Section II. Effectiveness
1. Looking Back:
3/16/2016
Complete the outline below for each and every previous plan by documenting any
progress in achieving measurable Program Effectiveness outcomes from your most
recent Update.
_________________________
a. Previous plan: Focus teaching/learning by placing outcomes statements into
class syllabus (Marla Prochnow, Lead)
Include student learning outcomes in class syllabi to meet Accreditation
Standard 2: “In every class section students receive a course syllabus that
specifies learning outcomes consistent with those in the institution’s officially
approved course outline.” (2012)
b. Progress:
The Accreditation Commission endorses the use of outcomes in class syllabi and
the use of dialogue about assessment to improve learning, “The institution offers
high-quality instructional programs, student support services, and library and
learning support services that facilitate and demonstrate the achievement of
stated student learning outcomes.” (Accreditation Commission, Standard II)
The Social Science Division secretary collected baseline data from Fall 2011 and
Spring 2012 syllabi stipulating the use of the word “outcome” by instructors and
classes. The count does not reflect one instructor teaching more than one
section of the same class.
Total
number of
syllabi
Some mention
of outcomes,
goals or
objectives
Specific
reference to
“Outcomes”
“Goal” or
Objective
Informal
mention of
objectives,
goals or
outcomes
Fall
2011
81
58 (72%)
24 (30%)
33 (41%)
9 (1%)
Spring
2012
71
58 (82%)
41 (58%)
34 (48%)
62 (87%)
In Fall 2011, out of a total of eighty-one class syllabi 72% mention outcomes,
goals, objectives or make an informal statement about them. In 30% of the
syllabi, there is a specific reference to learning outcomes. On December 12,
2011, the Division Chair distributed outcomes from the course outlines upon
approval of at least one full-time faculty member in the discipline. The
disciplines receiving outcomes statements include: Anthropology, Economics,
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 1 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
History, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology. Distribution to
Administration of Justice and Human Services is done by the coordinators of
those departments because they operate vocational degree programs. As a
result of encouraging faculty to mention outcomes, by Spring 2012, 58% of
different syllabi included them.
c. List measurable outcome:
Fifty percent of class sections will use the word “outcome” in the course syllabi.
d. State if achieved (yes or no): Yes
If yes, move to the next plan.
If no, complete the outline below.
Click here to enter text.
e. Barriers/obstacles (if outcome not met, explain why):
f. Alternative solutions:
g. The plan is discontinued (state yes or no): No
_____________________________
a.
Previous plan: Learning Outcomes Dialogue (Prochnow, Faculty Lead).
NOTE: MOVED TO SECTION III: COURSE AND PROGRAM OUTCOMES.
_____________________________
a. Previous plan: Improve Student Writing – Iterative Writing and Feedback
Statement for Course Outlines (Knox, Faculty Lead)
Discuss the possibility and wording of a 1,000 word iterative writing and
feedback statement for Social Science Division courses with the English 251
prerequisite.
b. Progress:
An English 251 writing and reading prerequisites was required in
Spring 2012 for 21 Social Science courses. The COS English 251 course readies
students for college-level reading and writing. The statewide, Student Success
Task Force, asks community colleges to “give highest priority for courses
advancing student academic progress” (Recommendations 4.1). It was
proposed to the Social Science Division members that a writing standard be
placed in the course outline to reflect the increased level of preparatory writing
and reading skills. Social Science Division faculty met for Spring 2012
Convocation and voted in favor of adding a statement similar to the CSUF
requirement for all lower Division courses (10 Yes and 3 No votes). The draft
proposed statement: “At least 1,000 words of writing will be required in one or
more writing assignment such that the instructor can provide meaningful
feedback giving students an opportunity to demonstrate improved writing.” The
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 2 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
iterative writing statement was discussed at the August 10, 2012 Division
meeting to finalize the wording. After a lengthy discussion, no edits were
offered. The final version will be distributed for use by faculty members writing
course outlines so they can consider using it in appropriate courses. So, while it
is still individual discipline discretion, when appropriate faculty members will add
the writing statement over the next 5-years as course outlines are updated.
c. List measurable outcome: By 2017, 36 Social Science courses with an ENG 251
prerequisite will have an iterative writing requirement in the course outlines.
d. State if achieved (yes or no): No, on-going as course outlines are up-dated.
