February 9th, 2007
Posted by () on [PUBL_DATE]
Assessment >>

Unfinished Business:

MAPP/CAAP: we are still working to identify an appropriate writing assessment product. After looking at samples of MAPP, it was decided that this product would not meet our current needs.
Action: Daryl will contact CAAP to see if computer testing (instead of a hand written sample) is a possibility and to identify what research data/reporting  is available (specifically, do we get individual student and aggregate data reports) Decision tabled until next meeting. The implementation plan is still to administer these as the English Comp class final in every section. Ron is developing this process. There are currently approximately 100 students enrolled in English courses.

Standardized grading rubric: Discussion regarding the standardized rubric for all written papers is ongoing. Motivation for this project is based on comments from advisory committee members stressing the need for improved writing skills for our graduates, the results of a poll of assessment committee members indicating this was the greatest area of concern (in terms of general education outcomes), and a recognition by faculty that consistent grading and assessment of skills is important. The goals are:
To focus increased attention campus wide on the importance of writing skills
To assure all faculty, whether full time, adjunct, on campus or off campus are grading spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc
To make everyone aware of the grading process in our English courses
To make all campus personnel familiar with and to standardized the assessment  process for writing
To recognize that writing skills will develop over time, and continuous attention is needed at all levels of education.
This will help us establish a baseline, and determine what additional steps are needed to improve writing.

Action: Ron will meet with the English faculty to refine the grading rubric, and will bring it to the next meeting for discussion, with the hope of implementing the process in the fall semester.

Assessment plan review: as we prepare to complete our annual report, we discussed progress on assessment plan goals and outcomes. This will be an important process as we begin to write the self study for CIHE. The biggest concern brought to the table is that NMCC continues to assess many things, in many areas, but we need a mechanism to document how we are responding to the data results.

    Action: Dr. Punches will begin to compile reports from each of the committees that demonstrate program and overall action based on results of assessment data. This should include information/notes from the AAS taskforce, as well as all college committees. (See below)

We compiled a partial list of all assessment activities going on on campus on a regular basis. The following is a comprehensive list, though clearly not exhaustive:
Assessment item    Responsible parties    Major findings   
SSSI Survey    Student services       
CCSE    Student services       
MELMAC grant    Student service    Persistence rates, age, transfer rates, graduation rates, ethnicity   
IPEDS    Student services    9 section that reflect institutional climate, summative enrollment data   
FIS Op/ FIS AP    Student services    Operations report and annual aid and income   
Common data set/ National student clearinghouse     Student services    Trio reporting, institutional grant reports, national publications, enrollment data   
Perkins reports    Academic and Student services    Funding and tech prep subsections   
Graduate survey data    Student services    Employment, pay, continuing education, etc   
MCCS benchmark reports    Student services    ?   
Departmental action plans and program reviews    Academic programs    Analysis and review of program strengths, challenges, weaknesses, and opportunities   
External accreditation reports, licensure surveys,  and self studies    Individual departments    NLN and MSBON review, ACBSP, NIMS, Novell, etc.    
Student opinion surveys    Individual departments     Student satisfaction with instruction   
Advisory committee recommendations    Individual departments     Progress, technical currency, need for change   
SWOT by SPC    Presidents office    Faculty and staff satisfaction   


Action: Clearly, we are gathering a lot of data in a lot of places, and we are reactive and making significant changes based on the data we are gathering. However, the committee expressed concern that our actions are not always visibly supported by data, and it is sometimes difficult to demonstrate our response has been based on assessment  based on data. The following actions were suggested:
Have an individual assigned (preferably through the academic office) to collect program reviews and, and compile a list of examples of how NMCC is responsive to assessment data.
Dr. Punches is to request a summary report from each of the college’s committees and each of the college’s departments identifying
    What major concern the group addressed for the year?
    What data supported the concern?
    How was it addressed?
    Was it successful?
We currently have computer software available to assist with data management. Bill Egeler volunteered to begin to look at how we can look at better utilizing this system, and to move closer towards having an “intuitional researcher”, a goal for at least the past 8 years.





Respectfully submitted,

Daryl Boucher, Chair

Last changed: Mar 14 2007 at 8:33 AM