Monitoring Report to the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
From
QUEENSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Bayside, New York 11364
Diane B. Call
Interim President
Arthur Corradetti
Accreditation Liaison Officer
October 1, 2010
Subject of the Follow-up Report:
To reaffirm accreditation and to request a monitoring report, due October 1, 2010,
documenting (1) implementation of comprehensive, integrated, and sustained processes to
assess institutional effectiveness and the achievement of institutional mission and goals
(Standard 7); (2) implementation of comprehensive, integrated and sustained processes to
assess the achievement of student learning outcomes at the course, program, and
institutional levels (Standard 14); (3) evidence of adequate institutional support for and
faculty leadership in the assessment of student learning (Standard 14); and (4) steps taken
to promote a culture in which assessment is understood and valued and in which efforts to
assess student learning are recognized and rewarded (Standard 14). To direct a prompt
staff visit to discuss the Commission's expectations for reporting. The Periodic Review
Report is due June 1, 2014.
Date of the Evaluation Team’s Visit:
March 15-18, 2009
Introduction
Subsequent to the evaluation team visit in March 2009 and the Middle States Commission action in June
three months later, Queensborough Community College has made a concerted and campus-wide effort to
document, realign, and refine the implementation of comprehensive, integrated, and sustained assessment
processes. In some cases, these efforts have served to make more explicit processes that have been in
place for years but have been less public and transparent than they could have been. In other cases, new
or improved assessment efforts have been adopted. The Middle States directives have had the salutary
effect of reinvigorating the institution and galvanizing it into a strategic and systematic reappraisal and
refinement of assessment processes and a reaffirmation of the integral place of assessment in the
educational enterprise.
Queensborough Community College, part of the City University of New York, is an urban campus of
approximately 14,500 students characterized by extraordinary diversity. Covering 37 acres and celebrating
its 50-year anniversary this past spring, the college has 12 transfer programs, including three dual/joint
programs; 17 career programs; and nine certificate programs. A hallmark of the current institution is the
Freshman Academy model. Organized according to curricular clusters, the six academies—Business,
Education, Health-related Sciences, Liberal Arts, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics), and Visual and Performing Arts—offer all first-time, full-time students an educational
experience that nurtures the growth of the individual student in a supportive environment through their first
two semesters, the period studies identify as the time frame when students are most at risk.
From the beginning, the Freshman Academies were conceptualized in terms of assessment. Developed by
faculty and staff in concert with an outside consultant, DVP Praxis Inc., an Academy Assessment Protocol
established benchmarks and student success indicators by which the academies would be assessed.
Community colleges—and community college pedagogy—have finally become the focus of higher
education that they warrant, and Queensborough has positioned itself to contribute to the literature of
innovative and best practices in the field.
Early on in the review of the Middle States Commission’s directives, it was determined that, rather than a
culture of assessment or evidence, what is needed for implementing comprehensive, integrated, and
sustained assessment processes is a culture of collaboration in which assessment is institutionally
recognized as an integral component. To this end, Queensborough adopted a wide array of collaborative
efforts, namely: 1) establishing two representative task forces—faculty and administrative—charged with
developing a single, comprehensive assessment handbook for campus-wide use; 2) institutionalizing
investment in assessment efforts by establishing an Academic Senate standing committee on assessment
and institutional effectiveness; 3) aligning the criteria for faculty appointment and reappointment and for
tenure and promotion with considerations of assessment efforts as college service; 4) refocusing the new
faculty orientation to include an assessment component and building in a semester-long new faculty
institute in which discussion of assessment efforts and development of learning outcomes rubrics were
featured; and 5) appointing experienced faculty to lead assessment workshops for new faculty. The result
has been clarification and refinement of past assessment processes; increased investment by faculty and
administrators in the implementation of comprehensive, integrated, and sustained assessment processes
and clear institutional support; and the emergence of a culture in which the collaboration required for
assessment is better understood and valued and a recognized consideration in tenure and promotion.
Since the self-study and evaluation team visit, Queensborough has undergone some institutional changes
not specific to assessment but indicative of the broader framework of the institution and with corresponding
impact on assessment efforts. The former president of the college, Eduardo Martí, has become vice
chancellor of community colleges in CUNY. That the university chancellor tapped Dr. Martí in July 2010 to
serve in this capacity is indicative of the new priority CUNY itself places on this important sector of higher
education, as well as Queensborough’s progress during Dr. Martí’s tenure as president. The immediate
past provost and senior vice president, Diane Call, has become interim president. As provost, Dr. Call was
instrumental in establishing a much more enhanced new faculty orientation that emphasizes important
college-wide collaborative efforts like assessment and is committed to a culture of collaboration in which
assessment is one valued and recognized component.
In addition to these changes at the highest level, other changes have occurred in the senior administration.
The former dean for academic affairs, Karen Steele, is now interim vice president for academic affairs. Dr.
Steele has worked for over two decades in this office and has had extensive experience in assessment and
strategic planning. The division of finance and administration is now overseen by a vice president, Sherri
Newcomb, formerly dean of this division. Business and financial services, led by Associate Dean William
Faulkner, now reports to this vice president. An audit compliance officer has also been added to this
division. As a result of these changes to finance and administration, the resource planning and allocation
process is considerably strengthened, further refining what was already a very strong strategic planning
process. Finally, the associate dean for accreditation, assessment, and institutional effectiveness, Arthur
Corradetti, is now charged with facilitating the strategic planning process, previously led by the dean for
academic affairs. This organizational change ensures a more seamless link between assessment and
planning at the institutional level.
The monitoring report, which was prepared by the associate dean for accreditation, assessment, and
institutional effectiveness, has had input from the college’s executive team, consisting of the president, vice
presidents, and deans and from the College Advisory Planning Committee, consisting of wide
representation from the college’s leadership. In addition, an open hearing was held in September 2010 to
elicit comment and suggestions from the entire campus community.
In the report that follows, and in the supporting appendices, concrete steps toward implementing
comprehensive, integrated, and sustained assessment processes are described and documented.
2
Progress to Date and Current Status
Acknowledging the interrelationships among the four follow-up items identified by the Middle States
Commission—and considering that the steps implemented by the college often address more than a single
item—an integrated summary of progress to date has been provided. Following this integrated summary is
a list of specific actions discussed in the summary that are relevant to each of the four items.
In response to the evaluation team’s report and the Commission’s action, the institution has refocused its
efforts to develop and implement comprehensive, integrated, and sustained assessment processes. These
efforts may be summarized in five areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Shared governance (page 4)
Collaboration on developing assessment guidelines (page 4)
Assessment of the Freshman Academies through the Academy Assessment Protocol (page 6)
Implementation and dissemination of college-wide assessment (page 7)
Institutional support (page 14)
Shared Governance
As a result of the leadership of the Academic Senate, the official legislative body of the institution and
whose 80 senators include 63 faculty members, a standing committee on assessment and institutional
effectiveness has been established and charged. The associate dean for accreditation, assessment, and
institutional effectiveness is the president’s designee to this committee. The charge to this committee (see
Appendix 1) is to oversee campus-wide assessment efforts and processes and to report annually to the
Academic Senate the degree to which the institution is closing the assessment loop—in other words,
ensuring that assessment processes include collection and analysis of data, discussion, action plans, and
follow-up. The first annual report to the Senate will be presented in spring 2011. That this committee was
established by the Academic Senate itself is an institutional reaffirmation of the importance of assessment
as an integral component of the college’s work.
Collaboration
An extensive effort was made to collaborate campus-wide to develop and promote a vision for developing,
refining, and implementing assessment processes. On October 20, 2009, the associate dean for
accreditation, assessment, and institutional effectiveness presented ―Assessment at Queensborough
Community College: Institutional Effectiveness through Collaboration,‖ which kicked off the year’s work on
developing, refining, and implementing improved assessment processes. This presentation called for the
establishment of two task forces charged with developing an Assessment Handbook for use campus-wide.
In addition to this presentation, the associate dean also made periodic presentations and reports on the
status of assessment efforts to the Academic Senate, the president’s cabinet, the executive team, the
academic chairs, and the administrative divisions.
Through the work of two task forces, one composed of faculty and the other of administrative staff, an
Assessment Handbook was discussed in concept and developed as a reference tool available to the
campus as hard copy and as an electronic version on the college’s Web site (see Appendix 2). The Faculty
3
Assessment Task force consisted of one representative from each departmental personnel and budget
committee—that is, senior faculty with formal governance roles in the department’s curriculum
development, assessment activities, and personnel actions critical in contributing to assessment processes.
The Administrative Assessment Task force consisted of representative administrative directors from all
divisions of the institution. First convened in fall 2009 and completing their work in spring 2010, the task
forces reviewed the wide variety of assessment resources that already existed and came to a consensus
about what needed to be clarified, strengthened, or refined.
The Assessment Handbook consists primarily of four sections and 18 appendices. The four sections
include material on institutional effectiveness, academic assessment of student learning, administrative
assessment of services in support of student learning, and institutional support of assessment. Of particular
note is ―Institutional Effectiveness‖ (pp. 11-16), which presents a general description of the overall
conceptual framework for assessment processes at the institution. The appendices (beginning on p. 29) are
a compendium of assessment resources for the campus, including educational objectives, program review
schedules, course assessment and program review templates, and rubrics, among other materials. Taken
together, the sections and appendices above make the handbook both a theoretical and practical guide.
The overall conceptual framework demonstrates the ways in which assessment processes at the institution
are comprehensive, integrated, and sustained. It shows the relationship between the academic assessment
of student learning represented by course assessment and academic program review (beginning on p. 17)
and administrative assessment of services in support of student learning (beginning on p. 23). Both
processes, through the year-end reporting process mentioned below, feed into the annual strategic
planning completion report, which is submitted to CUNY each summer and which serves as the basis for
application of the budget resource and allocation model. The conceptual framework in itself is not new to
the institution, but its articulation in this form does give it a new clarity and transparency.
A critical part of Queensborough’s assessment processes is the Year-end Report, both for the teaching and
non-teaching departments (see Appendix 14 of the Assessment Handbook, beginning on p. 171). The nonteaching report was significantly modified by the work of the Administrative Assessment Task Force to
strengthen and clarify the assessment and planning sections. The assessment section has been
reorganized around core activities and key performance indicators established by the administrative
directors themselves. Built in to the process is a discussion phase in which administrative directors must
present to and receive feedback from the corresponding divisional head to ensure that efforts across the
division are consistent and that patterns of concern can be discussed and resolved at the divisional level
and, if necessary, brought to the campus-wide strategic planning level. In many ways, the Year-end Report
is the linchpin of the campus-wide assessment processes because it is the critical point at which, whether
by a teaching or non-teaching department, the year’s assessment work is summarized and an action plan
is set out to which the subsequent year’s Year-end Report will have to respond, ensuring strategic and
sustained assessment efforts year to year.
The appendices of the Assessment Handbook provide evidence of comprehensive, integrated, and
sustained assessment processes through a variety of reports and forms, including:

Program Review Schedules – Appendix 3 (Assessment Handbook, p. 41) – As part of the work of
the Faculty Assessment Task Force as it helped to prepare the Assessment Handbook, a new fiveyear program review schedule was established, one that also features the course assessment
required by the academic departments to complete the program review. Though the new program
4


review schedule is consistent with the previous cycle of program review, the course assessment
portion specifically in support of program review is new.
Six-step Assessment Plan for Program Review – Appendix 9 (Assessment Handbook, p. 103)–
and Course Assessment Form – Appendix 11 (Assessment Handbook, p. 123) – These are the
standard assessment resources for academic departments, originally developed by a large-scale
faculty committee in 2004-2005. The first (Appendix 9) is a thorough and comprehensive approach
to course assessment in the service of program review. Both take their practitioner through an
assessment process that accounts for course, curricular, and general education objectives. As a
part of the Assessment Handbook, these tools should become an even more integral part of the
faculty work on assessment in the academic departments.
Year-end Report templates – Appendix 14 (Assessment Handbook, p. 171) – As indicated above,
the teaching department and non-teaching department Year-end Reports link assessment with
planning and provide an organizational structure for using assessment results to inform strategic
planning at the department or office level.
Academy Assessment Protocol
As part of the development of the Freshman Academies, described in the Introduction, an Academy
Assessment Protocol was developed. The protocol is intended to assess the effectiveness of the new
Freshman Academies according to a variety of student success indicators. A principal investigator reporting
to the Assessment Office was assigned in a full-time capacity to implement the protocol, to collaborate and
provide guidance to faculty and administrators involved in the academies, and to report to the community.
The protocol assesses the effectiveness of the Freshman Academies by evaluating three primary areas:
the freshman coordinators, who provide special academic advisement to all first-time, full-time academy
students; the high-impact instructional activities, including writing-intensive courses, learning communities,
cornerstone experiences, e-portfolio, and service learning; and learning outcomes rubrics based on the
general education objectives of the college. The protocol describes procedures including the administration
of student and faculty surveys and collection and analysis of data for a variety of success measures like
credit completion, retention, and course success rates. In addition to the surveys developed exclusively for
the protocol, Queensborough also participated, in spring 2010, in the Community College Survey of
Student Engagement (CCSSE), a national survey of students in over 700 community colleges. Using this
variety of assessment tools, Queensborough is tracking success measures as it pursues the goal of
doubling the graduation rate in three years as compared to the 2006 first-time, full-time cohort.
To ensure that a culture of collaboration supports this effort, the principal investigator presented an interim
report to the college community at a campus convocation in January 2010. The report cited preliminary
results of the student and faculty surveys and of success measures. Students indicated that they were
overwhelmingly satisfied with the freshman coordinators; faculty indicated that, for those who were involved
in high impact instructional strategies, their engagement with the academies and with students was higher,
suggesting that the more faculty are involved, the greater the reward. The results of the CCSSE—in which
73 classes at random, or 1,400 students, responded—indicated that, overall, Queensborough students in
spring 2010 report learning activities that are increasingly rigorous and require active learning compared to
spring 2007. In addition to survey results, average credit completion for the fall 2009 cohort was 7.2 in the
fall 2009 semester, up 10.8 percent from the baseline cohort of fall 2006. A similar report will occur in fall
2010 to bring the campus up to date on the first-year results of the academies. Preliminary results indicate
that the percentage of first-time, full-time fall 2009 students who persisted to spring 2010 was 88.6 percent,
which is 6.4 percent higher than the baseline cohort of fall 2006.
5
As a further support of this effort, both the principal investigator and two part-time faculty learning outcomes
facilitators reporting to the Assessment Office met bi-weekly throughout the 2009-2010 academic year with
the faculty cohorts leading the academies to assist with the development and implementation of general
education rubrics. Reports from the faculty cohorts were submitted to the principal investigator at the end of
the fall and spring semesters, and the principal investigator provided feedback to the cohorts to assist with
refining the rubrics and understanding the findings. As a result of these consultations, the quality of the
submissions from spring 2010 improved over those from fall 2009: rubrics had more dimensions, fewer
numerical transcription errors, and more complete data sets. The goal next year is to have better coverage
of general education objectives 4-10 (see Appendix 3, Assessment Web site, under ―Educational
Objectives‖). In 2010-2011, a full-time faculty fellow working with the Assessment Office will provide the
faculty support previously provided by the two part-time faculty learning outcomes facilitators. Consultations
with faculty developing and implementing rubrics by the faculty fellow and the principal investigator will
continue in the 2010-2011 academic year.
Implementation and Dissemination
To ensure that assessment processes are transparent to the campus community, the Assessment Web site
has been completely reorganized and enhanced (see Appendix 3). It includes the Assessment Handbook
and resources for implementing assessment at the course and program level and in the administrative
departments. It is also an archive of course assessment, program review, and administrative assessment in
support of student learning. Course assessment is archived in the Assessment Database (on the
Assessment Web site), which has been modified and enhanced from its original format. The database has
two functions: It allows departmental faculty to post assessment reports; it is an archive of course
assessment that faculty members can access to help with their own assessment, to rethink pedagogy, or to
help inform program review. The Year-end Reports, submitted by all academic and administrative
departments and containing sections on assessment and planning, are posted to the Assessment Web site.
In addition, the schedule of program review, which includes course assessment in support of program
review, is available on the Web site and is included in the handbook to ensure that departmental planning
includes appropriate and timely preparation for course assessment and program review.
The most noteworthy components of the Assessment Web site are those on academic program reviews,
course assessment, and the year-end reports, which include reports from the teaching and the nonteaching departments. These sections both build on past practices and also make use of modifications from
the work of the Assessment Task Forces.
Academic Program Reviews
The section on academic program review provides evidence of program reviews conducted in the 20092010 academic year. Three programs were reviewed:



Day Care Assistant
Liberal Arts and Sciences and Childhood Education
Massage Therapy
Because of continued lack of enrollment in the Day Care Assistant certificate program, the sponsoring
department, Social Sciences, with the consent of the Office of Academic Affairs and the approval of the
Academic Senate, discontinued this program. As a result, no formal report was prepared.
6
In the other two cases, the documentation includes (on the Assessment Web site, under Program Review,
listed under each program):




―Priorities for the Future‖ – the concluding section of the full program review report, which
summarizes the findings of the report and makes recommendations for improvement
External reviewers’ report – the report from the site visit evaluators, featuring recommendations for
the academic program and institution
Action plan – the report from the sponsoring academic department(s) that includes
recommendations for action presented to the Office of Academic Affairs
Administrative Response – the official institutional response to the action plan
Conclusions and recommendations from the two program review reports follow.
Liberal Arts and Sciences and Childhood Education
The Dual/Joint Program in Liberal Arts and Sciences and Childhood Education, which also comprises the
Education Academy, is healthy: enrollments are up, recent retention is somewhat up, degrees awarded
remain relatively stable, and student satisfaction indices are sound. The high quality of instruction and
academic and other support services promotes student success. As the Education Academy matures and
evolves, a more thorough and effective integration of academic and nonacademic service delivery will
further enhance student success. Yet there remain areas of concern, most especially the declining
percentage of three-year graduation rates among recent cohorts. It is believed that in the Education
Academy, part of the college-wide Freshman Academy model, the program has the institutional vehicle by
which some of the weaknesses cited can be corrected.
Some recommendations cited in the program report for childhood education include, in four categories:
1. Student Learning Outcomes




Improve methodologies for conducting course assessment as pertains to general
education objectives.
Increase the number of faculty participating in course assessment activities.
Explore implementation of early interventions (e.g., peer mentoring) for high-risk lowerand upper-freshmen to improve retention.
Initiate curriculum-specific assessment of effectiveness of academic and other support
services for Childhood Education students.
2. Curriculum Development





Explore options for capstone experiences (e.g., a Special Topics course).
Explore more options for additional learning communities.
Explore adding psychology course work to the curriculum.
Increase collaboration with education department at Queens College.
Explore articulations with other public and private colleges.
3. Faculty Recruitment and Development


Recruit male education adjunct faculty.
Encourage greater faculty participation in professional development activities and the
use of innovative pedagogy.
7
4. Equipment and Facilities



Provide more computer laboratories and Smart Rooms with fixed instructional
technology.
Provide more opportunities for students to work with instructional technology.
Expand the Education Academy support staff services to follow the student through
graduation.
Massage Therapy
Responding to the demands of the growing job market for massage therapy, the next five years will see the
massage therapy program offering focused electives that will meet those demands more effectively than
the extensive Eastern curriculum the electives are replacing. As recommended by the program’s Advisory
Council, these electives will also offer more opportunities for graduates of the program and licensed
massage therapists in the community to come to Queensborough for continuing education classes. These
electives will need to be marketed and promoted.
As indicated in the section on facilities, issues have been raised concerning the laboratory and clinic. Most
of these have been resolved, and Buildings and Grounds is working to resolve the others.
Some recommendations cited in the program report for massage therapy include:






Coordinate with the Office of Career Services to develop more extensive career guidance to
graduates of the Massage Therapy program.
Develop with the Marketing Office a marketing plan to promote the electives that will offer more
opportunities for graduates of the program and for licensed massage therapists in the community
to come to Queensborough for continuing education classes.
Revise the curriculum to offer a more medically-based (i.e., outcomes-based) advanced curriculum
to strengthen student preparation for the licensure examination and for career paths.
Establish a Massage Therapy program assessment committee to implement recommendations
from the program review conducted during spring 2010.
Conduct assessments of four Massage Therapy courses each academic year.
Evaluate possible effectiveness of standardized examinations for cornerstone, milestone, and
capstone courses.
Course Assessment and Year-end Reports
Two other important vehicles for the implementation and dissemination of college-wide assessment are the
course assessment and year-end reporting sections of the Assessment Web site.
The section on ―Course Assessment‖ has two components: the ―Assessment Database‖ and ―Reports.‖
(See Appendix 3 for the navigational structure pertinent to this part of the Assessment Web site.) Through
the work of a special committee of the academic senate charged with reviewing and making
recommendations for the modification and further development of a database in place for years, the
―Assessment Database‖ site now has two subareas, ―Post Reports‖ and ―View Database Resources.‖ Each
academic department has designated an assessment coordinator to upload the course assessments that
8
have occurred during the academic year, indicating in each case what general education objectives are
covered by the course. The ―Assessment Database‖ site, under ―Post Reports,‖ is the place where the
assessment coordinators upload course assessment reports. The system has a vetting process, which
requires special logins and passwords, both by the assessment coordinator and the department chair,
before the reports are officially posted. When officially posted, the course assessments reports appear on
the Web site under ―Course Assessment‖ and ―Reports,‖ accessible to all faculty and administrators
through their Outlook sign-on and password and a resource for ongoing course assessment and program
review efforts. The other subarea under ―Assessment Database,‖ ―View Database Resources,‖ has
elements of the original database (which the special committee was charged to review) in the form of
reports that display course and learning objectives organized in multiple ways to show relationships among
course learning objectives, course learning activities, and general education objectives.
The section of the Web site on the Year-End reports, organized by teaching and non-teaching departments,
provides a link to the assessment and planning sections from each Year-end Report submitted for the
academic year. This archive is meant to be a resource to faculty and administrators, both within
departments and across departments, to make assessment and planning efforts more accessible and to
encourage discussion and collaboration across campus.
Year-end Reports – Teaching Departments
Here are representative examples from the teaching departments’ Year-end Reports to demonstrate the
ways in which course assessments in 2009-2010 have led to coordinated departmental action and planning
for the 2010-2011 academic year.
1. Art and Design
The Art and Design department assessed three art history courses—AR 310, AR 312, and AR 316—and
one course in desktop publishing—AR 543. In the art history courses, student performance met or
exceeded expectations. The only area of disappointment was in rote memorization of facts. It was agreed
that this is a less important area than the ability to utilize nomenclature and critical concepts in the
interpretation of artworks and in the recognition of art historical contexts.
In the assessment of AR 543, Design for Desktop Publishing, most students successfully revised their
designs and demonstrated their technical knowledge of InDesign and Illustrator. Based on observation, the
revision process of student designs is essential in helping students to develop and achieve competency in
the technical skills requisite for artistic self-expression. The most difficult aspect of the assignment for
students is creating a dynamic relationship between text and image. In general, students who bring in
samples and spend time outside class looking at and researching design score higher than those who do
not. Adding a weekly assignment to bring in an interesting design (which the class can discuss) and
creating a design bulletin board will be considered for the 2010-2011 academic year.
2. Basic Educational Skills
The Basic Educational Skills department assessed BE 112, its upper-level remedial writing course. All
sections used a paragraph-length writing sample that was holistically evaluated by a faculty team using a 6point rubric specifically designed for the assignment. Students were shown how to develop a counterargument body paragraph in a lesson that stressed analysis of existing models and drafting practice
9
paragraphs with the instructor’s input. There was also take-home practice, reviewed in class prior to the
actual assessment. Students were expected to learn how to organize and support such a paragraph and to
apply the semester’s work in control of grammar, punctuation, and diction in an attempt to combine skills
honed all semester with a new and sophisticated rhetorical strategy. Results were mixed: 26 percent of
students received clearly passing scores, and another 12 percent received scores on the cusp of passing. It
is highly likely that this complex new skill requires more than a meeting-and-a-half of practice, given the low
level of preparedness of students in this course. Students also may have not tried their best as they knew
that the scores would be evaluated only in the aggregate. Further discussion of the results is scheduled for
early fall 2010. In addition, as CUNY is instituting a new writing examination in the fall, one that will involve
stronger reading comprehension, the syllabus for BE 112 will no doubt have to be reevaluated and
modified, as will the skill-complex to assess.
3. Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology department has implemented a comprehensive
assessment plan, which satisfies TAC of ABET standards, and has been assessing its courses and
program outcomes for the past four years. The continuous improvement plan utilizes multiple direct and
indirect measures of assessment. The assessment process was developed and implemented after
extensive research into the study of assessment. Program outcomes for each of the TAC of ABET a-k
objectives were developed by the department’s assessment committee and approved by the department
faculty, industrial advisory committee, and Office of Academic Affairs. In its 2009-2010 assessment, which
included results from advisory board recommendations, certification examinations, employer and alumni
surveys, and student surveys, findings were as follows: a) increase student engagement in the laboratory,
b) create a Web site with assessment information, c) increase A+ and Webmaster certifications, and d)
improve job placement. The action plan includes: a) implementing more building projects into laboratory
courses; b) current construction of Web site with assessment information; c) encouraging more students to
take certification examinations and finding ways to reduce the cost for the examination; d) exploring ways
to improve the student academic experience through the STEM academy, including more student
participation in clubs, more outside speakers, improved and more personalized advisement, and more
student/faculty get-togethers; and e) refining selected rubrics that assess program outcomes.
4. Foreign Languages and Literatures
The Foreign Languages and Literatures department assessed all first-level language courses. This
consisted of assessment of written, auditory, and oral skills using rubrics developed by the department’s
assessment committee. Data indicate a uniform acquisition scenario among the foreign languages
evaluated. All six language groups display similar percentages of students reaching or exceeding the
proficiency levels for a Beginning I language course. Contrary to predictions, however, no language group
reported more than 75 percent of their students meeting the proficiency standards of the course. In fact, an
average of less than two-thirds of learners reached the desired proficiency levels. A closer look at the data
reveals an interesting acquisition phenomenon. Language learners seem to encounter less difficulty in
developing the required speaking and auditory skills than their reading or writing abilities. Despite their
limited amount of instruction and exposure to the target language, a relatively high number of students
(averaging 87 percent), are able to speak and converse at the expected level of a beginning course,
regardless of the language.
10
The principal issue is mastery of grammar rules, both for the oral and written use of the target language.
The groups that have shown a higher incidence of problems are those learning morphologically rich
languages like Italian, French, Spanish, and German. At a beginning level, the acquisition of grammar is
mostly morphologically based, and morphology is a linguistic component usually acquired very late. But the
similarly lower number of students in Italian and Spanish reaching the desired level of lexical knowledge
seems to highlight a general behavior of poor study skills and habits. In fact, language learners appear to
fall short whenever the skill requires a more attentive participation and thorough analysis of the language.
In response, the department will implement a greater variety of grammar activities and tasks in the
beginning language courses and a closer monitoring of students' homework and laboratory assignments.
5. Mathematics and Computer Science
Among other courses, the Mathematics and Computer Science department assessed MA 010, Elementary
Algebra. Findings indicate that an entirely new pedagogical approach is necessary. The department’s
assessment committee met and devised major pedagogical changes to be implemented for the fall 2010
semester. Three major changes include: more problem-solving time built into the curriculum, required
student use of the Mathematics Learning Center, and online homework in 12 sections as a pilot.
6. Nursing
The Nursing department assessed all courses. Faculty scholarship and evidence-based activities related to
the program were conducted in the following areas: current trends in nursing practice, curriculum revision,
teaching and learning strategies, testing, evaluation and the NCLEX blueprint. Curriculum revisions to date
include reorganization of the program according to NLN educational competencies. Teaching strategies
were incorporated including e-portfolio, informatics, simulation, and use of clickers. NLN testing solutions
were incorporated throughout the program, and the NCLEX test blueprint was revised. Departmental
examinations were re-categorized to align with the NCLEX Test Plan.
As a result of advisory board recommendations, certification examinations, employer and alumni surveys,
and student surveys, the department will devote more time to instruction in gerontology, cultural
competencies, and technology and implementation of simulation. Curriculum revision is ongoing to
incorporate cultural competence and gerontology content. Teaching/learning strategies to incorporate eportfolios, informatics, simulation, and clickers in the classroom is ongoing.
7. Student Affairs
Student Affairs assessed ST 100, Introduction to College Life. Data was collected using the ST 100
Learning Assessment instrument administered in the final session of the course. Students were asked to
respond to 11 questions based on the course learning objectives. Three items were selected for analysis.
For objective #1, communicate effectively with peers and faculty, 98 percent of students were aware of
faculty expectations. Their responses reflected knowledge of communication appropriate to different
audiences. For objective # 2, demonstrate awareness of retention standards, 82 percent of students met
the expectation. For objective #8, discuss mental health issues including action to take in emergencies, 91
percent of students met or exceeded the expectations. In response to the assessment of Objective #2, it
was decided that more activities like calculation of GPA should be used to reinforce minimum retention
standards. In response to the assessment of objective # 8, though the results showed that 91 percent met
or exceeded the objective, faculty decided that more time should be spent addressing mental health issues.
11
Year-end Reports – Non-teaching Departments
Here are representative examples from the non-teaching departments’ Year-end Reports, organized by
division, of assessments conducted during the 2009-2010 academic year and corresponding action plans:
1. Academic Affairs
Academic initiatives. Coordinated by an associate dean in academic affairs, these revolve primarily around
the operations of the Freshman Academies. Queensborough was part of a national study by MDRC (a
national organization that specializes in educational research) on learning communities. Learning
communities are one of the ―high impact‖ instructional modalities faculty members have designated for the
academies. MDRC’s study found that Queensborough’s learning communities had low instances of
integration or integrative practices, which MDRC defines as curricular and pedagogical coordination
between the courses in the learning community. The action plan developed in response to this finding
includes naming a learning communities project director to work with faculty on integrative practices and
encouraging greater demonstration of integration.
Student Learning Center. The Student Learning Center has been collecting data in an effort to discover
whether there was an optimal number of tutoring hours by discipline related to improved course grades.
Data suggest that, in some courses, no significant difference occurs between students tutored and not
tutored in terms of grade improvement. The plan is to work with department chairs and faculty in these
specific courses to identify particularly problematic course areas or topics and to enhance tutor training
related to tutoring in these areas.
2. Student Affairs
In a departure from past practice, Student Affairs is requiring that its administrative directors’ year-end
reports include a data-driven assessment of student learning. This informs both the larger effort of
developing and implementing comprehensive, integrated, and sustained assessment processes and also
the collaboration with Academic Affairs on the Freshman Academies, which is being assessed through the
Academy Assessment Protocol.
Academic Advisement. The Academic Advisement Center has invested time and funding into developing
and implementing an individualized advisement model to assist students with academic choices. Over the
past four years, the center has coordinated with the Office of Institutional Research to develop survey
instruments to assess the quality of the center’s services. Results from fall 2009 indicate, for example, that
76.2 percent of students plan to graduate from Queensborough, that 90 percent find academic advisement
to be necessary, and that 91 percent find it useful. The center will continue to work with Institutional
Research to conduct surveys of students and assess quality of services in support of the improved
retention and graduation rates sought by the institution.
Career Services. Career Services will conduct pre- and post-surveys to all students receiving advisement
and/or completing FOCUS 2, a career advisement tool, in one-to-one and group laboratory settings.
Financial Services. Financial Services (or Financial Aid) has taken concrete steps to improve the quality of
services to students, including the following actual outcomes: 1) the Call Center has been upgraded by
adding more staff and by providing more training, 2) front-desk customer service has been improved by
12
adding counselors to the staff, and 3) lines and wait-time have been greatly reduced. The plan for the 20102011 academic year is to continue the approach from the previous year, which has proven to be
successful, and to purchase software that will assist with managing incoming calls.
Judicial Affairs. Powerpoint presentations are offered each year to educate the campus community on the
academic integrity policy, the disciplinary process, and the Henderson rules. The plan for the 2010-2011
academic year is to develop a reliable and valid pre- and post-survey instrument to assess the
effectiveness of the presentations and to administer the surveys.
3. Finance and Administration
Business and Financial Services. As part of a more enhanced resource planning and allocation process,
monthly reporting to senior executives and academic department heads has been established and will
continue. Timely and useful management reporting has helped to prioritize the resources available in the
most efficient manner. The plan for the 2010-2011 academic year is to reorganize staff to ensure more
consistent accountability and reporting responsibility among funding sources. Writing training will be offered
as required.
4. Institutional Advancement
Sponsored Programs. Responsible for the preparation and administration of grants on campus, Sponsored
Programs has set a target of developing one or more key performance indicators in the following core postaward tasks: hiring and reappointment of staff; processing of faculty release-time and summer salaries; and
review and approval of budget modification requests. The assessment plan for 2010-2011 is to assess and
project recovery account cash-flow to determine the potential for hiring a new staff member focused on
post-award tasks, to establish appropriate key performance indicators and methods of tracking them, and
to investigate automated platforms for integrating pre-award and post-award grants administration.
Institutional Support
To ensure that assessment processes are ongoing and sustained, the institution provides support in
multiple ways:





The Assessment Office, led by the associate dean for accreditation, assessment, and institutional
effectiveness, maintains and updates the Assessment Web site; offers support and guidance to
academic and administrative departments for course assessment, program review, and the Yearend Reports; and oversees the Office of Institutional Research.
A faculty fellow, who reports to the vice president for academic affairs, provides full-time faculty
support on the development and use of learning outcomes rubrics based on the general education
objectives; this position is an expanded version of the two part-time learning outcomes faculty
facilitator positions from the 2009-2010 academic year.
Each academic department has designated an assessment coordinator whose responsibility is to
upload course assessment reports each year to the Assessment Database.
Institutional Research has hired a new research analyst to assist with data management and to
provide more direct support to faculty and the administration with data requests for pedagogical
and other research projects.
The Office of Academic Affairs has reorganized and expanded its new faculty orientation program
to a year-long series of activities that include information and focus on assessment efforts so that
new faculty can understand better the culture of collaboration at Queensborough.
13




With the President’s Office and the Faculty Executive Committee, Academic Affairs has promoted
convocations and conferences of the college in which assessment efforts and pedagogical
research are valued and recognized; the January 2010 convocation, entitled ―What We Have
Learned about Student Learning,‖ featured sessions on ―General Education Rubrics and Student
Learning Outcomes,‖ ―Student Experiences,‖ and ―The Academy Assessment Protocol.‖
Academic departments have incorporated questions on assessment into the hiring and interviewing
process and, as further evidence of a culture of collaboration in which assessment is considered a
key component of college service, recognize faculty assessment efforts in considerations of tenure
and promotion.
The college has provided funding and support for faculty to attend TAC of ABET (Technology
Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology) and NLNAC
(National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission) accreditation preps, conferences, and
workshops.
External advisory boards include those for the Business Department; the sponsoring departments
for the technology programs: Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology, Mechanical
Engineering Technology and Design Drafting, and Physics; and the Nursing Department.
Institutional Response to the Four Middle States Commission Action Items
For ease of reference, the major institutional actions discussed above are organized below according to the
four topics in the Commission’s June 2009 action letter (in bold), followed by commentary (in italics):
1) Implementation of comprehensive, integrated, and sustained processes to assess institutional
effectiveness and the achievement of institutional mission and goals (Standard 7)







Establishment of a Senate committee on assessment and institutional effectiveness
Creation of the Faculty Assessment Task Force and the Administrative Assessment Task Force
charged with developing an Assessment Handbook
Creation of an Assessment Handbook
Newly modified program review schedule, including course assessment in support of programs by
departments not sponsoring program review (e.g., course assessment of an English composition
course in support of an engineering science associate degree program); program reviews
conducted in 2009-2010, with recommendations for improvement ( see pages 7-9 above)
Modified year-end reporting process for administrative departments, including clearly stated core
activities, key performance indicators, assessment and evaluation, and assessment plans (see
pages 12-14 for representative examples of assessments and actions plans in response)
Development and implementation of an Academy Assessment Protocol to assess the effectiveness
of the Freshman Academies launched in fall 2009
Redesign and implementation of an Assessment Web Site
Commentary: Though the Senate committee and handbook are entirely new, the handbook makes use of
resources and assessment tools that were developed over the past ten years by faculty and administration
and is, in many ways, a refinement and refocus of processes and efforts that have been occurring since the
earlier self-study in 1999. The new Year-end Report maintains much of the form and substance of its
previous version but has clarified the focus on assessment and planning. Administrative departments use
assessment results to inform assessment plans, which are documented in the Year-end Report and
discussed with the appropriate divisional head. The Academy Assessment Protocol was developed
14
concomitantly with the Freshman Academies and is an indication of the institution’s new focus on
integrating planning for assessment with overall planning. Finally, the Assessment Web site is a
reorganized and much more enhanced version of a Web site that has been in existence for years; part of
the Web site, the Assessment Database, was modified in direct response to recommendations from an ad
hoc committee of the academic senate that deliberated on requirements and parameters of the system..
2) Implementation of comprehensive, integrated, and sustained processes to assess the
achievement of student learning outcomes at the course, program, and institutional levels
(Standard 14)







Creation of Faculty Assessment Task Force to help develop an Assessment Handbook
Creation of an Assessment Handbook, one section of which is directly related to general guidelines
for the assessment of student learning
Development and implementation of an Academy Assessment Protocol to assess the effectiveness
of the Freshman Academies, including use of learning outcomes rubrics
Launch of an Assessment Web Site to provide an archive for assessment and a campus resource
Program reviews conducted in 2009-2010: two programs were reviewed—Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Childhood Education and Massage Therapy—with recommendations for
improvement concerning implementation of early interventions, curricular development, faculty
development, and improving facilities; one other program was discontinued for lack of enrollment
Courses assessed in 2009-2010: Art and Design: AR 122, AR 310, AR 312, AR 316; Basic
Educational Skills: BE 112; Biological Sciences and Geology: BI 201, BI 202; Business: BU 108,
BU 201, BU 203, BU 208, BU 401, BU 402, BU 403, BU 404, BU 405, BU 804, BU 805, BU 806,
BU 807, BU 900, BU 901, BU 902, BU 914, BU 916; Chemistry: CH 120, CH 121; Electrical and
Computer Engineering Technology: all courses; Foreign Languages and Literatures: LC 111, LF
111, LG 111, LH 111, LI 111, LS 111; Mathematics and Computer Science: MA 010, MA 013, MA
120, MA 440; Mechanical Engineering Technology and Design Drafting: MT 111; Music: MU 120;
Nursing: NU 101, NU 102, NU 201, NU 202; Physics: all courses; Student Affairs: ST 100
Course assessment results: findings from course assessments have led to departmental and
curricular changes, including pedagogical innovations and improved use of technologies
Commentary: Course assessment for the academic departments, an ongoing process from past years but
now posted on the Assessment Web site, has led to departmental and curricular changes (see pages 1012). Program review has resumed under the new schedule of program review; two programs were
reviewed, and one program has been discontinued (see pages 7-9). Results of the program reviews are
posted on the Assessment Web site. As part of the Academy Assessment Protocol, led by the principal
investigator, faculty cohorts have designed general education rubrics and reported on student learning
outcomes to the Assessment Office; the principal investigator has provided feedback on rubric
development and use and some guidance on best practices. Faculty cohorts met regularly during the
academic year. Faculty representatives from the cohorts have presented their experiences and findings to
the campus community at convocations of the college.
3) Evidence of adequate institutional support for and faculty leadership in the assessment of
student learning (Standard 14)
Evidence of Institutional Support

Establishment of Office of Accreditation, Assessment, and Institutional Effectiveness led by an
associate dean
15