If yes, move to the next plan.
If no, complete the outline below.
e. Barriers/obstacles (if outcome not met, explain why): The goal is a long term
goal. One obstacle is that a writing stipulation is not appropriate for every
course, since some courses have the ENGL 251 requirement so students are
prepared for an advanced reading ability. Some courses with the prerequisite
are computational courses (e.g. ECON 40 and 50). It is not known at this time
how many courses will be appropriate for the statement.
f. Alternative solutions: Ask discipline experts to decide the appropriateness of the
iterative writing statement.
g. The plan is discontinued (state yes or no): No.
____________________________
a.
Previous plan: Increase Transfer Rates – Transfer Model Curriculum (Pritchett,
Faculty Lead)
The Division has Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) for Sociology and Psychology.
Two TMCs have been submitted for approval, Administration of Justice and
Political Science. Under consideration is a TMC for History. The statewide,
Student Success Task Force, asks community colleges to “increase coordination
among colleges” and to “give highest priority for courses advancing student
academic progress” (Recommendations 7.2 and 4.1 respectively). The
Accreditation Commission supports efforts to assure student transfer and degree
attainment, “The institution offers high-quality instructional programs in
recognized and emerging fields of study that culminate in identified student
outcomes leading to degrees, certificates, employment, or transfer to other
higher education institutions or programs consistent with its mission.”
b.
Progress:
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 3 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
Social Science Division faculty met for Spring 2012 Convocation and voted to
continue moving forward on this plan, 9 favored and 3 opposed.
c.
List measurable outcome:
Add at least one more Transfer Model Curriculum.
d.
State if achieved (yes or no): no
If yes, move to the next plan.
If no, complete the outline below.
e.
Barriers/obstacles (if outcome not met, explain why):
The Political Science Department and the Administration of Justice Department
are waiting for approval from the COS Curriculum Committee.
f.
Alternative solutions (what changes are going to be made to achieve your stated
outcome?):
None needed at this time.
g.
The plan is discontinued (state yes or no):
No.
_____________________________
a.
Previous plan: Title V Participation (Hansen, Faculty Lead) MOVED TO
SECTION IV: INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES
_____________________________
a.
Previous plan: Increase Student Engagement – Blackboard Features (Crumpler,
Faculty Lead)
Encourage Social Science Division faculty to utilize more features of Blackboard
with a focus on critical thinking and communication.
b.
Progress:
The Social Science Division has made it a goal to use Blackboard.
In 2009 of all faculty members responding to a survey (26), 76.8% reported using
Blackboard or another Online Course Management System (such as Course
Compass) and 30.4% reported adopting Blackboard within the past two years.
Our division goal of increasing the use of blackboard was met, rising from 47.8%
in 2007 to 76.8% in 2009.
In January 17, 2012 the Social Science faculty members confirmed their
interest in using more features of Blackboard to increase student engagement in
course materials because research finds that people tend to learn through and
with visceral approaches. The vote was 10 in favor and 1 opposed. The
“Universal Designs for Learning” and “Social Constructivist” learning theories are
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 4 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
research-based ideas for student engagement to increase learning. Social
Constructivists attempt to understand the world through social contexts. This
usually lends itself to largely qualitative methods of research. The emphasis is on
social interaction. Universal Designs for Learning advocates view learning as
occurring through multiple avenues whether it be through physical movement or
hands-on activities, listening, writing, or other method. Blackboard is a
technological tool useful for engaging students in a variety of learning
modalities. Students can complete a survey at home such that the next day an
instructor can use the responses to start a relevant discussion in class; students
can use Wiki groups to contribute to a common project; or students can discuss
issues through a networked discussion group.
