The BCC Assessment
Committee Greets You
The committee meets every other Thursday 12:10-1:30, after the Curriculum
Committee, (room 341, Teaching-Learning Center).
BCC Assessment Committee
Jenny Lowood,English/ESL/Educ/LRNRE (Chair)
Josh Boatright, Library
Leonard Chung, Business/CIS
Pieter deHaan, Sciences
Matt Freeman, Social Sciences
Iva Ikeda, ASL
Willy Lizarraga, Modern Languages
Sabrina Nelson, MMART
Matthew Woods, Arts & Humanities
Alley Young, Counseling, Student Services
Dmitry Zhiv, Mathematics
Linda Berry,VPI
Denise Jennings, Title III Coordinator
WASC SLO/Assessment
Proficiency Requirements
Course SLOs and Assessment
Proficiency Requirement
Our Response
Faculty will complete SLOs
for all courses and will assess
them on an ongoing basis.
100% of all courses at BCC
have SLOs, which are
assessed on an ongoing
basis.
Program SLOs and Assessment
Proficiency Requirement
Faculty will complete SLOs
for all programs and will
assess them on an ongoing
basis.
Our Response
100% of all programs at
BCC have SLO’s, which are
assessed on an ongoing
basis.
Student Support Outcomes &
Assessment
Proficiency Requirement
Our Response
SLOs will be completed for
all “student learning and
support activities”; these will
be assessed on an ongoing
basis.
100% of all student learning
and support activities at
BCC have SLOs; they are
assessed on an ongoing basis.
Institutional Learning Outcomes
Assessment
Proficiency Requirement
The college will define and
assess its institutional
learning outcomes.
Our Response
The college has defined its
seven primary institutional
learning outcomes; these
are assessed on a three-year
cycle.
Our Areas of Focus: 2012-13
Looking to the Future
☛“Closing the Loop”
☛ Program Review
☛ ILO Assessment:
Three-Year Cycle Begins
The Assessment Cycle
Closing the
Loop
Institutional Learning
Outcomes (ILO) Assessment
BCC’s Institutional Learning Outcomes
• Communication
• Critical Thinking
• Ethics and Personal Responsibility
• Global Awareness & Valuing Diversity
• Information Competency
• Quantitative Reasoning
• Self-Awareness & Interpersonal Skills
BCC’s Assessment Timeline
Based on ILO’s
Program
Assessment
Course
Assessment
Student Services
Assessment
Semester 1
Communication
Semester 2
Critical Thinking
Semester 3
Quantitative
Reasoning
Spring 2012 –
Fall 2012
ASL AA
(capstone)
English AA’s/c’s
English basic
skills (courses)
ESL (courses)
MMART (capst)
Spanish (capst)
All courses with
communication
ILO
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
(LRC)
Semester 4
Ethics/Pers. Resp./
Self-Awareness/
Interpersonal
Spring 2014
Semester 5
Global Awareness
Semester 6
Information
Competency
Fall 2014
Spring 2015
Biotechnology
AS/certs.
Sciences
Math AA
Math basic skills
CIS AS, certs.
Art AA’s/cert’s
PUB/HUSV
PERSIST
LRNRE (basic
skills)
Psychology AA
Global Studies
AA
Sociology AA
Liberal Arts
(cumulative),
social sciences/
humanities
PACE (caps)
Business AA/C’s
Women’s Studies
All courses with
critical thinking
ILO
All courses with
quantitative
reasoning ILO
All courses with
ethics/pers.resp/
self-awareness/
interpersonal
ILO
Counseling
LRC
Student Ambass.
All courses with
global awareness
ILO
All courses with
information
competency ILO
LRC
Library
High Impact Courses and Services
Some high impact courses and service areas will be
assessed every semester:
☛ English 1A
☛ English 5
☛ Math 13
These courses fulfill key general education requirements
and are taken by large numbers of students.
☛ Most student services areas will be assessed every
year.
Assessing the First ILO:
The Communication Rubric
Benchmark
Milestone Developing
Milestone Intermediate
Capstone
Context of and
Purpose for
Writing,
including
Audience
Awareness
Presentation demonstrates
minimal attention to context,
audience, purpose, and the
assigned tasks(s) (expectation
of instructor or self as
audience).
Presentation demonstrates
beginning
awareness of context,
audience, purpose, and
assigned tasks(s).
Presentation demonstrates
adequate consideration of
context, audience, and
purpose, and clear focus on
the assigned task(s).
Presentation demonstrates
thorough understanding of
context, audience, and
purpose that is responsive to
the assigned task(s) and
focuses all elements of
work.
Organization
Organizational pattern
(specific introduction and
conclusion, sequenced
material within the body, and
transitions) is not observable
within the presentation.
Organizational pattern
(specific introduction and
conclusion, sequenced
material within the body,
transitions) is intermittently
observable within the
presentation.
Organizational pattern
(specific introduction and
conclusion, sequenced
material within the body, and
transitions) is clearly and
consistently observable
within the presentation.
Organizational pattern
(specific introduction and
conclusion, sequenced
material within the body,
transitions) is clearly and
consistently observable and
skillful and makes the
content of the presentation
cohesive.
Language
Language choices are unclear
and minimally support the
effectiveness of the
presentation. Language in
presentation is not
appropriate to audience.
Language choices are
mundane and commonplace
and partially support the
effectiveness of the
presentation. Language in
presentation is appropriate to
audience.
