Southeastern Illinois College assessment committee develops eduction
Southeastern Illinois College Board of Trustees Joint Meeting of Academic & Student Affairs Leadership Assessment Committee met April 25 to develop eduction.
Here are the meeting's minutes, as provided by the board:
"The Southeastern Illinois College Board of Trustees holds its regularly scheduled meetings on the third Tuesday of each month (unless otherwise posted) at 6:00 p.m. in the Rodney J. Brenner Board Room located in the Harry W. Abell Administration Building. A meeting schedule is provided to local media per the guidelines of the Open Meetings Act and the Illinois Public Community College Act."
JOINT MEETING OF ACADEMIC & STUDENT AFFAIRS LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES April 25, 2:30 p.m. Room A212
Leadership Members Present: Paul Cummins, Jason Fitzgerald, Chad Flannery, Emily Henson, Gary Jones, Dana Keating, Allan Kimball, Matt Lees, Karla Lewis, Lolita Mack, Amy Murphy, Scott Reed, Gina Sirach, Karen Weiss, Angela Wilson Leadership Members Absent: Kyla Burford, Lori Cox, Jeremy Irlbeck, Ed Rose, Kellye Whitler
Strategic Planning Members Present: Chad Flannery, Gary Jones, Dana Keating, Karla Lewis, Brent Maguire, Greg McCulloch, Stacy Moore, Aaron Poole, Steve Rea, Jonah Rice, Gina Sirach, Shawn Smith, Karen Weiss, Angela Wilson, David Wright, Brenna Butler Strategic Planning Members Absent: Lori Cox, Ed Fitzgerald, Sylvia Moore, Ed Rose
Assessment Members Present: Jason Fitzgerald, Lisa Hite, Dana Keating, Allan Kimball, Anita Lowery, Greg McCulloch, Stacy Moore, Amy Murphy, Scott Reed, Jennifer Roehm, Gina Sirach, Kelsie Bond, Karen Weiss, Dave Wright Assessment Members Absent: Tyler Billman, Lori Cox, Jerri Harbison, Jeff Miller, Debbie Suh, Robbie Lindhorst, Kellye Whitler
Others in Attendance: Cara Lehman, Peggy McDowell
This joint meeting was held so the HLC Annual Conference team could share key information they obtained from the conference.
Developmental Education – Paul Cummins reported we are already doing things to combine
developmental courses so students do not have to take as many courses. One example is our ENG 105Z and ENG 121Z sections that are taken concurrently for students who score just under the score needed for ENG 121. This co-req method does not work well for the math classes. It was noted that one school combined reading and psychology courses to improve reading skills. ICCB has promised the Department of Education that Illinois Community Colleges will double the amount of our co-req developmental ed courses.
Assessment – Karen Weiss reported that HLC shared their expectations. We are already doing a lot of good things and have good processes in place. There are always places where we can improve and we need to continue working the close the loop. We need to document our assessment activities and results – how we did it and use of data to make improvements in programs and services. We are ahead of the game by linking assessment to institutional effectiveness. We need to link to our general education goals and co-curricular activities.
Gina Sirach reported we are integrating assessment into program review. We need to revise our forms and be more thorough in how we document the use of results. We need to review our recently revised gen ed goals and come up with target areas and sub goals.
Jason Fitzgerald stated that for the reporting aspects we need to get faculty more engaged in the process. Focus on improvement rather than compliance. Faculty will see this is more as what we do to improve our programs rather than what we have to do for compliance. It is not “one size fits all.” We need to show how to measure and how to achieve results. Use rubrics. We can attach our data as an attachment to the plan rather than enter results into the box on the assessment form. We need to get faculty together and discuss how to take what was learned and use it. There is a big push on how the data was looked at, discussed, and how to improve.
Faculty Credentials – Paul Cummins reported it was stressed to be consistent with the criteria when we use equivalent experience. Faculty must have a degree level above what is being taught except for CTE courses which require a bachelor’s degree. The dual credit is comparable to our campus classes. Instructors must have 18 hours in content and not just a master’s degree. Must be compliant by fall of 2017.