In order to meet the goal of increased use of Blackboard to increase student
engagement:
1) On March 21, 2012, the Division Chair sent a training e-mail for the
Blackboard “Survey Tool.” The e-mail suggested that faculty look at
training videos (link provided) or ask for training from the Distance
Learning Coordinator, Deborah Nolan. These types of e-mail will
continue to encourage faculty to use more Blackboard features.
2) On August 10, 2012, the Distance Learning Coordinator attended the
Social Science Division meeting to discuss use of technology for engaged
learning.
3) The Faculty Enrichment Committee frequently offers Blackboard training,
campus-wide.
4) The Faculty Enrichment Coordinator eagerly visits the office of faculty
members or she is available at a computer for individualized instruction
in the use of Blackboard.
A “Survey Monkey” question was distributed to all 56 full-time and adjunct
faculty members to collect baseline data using Fall 2011 semester Blackboard
activity. The use of Blackboard shows that of 21 faculty members who use
Blackboard, they use 91 features, an average of 4.3 features per user. Nearly all
use Announcements and the Grade Center while many use Discussion Boards
and Testing. Less frequent use is of features such as Safe Assign, Course
Calendar, Journals and Surveys. Data for “Early Warning System” was eliminated
since it may not represent usage of Blackboard but rather the Banner system
early alert system but we might look at the use of the Banner early alert system
in conjunction with the Blackboard system. There may have been over-reporting
of some features such as messaging which should only be “between students.”
(See Appendix D for survey results.) In the future, we plan to compare student
retention and success in the classes with use of Blackboard and those without
the use of Blackboard.
c.
List measurable outcome:
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 5 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
Faculty members will self-report an average increased use from an average of
4.3 features to 5.0 Blackboard features by Spring 2013.
d.
State if achieved (yes or no): No, in progress.
If yes, move to the next plan.
If no, complete the outline below.
e.
Barriers/obstacles (if outcome not met, explain why):
Need to continue providing training and communication to faculty regarding the
possibilities and the benefits.
f.
Alternative solutions (what changes are going to be made to achieve your stated
outcome?):
As suggested by our adjunct instructor review panelist, we will add a discipline
and/or Social Science contact person for adjunct instructors to easily contact
someone.
g.
The plan is discontinued (state yes or no): No.
___________________________
a.
Previous plan: Campus-wide Pilot Project of GSE 120 courses.
b.
Progress:
The implementation of a Student Success course was delayed
from 2011 and has not been instituted at COS. Participating Social Science
instructors were to be Basham, Crumpler and Hanson.
c.
List measurable outcome: Social Science faculty will participate in the GSE
courses.
d.
State if achieved (yes or no): No
If yes, move to the next plan.
If no, complete the outline below.
e.
Barriers/obstacles (if outcome not met, explain why):
Due to budget limitations, the future of this program is uncertain.
f.
Alternative solutions (what changes are going to be made to achieve your stated
outcome?): The college is not considering implementation of the GSE courses at
this time.
g.
The plan is discontinued (state yes or no): Yes.
If yes, move to the next plan.
_____________________________
a.
Previous plan: Course Currency
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 6 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
b.
Progress: Social Science faculty members continue to comply with the 5 year
course currency requirement. In 2011-12, the following courses were updated:
AJ 11, HSRV 122, PHIL 5, PHIL 12, and SSCI 36.
c.
List measurable outcome: Keep all Social Science course outlines up-to-date.
d.
State if achieved (yes or no): Yes
If yes, move to the next plan.
_____________________________
2. Taking Stock:
Using the data located in the appendices, provide a thorough evaluation of the state
of your program and the program’s effectiveness. The evaluation may include any
identified trends, concerns, challenges, and anomalies, etc. that relate to the
students served. Additional data may be requested from the Office of Planning and
Research at the discretion of the program/department.
Social Science Division Overview (See data tables for details.)
The Social
Science Division course enrollment has increased by 5,095 students while the
sections offered decreased by 85 classes. Even with the decrease in class offerings
and increase in class size, the overall student success rate in the Division remains
between 60% and 63%. This success rate is slightly lower than the college as a
whole (68%). Basic Skills Student success remains steady, between 52% and 55%.
