Challenge Two:  Seminole State College needs to develop and use direct measures of learning outcomes for all courses and academic programs.

Response: Challenge Two

            The SSC assessment program clearly identifies measurable and publicly stated goals, objectives, and learning outcomes for all its courses and academic programs. To this end, the College implements both direct and indirect measurements of instruction across the academic divisions to assess student learning.  The College further utilizes a unified system for dissemination of assessment results and feedback loops.  Reported assessment results are thereby used to improve student learning.

Since the 2000 HLC/NCA site visit, the faculty, staff and administration have applied their core of knowledge and classroom experiences to shape and utilize multiple direct measures and employ multiple indirect measures across divisions and programs.  The course syllabi clearly document and focus the connection between the College's Mission, general education student expectations, departmental learner outcomes, expected learner outcomes, and enabling objectives.  Faculty members have developed multiple direct measures as they determined what their students should learn from their courses.  With this focus, the faculty have brought new life and commitment to SSC’s Program of Course-Embedded Assessment, in place since 1991.

This section of the report lists the multiple direct and indirect measures the College utilizes to assess student learning in all academic courses and for all academic programs.  It provides examples of multiple direct measures and how instructors use the results to improve student learning. It explains feedback loops and information dissemination to the campus community.  These institutional measures are part of an evolving process and culture of assessment of student learning at the course and program level at Seminole State College.

Seminole State College uses multiple direct measures of student learning.  These indicators include: 

• Course-Embedded Assessment

·institutionally mandated

            ·faculty members administer to students in each course

            ·measures student knowledge before and after classroom learning

            ·reflects general education student expectations

            ·reflects departmental learner outcomes

            ·directly measures expected learner outcomes

            ·evaluates enabling objectives

            ·results feed into course, discipline, general education, and mid-level (degree program) areas

• Nationally Normed Academic Profile Instrument

            ·nationally normed

            ·Assessment of Student  Learning Coordinator administers test

            ·gauges mid-level and general education assessment of student learning

            ·administered to students with 45+ credit hours

            ·provides a national comparison

• Transfer Data Performance Indicator Reports

            ·regionally compiled

            ·Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator compiles data

         ·reports on graduates' progress at area senior regional and comprehensive universities

            ·reports on graduates' final graduation rates at area senior regional and comprehensive universities

            In 1991, the Assessment of Student Learning Committee adopted unified Course-Embedded Assessment Program options for faculty to use to assess student learning.  This practice was an institutional effort to recognize that direct measures employed in the classroom to gather assessment information is a key to understanding and gauging student achievement.  After additional faculty input and review, the Assessment of Student Learning Committee consolidated classroom assessment reporting into the current six pre- and post-test options.  The Committee then approved a format for the "Seminole State College Course-Embedded Assessment Report" to organize course-embedded assessment findings in a standardized format.  This format efficiently allows faculty members to submit individual assessment data to respective chairpersons each semester following the completion of their courses.  Faculty members link their assessment methods to enabling objectives, expected learner outcomes, departmental learner outcomes, and general education student expectations.  They also explain how they use the assessment results to formulate modifications in their teaching strategies  (Appendix  H).

            Members of the faculty of the College tailor selection of assessment mechanism options according to each course's expected learner outcomes.  Since those expected learner outcomes vary across learning domains, many faculty make their selection of assessment method to best measure a specific learning method.  The Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (HPER) Division is an example of a division that uses a variety of direct learning indicators to address the expected learner outcomes of courses.  In the case of the HPER division, the faculty recognized that the expected learner outcomes for various courses were related to more than simply the cognitive domain of learning.  The division offers instruction in health-related issues in a classroom environment through  the Wellness-Human Development Course. For this course, faculty use a standard assessment mechanism in the pre- and post-test format.  Other parts of the division's curriculum include activity courses with hands-on instruction.  In these courses, faculty use pre- and post-performance testing related to specific guidelines.  Since the learning in the activity courses is tailored to psychomotor learning, the performance testing, designed to measure fitness indicators, provides a direct evaluation of student learning and application of skills. 