Development and implementation of an Academy Assessment Protocol to assess the effectiveness
of the Freshman Academies
Expansion of the new faculty orientation to a year-long program, with a component devoted to
learning objectives and the assessment of student learning and ongoing workshops and meetings
devoted to rubric development and implementation
Funding to attend conferences and training workshops and sessions on assessment sponsored by
the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and by ACBSP (Association of Collegiate
Business Schools and Programs), TAC of ABET (Technology Accreditation Commission of the
Accreditation Board of Engineering Technology), and NLNAC (National League for Nursing
Accrediting Commission).
Evidence of Faculty Leadership


Designating a full-time faculty fellow in the Office of Academic Affairs (previously two part-time
faculty learning outcomes facilitators) to support faculty in the design and implementation of rubrics
in the Freshman Academies and to assist with assessment efforts
Formation of a Senate Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness
Commentary: To ensure institutional support of the assessment of student learning, the president and his
cabinet established the Office of Accreditation, Assessment, and Institutional Effectiveness and hired an
outside consultant to help to develop the Academy Assessment Protocol to assess the effectiveness of the
Freshman Academies. The associate dean of accreditation, assessment, and institutional effectiveness
chaired both task forces—the Faculty Assessment Task Force and the Administrative Assessment Task
Force—charged with developing an Assessment Handbook. The president and cabinet also established the
position of principal investigator to implement the Academy Assessment Protocol. The Office of Academic
Affairs revamped the new faculty orientation to include early acculturation for new faculty to the culture of
collaboration that makes assessment possible. To ensure adequate faculty leadership, Academic Affairs
established learning outcomes facilitator positions, reporting to the Assessment Office, to assist colleagues
on a part-time basis with the development and use of general education rubrics. This support has now
become a full-time faculty fellow position. Evidence that the faculty group at large has taken ownership of
the assessment of student learning is the establishment, by the Academic Senate itself, of a standing
committee on assessment and institutional effectiveness.
4) Steps taken to promote a culture in which assessment is understood and valued and in which
efforts to assess student learning are recognized and rewarded (Standard 14)







Formation of a Senate Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness
Launch of a modified and highly enhanced Assessment Web Site
Establishing an assessment coordinator position in each academic department responsible for
posting course assessments to the Assessment Database
New full-time faculty fellow in the Office of Academic Affairs to provide support to assessment
efforts and to the further development and use of rubrics for the 2010-2011 academic year (in
2009-2010, two part-time learning outcomes facilitators, release time assigned)
Considering assessment efforts as college service in decisions about tenure and promotion
Including assessment as a question in the interviewing process of faculty searches
Including assessment in all New Faculty Orientation programs
16


Encouraging and funding faculty involvement in assessment conferences, workshops, and
presentations at MSCHE, ACBSP, TAC of ABET, and NLNAC
Incorporating assessment requirements in job postings for faculty recruitment
Commentary: Perhaps the most significant indication that the college’s culture has changed is the
establishment of a standing committee of the Academic Senate on assessment and institutional
effectiveness. This was an initiative carried out by the faculty themselves and in direct response to the
Middle States Commission’s June 2009 action. Academic departments have brought the issue of
assessment into the recruitment and interviewing process so that prospective faculty members understand
clearly the value of assessment. The administration has more fully embraced assessment by articulating
that assessment efforts undertaken by faculty are valued and will be considered favorably as college
service in deliberations about tenure and promotion. In a collaboration between administration and faculty,
academic departments have assigned “assessment coordinators” the task of posting the course
assessment reports to the Assessment Database, one resource on the Assessment Web site. Course
assessment reports posted then become resources for other departments for their own course assessment
or for program review.
The array of actions described above may also be viewed arranged according to the recommendations of
the evaluation team (see Appendix 4) and the action items in the institutional response to the March 2009
team report (see Appendix 5).
17
Appendices
Here is an annotated list of the supporting documents to the monitoring report:





Appendix 1: Resolution and charge to the Senate Committee on Assessment and Institutional
Effectiveness. Approved as a standing committee in spring 2010, will be responsible for overseeing
all assessment processes at the college and reporting annually to the Academic Senate;
committee charge has been added to the college’s by-laws.
Appendix 2: Assessment Handbook. Queensborough Community College’s official guide to
assessment, received and approved by the institution’s Academic Senate in May 2010, available
as a separate and self-contained document on CD; also available on the college’s Assessment
Web site, under ―Assessment Handbook‖ (www.qcc.cuny.edu/assessment).
Appendix 3: Assessment Web site (www.qcc.cuny.edu/assessment). Queensborough Community
College’s Assessment Web site, a complete repository of resources, information, templates, and
reports, including the college’s site for course assessment (under ―Course Assessment‖ and
―Reports‖) and program reviews (under ―Academic Program Reviews‖ and ―Reports.‖
Appendix 4: Recommendations of the Evaluation Team and Status. The comprehensive list,
verbatim, from the evaluation team’s official report to the college and the Middle States
Commission and the status of actions taken at the institution.
Appendix 5: Institutional Response and Status. Queensborough Community College’s official
response to the Commission to address the recommendations of the evaluation team and the
status of actions taken at the institution.
The full documents, or links to them, appear in the Appendices following the Conclusion of the report.
18
Conclusion
Queensborough Community College is committed to comprehensive, integrated, and sustained
assessment processes as one integral component of a culture of collaboration at the college. It has
committed staff and resources to this effort, reorganized offices, created new positions, and established
clear access to assessment information, documents, and guidelines. This commitment is one that is shared
by faculty and administration, and the organizational structures that have been institutionalized help to
ensure that this commitment is ongoing, systematic, and meaningful.
In sum, here are the major actions taken by the institution:








Academic Senate Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness – approved and
charged in the spring 2010 semester.
Assessment Web site – a completely modified and enhanced version of one previously on the
college’s Web site; now includes enhanced assessment information, guidelines, documentation,
and the Assessment Database on which course assessments are posted.
Assessment Handbook – a collaboration between faculty and administration, the official guidebook
to assessment at the college, available as hard copy and on the Assessment Web site.
Course assessment – reports posted to the Assessment Web site available for all college
employees as resources for program review and for informational purposes. Some examples of
actions taken in response to course assessment include: the Elementary Algebra course will build
more problem solving into the curriculum, require at-risk students to use the Mathematics Learning
Center, and incorporate online homework in 12 sections as a pilot; Nursing faculty have infused
gerontology throughout the curriculum, and simulation is incorporated in every course; the
Introduction to College Life course will concentrate more on mental health issues. (See pages 1012 for a fuller discussion of course assessment findings and improvement strategies.)
Program review – three programs were reviewed in 2009-2010, two to completion with reports, site
visits, and administrative responses, and one of a program that has been discontinued; a new fiveyear program review schedule has been established and posted to the Assessment Web site; four
degree programs are scheduled for review in 2010-2011. Actions taken in response to the two
program reviews include: 1) enhanced articulation and collaboration between Queensborough and
Queens College for the Childhood Education degree program, refocused and improved
methodology for course assessment, committed effort to explore development of capstone
experience, and enhanced use of instructional technology; and 2) modifications and improvements
to facilities in the massage therapy clinic and establishment of a massage therapy assessment
committee. (See pages 7-9 for a fuller discussion of program review findings and improvement
strategies.)
Assessment Office – an associate dean’s position established and a clear mandate to lead and
provide institutional support to assessment efforts.
Academy Assessment Protocol – a research design to assess the effectiveness of the Freshman
Academies; a full-time principal investigator’s position was established to implement the protocol.
Faculty Fellow – only part-time in 2009-2010 (two Learning Outcomes Faculty Facilitators), full-time
for 2010-2011, this position, which supports the work of the Assessment Office, provides faculty
support in the development and implementation of learning outcomes rubrics, departmental course
assessment, and program review.
19
Appendix 1
Academic Senate: May 2010
Whereas, on March 9, 2010 the Senate adopted, among others, the following resolutions:
Whereas on June 25th, 2009, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education acted on the recommendations
made by the team that visited our College in March 2009 and requested a MONITORING REPORT by October 1,
2010, and
Whereas this report must document:
1. Implementation of comprehensive integrated and sustained processes to assess institutional effectiveness and
achievement of institutional mission
2. Implementation of comprehensive integrated and sustained processes to assess the achievement of student
learning outcomes at the course, program and institutional levels
3.
Evidence of adequate institutional support for and faculty leadership in the assessment of student learning; and
4. Steps taken to promote a culture in which assessment is understood and valued and in which efforts to assess
student learning are recognized and rewarded.
Whereas the College has been engaged in a College-wide discussion through two task forces, one representing all
Academic Departments and the other representing Administrative units of the College, and
Whereas for some departments, comprehensive and sustained assessment has been occurring, and it has been
documented in the year-end reports and used in program reviews and outside accrediting reviews, in others there is
a need to prioritize the documentation of assessment efforts;
Whereas a comprehensive, integrated and sustained process for assessing student learning outcomes must
systematically plan for and implement assessment of courses and academic programs offered by the college and
approved by the Academic Senate, but neither mandates nor dictates how a faculty member engages in such
assessment;
Be it Therefore Resolved, that the Queensborough Community College Academic Senate adopts as College Policy
that the College shall have comprehensive, integrated, and sustained processes to assess institutional effectiveness
and achievement of institutional mission, and
Be it Therefore Further Resolved, that the Queensborough Community College Academic Senate adopt as College
Policy that there shall be mechanisms and processes to promote a culture in which assessment is understood and
valued and in which efforts to assess student learning are recognized and rewarded, and
Be it Further Resolved that the Committee on By-laws prepare a resolution to amend the Senate bylaws to
establish a Standing Committee of the Academic Senate on Assessments whose purview will be the comprehensive
overview of all assessment activities of the College, and to whom all efforts to assess student learning and
institutional effectiveness and any other units or operations of the College would be reported along with the results of
those assessments. Such a committee would make its annual report to the senate inclusive of such summary
reports and the committee's own assessments of the assessment processes in place along with appropriate
recommendations, and
Be it finally Resolved, that the Academic Senate at the May 2010 meeting will consider approval of the Handbook
on Assessment of Spring 2010 as providing a working guideline for the implementation of comprehensive, sustained
20
and integrated assessments of student learning outcomes, and of institutional effectiveness, and the achievement of
institutional mission.
To this resolution the following new resolution is offered:
Whereas, there is now an Assessment Handbook of Spring 2010, offered for the consideration of the Academic
Senate;
Be it Resolved, that the Academic Senate receive the Assessment Handbook of Spring 2010, as providing working
guidelines for the implementation of comprehensive, sustained, and integrated assessment of student learning
outcomes and institutional effectiveness and the achievement of institutional mission, and
Be it Resolved that the Academic Senate tenders its grateful and sincere thanks to the following members of the
college faculty and staff who gave generously of their time and energy to serve on the Faculty and Administrative
Assessment Task Forces:
Wilma Anthony
Manette Berlinger
Mark Berman
Belle Birchfield
Bobbi Brauer
Chiung Chang
Arthur Corradetti, Chair
Antonio Contant
Michele Cuomo
Sarah Danielsson
Arthur Flug
Benami Freier
Paul Jean-Pierre
Christina Johnson
Dimitrios Kokkinos
Maan Lin
Anissa Mack
Bryn Mader
José Luis Madrigal, Senate Representative
Macarthur Marshall
Georgia McGill
Devin McKay
Bruce Naples
Sherri Newcomb
Sangeeta Noel
Philip Pecorino, Senate Representative
Constance Peluso
Arthur Perkins
Dion Pincus
Faustino Quintanilla
Linda Reesman
Mary Rosa
David Sarno
Nicholas Simos
Matthew Trachman
Edward Volchok
Clara Wajngurt
Craig Weber
Lana Zinger
21
By-laws Committee Resolution
WHEREAS it is the recommendation of the Middle States Higher Education Commission that
Queensborough Community College establish ―comprehensive, integrated, and sustained processes to
assess institutional effectiveness and achievement of institutional mission,‖ and also ―assess the
achievement of student learning outcomes at the course, program and institutional levels,‖ and
WHEREAS ―institutional support for and faculty leadership in the assessment of student learning,‖ as well
as the cultivation of a ―culture of assessment,‖ has become a college-wide priority, and
WHEREAS it is critical to keep this process of review within the shared governance system of the college,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Bylaws Committee approves the proposal from the Steering Committee for the
creation of a Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, and that the Bylaws of the
Academic Senate of Queensborough Community College shall be amended as follows with an addition to
Article VII, to be inserted as Section 11, between Section 10, ―Committee on Admissions,‖ and the current
Section 11, ―Committee on Awards and Scholarships,‖ necessitating a renumbering of Sections 11-25 as
Sections 12-26.
[Addition to the By-laws]
Section 11. Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness
The Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness shall consist of seven (7) members of the
faculty and eligible staff, reflecting, where possible, a balanced representation of faculty from varied
programs and curricula, with no more than one representative from any given department; two (2) students;
a designee of the President, and a designee of the Steering Committee.
The Committee on Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness shall:
a. Receive and review summary reports describing initiatives to assess student learning from academic
departments, academies, and academic programs of the college;
b. Receive and review documents relating to assessments of institutional effectiveness from all nonacademic units of the college;
c. Make annual reports of progress in assessment of data collection, including:
1. The receipt of assessment reports from each department/unit of the college;
2. Courses/college units assessed from each department;
3. Summary of Assessment data gathered from assessments;
4. Any departmental conclusions drawn and/or actions taken as a result.
d. Review assessment procedures the College undertakes and make recommendations concerning these
assessment initiatives to the Academic Senate, in support of principles of shared governance,
academic freedom and transparency.
22
Appendix 2
Assessment Handbook
Table of Contents:
Page
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Introduction
A. Handbook Purposes
B. Background and History of Assessment at Queensborough
C. Current Status
Institutional Effectiveness
A. Institutional Context
B. Strategic Planning
C. Assessment Processes
1. Academic Assessment
2. Administrative Assessment
3. Institutional Change and Renewal
Academic Assessment of Student Learning
A. Overview
B. Processes
1. Purpose
2. Departmental Level
3. Course Level
4. Program Level
C. Reporting Documentation
1. Assessment Web Site
2. Assessment Database
3. Closing the Academic Assessment Loop
Administrative Assessment of Services in Support of Student Learning
A. Overview
B. Processes
1. Departmental Level
2. Divisional Level
C. Reporting Documentation
1. Year-end Report
2. Closing the Administrative Assessment Loop
Institutional Support of Assessment
A. Assessment Web Site
B. Assessment Database
C. Support Offices
Appendices: Assessment Resources and Tools
Glossary
Diagrams
A Visual Guide to Institutional Effectiveness
A Visual Guide to Academic Assessment
A Visual Guide to Administrative Assessment
1
5
7
7
8
9
11
11
11
13
13
14
15
17
17
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
29
211
12
18
24
23
Appendix 2, continued
Assessment Handbook
Appendices:
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10
Appendix 11
Appendix 12