DRC student success is higher than Basic Skills Students and seems to fluctuate more
but there is no an indication it relates to class size. Distant Education Student
success shows a pattern of increasing success over the five years, from 46% to 58%,
with the college-wide success at 54%. The lowest success is 55% by the Basic Skills
students, which mimics outside research findings that the less prepared student is
less likely to succeed. With respect to success at the different college campuses,
there is no noticeable pattern. Like COS as a whole, Social Sciences have just over
half of its student population from the Hispanic ethnic background. Success by
ethnicity shows the Hispanic student at 61% success and the White student at 68%
success. Asian student success is a high of 69%, Pacific Islander success at 67% and
with Black/African American a low at 45%. Women are slightly more representative
in the Division (58%) than the college (54%). There is no significant different in
success by gender.
When looking at the data from the perspective of the Social Science Division
disciplines, the highest success is with Geography classes at 74%, Sociology at 72%,
and Psychology at 74%. The lowest success is with Human Services at 42%, Political
Science at 55% and History at 58%. When comparing disciplines with respect to
ethnic group success, the success rate for Hispanics is unusually low in anthropology
(50%) with most disciplines a high of 61% success for Hispanics compared to 54% for
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 7 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
the college as a whole. Success of female students is similar (within 6%) for most
disciplines except for Anthropology with a 15% difference with women not
succeeding at the rate of males students. The Anthropology professor is taking
these differences under consideration. Distant Education classes at COS tend to
have a 54% success rate, similar to the Division at 58% and reflected in the
disciplines in the Division with more than one distance education class
(Administration of Justice, Political Science, and History.) For known students with
disabilities, the success at the college is 65% compared to 59% for the Division and a
wide ranging 33% in Human Services to 100% in Geography. Students who start COS
in a Basic Skills class tend to succeed at a rate of 53% for the college and 55% for the
Division ranging from a low of 40% in Human Services and 43% in Anthropology to a
high of 68% in Sociology and 62% in Administration of Justice. We might look at this
information more systematically through a special study.
The Social Science Division serves the most Full-time Equivalent students (FTES)
compared to other COS Divisions. Most of the Division students are in
Administration of Justice (15%), Political Science (16%), History (21%) and
Psychology (19%) classes. The most FTES growth in the last five years is in
Administration of Justice which grew from 11% of the Division students to 15% of
the Division students. While the college served 15% more students, there was a 35%
increase in students served by the Division. The most growth was in Administration
of Justice (50%) and Sociology (45%). Political Science, History Human Services, and
Psychology all experienced from 35% to 38% growth, similar to the college as a
whole. Geography experienced a decline by 9%. Weekly Student Contact Hours
(WSCH) for the college grew by 23% and a little more in the Division (25%). The
greatest growth in WSCH was in Administration of Justice at (48%). Political Science,
History, Human Services and Sociology all grew between 30% - 32%, still higher than
the college as a whole. Other disciplines grew less that the college except for
Psychology which grew at a similar rate.
Learning Outcomes in the Syllabus (Prochnow, Faculty Lead)
In Fall 2011,
out of a total of eighty-one class syllabi 30% of the syllabi, have a specific reference
to learning outcomes and in Spring 2012 58% of different syllabi included them. We
would like to continue to increase the explicit (use of the word “outcome”)
placement of outcomes statements in the syllabi. Discussions have shown that it
might be appropriate to write the outcome from the course outline in a fashion
appropriate for students. Some outcomes statements fit the “robust” style which
can be cumbersome and other outcomes have information that might confuse the
students. In addition, some have argued that it might be more effecting to list
course objectives given that COS no longer forwards outcomes in the course outline
to the UCs.
Transfer Model Curriculum (TMC) (Pritchett, Faculty Lead)
Colleges are required
to have more than one TMC. COS has adopted three (two of which are in the Social
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 8 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
Science Division – psychology and sociology.) In addition, the Political Science
Department and Administration of Justice Department submitted a TMC for
approval. There are many other TMCs that have been vetted and adopted statewide
- approximately 16 and about 25 more by the end of 2012. Our Division would like
to keep in pace with the availability of statewide TMCs and those in our disciplines.