Once faculty members across the six academic divisions and the Business and Industry classes at the College complete their individual course-embedded assessment report forms, each divisional chairperson then prepares a summary of the instructors' assessment findings. During fall 2002 divisional chairpersons reported that 95 faculty members (representing 93.68% of the full time, part time, and adjunct instructors) submitted individual assessment reports on direct learning indicators of student learning employed in their classes.  The faculty assessed a total of 4,313 Seminole State College students in 286 courses (some assessments were duplicates).  Finally, the Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator uses the division reports to create the campus-wide Course-Embedded Assessment Report for the institution.  The Coordinator also writes an executive summary that is distributes to all faculty members (Appendix I, J).

The Seminole State College Assessment of Student Learning Committee adopted an additional direct measure of student learning, the Educational Testing Service Academic Profile.  This nationally normed external tool provides a direct measure of student learning at the mid and general education levels as well as a measure of SSC student learning compared to students at similar institutions.  The SSC Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator administered a pilot of the Educational Testing Service Academic Profile in spring 2002, and a more widespread testing in spring 2003.  The profile measures critical thinking, reading, writing and math skills with context-based questions from the academic areas of humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and mathematics.  The spring 2003 profile results serve as a direct measure of student learning.  In addition, the profile results provide a comparison with both comparable colleges and demographic summaries.  The SSC Assessment of Student Learning Committee's examination and discussion of the results further supplied input for course and discipline assessment to improve student learning (Appendix K).

            Transfer Data Performance Indicator Reports from four-year institutions also are direct measures the College uses to assess students’ preparation as they continue their education.  Seminole State College consistently receives positive feedback on students' academic progress from three area universities to where the majority of SSC’s two-year students and graduates transfer: East Central University, the University of Central Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State University.  The findings in these reports, which cover from fall 1996 to fall 2002, indicate SSC’s students are academically prepared for success at these senior regional and comprehensive universities.  For example, East Central University is the area transfer institution most often selected by Seminole State College students.  During the past six years, students who transferred to East Central University with a Seminole State College GPA average of 2.737 achieved an average GPA rate of 2.706 at East Central University (Appendix L).

            There are plentiful illustrations to substantiate the fact that across the College's academic divisions faculty members are using results of these direct measures to improve learning and to strengthen instruction.  In the Math, Science, and Engineering Division, as just one example, instructors in Biology and Microbiology are utilizing additional introspective methods to improve learning and students' test scores.  In response to student feedback and findings garnered from testing data and analysis of poor responses on certain test questions, instructors are incorporating more hands-on approaches to teach difficult concepts, increasing lab availability, and using more consumable materials in their laboratory teaching to improve test results. 

            The multiple indirect measures of student learning that faculty members use also provide data to assist them in improving student learning and in strengthening instruction.  For example, as a result of student responses to ideas for improving their course, a faculty member in the Social Science Division teaching Native Peoples of North America (ANTH/NAS 1203), became aware that the course was deficient in the "Native American voice."  As a result of this realization, the College devoted funds from the existing Title III grant to supply hard-copy materials and audio-visual instructional aides such as videos to address the assessment need.  In subsequent semesters, student performance and participation, particularly among Native American students, significantly improved in the class. 

            Complementing the direct measures, indirect indicators provide information for triangulation of other assessment results as well.  They further substantiate direct measure results for Associate in Arts, Associate in Science, Associate in Applied Science, and Associate in Applied Science for Applied Technology degrees.  The multiple indirect measures Seminole State College uses (Available in the Resource Room; Appendix A), include:

• ACT Freshman Profile Report (a comparison report of ACT composite scores of incoming freshman with national norms)
• Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (the Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator administers this external inventory of students on learning and non-academic satisfaction)
• Institutional Statistics Report (the Vice President for Academic Affairs compiles these fall/spring/
  May minimester/summer reports on the demographic composition of the student body)
• Course-Embedded Assessment Divisional Summary Reports (divisional chairpersons' semi-annual reports on multiple indicators of student learning, indirect as well as direct measurements, that faculty in divisions use in courses)
• SSC Graduate Opinion Survey (the Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator compiles and distributes this annual survey of graduates on student learning and academic experiences)
• SSC Student Opinion Survey (the Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator compiles and distributes this institutional survey of students on learning and non-academic satisfaction levels)  
• Student Transfer Initiative (an Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education-established matrix; faculty members from state public and private institutions for higher learning developed and maintain the matrix, which assures consistency in the content of course syllabi)
• Written Comment Reports (occupational program reports on student testing, national licensure results, job placement data, advisory committee input on student learning, and program modifications)
• Title III Pilot-Study Reports (reports on pilot programs for students in English, mathematics, and science)
• MIS Department Reports (the MIS Department generates institutional reports on        placement data from COMPASS, ASSET, TIPS II, Toledo Chemistry Exam, Nelson-Denny Reading Test, ACT Composite Scores, graduates by majors, and enrollment/ retention results)
• Seminole State College Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose (analysis of course-embedded assessment multiple measures data at the discipline, degree, and general education levels)
• Student Feedback on Classroom Instruction Reports (annual student assessment of their satisfaction with classroom instruction)

Use of Results of Assessment of Student Learning Measures

            Seminole State College uses timely and efficient methods to collect, document and report the results of these measures of student learning.  The Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator writes, coordinates, collects, analyzes and disseminates the documents that allow the effective use of assessment results in student learning and in budgetary considerations.  Students, faculty members, division chairs, staff and the Vice President for Academic Affairs join the College’s Assessment of Student Learning Coordinator in working together to implement, analyze and utilize all aspects of the College's student learning assessment process.  

            Inclusive of the reports under the Direct and Indirect Measures sections of this report, the following are core reporting documents of the Seminole State College Assessment Program:

(Available in the Resource Room; Appendix A):

• SSC Assessment Philosophy and Procedures (public statement of the SSC        commitment to and documentation of the SSC comprehensive assessment plan)
• SSC Overview of Academic Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning Operational Definitions (provides a common ground for reporting, documenting and analyzing assessment results)
• SSC General Education Program Outcomes Course Matrix and Mission Statements, Learner Outcomes, Course Matrices by Academic Division (a faculty generated document linking each course offered at Seminole State College with the General Education Program Outcomes, revised September 2002)
• SSC Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education Assessment Report (a public annual report to OSRHE documenting SSC assessment procedures, results and analysis to improve student learning)
• SSC Course-Embedded Assessment Reports/Instructor; Department; Divisional Summary; Executive Summary (a semester based series of reports that documents and analyzes direct measures of student learning)
• SSC Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Discipline Assessment Report (an annual report assessing designated general education expectations at the discipline level)
• SSC Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose Degree Assessment Report (an annual report based on a five-year review rotation of degree programs)
• SSC Expanded Statement of Institutional Purpose General Education Assessment Report (an annual report assessing designated general education expectations across all courses)
• SSC Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes (chronological record of discussions and recommendations concerning the assessment program)

This system of feedback loops of assessment results across all academic levels is the aspect of our ongoing assessment process that has experienced the most dramatic growth on campus.  The recognition and development of formal and informal feedback loops have breathed life into facts. They vividly illustrate the campus-wide desire to be informed and to inform others about student learning taking place on this campus.  Seminole State College Course Embedded Assessment Divisional Summary Reports, assessment office communications, assessment committee meetings, division chair and division meetings, reports to the regents, memos, conversation patterns, in-class informal student surveys and comments, and student feedback on classroom instruction are examples of effective feedback loops all focused on one goal, improved student learning. The College has a revitalized campus/community culture that encourages this ongoing assessment process. 

Faculty Actions Based on Assessment

            Further examples of the ongoing assessment process at Seminole State College are evidenced in the following actions taken by faculty members in the various divisions:

•HPER made a recent credit-hour change in a HPER class offering altering hours of

general education classroom with activity, hands-on instruction.  With a one-hour

activity added, results indicate improvement in fitness areas including strength,

cardiovascular endurance, and flexibility.

