Trinidad State Junior College

Monitoring Report

June 1, 2003

Introduction

In 1998, Trinidad State Junior College was awarded a ten year accreditation, but with several stipulations. One was to develop and implement an assessment program at the college. In October 2000, a team of consultant-evaluators made a focused visit and concluded that:

“with the proper administrative leadership, a serious commitment to documenting and improving student learning, an adequate allocation of resources, and a sufficient investment in professional development, Trinidad State Junior College will devise and implement an effective and comprehensive assessment plan by the year 2003.”

Further, the evaluation team decided that because the college assessment committee had made substantial progress in all areas except general education, the college must submit a Monitoring Report by June 1, 2003 on the assessment of student learning. This report includes, as requested, evidence that the college is assessing clearly identified and measurable objectives for learning in all of its classes and that it is using results from these assessments to improve student learning. It further demonstrates that the college has published well-articulated general education objectives and that it has implemented its plan to assess its general education program.

October 2000 Focused Visit Results

The October 2000 focused visit team concluded that the college had made progress toward the implementation of an “effective, comprehensive, ongoing assessment program,” but that it was not progressing as it should. Since then, the assessment committee has made a concerted effort to make the assessment plan effective by encouraging faculty involvement and “buy-in.” The committee has worked toward making the plan comprehensive by involving everyone involved in teaching and administration. The committee has worked toward creating a self-sustaining assessment plan by publishing all significant assessment-related documents on the Internet site. Finally, the assessment committee continues to struggle to vitalize and revitalize the assessment program by involving as many faculty as possible in planning and also delivering assessment-related staff development activities.

The focused visit team developed three lists, one of strengths, one of concerns, and a third entitled “Advice and Suggestions for Institutional Improvement.” The strengths indicated were:

1. The college continues to do a praiseworthy job assessing its occupational programs.
2. The college has a well-established assessment committee that meets on a regular basis.
3. The college should be commended for developing a coherent philosophy of general education and for incorporating general educating into all of its degree programs.
4. The college has made a number of innovations in recent years in an attempt to improve student learning including the development of the Writing Center and a Supplemental Instruction Program that helps students succeed by forming a community of learners.

Unfortunately, regarding the first item, while the occupational programs have well-constructed assessment plans in place, reporting and consistent use of assessment-related data has diminished since 2000. This problem stems, in part, from the faculty perception that assessment is an additional requirement with little return. The assessment plans for occupational programs are nearly all based on pre-test/post-test scores (because that maximizes their usefulness for other purposes, specifically grant renewals). Revitalizing the reporting of assessment from these programs and creatively using the data these assessments provide continues to be a primary goal for the assessment committee. When the data generated by these assessments begins to make real changes in funding, staffing, and associated physical plant, participation and enthusiasm will undoubtedly rise.

Item two and three continue to be strengths at Trinidad State Junior College. The assessment committee efforts have already been discussed in a preceding section of this report. The general education philosophy statement has been published, revised, and discussed a number of times over the past two years. Details regarding the general education program assessment activities are discussed in depth later in this report.

Regarding item four, the writing center continues to expand its range of activities, hours, and equipment with the explicit goal of helping students improve their own writing. The center makes referrals for one-on-one tutoring, provides handouts, exercises, and tutorials, and assists in teaching students to use computers and the Internet to do authentic research. The Supplemental Instruction program has also continued to be quite successful, particularly in traditionally difficult courses. Both of these programs implicitly engage students both as learners and as teachers; the very positive side effect of deep-seated learning in those who teach is axiomatic to the SI program as well as the entire Learning Center. The Learning Center also supervises the placement assessment of all matriculating students. This is done using The College BoardÔ ACCUPLACERÔ exam and placement is specified by state guidelines.

The focused visit team also developed a list of concerns:

1. There are several certificate programs of substantial length that do not include a general education component.
2. The general education philosophy statement does not appear in the catalog.
3. General education objectives have not be articulated, nor made public.
4. No plan exists to assess the general education program.
5. Not all courses have clearly articulated, measurable, learning objectives and so faculty cannot be assessing student learning in those courses.
6. No improvements were made to classroom instruction as a result of assessment.