Federal Compliance/Credit Hours Compliance
Chad Flannery stated a university that just went through their visit presented the same information we had at our staff development day which was a validating presentation for us. Our process mimics their process and they received good marks. The biggest struggle was with credit hour compliance. Courses taught in different modalities must be equivalent. If you change anything on a course, you must update that form.
Assurance Argument & Evidence File – Dana Keating stated the work done by teams will be our
starting point for identifying evidence and documentation. The teams did a very good job. They were thorough and detailed. Thanks to all!
Just a couple of bullet points:
• It truly is an argument and should be written that way. Not descriptive.
• Would looking back at our last self-study document be helpful? Their answer was NO.
• However, you DO need to look back at the team visit’s report to make sure all recommendations were addressed over the last 10 years.
• “No place to hide” – if we know we have a problem in some area, best if we identify ourselves, explain how we are addressing it, and the timeline for the solution. If we do this, the team is more apt to just recommend some internal attention be given to the issue. If we don’t acknowledge the issue, we would be likely to get a required HLC report. Don’t want to put ourselves in that positon. So, we need to “be proactive in volunteering information.”
Evidence File – The information provided on Evidence Files was more of the organizational nature. This will be a time consuming task to gather and organize this multiple files and documents. But again, the work done by the teams on the grids will be very helpful.
Higher Ed Reauthorization – Dana Keating stated we don’t know when this will get accomplished –
could be not until 2018. But no one really knows. Much focus on student loan and debt issues.
• Affordability and debt repayment
• Retention and completion
• Student outcomes – jobs, jobs, jobs.
• Innovation – direct assessment
• Better consumer information
• Veterans’ issues
• Oversight and disclosure
• Program integrity
• Simplifying FASFA
• Helping poor students access college
• More safety regulations
• TRIA – US Dept. of Education/State Higher Education Agencies/Accreditation Agencies
We were advised to watch what is coming out of the Department of Ed closely.
Student Success/Retention/Completion – Chad Flannery reported they focused on the non-academic side on operational outcomes for what is done on a daily basis. What you are doing and how it works. Examine daily operations and see if they contribute or cause barriers for students. Does it take as much effort to drop out of a class as it does to register for a class?
SARA – State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement – Karen Weiss reported there are four states (California, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Connecticut) that are still holding out to “do their own thing” instead of joining SARA. Kentucky has passed legislation to proceed. We have completed our application, paid our fee and belong to SARA.
Online Learning & Instruction – The session focused on quantitative data of instructors at the beginning of the course to see if faculty members need help. How can we help educators?
Jason Fitzgerald reported they are placing importance on more engagement of student in online discussions. Suggestions were to have instructors email videos of themselves and open a discussion board a week before class for introductions. Another suggestion was to give students options to use difference methods of media to respond. Students could record and upload items. When these methods were used, it changed the students’ attitudes but not grades or participation. We already do a good job.
Peer Evaluation – Dr. Rice
1. Strategic Planning 2. Writing to the core components and how remediation works
a. HLC will not let IL get a “pass” just because of state financial problems.
There are four components under #1. We must meet all criteria – we fail all if we don’t meet all criteria. 3. Fed Compliance process
a. Ins and outs, plus course syllabi reviews
We will be evaluated ahead of time and report given to our team. A random sample of course outlines will be evaluated including credit hours, compressed courses, online, and traditional. They will be looking for individual course outlines for each modality and must meet the same requirements in all modalities. 4. What we are doing well and are on the right track
a. Assessment b. Planning c. Finance (as best as can be expected) 5. Where we need to charge ahead—but have not ignored
a. General Education
Look at general education assignment. Tie assessment planning to institutional effectiveness. b. Credentials c. IR to IE/Benchmarking, P/R/C d. Fed Compliance, Syllabi e. Developmental Education – one size does not fit all. 6. What might be useful
a. After each CC is written, internal peer review with a matrix for assessment/review
Dr. Rice thanked the team for attending the HLC annual conference. We always try to rotate so different faculty/staff can attend from year to year. He stated we are doing a good job, but we can always improve.