Faculty InService in lieu of regular Committee Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 38
About This Presentation

Faculty InService in lieu of regular Committee Meeting


9:45-10:20 Accreditation Update -- 20 min B R E A K -- 10:40-12:00 ... Donna Janes ... ACT, (2006) 'Guide to Successfule General Education Outcomes ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:139
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: garybe7


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Faculty InService in lieu of regular Committee Meeting

Compliance Certification Committee
Faculty In-Service in lieu of regular Committee
Meeting January 10, 2007 900-430 Beto
Academic Center
Faculty In-service January 2007 Compliance
Certification Committee
  • 900-915 Opening Prayer Fac Business Joel
  • 915-945 Opening Comments Tom Cedel
  • 945-1020 Accreditation Update
  • -- 20 min B R E A K --
  • 1040-1200 Student Achievement
  • Program Alignment Institutional Backmap
  • Group Exercise completing the backmap
  • -- 1200-100 L U N C H --
  • 100-210 Measuring Outcomes
  • Aggregating individual student assessment
  • Group Exercise Writing Rubrics
  • -- 20 min B R E A K --
  • 230-330 Core Assessment
  • CAAP Overview
  • Group Exercise Completing the CAAP Planning

Opening Comments
Faculty In-service January
  • Be informed
  • About your area
  • About the university
  • Be involved
  • Assessment of student learning
  • Program assessment
  • Concordias mission
  • Be prompt
  • The time is now

Mission Framework
  • Teach
  • Faculty approved learning outcomes
  • Map of outcomes and courses
  • Model
  • Faculty and staff development
  • Practice
  • Integration of curricular and co-curricular
  • Recognize
  • Award programs, speaker series

Accreditation Progress Report
Faculty In-service January
  • 58 of the 74 Principles of Accreditation have a
    visible path toward in compliance
  • 16 areas fall short of compliance
  • 3 Common threads outcomes measurement
    equivalency for all consistency
  • Argumentative Outlines in development
  • First draft of narratives due by March
  • Responsibility Matrix
  • Marries corporate owners, program directors, and
    compliance committee

Faculty In-service January
General Education-Donna Janes
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 Competencies within
    General Education Core

Institutional Effectiveness-Mike Moyer Gayle
  • Core Requirement 2.5 Institutional Effectiveness
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 Outcomes Assessment
    Analyses for Improvement
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.1 Approved by
    Faculty Learning Outcomes
  • Federal Standard 4.1 Evaluation of Student

Faculty In-service January
Degree Programs-Yusheng Feng
  • Core Requirement 2.7.2 Program Content

Faculty Credentials-Larry Meissner
  • Core Requirement 2.8 Faculty
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 Qualifications

Library Learning Resources-Curt Giese
  • Core Requirement 2.9 Learning Resources and
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.14 Use of Technology
    to Enhance Student Learning
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.8.2 Access to
    Instruction in Use

Faculty In-service January
Contractual Arrangements-Linda Lowery
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.7 Consortial and
    Contractual Educational Programs

Policies- Eric Silber
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.3 Admissions Policies
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.10 Defines Publishes
    General Major Program Requirements

Administration Employees-Shirley Carey
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.2.10 Institution,
    Evaluation of Administrators
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.2.14 Institution,
    Ownership of Materials

Accreditation Timeline
  • Kick-off completed in Jan 2006
  • Compliance Audit completed in Sep 2006
  • QEP exploration completed in Nov 2006
  • QEP topic selection Jan 2007
  • First draft of 74 narratives in Mar 2007
  • Compliance Certification due to SACS in Sep 2007
  • Off-site review in Nov 2007
  • Focus report in Dec 2007
  • QEP due to SACS in Dec 2007
  • On-site review during the window of Jan-Apr 2008
  • SACS reaffirmation results published in Dec 2008

Responsibility Marriage Matrix
  • For each Principle (74) identify
  • Corporate owners
  • Supporting corporate office
  • Primary and supporting program
  • Compliance Committee facilitator
  • Owners shape the tone and content of the
  • Directors/managers assemble the supporting
    arguments and evidentiary proof
  • Topical committee members are facilitators for
    the narrative process, and a devils advocate for
    the owner
  • The ubiquitous all have a role in the process

  • Challenges to find the path toward compliance
  • Linkage of programs (academic support) to
    institutional goals and institutional learning
  • Measurement of outcomes a cyclical record of
    using results to shape a culture of quality
  • Faculty Credentials
  • Ownership Accountability
  • Time management
  • Closing the Looptwo cycles

Wild Cards
  • Substantive Change
  • Remote Sites
  • M Ed and Nursing Program
  • Relocation
  • Distance Learning
  • Demonstrating equivalency for all students in
    academic support programs
  • New SACS institutional rep changes to the
    Principles of Accreditation
  • Changes in the corporate structure

QEP Update
  • Comments from the QEP Committee co-chairs
  • Don Christian Cathy Brigham

  • 20 minutes

Student Achievement
  • college is meaningless without a curriculum, but
    is more so when it has one that is meaningless
  • a curriculum creates a world. It is important
    then that it has a center and an order or parts.
    Some studies are surely secondary to others, as
    some rest on others as a base. This should be
    made manifest, and no student should be permitted
    to ignore the primary, the basic matter.
  • Van Doren, 1943 (as quoted in Birnbaum, 2004, p.