Over the past three years, many faculty members have participated in the annual Integration Conference in Beaver Creek Colorado; these conferences address the integration of general education objectives into occupational education coursework. In conjunction with conference attendance, an integration task force was created to help implement the various techniques brought back from the conferences. Whenever possible, writing assignments in English classes is linked with the student's occupational interest or other classroom assignments and the Writing Center hosts workshops for students in those classes. Career and Technical Education faculty have worked toward implementing these techniques. Specifically, virtually every occupational program – from Cosmetology to Gunsmithing to Early Childhood Professional - has required students to write resumes, cover letters, term papers, and position papers, usually with a specific requirement to visit the writing center a specified number of times. Automotive Services students combine writing with critical thinking in written summaries of automotive troubleshooting case studies; these summaries are then discussed in a group format in the final course of the program. As a final example, 132 students from various Career and Technical areas participated in the course-integrated study skills module called “Slam Dunk.” This is a study skills workshop designed to help students get the most out of their courses. It focuses on effective reading strategies, the Cornell method of taking notes, test taking skills, and time management. In summary, there is a concerted effort to integrate general education skills into occupational certificate programs.

Regarding item two through four, the Trinidad State Junior College general education philosophy statement is being included in the new catalog and has been published on the assessment web site along with the general education objectives and plan for assessing those objectives. Details are given in the section below entitled “General Education Assessment.”

Regarding item five, a systematic effort to review all syllabi and course information sheets began in the fall of 2000. Each was reviewed for compliance with standards developed by the curriculum committee; this was done using time allocated during staff development days during the beginning of each semester. All new courses and programs are reviewed by the curriculum committee, which then makes its recommendation to the administrator who would be in charge of program. During the last two years, however, the state system of community colleges has cooperated in an effort to standardize all course descriptions. As of spring 2003, these common course descriptors are officially recognized and adopted. All of the descriptions are available on the state web site at cccns.cccs.cccoes.edu/home.asp .

Finally, regarding item six, changes made to classroom instruction, the following are illustrative examples of some of the changes that have been made as a result of assessment.

• Sophomore level biology courses now have BIO 111 as a pre-requisite. This was based on the correlation between how students perform in sophomore biology courses depending on whether they have had BIO 111 or not.
• All math courses taught in the Math Mastery Lab were modified in the same way starting Spring 2003. The math faculty had given a student survey that indicated that students were unmotivated to remain on schedule. The math lab concept stems from a self-paced, mastery-level philosophy. Every semester the math lab faculty discuss the performance problems caused by student procrastination. As a result of these two assessments, a small bonus or penalty was added to each test depending upon the student’s timeliness. Results from this curricular change indicate that the change improved the completion rate for most students, but may have reduced the retention of slower math students slightly.
• English classes taught via PicTel once had students both at the “live” end – the site with the instructor – and also at the remote end. Invariably, remote students performed worse than “live” students, so staffing patterns have been changed so that composition courses taught via PicTel only have students at the remote end.
• Many course-level assessment results have indicated changes in the assessment instruments themselves. Virtually all instructors using pre-test/post-test instruments have modified those tests as a result of the assessment. This has, in most cases, also given rise to insights into those aspects of the course that students seem to have difficulty grasping. Many faculty report, often informally, that they plan to change the amount of time they spend in class teaching material related to specific course objectives. Course-level assessment reports are published on the Trinidad State Junior College assessment web site.
• A number of instructors who teach via PicTel have been allocated funds to travel to the Alamosa campus at least once per semester to meet and teach students at the remote site. Many assessments clearly indicate a need for instructors to visit remote sites for face-to-face meetings, to create significant learning communities, and provide tutorial or coaching for these otherwise relatively disenfranchised students.

The focused visit team’s third and final list of advice and suggestions was:

1. The college should try to find the funds to assist faculty development, particularly in the area of assessment.
2. The college should increase the percentage of faculty on the Assessment and Improvement of Student Learning Committee.
3. The college faculty should always bear in mind that the primary reason for doing assessment is the improvement of student learning.

The college has provided significantly more faculty development since the focused visit. Each summer, several faculty have attended the aforementioned Integration Conference, wherein both assessment and pedagogy are key topics. At least one faculty member has attended the Annual NCA meeting in Chicago each spring and reported to the entire college at the spring staff-development day. Each semester, the assessment committee provides a workshop during the in-service training. In January 2003, for example, the committee produced a “best practices” workshop which was described by many as the best assessment in-service training yet. This will become a regular feature of the assessment committee in-service presentations. Generally the in-service workshop includes a summary of recent results and a discussion of the assessment committee’s highest priority development efforts. The committee tries to include, at every workshop, some practical idea for implementing assessment in courses and programs. Finally, the committee tries to consistently emphasize the need to view assessment as assessment for the improvement of student learning and encourages dialog among faculty and staff to help promote this conception.