Effectiveness of English Prerequisite
Thirty-six Social Science courses now have
an English prerequisite to make it more likely that the students will be retained in the
course and will succeed in the course. The establishment of the prerequisite is the
result of local research that demonstrated statistically significant differences in the
success of students when they were prepared to read the textbooks and write the
papers required in Social Science courses. Starting Spring 2012 semester courses with
the ENGL 251 prerequisite include: AJ (25, 111, 114, 121, 121,130); ANTH (10, 10H);
ECON (23, 40 40H, 50, 125); ETHN none; GEOG none; HIST (4, 5, 17, 17H, 18, 23, 25);
HSRV none; PHIL (1, 1H, 5, 12, 13, 14); POLS (5, 5H, 6, 8, 110); PSY (1, 1H, 5, 10, 29, 34);
SSC none; and SOC (1, 2). This project was undertaken as a result of the College
representatives work with Achieving the Dream. A Spring 2004-Fall 2010 retrospective
study of 53,868 COS students showed a signification difference in course success when
the English preparation is complete. (See Section II, Appendix A) The study covered
some courses that do not have the prerequisite (see * below) and it did not cover all
courses. Some courses that currently have the prerequisite were not included in the
original study including AJ courses and PHIL (12, 13, 14).
The impact on the AJ classes is high as determined by Spring 2012 enrollment patterns
and a show of hands in one professor’s classes, the full-time professor who teaches
those classes with the new prerequisite.
3. Looking Forward:
3.A. Based on the findings in prompt #2, above, address your new plans for Program
Effectiveness by completing the outline below. You will be expected to track all
plans throughout your six-year program review cycle.
_____________________________
a.
New plan: Include student learning outcomes in 100% of class syllabi.
b.
Justification and rationale for the plan:
The Accreditation Standard 2 requires outcome statements in every syllabus so we need
to continue to work on this requirement: “In every class section students receive a
course syllabus that specifies learning outcomes consistent with those in the
institution’s officially approved course outline.” (2012) Discussions have shown that it
might be appropriate to write the outcome from the course outline in a fashion
appropriate for students. Some outcomes statements fit the “robust” style which can
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 9 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
be cumbersome and other outcomes have information that might confuse the students
(e.g. 70% should meet this outcome.) In addition, some have argued that it might be
more effecting to list course objectives given that COS no longer forwards outcomes in
the course outline to the UCs.
_____________________________
a.
New plan: Increase student transfer rates by adding Transfer Model Curriculum
majors as they are approved for participation at the State level, as long as there are
adequate numbers of students and enough course offerings to meet the TMC
requirements. (Pritchett, Faculty Lead)
b.
Justification and rationale for the plan:
We have a psychology TMC but are
concerned about having enough students to fill the research methods course (PSY 29) –
it is a new course just created for the TMC and is unique to one discipline. Another
course was created for several TMCs (psychology, political science and sociology) called
Social Science Statistics course (SSCI 25), enrolled with 21 students in Spring 2012 upon
first being offered and 30 students in Fall 2012 after extensive recruitment. The
Sociology TMC requires courses that are offered. It is unknown at this time the number
of students interested in the major. The Administration of Justice faculty members
submitted a TMC for approval in the summer of 2012. A Political Science TMC was
submitted for approval March 5, 2012. This TMC requires specialty courses including
International Relations and Comparative Government. The International Relations
course was offered in Fall 2011 with 18 students and has been canceled subsequent
semesters due to anticipated low enrollment while demand continues for ever
decreasing basic government classes (POLS 5). Comparative Government has not been
offered. It is unknown how many student wish to major in Political Sciences. The
History faculty members think there may not be enough history majors to justify the
TMC at this time. It will be reconsidered as the TMC is proven to be effective.
