Shoreline Community College annual outcomes assessment report—2002-03

Jim James 206-546-6949 jdjames@ctc.edu

Pam Dusenberry 206-546-4626 pdusenbe@ctc.edu

1. 
   Highlights of Major Assessment Activities/Project
   

For the fifth consecutive year, a major portion of Shoreline's Assessment allocation was dedicated to faculty assessment development efforts through an RFP process coordinated by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC). Remaining funds supported the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Research, the Assessment Liaison, faculty attendance at the AAHE Assessment Forum., and clerical support.

• 
  Assessment Continuity Portfolio: Case Studies of 2D Projects Linking Specific Outcomes and Alternative Assessment Practices, Mike Larson, Humanities, mlarson@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Information Literacy Assessment, Joanna Tillson Library/ Media Services, jtillson@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Curriculum Transformation and Assessment English Team, Pam Dusenberry, Humanities, pdusenbe@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Revision and Development of Outcomes and Student Assessment Tools for Individual VCT Courses, Dick Davis, Humanities, ddavis@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Assessment and Coordination of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program, Neal Vasishth, Humanities, nvasisht@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Assessing Humanities Outcomes in Developmental English Courses, Dutch Henry, Humanities dhenry@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Nursing Process Papers Rubric, Janice Ellis, Health Occupations, jellis@shore.ctc.edu Anna Shanks, Faculty, Nursing Program ashanks@shore.ctc.edu
  
• 
  Essential SkillsProgram: ESL Rubric Development Project, Loren Wilson, Humanities, lwilson@shore.ctc.edu
  

B. Examples of Educational Improvements Made/Actions Taken

• 
  General During 2002-03 Shoreline Community College completed its decennial Self-study and Accreditation Evaluation. Outcomes Assessment-funded faculty projects were featured prominently in the Self-study report and Annual Outcomes Assessment Reports covering four years and 42 faculty projects were presented as exhibits.
  

• 
  Assessment Continuity Portfolio: Case Studies of 2D Projects Linking Specific Outcomes and Alternative Assessment Practices, Mike Larson, Humanities,
  

• 
  Course specific outcomes were categorically established for the Fine Art drawing
  

• 
  Assessment strategies for both the individual and the class were discussed as
  

• 
  A common framework evolved which allows faculty to describe and to develop
  

• 
  Direct collaboration with tenured and associate faculty responsible for delivery of
  

• 
  Creation of a valued resource of case studies linking course specific MCOs to
  

• 
  The process of discussing and describing the practicum concerning classroom
  

• 
  The framework for describing instructional activities isolates aspects of the
  

• 
  illuminating the differences in practice, but maintaining a focus on outcomes and
  
• 
  assessments as fundamentally important.
  
• 
  The framework establishes generic, student activity categories that reflect upon
  
• 
  departmental values. The framework does not limit, nor prescribe.
  
• 
  A valuable framework for other 2-dimensional courses now exists for relating
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix A.
  

• 
  Information Literacy Assessment,
  

• 
  The team completed a questionnaire that will be used on an ongoing basis to collect data about student achievement of information literacy skills during English 102. The questionnaire will be administered during week one of the quarter and again, to the same classes, at the end of the quarter to determine if and how students’ information-seeking behavior has changed. It will be given primarily in English 102 classes but also in a few other classes that require research papers. The latter will allow us to compare the results of students who have and haven’t completed English 102.
  

Although the questionnaire hasn’t yet been administered one benefit is already clear: The librarians have learned more about English 102 instructors’ modus operandi and vice versa.

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix B.
  

• 
  Interdisciplinary General Education Outcomes Assessment Project (IGEA)
  

• 
  Taking part in IGEA helped the 14 participating faculty to integrate assessment of SCC's General Education Outcomes into their courses.
  
• 
  It also helped faculty more deeply understand the outcomes themselves and their relevance to course content.
  
• 
  It helped faculty to clearly communicate performance expectations to their students resulting in clear cases of improved student performance of the Gen Ed Outcomes and of specific course outcomes.
  
• 
  This project produced three notebooks ("Good IGEAs"), each containing assignments with assessment rubrics and sample student work that measure student performance of each of three Gen Ed Outcomes: Communication, Multicultural Understanding, and Information Literacy. The notebooks provide a resource for the entire faculty where they can see diverse examples of ways to assess the Gen Ed outcomes across the subjects and programs.
  
• 
  The Good IGEAs Notebooks also provide evidence that SCC faculty are assessing the Gen Ed Outcomes across the curriculum.
  
• 
  Faculty who participated report an increased appreciation of the work of other faculty. They say that seeing how other faculty incorporate the outcomes into their course content and assignments was important for their own work and for understanding what and how others teach.
  