Assessment Committee

In September 1997, the Assessment and Improvement of Student Learning Committee (AISLC) was formed with the charge to:

· To enhance the continuous improvement of student learning at Trinidad State Junior College through analysis and publication of information about student learning.

· To annually review all student assessment data collected and analyses developed by Trinidad State Junior College.

· To create recommendations regarding the breadth and depth of the assessment of student learning efforts at Trinidad State Junior College.

· To develop strategies to increase, if needed, the assessment of student learning efforts and activities at the institution.

· To generate recommendations to the Vice President of Instruction about needed budget requirements, planning activities, or new research directions. (Note: The Vice President of Instruction position no longer exists so recommendations go to the college President)

· To serve as a communication catalyst on assessment of student learning at Trinidad State Junior College.

· To support institutional policy relating to assessment of student learning.

· To produce an annual report on student learning.

· To ensure the on-going generation and analysis of, and publication about student learning at Trinidad State Junior College

The initial committee consisted of four full-time faculty members, two part-time faculty (one worked in student services while the other worked in the advising center), plus six administrators representing student services, continuing education, occupational education, and academic education.

The bylaws (Appendix A) of the committee specify that committee members serve two-year terms. The current committee consists of six full-time faculty, two representatives from student services (one from each campus), and six ad hoc positions held by administrators representing the major areas of both campuses.

The assessment committee provides structure for the campus-wide effort to assess student learning by managing the creation and maintenance of assessment plans, maintaining an assessment website, and providing relevant staff-development activities. The committee accomplishes these roles through a number of channels. Each semester, all full-time faculty and staff, plus a number of adjunct faculty, attend an in-service training which includes at least one session regarding assessment. In-service assessment presentations and workshops range from general presentations of the assessment plan to “best-practices” presentations to hands-on workshops where participants work on writing measurable objectives and test questions to assess those objectives. Timelines, minutes from assessment meetings, reminders to faculty, and other implementation logistics are generally sent to faculty via e-mail and through the administrative chain of command (faculty report directly to a division-chair who reports to a dean who in turn reports to the college president, or campus vice-president). All significant presentations and reports are published on the Trinidad State Junior College Assessment website (www.trinidadstate.edu/aisl).

Course-Level Assessment

Because courses are the building blocks of our educational programs, course level assessment is the core of the Trinidad State Junior College assessment program. Most assessment practices take place at the course level, i.e., instructors use reports, exams or parts of exams, projects, term papers, and questionnaires in their courses. In the fall of 2001, the assessment committee began stressing the need for course-level assessment and developed a consistent process for regular course-level assessment reporting. This process is little more than a downloadable form that can be completed and sent via e-mail to the faculty member’s supervisor and assessment coordinator. These assessment are posted to the website (see the various semester reports on the main web page) so that administrators, faculty, and students can access them from any place at any time. The form contains instructions along with several questions:

· Name of Course or Program area: __________________
· Name of faculty submitting summary: __________________
· Description of data collected:
· Description of what data "says":
· List of conclusions drawn from the analysis:
· List any changes made as a result of the analysis. Also include any good practices you have continued or amplified as a result of the analysis.
· List results of any prior changes made.

Recently the committee made it possible for faculty to fill out the form online. While the hope was this would encourage marginal faculty to participate, the results to date have not been any different than before the online form existed.

Program-Level Assessment

All of the AAS degree programs are supposed to have a well-defined plan and were to be implemented by 2001. The programs at Trinidad State Junior College are practically separated into Trinidad campus and San Luis Valley campus programs. On the Trinidad campus are Automotive Service Technology, Engineering Technology (includes Civil Engineering and Drafting), Computer Information Systems, Computer Network Technology, Cosmetology, Criminal Justice, Emergency Medical Technician, Early Childhood Professional, Graphic Design and Commercial Art, Gunsmithing, Multimedia Arts, Nursing (ADN, LPN, and CNA), Occupational Safety, Office Technologies, and Police Training Academy (CLETA). At the San Luis Valley campus we offer Aquaculture, Barbering, Cosmetology, Emergency Medical Technician, Early Childhood Professional, Heavy Equipment Diesel Maintenance, Industrial Systems Technology, Nursing (ADN, LPN, and CNA), Office Technologies, Precision Machining, and Welding Technology. Some programs implemented program-level assessment early and have been generating results and continuously modifying their programs and courses within those programs. The best example is the Computer Information Systems program. Some programs, like Aquaculture, have plans on file but have never demonstrated implementation. These assessment plans are online.

