A new focus on assessment has emerged as a result of student learning discussions.  The first assessment strategy session involved a small but lively group that considered several key assessment issues.  The group developed the following definition that has been adopted for the QEP: Assessment at CCCC is the measurement, analysis, and use of information by faculty, staff, and students to make effective decisions that enhance learning, teaching, and support services. The Assessment Team was the pivotal group in developing student learning outcomes for the project.  The team, comprised of two department heads/instructors, one director, and one instructor, began its work by reviewing print and electronic assessment resources.  The team members were also able to attend a few assessment seminars and speak with college leaders in assessment and other assessment experts.  To acquire an understanding of the programs to be assessed, the group participated in the first session with pilot program leaders. The Assessment Team combined its research with its newly-acquired knowledge of the programs and developed a first draft of the assessment proposal. In mid-March, the team presented its proposal to the program leaders for feedback.  Adjustments were noted and a second draft was shared on March 27, 2007.  Final comments and modifications, including input from the Institutional Effectiveness Office, led to the current approach for assessing communication. Discussions among college leaders resulted in the development of the Assessment Alliance, the team that will assume responsibility for assessing student performance in communication skills.  The group’s membership is described as follows: 1.    The group includes a minimum of 10 members; the majority of the members are faculty. 2.    The members come from a variety of disciplines. 3.    Members possess an above average knowledge of assessment in higher education. 4.    Members fully understand how to use the established rubric. 5.    Each member serves a two-year term.  Terms are staggered for continuity. 6.    The college president appoints new members. 7.    Members receive compensation for fulfilling their duties on the Alliance. The group is responsible for: 1.    Reviewing a valid sampling of authentic student work (artifacts) collected from all programs implementing life skills  2.    Scoring each artifact using the established assessment rubric 3.    Reaching consensus on scoring each artifact during face-to-face sessions 4.    Tabulating final results and reporting them and any recommendations for improvement to the college 5.    As needed, assisting with the facilitation of faculty/staff, student, and community focus groups (Spring 2010, Spring 2012). Direct Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes Direct assessment of student learning outcomes is characterized by the following: 1. The approach will embed assessment into the learning process. 2. Two assessments will take place in a foundation course defined as an introductory course that includes basic concepts and skills of a discipline and is typically taken early in a program of study.  The first assessment will occur prior to communication skills “intervention.”  A second will take place at the end of the course (after intervention).  The assessment results will be analyzed by the Assessment Alliance with subsequent review by faculty and other stakeholders. 3. Assessment during the program will be course-embedded and may be summative or formative (or both simultaneously).  Possible types of assessments include quizzes, projects, and simulations. Assessment rubrics will be used throughout the semester at the discretion of the instructor. 4. Assessment will take place in a capstone course defined as a course that requires students demonstrate their mastery of more advanced concepts and skills within a discipline and expects students to integrate prior learning from earlier coursework.  By assessing the cohort during the latter part of the program, skills and abilities will be compared to those seen in the foundation course and achievement of outcomes will be determined.  5. In both foundation and capstone courses, a minimum of one written and one oral activity is required for each assessment. 6. The Assessment Alliance will use the QEP Assessment Team rubrics to assess students’ effectiveness at written and oral communication skills (see rubrics below).  Instructors and other stakeholders will analyze performance data entered into a shared spreadsheet.  Adjustments in instruction will occur based on this analysis. 7. Global student learning outcomes allow for a standard approach to assessment.  The QEP Assessment Team constructed specific outcomes for written and oral communication. Written Communication: Global Student Learning Outcomes Foundation Courses Students in a foundation curriculum course (student group) will be able to compose a discipline-appropriate written response (assignment) with effective content, structure, and mechanics (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ written communication skills (see table below). Capstone Courses Students in a capstone curriculum course (student group) will be able to compose a discipline-appropriate written response (assignment) with effective content, structure, and mechanics (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ written communication skills (see table below).   Examples of Course-Specific Learning Outcomes Foundation Course Students in LEX 120 Legal Research and Writing I (student group) will be able to compose an internal law office memorandum (assignment)with effective content, structure, and mechanics [insert other rubric components] (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ written communication skills.   Capstone Course Students in CJC 212 Ethics and Community Relations (student group) will be able to compose a research paper on a moral dilemma (assignment) with effective content, structure, and mechanics [insert other rubric components] (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ written communication skills.  Oral Communication: Global Student Learning Outcomes Foundation Courses Students in a foundation curriculum course (student group) will be able to deliver a discipline-appropriate oral presentation (assignment) with effective content, organization, preparedness and delivery (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ oral communication skills (see table below). Capstone Courses Students in a capstone curriculum course (student group) will be able to deliver a discipline-appropriate oral presentation (assignment) with effective content, organization, preparedness and delivery (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ oral communication skills (see table below).   