Action Item 1: Propose policy changes where warranted to improve student success
Team Leaders: Art Ross, Steve Wendel
Team Members: Dean Cole, Helen Grove, Mary McGirr, Katy Riehle, Marilyn Rodney
Current Focus of Work:
Investigate the different definitions of student success and to continue to review top 45 issues and to review the impact of exiting policies not being adhered to as it relates to student learning.
The team was briefed on recent reports related to the Top 45 including:
Reading Skills and Performance in Select Top 45 Courses
Attendance Report Team Leaders led discussion with the AQIP team on the need for a faculty handbook change. The idea was taken forward to Faculty Senate for their input. Team discussion related to the charge and scope of Action Item 1. Next steps to focus on the definition of “Student Success”
Investigate student success definitions as a foundation against which to continue work
The Vice President for Instruction needs to reactivate the committee that had previously been charged with the task of recommending sweeping changes to the entire FAPR process. Their charge should include the updating of the CPA Assessment and Evaluation 18.104.22.168 from the faculty handbook to reflect Sinclair’s current position on assessment.
Action Item 2: Implement an annual process that engages Sinclair Faculty in the integration and assessment of general education across the curriculum
Team Leaders: Linda Pastore and Ned Young
Team Members: Debbie Badonsky, Peter Bolmida, Brian Cafarella, Dean Cole, Roxann DeLaet, Kjirsten Goeller, John Graham, Doug Kaylor, Winnie Tseng
Focus of Work:
Design a process for integration and assessment of general education. Begin this work by focusing on the general education outcomes for Computer Literacy and Information Literacy for the 2005-2006 academic year.
• Met with group once during the fall quarter to discuss scope of project and brainstorm ideas.
• Linda Pastore and Ned Young met with Joan Patten (IPR), Lori Zakel (Chair of Gen Ed Committee), and Sue Merrell (Director of Curriculum & Assessment) to share ideas from this first meeting with the action team members. At this meeting we decided that Computer Literacy and Information Literacy outcomes would be assessed at the following two points in time:
1. As students begin their course work at Sinclair.
Students would be required to fill out a self-assessment survey based on the rubrics for Information Literacy and Computer Literacy. This self-assessment will be given to students in the First Year Experience Courses.
2. As student complete their course work at Sinclair.
Students will receive the self-assessment survey with their graduation applications.
IPR will be designing this survey based on the rubrics and will provide the data results.
•The action team met during the winter quarter and were assigned the following projects:
1. Process for Engaging Faculty (Embedding activities/assessing outcomes)- Debbie Badonsky and Kjirsten Goeller
2. Review and analyze the data from the student self-assessment surveys of Computer Literacy and Information Literacy- John Graham and Brian Cafarella
3. Literature Reviews: Assessing Computer Literacy and Information Literacy- Doug Kaylor and Winnie Tseng
4. Compiling the data analysis and literature review into a final report- Dean Cole
5. Defining the process of General Education engagement and assessment for an academic year- Roxann DeLaet and Peter Bolmida
Need to interview chairs to discuss the following:
At what point in your program would you want to assess Computer Literacy and Information Literacy? Determine the points where you would expect students to be:
• Introduced to the skills
• Practicing the skills
•Using the skills proficiently
How would you assess (direct evidence) students concerning Computer Literacy and Information Literacy?
Which courses in your program/department have Computer Literacy outcomes listed on the master syllabus? (May be able to ascertain from CMT)
Which courses in your program/department have Information Literacy outcomes on the master syllabus? (May be able to ascertain from CMT)
Have you talked with you faculty about General Education outcomes in your courses?
How will you assess General Education outcomes? What instruments do you use currently?
Action Item 3: General Education
Team Leader: Lori Zakel
Team Members: Jenny Barr, Linda Denney, Karen Fleming, Tony Ponder, Janeil Guerra, Rob Leonard, Sue Merrell
Focus of work:
Establish authority for policy and curriculum in general education
Analyze existing General Education courses for alignment with Ohio Transfer Module, OBOR requirements, success in Top 45, measurable competencies, frequency of offerings, etc.
• Assess relevancy and currency of general education measurable outcomes
o Update outcomes where appropriate
o Establish on-going process for assessment of outcomes
• Develop a review and approval process for the courses included in the general education core
• Embed and assess general education in first year student success course
Gen Ed outcomes are being incorporated in all courses via CMT.
Team Leader has met with first year student success course committee.
Action Item Team Meetings will begin in Spring 06.
Action Item 4: Improve assessment of student learning at the department/program level
Team Leader: Gloria Goldman
No report until CMT v.2
Action Item 6: Training
Team Leader: Teresa Prosser
Team Members: Winnie Tseng, Keith Knox, Phyllis Adams
Focus of Work:
To increase the presence of assessment and gen ed on campus and to create opportunities for faculty training and development in these areas
Connections with SDIC
Connections with AQIP
Identified topics, facilitators, and schedules for several assessment, gen ed, and curriculum sessions for winter and spring institutes, FYFE session, and workshops throughout winter quarter (see attachment)
Recruit additional facilitators as a way of increasing offerings
Increase number of sessions at Fall Faculty Professional Development Day
Elicit upper administration support as way of placing high value for faculty participation
More visibility and higher perceived value and participation