• 
  The Good IGEAs notebooks provide a beginning compilation of what student performance/achievement of the Gen Ed Outcomes looks like. It could start the campus-wide discussion of how we will provide performance-based evidence that our students
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix C.
  

• 
  Revision and Development of Outcomes and Student Assessment Tools for Individual VCT Courses
  

• 
  Collaboration with tenured and associate faculty responsible for delivery of content in VCT courses and defined sequences. Collection of outcomes specific to each course from each faculty member creates a resource supporting core outcomes and strategies that define each course as well as diverse perspectives and approaches. Continuity as well as diversity established as a value.
  
• 
  Course specific outcomes were identified and clarified in a more complete fashion than in the MCO where they are merely listed. This process will result in a resource that complements and is more effective than the MCOs, which focus mainly on general education outcomes. Currently campus general education outcomes are being reestablished.
  
• 
  Interrelationships of outcomes and assessment strategies in VCT courses as a whole were considered at a program level in continuous flux. Common outcome areas, based on technical skills and creative problem solving/concept development were reviewed and documented. Differences in perspectives offered by each course sequence were discussed. It is hoped that these discussions may provide a framework for developing an outgoing exit assessment tool for the achievement of overall VCT outcomes specific to the course and its relationship to the sequence.
  
• 
  Assessment strategies for both individual and class assessment that support the dynamics of teaching and learning activities, but are not necessarily part of the grading process, were discussed.
  
• 
  The review of outcomes and assessment activities in these sequences will provide a framework for updating MCOs for these courses.
  
• 
  The on-line interactivity is a model for just-in-time technology updates.
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix D.
  

• 
  Assessment and Coordination of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program
  
• 
  Held workshop for faculty entitled “How Interdisciplinary Classes Changed My Teaching.” At this workshop, experienced Interdisciplinary instructors shared their methods for integrating disciplines in regard to the course structure, course assignments and methods of assessment.
  

• 
  Student surveys were created that asked IDS students a series of questions pertaining to why they chose interdisciplinary instruction as opposed to enrolling in traditional stand-alone courses. This ongoing assessment of student interest has helped contribute to the dramatic increase in IDS instruction at Shoreline. Approximately 400 students enrolled in IDS courses this year.
  

• 
  With help from an IDS team, an IDS course evaluation sheet was created. This document was made specific to interdisciplinary instruction, asking students a variety of questions in regard to assessing their interdisciplinary learning.
  

• 
  Committee created document that specified the duties of the IDS coordinator and IDS program. Previously the duties were discovered via a “do what’s needed at the time” basis. In order to keep the program running smoothly and successfully, it was necessary to clarify and specify the roles of the program leader.
  

• 
  New IDS courses were created involving new disciplines. Faculty from Math, Intra American Studies, Speech Communications have proposed courses for next year
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix E.
  

• 
  Assessing Humanities Outcomes in Developmental English Courses
  

• 
  Faculty discussion of teaching the Humanities Outcomes led to instructional improvements
  

• 
  Faculty evaluation of current assessments of Humanities Outcomes led to improved assessment tools
  

• 
  Faculty development of new assessment tools for Humanities Outcomes led to new classroom practices
  

• 
  Faculty discussion of the importance of the Humanities Outcomes led to renewed program interest in integrating Humanities Outcomes in all English courses
  

• 
  Faculty discussion of the need to revise the Humanities Outcomes led to improved communication across the Humanities Division
  

• 
  Faculty discussion of student work led to improved communication regarding the standards for passing level work in Developmental English courses
  

• 
  Faculty discussion of student work led to improved communication regarding what it means to be prepared for college-level work in reading and writing
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix F.
  

• 
  Nursing Process Papers Rubric
  

• 
  Grading rubrics were developed for the Nursing Process Papers for each of the clinical courses in the Nursing program.
  

• 
  Through meeting together and designing the rubrics the nursing faculty clarified the expectations for student performance.
  

• 
  Having clearly written rubrics was thought to better assure that at each level all faculty were expecting the same standard.
  
• 
  A clear progression of increasing complexity and depth was designed into the rubrics. This helps in the development and assessment of the student’s critical thinking in relationship to the discipline of nursing.
  
• 
  Each rubric was piloted with students and then at a last meeting of the quarter final changes were made.
  

• 
  The written grading rubrics communicate clearly to students the standard expected and therefore, contribute to their ability to meet the standard.
  

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix G.
  

• 
  Essential SkillsProgram: ESL Rubric Development Project
  

During winter and spring quarters, six faculty members wrote eighteen scoring rubrics for the Shoreline ESLAB Courses. These rubrics will be used by ESL Faculty not only to plan curriculum design and set lesson objectives, but also to make decisions about level completion for each student.

• 
  Additional project detail is contained in Appendix H.