Examples of Course-Specific Learning Outcomes Foundation Course Students in BUS 234 Training and Development (student group) will be able to deliver an oral presentation on an article review (assignment) with effective content, organization, preparedness and delivery [insert other rubric components] (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ oral communication skills.  Capstone Course Students in BUS 260 Business Communications (student group) will be able to deliver an oral presentation on a business proposal  (assignment) with effective content, organization, preparedness and delivery [insert other rubric components] (component analysis) as measured in a Rubistar assessment rubric modified by the QEP Assessment Team (instrument) to evaluate students’ oral communication skills.  Indirect Measures of Student Learning Outcomes CCSSE, CCFSSE, and Focus Groups Two nationally-normed tools, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE), will be utilized for indirect assessment of student learning outcomes.  The CCSSE and CCFSSE will be administered in Spring 2009, Spring 2011, and Spring 2012.  In Spring 2010 and Spring 2012, faculty/staff and student focus groups will be held to assess project goals and initiatives.  Focus group facilitators and observers will include faculty and staff, such as those in QEP leadership roles, the QEP Assessment Team, and Assessment Alliance members.  Core questions may include, but are not limited to: To what extent has implementation of _____ (QEP goal or component) positively impacted student learning?  How do we know (evidence)? To what extent has implementation of _____ (QEP goal or component) positively impacted faculty instruction?  How do we know (evidence)? To what extent has implementation of _____ (QEP goal or component) positively impacted the College community and culture?  How do we know (evidence)? To what extent has implementation of _____ (QEP goal or component) positively impacted the wider community (locally, regionally, and globally)? How do we know (evidence)? What successes need to be duplicated?  How will this be done? What challenges lie ahead?  How will these challenges be met? Service Usage Tracking Tracking students’ use of services and faculty referrals also provides indirect assessment of QEP student learning outcomes and other goals.  For example, an analysis of service usage of Academic Assistance (both onsite tutoring and online SMARTHINKING) and Student Development Services (counseling and Career Center) may reflect if students are effectively and increasingly engaged in the development of communication skills.  While stakeholders will determine which services are relevant to assessing QEP outcomes, examples include: A 5% increase in student use of the Online Writing Lab (OWL) in SMARTHINKING underscores the college’s increased focus on improved written communication. A 5% increase in students using the Career Center’s mock interview service signals students’ attention to oral communication.  During Fall 2008, CCCC will explore several approaches to tracking student usage of services.  These may include observing patterns of use, examining students’ needs and wants, tracking student characteristics, and gathering student opinions about the service (Barham & Schott, 2006).  A Spring 2009 review of the Academic Assistance Center and services within Student Development Services will create a baseline for future assessments. Post-Enrollment Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes After students leave CCCC, post-enrollment assessments will be conducted to learn more about the value added during their educational experience.  Examples of these assessments include Employer Surveys and Completer Surveys.  These assessments will be coordinated and administered through the Institutional Effectiveness Office.  The Office will compile and summarize the results and distribute the findings to the college community. Assessment of Project Activities Advising & Counseling The Institutional Effectiveness Department will survey students about their advising and counseling experience each spring beginning in 2009 (baseline).  An appropriate sample of students will receive surveys shortly after early registration in April.  To develop the survey, the Advising and Counseling Training and Resource Development Team will develop a list of questions that parallel the team’s recommended approach.  The Institutional Effectiveness Department will fine-tune the list and add questions as needed.  Advisors and counselors will receive surveys with comparable questions concurrent with the student survey. In addition, advising and counseling will be included as a focus group topic to acquire a more in-depth understanding of the service support area effectiveness. Learning the BASICS Workshops Assessment of Learning the BASICS workshops will occur at the completion of the session.  Participants might be asked to reflect on questions such as these: •    What were the most important things you learned from today’s workshop? •    What approaches used during the workshop helped your learning?  Why? •    Will this workshop improve you as a student?  How? •    Will this workshop improve you as a professional (at the job)?  How? •    Will this workshop improve how you conduct your personal life (community, family, friends)? How? Questionnaires will be distributed in paper form and forwarded to the Learning the BASICS Coordinator for compilation.  Survey results will be distributed to the workshop presenter, the Administrative Staff, and the QEP Director.  As appropriate, results will be shared with future presenters to inform their session preparation. BLOG & COUGARS’ CORNER At the end of each semester, a student survey will be distributed through “allstudent@cccc.edu” email accounts and the College Resources Course.  Survey questions might include: •    What were the most important things you learned from the BLOG/COUGARS’ CORNER? •    What on the BLOG/COUGARS’ CORNER helped your learning?  Why? •    Will these online resources improve you as a student? How? •    Will these online resources improve you as a professional (at the job)? How? •    Will these online resources improve how you conduct your personal life (community, family, friends)? How? Additionally, on each webpage, an email link will allow for users’ suggestions and comments. Professional Development In-house development activities for faculty and staff will be evaluated immediately following the sessions using CCCC’s Staff Development Evaluation.  