•MSE instructors requested and received funding to provide PowerPoint, videos, and

            CD-RW creation-capabilities previously unavailable in the department's instructional

arsenal.

•SocSci instructors are redesigning their course-embedded assessment tools to fully

            align them with all four levels of assessment objectives and outcomes.  This will

            enable instructors to more fully assess their students' learning though these

            objectives and outcomes.

•LAH and IS developed a pilot program to incorporate a consistent course enabler

structure across all English Composition I & II courses.

•MSE Mathematics (Algebra specifically), in response to student feedback, one

            instructor now takes examples from past exams to use as homework assignments. 

            As a result, the instructor has noticed that more students are seeking his tutorial

            assistance sooner and are taking advantage of office hours in increasing

            numbers.

•HPER uses multiple assessment options due to their varied types of courses.  Instructors use

performance tests to evaluate both health improvement and maintenance.  They

are now consistent in their Wellness/Human Development course assessments. 

They have piloted and implemented tools to assess performance improvement in

activity courses.

•MSE Life Science instructors are incorporating more supplementary material such as

videos, demonstrations, and software, and are incorporating more group work on

questions and problems.

•Business instructors teaching Quickbooks changed their teaching approaches to

assess   the degree of learning taking place in Accounting as students take this

capstone course.  They remodeled their pre-test course-embedded assessment
instrument to reflect and capture more the precise knowledge students bring to
class and are using the information for learning reinforcement purposes.

•MSE General Biology incorporated DNA analysis into the labs to help spark interest

            in Biology since DNA analysis is a prominent subject in the plots of certain

popular TV shows and movies.

•SocSci Government instructors discussed ways to more effectively assess this

            discipline, and will have new assessment measurement tools in place for fall

2003.  They also changed textbooks to correct a problem with historical context of

the former textbook.

•MSE Mathematics is more strongly emphasizing the sequential nature of mathematics

and demonstrating the importance of previously learned concepts.  They also are

implementing PowerPoint and SmartBoard technology to improve the learning

environment.  They also are dividing some chapter in two to allow for two exams

so students can earn better grades by covering less material per test.

•Developmental Math, English and Reading programs were revamped to

            address low student academic performance. Instructors have changed

teaching methods to accommodate different learning styles. Curriculum

materials and placement test cut scores were identified and implemented

to better prepare students for success in college level courses so students

can earn better grades by covering less material per test.

•MSE Principles of Biology was developed to meet the academic needs of science

majors in transfer programs and in nursing and medical laboratory science applied

science degree programs. This action was taken because an analysis of assessment

results showed that General Biology was sufficiently rigorous to meet the needs

of general education students, but insufficient to accommodate scientific concepts

necessary for the success in the sciences.

•Business instructors are currently reviewing assessment results in the office management

program to stregthen the program as necessary. The Business Advisory Council has

identified a potential need for a program option with courses in medical transcription,

medical coding, and medical insurance claims among others.

•Nursing implemented an EXCEL-erated Transitional Track (Fast Track) program in

response to data demonstrating the need for a career mobility path to accommodate

Licensed Practical Nurses into the Associate in Applied Science for Nursing degree program.

Assessment measures were used to establish the three options students may follow in

pursuit of this degree.

Response Two:  Conclusion

            The response of the academic community to Challenge Two has been decisive, exciting, and confidence-building.  There is now a sharper understanding of the need to utilize direct measures of learning across the six academic divisions and the Business and Industry classes at the institution.  The reliance on multiple measures employed and the importance of using what has been learned due to assessment has proved fruitful in making meaningful academic changes to improve student learning.  Faculty members are consciously linking assessment methods to enabling objectives, expected learner outcomes, departmental learner outcomes, and general education student expectations.  Also, adjustments and modifications to programs and courses are deliberate since the process and the feedback loops are more effectively understood and utilized.  Finally, as a result of the progress made, College resources are more effectively allocated to improving instruction and learning on campus.