For the transfer degrees, Associate of Arts (AA) and Associate of Science (AS), program-level assessment operates out of a synthesis of course-level assessments and the general education assessment. The reason for this is that the common thread among the Associate of Arts emphasis areas – Accounting, American Studies, Art, Business Administration, Creative Writing, Criminal Justice, Education, English, Journalism, Music, Physical Education, Pre-Law, and Psychology - is synonymous with the AA general education core. Similarly, the common thread among the Associate of Science emphasis areas – Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Natural Resources, Pre-professional medical fields – is synonymous with the AS general education core.

The AA general education core was, until very recently, 34 semester-credit hours consisting of: six (6) hours of English Composition, three (3) hours of public speaking, three (3) hours of Mathematics, four (4) hours of science, nine (9) hours from two different social or behavioral science disciplines, and nine (9) hours from two different humanities disciplines. The AS general education core was, until very recently, 33 semester-credit hours consisting of: six (6) hours of English Composition, three (3) hours of public speaking, four (4) hours of Mathematics, eight (8) hours of a two-semester science sequence, six (6) hours from two different social or behavioral science disciplines, and six (6) hours from the humanities disciplines.

Two years ago the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) created the “General Education (GE) 25 Committee” and mandated that it create a statewide guaranteed transfer general education core for all state higher education institutions. The committee consists of faculty representatives from all state two-year and four-year colleges and universities. Together, they developed an extensive list of courses that are guaranteed to transfer among all the state colleges in Colorado. Simultaneously, all state two-year colleges finished a major project started nearly a decade ago to commonly number and describe all courses offered at all the two-year colleges. The combination of these two projects has led to a slightly modified Colorado community college general education core for both the AA and AS degrees. The new degrees require six (6) hours of English Composition, three (3) hours of public speaking, three (3) hours of Mathematics for the AA and four (4) for the AS, eight (8) hours of science, nine (9) hours from three different social or behavioral science disciplines (one must be history), and nine (9) hours from three different humanities disciplines. Details are online.

General Education Assessment

General Education Philosophy Statement

"The college defines general education as courses that are balanced and broadly-based, which expose the student to the mainstreams of thought and interpretation in humanities, sciences, communications, mathematics, social studies, and arts; and that develop the student’s understanding of the interrelationships among these fields of study. These courses must not be directly related to a student’s formal technical, vocational, or professional preparation.

Ultimately the college works toward the creation of an informed citizenry with the ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems, both qualitative and quantitative. The college strives to provide a general education that promotes tolerance, lifelong learning, and a devotion to free inquiry and free expression, to develop sensitivity to the needs of local and global community, and to contribute to society through civil habits of thought, speech, and responsible action."

General Education Objectives

The faculty originally developed the following measurable objectives from the General Education Philosophy Statement:

1. Communication Objectives:
1. Read and comprehend college level work
2. Explain and defend ideas orally and in writing
2. Critical Thinking
1. Argue from cases to general principles
2. Argue from principles to specific cases
3. Identify unstated assumptions
4. Judge credibility of statements
5. Interpret evidence
3. Problem Solving
1. Identify the most important aspects of a problem
2. Propose and defend solutions to qualitative problems
3. Solve quantitative problems using mathematics and computer tools
4. Recognize, identify, and explain interrelationships between specialized and general modes of thought and fields of study.
4. Intellectual Maturity
1. Demonstrate openness to new ideas
2. Demonstrate desire to learn
3. Practice community service
4. Demonstrate civility - responsible use of knowledge

At the January 2001 in-service training, the AISL chair presented a variety of options open to faculty for assessing these objectives. A great deal of discussion followed, mostly via e-mail, where various plans were floated - portfolios, exit exams, capstone courses and capstone projects. Finally, the idea of embedding general education questions at random into existing courses seemed to be the best method for assessing these objectives.

At the fall 2001 in-service training, faculty worked in groups to develop embedded questions that would measure, in a context-free way, to what extent students had mastered each objective. After a semester of frustration, the project was scrapped in favor of a nationally standardized assessment exam of sophomores. The ACT CAAP exam seemed to answer this need best. The CAAP test features five (5) area tests: writing skills, reading, mathematics, scientific reasoning, and critical thinking. These five areas match our objectives 1a, 1b, 3b&c, 3c&d, and 2a-e, respectively. The AISLC decided to recruit a sample of graduating sophomores by asking for volunteers. Most students were offered some extra credit in the course taught by the instructor who recruited them; this was done so that students would get something other than just a score. At the same time, the altruistic quality of their volunteering was emphasized, specifically the fact that they are helping Trinidad State Junior College assess the performance of its general education program. One immediate result from this was to raise awareness that a general education program exists, that there is a “big picture” to the core courses students take, and that those courses are required because they prepare a student’s general understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