Student Achievement
  • As we pursue the path of growth from program
    effectiveness to institutional effectiveness, we
    have the opportunity to change the question from
    What students know and can do to What students
    know and can do as a result of their educational
    experiences at Concordia
  • Barnes, et al. (2006), p. 6
  • The first question is one linked to individual
    student achievement course outcomes
  • The second question is one linked to the
    collective body of students institutional,
    program outcomes

Curriculum Alignment
What we say students should learndesired
institutional learning outcomes
What is actually taughtcourse objectives
DECLARED Curriculum
TAUGHT Curriculm
LEARNED Curriculum
What students actually learnmeasured core and
program outcomes
The overlap is where consistency and
intentionality happenalignment improves the
Adapted from Barnes, et al. (2006), p. 9
Curriculum Alignment
  • Questions
  • Do the core and programs of study provide an
    intentional and consistent path for students to
    learn what we assert we inculcate?
  • Does the curriculum provide the means to build on
    previous learning and to reinforce outcomes?
  • Do programs and associated courses promote
    institutional-level knowledge, skills, and
    attitudes that shape habits of the mind and
  • How well do institutional expectations translate
    into intentional educational practices at the
    program and course level?

Adapted from Barnes, et al. (2006), p. 8
Curriculum Alignment
  • Outcomes
  • Accountabilitynot about how you do your job, but
    about consistency between multi-section courses
    and between Full and Part-time faculties
  • Congruence between Institutional Outcomes and
    Program/Course Goals
  • Curriculum awareness that clarifies the
    relationship between teaching learning,
    identifies gaps, ensures sequencing, and promotes
    academic rigor
  • Curriculum effectiveness that promotes upward
    movement in the cognitive, affective, and motor
  • Curriculum coherence that promotes the
    institutional mission and the academic excellence
    goals and objectives

Adapted from Barnes, et al. (2006), p. 10-14 and
from SACS-COC (2005), Relevant Questions for CR
2.5 2.7
  • Execution
  • You, as a faculty, have already done a lot of
  • Core curriculum outcomes that were developed in
    2002/3 are the basis upon which we move forward
  • The strategic plan and its associated academic
    excellence vector have your 9 outcomes plus 1 at
    the center
  • The first round of back-mapping was eye-opening
  • Today, well do round 2
  • Gen Ed, IE, Degree Program requirements
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 Competencies within
    General Education Core
  • Comprehensive Standard 3.4.1 Approved by
    Faculty Learning Outcomes
  • Core Requirement 2.7.2 Program Content

Back-map Exercise
  • Form sub-groups by colleges divisions
  • Primary focus is on the columns for b.i through
  • Place an X in the cell of the 1-3 substantive
    areas that your program/major supportswhere you
    place an X indicates areas that you will employ
    some means of aggregated data collection to
    measure learning outcomes.
  • Majors should have an X in b.x.
  • BA/BS/AA Core has its own section on page 3

  • Resume at 1 PM

Measuring Outcomes
  • Moving toward Institutional Effectiveness by
    using aggregated student/course assessment data
  • WHY?
  • We already do a lot of individual assessment of
    students, instructors, courses
  • We can use what you are already familiar with
  • Save ourselves a lot of work
  • Earn double mileage

Adapted from Poe George (2006), p. 3-4
Measuring Outcomes
  • Student
  • Students assessed with respect to their
    individual mastery of material presented ensure
    capability or competency of each student
  • Accomplished through exams, projects, essays,
    presentations, etc.
  • Results are used to assign grades, remedial
    action, intervention, etc.
  • INDIVIDUAL growth and improvement
  • Program
  • Institutional performance in meeting its goals
  • Accomplished through exams, projects, essays,
    presentationsBUT with the data aggregated
  • Results are used for program improvement, and as
    a basis for enhancing awareness, alignment, and
    coherence of the curriculum
  • PROGRAM improvement

Adapted from Poe George (2006), p. 5-6
Measuring Outcomes
  • What is an outcome?
  • Student Learning Outcomes are NOT
  • Individual course outcomes or course learning
  • Individual student assessment within the context
    of a given course
  • Student Learning Outcomes ARE
  • Over-arching end results of the academic program,
    i.e. the 9 1 outcomes
  • Faculty/Administration/Regents view of the most
    important attributes of the students as a
    finished product of Concordia

Adapted from Poe George (2006), p. 15
Measuring Outcomes
  • The student learning outcomes of programs are
  • What students should
  • Know (Cognitive)
  • Think Feel (Affective)
  • Be able to do (Motor)
  • You measure these routinely for individual
    students relative to your courses and within your
  • KEY ISSUE To the extent that a given student
    assessment measures or relates to an
    institutional student learning outcome, it can
    potentially be aggregated and used for program