Questions will ask participants to rate the effectiveness and relevance of the sessions.  Suggestions for improvement will also be included in the evaluation.  As with all in-house sessions, the Distance Education Department will collect, compile, and distribute evaluation results. Effective Written Communication Rubric: Core Template Student ___________________________  Course ______________________  Date ______________________  Assessment Components  Rating = 4 Rating = 3 Rating = 2 Rating = 1 Score  Content Written work provides focused, in-depth coverage of the topic, and assertions are clearly supported by accurate and relevant evidence. Written work sufficiently focuses and covers the topic, and assertions are generally supported by accurate and relevant evidence.   Written work does not adequately focus and cover the assigned topic, and assertions are weakly supported by accurate and relevant evidence. Written work does not focus and cover the assigned topic, and assertions are not supported by accurate and relevant evidence.     Structure  Written work has clear and appropriate beginning, development, and conclusion.  Paragraphing and transitions are also clear and appropriate. Written work has adequate beginning, development, and conclusion. Paragraphing and transitions are also adequate.  Written work has weak beginning, development, and conclusion. Paragraphing and transitions are also deficient.   Organizational structure, paragraphing and transitions have many serious and persistent errors.      Mechanics  Written work has no major errors in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. Written work is relatively free of major errors in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.  Written work has several errors in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization  Written work has serious and persistent errors in word selection and use, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.        Comments Source: Modification of Rubistar 6+1 Trait Model Writing, Research Report, and Persuasive Essay Rubrics, 2006.  <http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php> Effective Oral Communication Rubric: Core Template Student ___________________________  Course ______________________  Date ______________________  Assessment Components Rating = 4 Rating = 3 Rating = 2 Rating = 1  Score  Content  Oral presentation provides in-depth coverage of the topic, and assertions are clearly supported by accurate and relevant evidence.  Oral presentation sufficiently covers the topic, and assertions are generally supported by accurate and relevant evidence. Oral presentation does not adequately cover the assigned topic, and assertions are weakly supported by accurate and relevant evidence.  Oral presentation does not cover the assigned topic, and assertions are not supported by accurate and relevant evidence.     Organization  Oral presentation and any supporting materials consistently employ a logical sequence that is focused and engaging for the listener. Oral presentation and any supporting materials generally employ a logical sequence that is focused and engaging for the listener.  Oral presentation and any supporting materials inconsistently employ a logical sequence that is focused and engaging for the listener.  Oral presentation and any supporting materials do not employ a logical sequence that is focused and engaging for the listener.     Preparedness  Presenter is well rehearsed as observed in attire, posture, confidence and appropriateness of presentation to audience. Presenter is adequately rehearsed as observed in attire, posture, and confidence and appropriateness of presentation to audience.  Presenter is poorly rehearsed as observed in attire, posture, and confidence and appropriateness of presentation to audience.  Presenter is unrehearsed as observed in attire, posture, and confidence and appropriateness of presentation to audience.     Delivery  Presenter consistently speaks clearly and audibly, makes no grammatical errors, and pronounces all terms correctly and precisely.  Presenter consistently uses appropriate pitch, pauses, eye contact, and gestures to convey competence and enthusiasm. Presenter generally speaks clearly and audibly, makes relatively few grammatical errors, and pronounces most terms correctly.  Presenter generally uses appropriate pitch, pauses, eye contact, and gestures to convey competence and enthusiasm.   Presenter inconsistently speaks with clarity and volume, makes several grammatical errors, and mispronounces some terms. Presenter inconsistently uses appropriate pitch, pauses, eye contact, and gestures to convey competence and enthusiasm.  Presenter does not speak with clarity and volume and makes serious and persistent errors in grammar and pronunciation.  Presenter does not use appropriate pitch, pauses, eye contact and gestures to convey competence, and enthusiasm.    Comments           Source: Modification of Rubistar Oral Presentation and Presentation and Planning Rubrics, 2006.  <http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php> Effective Written Communication Data: Report Template Foundation Course Course ________________________________________ Date __________________________________________  Student Name Section Curr. Code Content Structure Mechanics Student Score  1          2          3          4          5             Average/Mean Average/Mean Average/Mean Average/Mean Effective Oral Communication Data: Report Template Foundation Course Course ________________________________________ Date __________________________________________  Student Name Section Curr.Code Content Organization Preparedness Delivery Student Score  1                2                3                4                5                      Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean Effective Written Communication Data: Report Template Capstone Course Course ________________________________________ Date __________________________________________ Student Name Section Curr. Code Content Structure Mechanics Student Score  1             2             3             4             5                    Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean Effective Oral Communication Data: Report Template Capstone Course Course ________________________________________ Date __________________________________________   Student Name  Section  Curr. Code Content Organization  Preparedness Delivery Student Score 1               2               3               4                5                      Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean  Average/Mean