The idea of embedding general education assessment questions into general education courses had never really been completely discarded, however, and by the fall semester of 2002, the assessment committee figured out how it could be done. The problem the first time was that the committee had everyone writing their own questions and there were far too many objectives to effectively tackle; the new concept was to identify specific courses that had enough commonality to write a few good questions that are not completely context-free. The assessment committee, together with the faculty through e-mail, distilled the general education objectives down to five essential, measurable objectives:

1. Read and comprehend college level work
2. Explain and defend ideas orally and in writing
3. Examine ideas using critical reasoning
4. Solve problems using logic, mathematics, computers, and creative thinking
5. Demonstrate responsible citizenship

From these five objectives, the AISLC has developed, in cooperation with faculty, several complementary assessment instruments. These are writing portfolios, the ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) test (which will be phased out as the embedded tests are validated), a course-embedded mathematics exam, a course-embedded humanities exam, a course-embedded science exam, and a collection of stories or anecdotes illustrating that students have demonstrated responsible citizenship. The details are available online; the matrix is reprinted here:

	English Portfolio Evaluation	Embedded Math Exam	Embedded Science Exam	Embedded Humanities Exam	Anecdote
Read and comprehend college level work	X	X	X	X
Explain and defend ideas orally and in writing	X		X	X
Examine ideas using critical reasoning		X	X	X
Solve problems using logic, mathematics, computers, and creative thinking		X	X
Demonstrate responsible citizenship					X

In September 2002, several groups of faculty (math, science, and humanities) began developing questions for the embedded assessments. These questions are embedded into regular tests in specific general education courses. The details are given on the assessment website at the General Education link. Students should be well motivated to do well on the tests because they are a natural part of these courses. The questions are designed to be course-independent, so results ought to be inter-comparable across sources. The students’ student identification numbers will be linked to their scores on these tests in an assessment committee database. This will be used to track how well students perform at different points in their progression through the general education curriculum, how well students do as a function of number of hours taken at the institution, how scores correlate to entrance assessments, with many other studies possible. Finally, this approach should answer the problems associated with "churn," the phenomena common at community colleges wherein students often do not progress through courses in the correct sequence or uniformly from semester to semester. This program was piloted in the fall of 2002 and went into production in spring 2003. The last step in the plan is to develop a social and behavioral sciences embedded exam; this is scheduled for completion during the 2003 academic year.

General Education Assessments

Writing Portfolios

A portfolio of writing samples is collected for each student who takes ENG 121 and 122 and solicited from all other courses in which student write papers. Papers from the portfolio (maintained by the communications department faculty) are holistically scored once yearly by a group of communications department faculty using a common rubric. The rubric specifies that each of six different traits of each written work be analyzed on a five-point scale. The six traits are ideas, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, voice, and convention. Results from previous years have led to a number of suggestions and changes in the communications department curriculum and procedures. Examples of these are:

· indicate on course schedules those classes that are computer-centered

· fund face-to-face faculty meeting with Alamosa students taking PicTel classes

· increase emphasis on better attendance by, for example, assigning a portion of the grade for attendance

· pay special attention to developing “voice” in academic research papers

· continue using the workshop model, especially with computers

A common, and quite positive, outcome of the assessment is the scoring process itself and the discussions it generates among communications faculty, both at the scoring and later at their division meetings.

ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP)

The AISLC desired to know how Trinidad State Junior College compared nationally so we purchased and administered the CAAP test in the spring of 2002 and spring of 2003. This test is designed for students who have completed two years of college-level work, both at two-year and four-year institutions. Faculty recruited a sample of graduating sophomores by asking for volunteers, sometimes with extra credit offered in the course through which the instructor recruited the student. Volunteers were encouraged to take the test so that they could “get free practice taking standardized exams, help Trinidad State Junior College improve its General Education Program, and in some cases, earn extra credit in a course.” Most students seemed positively motivated and, from visual cues during the test and subjective interviews after the test, tried their best on the test itself.