Appendix 13
Appendix 14
Appendix 15
Appendix 16
Appendix 17
Appendix 18
Mission
Educational Objectives (General Education), including Suggestions for Learning
Outcomes, by Educational Objective
Program Review Schedules, 2003-2010 and 2011-2016
Program Review Template
Program Review Guidelines
External Reviewer Report Template
Program Review – Action Plan Template
Curricular Objectives
Business
Education
Liberal Arts
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
Visual and Performing Arts
Six-step Assessment Plan for Program Review
Course Syllabus and Outline Templates
Course Assessment Form
New Course Proposal Template
Rubrics
General Education Objectives
Gen. Ed. Obj. 1
Gen. Ed. Obj. 2
Gen. Ed. Obj. 3
Gen. Ed. Obj. 5
Gen. Ed. Obj. 6
Gen. Ed. Obj. 7
Others
Speaking
Effective Writing
Year-end Report –Templates
Teaching Departments
Non-teaching Departments
Organizational Charts
President’s Office
Academic Affairs
Student Affairs
Finance and Administration
Institutional Advancement
List of Administrative Offices
Senate Resolution on Institutional Assessment
List of Useful Web Sites Cited
Page
33
37
41
51
67
73
77
81
83
89
91
93
97
103
115
123
151
153
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
167
169
171
173
181
187
189
191
193
195
197
201
205
209
[Assessment Handbook available on CD (enclosed with the monitoring report); also available by going to
www.qcc.cuny.edu/assessment/ and clicking on the ―Assessment Handbook‖ link.]
24
Appendix 3
Assessment Web Site
Navigation:
Assessment Home
Academic Program Review
Templates and Guidelines
Schedule of Reviews
Reports
Academies
Academy Assessment Protocol
Academy Assessment Reports
Accreditation
ACBSP
MSCHE
NLNAC
TAC of ABET
Assessment Glossary
Assessment Handbook
Background
Course Assessment
Assessment Database
Post Reports
View Database Resources
Reports
Educational Objectives
Fact Book
Mission
OIRA
Self-study
Senate Assessment Committee
Visual Guide to Institutional Assessment
What is Assessment?
Year-end Reports
Teaching Departments
Non-teaching Departments
www.qcc.cuny.edu/assessment/
When the Assessment Web site prompts for a logon and password,
you may use the temporary credentials below:
Logon:
Password:
mstates
Msche2010
25
Appendix 4
Recommendations of the March 2009 Evaluation Team and Status
Recommendation
Status
Create a conceptual framework for Implemented; through the collaboration of the Faculty and
assessment describing the relationship Administrative Assessment Task Forces, an Assessment
between assessments at all levels.
Handbook was developed for use at all levels of assessment;
this is available as hard copy in all academic and administrative
departments and on the college’s Assessment Web site.
Establish criteria for selection of courses to Completed; course assessment in support of program review is
be assessed. These criteria may include now clearly articulated and disseminated through the new
department specific criteria.
schedule of program review.
Establish and implement a schedule of Implemented; new schedule of program review was developed,
course assessment.
including course assessment in support of program review.
Include in annual department reports, Implemented and ongoing; the Year-end Reports, both for
convincing evidence of course embedded teaching and non-teaching departments, now have more clearly
assessment.
defined assessment and planning sections and a clearly
articulated process, in the Assessment Handbook, for
discussion, setting out action plans, and follow-up.
Establish clear links between the goals Implemented; the new Assessment Handbook provides general
selected for assessment at the course, guidelines and an overall conception; the college’s Assessment
department, and program levels.
Web site, under ―Course Assessment,‖ is an archive of course
assessment reports and includes reports on course and general
education objectives; the Academy Assessment Protocol
involves general education assessment through rubrics that
academy faculty have adopted and are using in the classroom,
and reports have been collected and analyzed and discussed
with faculty each semester.
Utilize an appropriate departmental annual Implemented and ongoing; the Year-end Reports include a more
report to report on follow-up assessment of clearly defined assessment section that includes follow-up to
actions appearing in the assessment program review and course assessment.
component of Program Review reports.
26
Recommendation
Status
Establish a clear link between mission and
assessment of institutional effectiveness.
Reporting on institutional effectiveness
needs to done on a regular basis.
Implemented and ongoing; the Year-end Reports for nonteaching departments, which have been heavily modified, now
have clear articulation of departmental mission, core activities,
and key performance indicators aligned with the college’s overall
mission and goals; a standing committee of the Academic
Senate on assessment and institutional effectiveness was
charged in spring 2010 with overseeing all assessment efforts
and will work in 2010-2011 to articulate the practical ways in
which it will carry out its charge and report on institutional
effectiveness.
Create a central repository for assessment Implemented; the Assessment Web site, under ―Course
data.
Assessment,‖ has an Assessment Database site, where course
assessment reports are uploaded and vetted, and a ―Reports‖
site, where all course assessment reports are posted; the
Assessment Web site is also the repository for the sections on
assessment and planning for all Year-end Reports, both
teaching and non-teaching departments.
Assure that the assessment process is Implemented and ongoing; the Assessment Office is charged
monitored and reviewed for effectiveness.
with providing institutional support for all assessment efforts; the
new Senate committee on assessment and institutional
effectiveness will monitor and review all assessment efforts on
campus and will report annually to the Academic Senate on
institutional effectiveness.
Ensure that all departments, teaching and
non-teaching,
are
participating
in
assessment of student learning, including
assessment of distance learning.
Implemented and ongoing; both the Assessment Handbook and
the newly designed Year-end Reports clearly articulate that all
departments are in support of the assessment of student
learning; the Senate committee on assessment and institutional
effectiveness will closely oversee all assessment efforts; all
departments have conducted course assessment in 2009-2010,
and the reports are available for viewing on the Assessment
Web site, under ―Course Assessments‖ and ―Reports.‖
27
Appendix 5
Institutional Response (April 2009) and Status
Institutional Response
Status
The College will ask the College Advisory
Planning Committee to reconstitute the Mission
Task Force with the purpose of: 1) delineating the
College goals embedded in the current Mission
Statement and 2) including a component in the
Mission or Goals relative to the efficient use of
College resources
Completed; college’s long-term goals form the
organizational structure of the three-year strategic plan; all
administrative departments that submit Year-end Reports
have developed a mission statement and list of core
activities and key performance indicators.
The College will charge the College Advisory Implemented; each year’s strategic planning process
Planning Committee with reporting to the begins with this review
Academic Senate each September the results of
the annual review of the Mission Statement.
The College has already responded to the self- Underway through administrative committee
study and evaluation team report in the 20092010 Strategic Plan by planning a thorough review
of the website.
The College administration will consider Completed; the associate dean for accreditation,
reorganizing existing personnel and establishing a assessment, and institutional effectiveness has been
centralized planning office to organize and charged with facilitating the strategic planning process.
integrate a comprehensive planning mechanism
that includes the Strategic Plan, Academic Plan,
Enrollment Management Plan, and Facilities
Master Plan.
The College will reserve fiscal resources to Budgeted, with additional revenue to be raised to
engage a consulting firm to conduct a implement
comprehensive Facilities Master Plan within the
next two years.
The College has engaged Derek Price from DVP- Developed and implemented by a principal investigator
Praxis to assist in the development of an assigned specifically to this task
assessment protocol to measure key outcomes
associated with the institutionalization of the
Freshman Academies.
28
Institutional Response
Status
The College will reinstitute the five-year-cycle Implemented; also includes schedule
timetable for the Program Review process. The assessment in support of program review
process calls for an administrative review of the
program review report with the president, the
academic vice president, and the corresponding
department chair or chairs to address
administrative requirements and to determine
whether significant curricular changes should be
proposed to the Curriculum Committee and
Academic Senate. The Program Review process
was suspended last year to prepare for the selfstudy and Middle States visit.
The College will address the recommendations on
assessment by reorganizing existing staff and
directing the current associate dean of
accreditation, assessment, and institutional
effectiveness, reporting directly to the academic
vice president, to present an assessment plan
that: 1) establishes criteria for the selection of
courses to be assessed; 2) implements a
schedule of course assessment; 3) redesigns
annual departmental reports to contain convincing
evidence of course assessment and clear links
among goals selected for assessment at course,
department, and program levels; 4) implements a
continuous improvement plan to guide Program
Review reporting and the presentation of findings
to the president, the academic vice president, and
the department chair or chairs (the results of
which will be presented to the Academic Senate
for information and/or the Academic Senate
Steering Committee for actions resulting from
significant changes); and 5) organizes a central
repository of assessment data for use by teaching
and non-teaching departments to discuss student
outcomes and to strategize about improvement
and action to be taken
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
of
course
Criteria for the selection of courses to be assessed –
implemented; program review schedule, including
course assessment in support of program review by
supporting departments
Schedule of course assessment – implemented;
program review schedule – see above
Annual departmental reports – implemented; revised
year-end reports with much more focused
assessment and planning components that include
discussion and feedback
Continuous improvement plan to guide Program
Review reporting – implemented; program review
reports, external reviewers’ reports to campus,
departmental action plans, and administrative
responses—all documentation published to Web site;
ongoing assessment of changes and further reporting
on the progress of the action plan in subsequent
departmental Year-end Reports
Central repository of assessment data –
implemented; thoroughly modified and expanded
Assessment Web site launched
The College administration will coordinate Implemented; both associate dean for assessment and
assessment and planning to ensure that the principal investigator of Academy Assessment Protocol
assessment of institutional effectiveness informs now sit on CAPC
the planning for institutional renewal.
29