Adapted from Poe George (2006), p. 20-21
Measuring Outcomes
  • Commonly used student assessments that might
    be useful for program assessment
  • Comprehensive Exams
  • Internships
  • Essays
  • Portfolios
  • Oral presentations Juried Performances
  • Senior or Capstone Courses
  • Embedded assessment tools
  • Theses

Adapted from Poe George (2006), p. 23
Measuring Outcomes
  • There is no free lunch, however
  • Using student assessments as a deliberate means
    of program evaluation requires linking of a
    portion of that assessment to institutional
    outcomes and specifying the criteria for success
  • the delta between what you expected and what
    you measured becomes the basis for assessing the

Measuring Outcomes
  • Key issues
  • Means of assessment must relate to or measure
    broader outcomes
  • Criteria for success must be stated in terms of
    averages or aggregates of individual student
  • Scoring standards should be based on faculty
  • Scoring validity is enhanced with more than one
    faculty member involved in the scoring process
  • Outcome scoring can be transparent to the student
    and independent of the individuals course grade

Measuring Outcomes
  • Guidelines
  • Select a representative sample across a program
    (some, most, all) and score relative to the
    criteria for success
  • Internal or External evaluators add value
  • Its not about you personallyits about a
    program and the contribution each of the
    programs parts makes toward the fulfillment of
    institutional goals.

Measuring Outcomes
  • Developing a common set of rubrics for
    b.iWritten and Oral Communication
  • Focus on the written dimension
  • 3-5 commonly agreed upon elements
  • Evaluation scale
  • Divide into two groups
  • A. Rubric for essays, reports, research papers
  • B. Rubric for laboratory and scientific reports

  • 20 minutes

Assessing Outcomes of the Core Curriculum
  • Faculty-developed Institutional Outcomes of the
    Core Curriculum
  • Written Oral Communication
  • Aesthetic Sensibility
  • Problem Solving
  • Integration to the Campus the path to a
    lifelong, Lutheran-ethos learning environment
  • Wholenessphysical, mental, spiritual
  • Ethical Decision-making Moral Standards
  • Historical Cultural Logic
  • Cross-cultural sensitivity
  • Servant Leadership

Assessing Outcomes of the Core Curriculum
  • Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency
    (CAAP) offers a program of standardized
    assessment to assess, evaluate, and enhance the
    outcome of general education
  • 50 minute test modules in (multiple choice except
    essay writing)
  • Writing skills
  • Mathematics
  • Critical Thinking
  • Reading
  • Science
  • Essay writing

Assessing Outcomes of the Core Curriculum
  • Advantages of CAAP over other choices
  • Pick and choose modules
  • Faculty can develop additional program specific
  • Cost is reasonable
  • Benchmark data is provided
  • Option of choosing the sampling size
  • For a sophomore class size of 140, sample size
    for a margin of error of /- 5 would be 100

Assessing Outcomes of the Core Curriculum
  • Boundaries to consider
  • When to give itintended for 2nd semester
  • What modulescost is constant for 2 to 5 modules,
    provided same students take all modules
  • Written essay module is an additive cost, and has
    the option of guided local scoring or ACT scoring
  • How to administerhow to motivate students to do
    wellhow this impacts on the faculty

Assessing Outcomes of the Core Curriculum
  • The first step in this process is planning for
  • Two part workshop process
  • Part I
  • Needs and assessment goals inventory
  • Part II
  • Evaluation of the importance of the areas in each
    of the 6 offered modules, aligned with the
    programs/courses in the core that cover this

  • ACT, (2006) Guide to Successfule General
    Education Outcomes Assessment 2006-2007.
  • Barnes, E. M., et al., (2006). Curriculum
    Alignment for Student Achievement. Presentation
    at the SACS-COC Annual Meeting, Dec 2006. The
    presentation in PDF format and the audio
    recording of the workshop is available.
  • Birnbaum, R. (2004). Speaking of Higher
    Education The Academics book of quotations.
    Westport, CT ACE/Praeger Publishers.
  • Poe, R. E. and D. K. George, (2006). CS-87
    Evaluating Program Effectiveness Using Student
    Assessment Data Basic Steps for Beginners.
    Presentation at the SACS-COC Annual Meeting, Dec
    2006. Specific details associated with culling
    aggregated information from Comprehensive
    Exams,Internships, Essays, Portfolios, Oral
    presentations Juried Performances, Senior or
    Capstone Courses, and Embedded assessment
    available as is the audio recording of the
  • SACS-COC (2005) Resource Manual (Available in
    hard copy and through the Concordia website under
    the Institutional Effectiveness and/or
    Accreditation 2008 pages posted in the Resources
    for Faculty Staff section.
  • Under Resources for Faculty Staffselect
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com