Language choices are
thoughtful and generally
support the effectiveness of
the presentation. Language in
presentation is appropriate to
audience.
Language choices are
imaginative, memorable, and
compelling, and enhance the
effectiveness of the
presentation. Language in
presentation is appropriate to
audience.
Levels/Criter
ia
Note: This rubric was culled from the AACU Value Rubrics for Written Communication and Oral Communication (value@aacu.org).
Assessing the First ILO:
Strategies
We focused on assessing how well students are achieving the communication
ILO in courses that are “mapped” to communication:
☛ We applied the rubric to 256 randomly chosen essays from fourteen classes
in eight different disciplines (Art, Business, English, History, HLTED, HUSV,
Music, and Political Science); they represented five different departments.
☛ Each essay was read and scored by two different readers and the scores
compared; discrepancies were resolved by a third reader.
☛ The scorers were from across the college:
☛ 1 from Business
☛ 2 from English
☛ 2 from History
☛ 1 from HUSV
☛ 1 from MMART
Written Communication
Assessment Results
BCC Spring 2012
60%
57%
50%
43%
39%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
purpose
organization
language
Percentages of students earning a grade of 6 (acceptable) – 8 (strong).
Does English 1A Make a
Difference?
The chart below shows the scores of students who were identified
as having taken English 1A, as opposed to those who did not
identify whether they had taken English 1A.
purpose
organization
language
COM/ENGL 1A YES
77%
58%
65%
COM/ENGL 1A ?
51%
34%
37%
Variability Among Courses
In several courses, students demonstrated much higher proficiency in
writing than in others.
COM/BUS 10
COM/OVERALL
purpose
85%
57%
organization
92%
39%
language
38%
43%
COM/HIST 7B
COM/OVERALL
purpose
80%
57%
organization
60%
39%
language
90%
43%
Action Plan – Communication
ILO Assessment
☛ The instructors of the “high scoring” classes
(not in the English department) developed a
packet on how to design a writing prompt or
assignment and rubric for grading.
☛ The packet will be shared with the college and
we will conduct an assessment of essays written
in those classes in which the packet is used.
Program Assessment:
An Overview
What Are BCC’s programs?
BCC’s Assessment Committee, Curriculum Committee, Roundtable &
Department Chairs’ Council have agreed that BCC programs are as
follows:
☛Degrees and certificate programs (including general education)
☛Interdisciplinary programs, like PACE (including general education)
☛Basic skills
☛All programs in Student Services
☛Any other departments, as self-identified
Program Assessment
☛ Program assessments follow the same steps as
course assessments.
☛ Program matrices help to show the
relationships among institutional learning
outcomes, program outcomes, and course
outcomes.
A Sample Program Matrix
Program Assessment:
An Example
Assessing The Writing Program– Step 1
Identification of Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO’s)
☛ write well organized, well developed, effective, well
edited, logically sound, and clear essays
☛ write effective, well edited, well organized research
papers of 3,000-5,000 words which apply
appropriate and clear organizational strategies
☛ apply active reading strategies in order to identify
main ideas and critically analyze and explain ideas
in texts
Assessing The Writing Program – Step 2
Assessment Plan
☛ All students in English 1A, English 201AB, English 269AB, ESL
Writing 5, and ESL Writing 6 submit a portfolio consisting of a 45 page research paper, an essay written in class, and a reflective
essay.
☛ All portfolios are scored by two English instructors, based on a
departmentally designed rubric; the raters do not know the
students’ names or class levels; scores are compared and
discrepancies resolved by a third reader.
☛ The department reviews the results and recommends plans for
improvement.
Assessing The Writing Program– Step 3
Analysis of Findings (Part 1)
Assessing The Writing Program – Step 4
Analysis of Findings (Part 2)
☛ English 1A students performed satisfactorily in the areas of
clarity/style, organization, explanations/evidence, reading, and
mechanics (more than 67% received scores of 3 and above in these areas).
☛ English 1A students did not perform as well in the areas of critical
thinking (59%) and research techniques (46%).
☛ Writing 6 students performed well in all areas except clarity/style, and
mechanics.
☛ 40% of English 269 students performed as well as students receiving a
grade of B or A in English 201.
Assessing The Writing Program– Step 5
Changes in College Planning
(Closing the Loop)
☛ Collaboratively develop open resource materials on research,
which will be available for all students in the writing program
☛ Develop “accelerated” class for students who test into English
269, which has the same curriculum as English 201 but provides
additional support, based on the writing workshop model
☛ Change curriculum for English 1A and English 201AB to allow
for more practice in research skills
☛ Improve placement exam or other measures of incoming students
to improve placement into English 269 and 201
Assessing The Writing Program– Step 6
Assessing Effects of Changes
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
Engl. 1A Sp 11
Engl. 1A Sp 12
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Rdg
Comp.
Orgn
Dev./
Illus.
Text. Evid. Analysis
Clarity/
Style
Mech.
/Usage
MLA
form.
#Qual/
Sources
Implementing Action Plans
Across the College – Some Examples
☛ We’ve developed an accelerated basic skills English course, as well as new
resources, a new curriculum, and an English composition “model
schedule” for English 1A, 201, and 248UX.
☛ We revamped our MMART certificate sequence.
☛ We used assessment findings in the redesign of our ESL curriculum.
☛ We added hours in the library and made other changes in student services
areas.
☛ We changed curriculum in Spanish, Business, and many other
departments.
Thank you!
Any questions?