There is some question about the effectiveness for student transfer, particularly for
community colleges with fewer faculty members in each discipline and few students in
each major area. While the CSUs planned to close admissions to students for Spring
2013, they agreed, as required by legislation, to accept a handful of students who have
the TMC. Unfortunately, the universities planning to accept students were not in the
local area. The eight colleges planning to accept the TMC in Spring 2013 are San
Francisco, Cal State East Bay, Sonoma, Channel Islands, Chico, Fullerton, Los Angeles and
San Bernardino (Source: SF Gate, 3/20/12).
Another consideration when deciding whether to add TMCs is the increased workload
for an ever decreasing number full-time faculty. Each TMC is a new program, which will
need to be documented in CurricUnet. The program level learning outcomes,
assessment plan, assessment results and plans for change will also need to be
implemented and recorded in CurricUnet. Each TMC can require the creation of new
courses, if a particular course is not currently in the catalog. The Political Science
Department currently has only one full-time faculty member, while Sociology and
Administration of Justice have only two full-time faculty members. So while the idea
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 10 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
behind the TMC is to make it easier for COS students to transfer to CSUs, the increased
work load and lack of class offerings, makes it challenging for the Departments.
Finally, there is a concern in the Division about the availability of instructors and classes
to meet the multiple course demands of each TMC. COS reduced class over the last
several semesters: Spring 2011 down 10%, Fall 2011 down 15%, Spring 2012 down 15%,
Fall 2012 no decrease, and Spring 2013 down 8%. With fewer class offerings overall,
enrollment in each class is higher. The specialized courses might be the only ones
available to late-enrolling students. In the past, 5 or fewer student graduated with a
specialized degree so the number of students in the major may be too few to justify the
workload and the distraction from the needs of many general education students.
______________________________
a. New plan: Social Science Research (Anderson, Faculty Lead)
b. Justification and rationale for the plan: There are several areas that we see a need
for research in the Division. The college is making aiming toward more data-driven
decision-making, yet the Institutional Research staff is at a minimum. We would like
to support the research through incentives (e.g. small stipend for faculty leadership)
and support staff (e.g. student helpers). Much of the expertise for educational
research is in the Social Sciences Division so we would like to model the use of
research design and statistical analysis for decision-making, as well as, use the data
to better understand teaching and learning for Social Science students. Some
potential research projects include studying the:
1) Effectiveness of the English Prerequisite:
The Social Science Division
plans to undertake a more rigorous study to look at statistically significant
differences in student success before and after the prerequisites were in
place. Additional anecdotal feedback from students will complement a
statistical analysis of the effect of the prerequisite. If the prerequisite does
not improve student success, we may need to reconsider the need for the
prerequisite.
2) Diverse success rates:
Data shows that students of various ethnic groups
succeed at different rates. We would like to test the differences to assess
those that are statistically significant, including looking at contributing
variables.
3) Student engagement (Blackboard) as related to success and retention: We
currently look at the increase in instructor use of Blackboard features but we
are missing an assessment of COS student success and retention. And
related to Blackboard which has an Early Alert system is the COS Banner
system for Early Alert.
4) Transfer rates and use of TMCs: We might look at the number of students
completing the TMC as compared to those not completing the TMC, yet
transferring since the TMC is designed to increase transfer rates.
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 11 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
5) Student learning outcome assessment participation with adjunct instructors:
Critical to the involvement of adjunct instructors in the assessment of
learning outcomes is reimbursement for participation in dialogue about
assessment results.
3.B. Please complete the table below to include all new and continuing/altered plans
(see #1 and #3.A above). For each plan provide a brief description of the plan,
responsible party(s), resources needed, plan timeline, and measurable outcomes.
Your plans should be specific and realistic.
Plan Description
New,
Continuing/Altered
Improve student
writing: Iterative
writing
Continuing
Increase student Continuing
engagement
using Blackboard
features
Responsible
Party(s)
Knox, Enns
Resources Needed
Plan Timeline
Measurable
Outcomes
No additional
resources.
Fall 2017
By 2017, 36
Social Science
courses with
an ENG 251
prerequisite
will have an
iterative
writing
requirement
in the course
outlines.
Nolan, Crumpler, No additional
Enns
resources.
Fall 2013.
