-641-5789
115