Faculty
members
Faculty
members will
self-report an
average
increased use
from an
average of 4.3
features to
5.0
Blackboard
features by
Spring 2013.
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 12 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
Plan Description
New,
Continuing/Altered
“Outcomes” in
course syllabus.
New
Responsible
Party(s)
Resources Needed
Plan Timeline
Measurable
Outcomes
Prochnow, Enns
No additional
resources.
Spring 2013
Include
student
learning
outcomes in
100% of class
syllabi.
Increase transfer New
rates with TMC
Pritchett, Enns
No additional
resources.
On-going as
TMCs become
available at the
state level, as
they are feasible
for the college
and there is
adequate
student
demand.
TMCs for each
discipline
eligible and
appropriate
to increase
transfer rates.
Social Science
Research
Funding
Anderson, Enns
Grant funds for
data retrieval
and analysis.
Fall 2014.
Funding to
support Social
Science
studies using
research
design,
collection of
data from
multiple
sources,
statistical
analysis and
dialogue
regarding the
data.
New
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
3/16/2016
Page 13 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
Evaluation Criteria for Mission & Effectiveness
Program Review
Prompt
Program mission
review process
(I.A.1)
Description of
Program
(I.2.A, I.2.B)
Progress on
previous plans for
program
effectiveness
(II.1)
Evaluation of
program
effectiveness
(II.2)
New plans to
improve Program
Effectiveness
(II.3.A)
New and
continuing/altered
plans
(II.3.B)
Exemplary
Proficient
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes detailed evidence
that the process is ongoing
and reflective.
Clear mechanisms in place
for the program mission to
be evaluated periodically.
Process includes relevant
members of program.
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes detailed evidence
that rationally situates the
program within the mission
of the college.
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes detailed evidence
that progress has been made
(including the
implementation of any
alternative solutions or plans
if applicable).
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes a detailed analysis
of the relationship between
data used and issues
identified.
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes detailed and wellarticulated evidence
documenting the rationale
related to the evaluation
carried out in Prompt #2.
Clear, in-depth description of
the program and those
whom the program serves.
Changes to the program are
plainly identified.
Meets the criteria for
proficient
AND
Includes evidence of
Includes all new or
continuing/altered plans
identified in Prompts #1, 3.A
AND
Insufficient
No clear mechanism in place
to evaluate program mission
OR
Mechanisms are described
for periodic evaluation of
program mission, but
mechanisms are vague
OR
Do not involve relevant
members of the program.
Some or all aspects of the
program are described, but
key functions, activities
OR
Those served are not clearly
defined.
The evolution of each and
every plan is described,
including barriers/obstacles
AND
Altered plans have been
generated and solutions
have been proposed to
overcome barriers or change
direction if applicable.
Uses data to provide
evidence which identifies
trends, concerns, challenges
and/or anomalies relating to
students served by the
program.
The evolution of some or all
plans described; however
many plans lack progress
OR
No attempt to overcome any
identified barriers/obstacles
or to generate solutions.
Plans are specific and
include a rationale which
addresses nearly all
identified needs/issues from
Prompt #2.
Plans do not include a clear
rationale
OR
Plans are not linked to the
identified needs/issues from
Prompt #2
OR
Plans do not exist to address
many identified needs/issues
from Prompt #2.
One or more new or
continuing/altered plans
identified in Prompts #1, 3.A.
are omitted
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
Absent or superficial
evaluation of data (e.g. a
restatement of numbers)
identifying trends, concerns,
challenges and/or
anomalies.
3/16/2016
Page 14 of 15
Section II. Effectiveness
understanding of an
operational definition.
Operational definitions
include all of the following:
a. The item that is
being measured.
b. The measurement
tool
c. The measurement
process
d. How the
measurement is
used to make
decisions
Outcomes are measurable in
relationship to the plan
AND
There is a clear distinction
between a plan and its
outcome.
Academic Services Comprehensive Program Review
Adopted by the Academic Senate: January 25, 2012
OR
Outcomes are not
measurable /do not measure
the plans identified
OR
Outcomes are restatements
of plans.
3/16/2016
Page 15 of 15