The results of this exam are summarized in the table below (spring 2002 above and spring 2003 below in each cell):

ACT CAAP TEST RESULTS FOR 30 TSJC GRADUATING SOPHOMORES

	Writing Skills	Math	Reading	Critical Thinking	Science Reasoning
Overall Average	43% 47%	53% 55%	49% 45%	46% 51%	52% 62%
Standard Deviation	25% 33%	33% 28%	25% 25%	18% 31%	20% 29%
Minimum	3% 8%	5% 5%	5% 0%	17% 0%	31% 2%
Maximum	89% 99%	99% 99%	86% 93%	82% 99%	93% 98%
Student Count	17 22	17 22	17 22	15 22	15 22
Percentage Above 50%	35% 36%	53% 68%	53% 36%	40% 50%	40% 59%
Percentage Below 33%	53% 41%	41% 23%	24% 36%	27% 27%	20% 27%
Trinidad Average	46% 41%	54% 63%	44% 33%	45% 41%	53% 65%
Alamosa Average	39% 54%	52% 46%	61% 60%	46% 63%	50% 59%
AA average	54% 45%	71% 54%	44% 46%	49% 36%	50% 58%
AAS average	33% 45%	23% 46%	46% 49%	42% 56%	46% 57%
AS average	65% 61%	85% 80%	79% 27%	46% 54%	75% 78%

The spring 2002 CAAP test results were studied and a complete report is available on the AISL website. The new data only just arrived and have not yet been fully analyzed. This analysis will also be posted on the AISL website. Preliminary discussion of the data seem to indicate primarily the same issues identified spring 2002, that a few students are slipping through with very low scores. This year, students scored in the zeroeth percentile in reading, critical thinking, and science reasoning. The assessment committee will discuss the results at their next regular meeting and make recommendations to the President, deans, and curriculum committee.

Course-Embedded Exams

In the fall of 2001, the AISLC tried to initiate a program where faculty would embed test questions in their courses that would assess the degree to which students had mastered the general education objectives. At that time, there were thirteen (13) general education objectives and the effort to initiate this program was not adequately presented, both in terms of explanation quality, clarity of concept, and development time. The project foundered for several months, so the project was put on hold until the fall of 2002. During that time, the project was clarified from having instructors develop their own “context-free” questions to a set of questions developed by a small team of instructors. These questions were then circulated among appropriate faculty for fine-tuning with the hope that that level of involvement would generate enough ownership among those faculty.

This process worked extremely well with the mathematics faculty. Three faculty contributed questions and then all mathematics faculty participated in fine-tuning them. One faculty member tested the questions in two of her courses in the fall of 2002 after which the questions were adjusted and adopted for spring 2003 and following semesters. The science faculty also worked well together developing a critical thinking and science-reasoning test. Both of these tests were embedded in courses during the spring 2003 final examinations. While the results are still pending, the initial impression from the data is that they track the CAAP test data relatively well and seem to indicate strengths and weaknesses in areas that make sense. A full analysis will be posted online.

Anecdotes

Assessing the development of good citizenship among Trinidad State Junior College students posed perhaps the most difficult task because of its inherently subjective nature. The best of many proposed solutions was to consider the many arenas wherein Trinidad State Junior College students actually demonstrate responsible citizenship. While this does not necessarily imply that their level of citizenship has “increased” while at the college, no one, no test, really could make that kind of judgment. When a person does volunteer or perform “other-centric” behavior, however, the objective “Demonstrate responsible citizenship,” has been met. The complete report is available online.

Analysis of the Trinidad State Junior College Assessment Plan

The analysis below is based on the outline from the NCA publication entitled “Assessment of Student Academic Achievement: Levels of Implementation.”

I. Institutional Culture:

a. Collective/Shared Values

Faculty at Trinidad State Junior College generally understand and, to a lesser extent, value, the assessment cycle (see results of faculty and staff assessment survey). However, participation of administration and staff has been limited and continues to be an area of potential improvement.

b. Mission

The college’s revised mission statement includes language describing the importance of students’ learning in areas that the entire staff support.

II. Shared Responsibility:

a. Faculty

Faculty dominate the assessment committee; of the nine regular members, six are faculty members. The committee continues to work toward developing an assessment culture throughout the Trinidad State Junior College campuses. All courses, and most programs, have developed measurable objectives along with assessment instruments to measure those objectives. While not all faculty are consistently reporting assessment results to the campus assessment committee, administrative supervisors are responsible for their faculty members’ assessment results and associated discussions and feedback. Assessment related e-mail and workshops continue to be regular features of the academic calendar; as a result, faculty and staff continue to become more involved and enthusiastic about assessment for the improvement of student learning.

b. Administration and Board

The college president, deans, and division chairs assent to the importance of assessment at Trinidad State Junior College. As a group, however, they appear to most faculty to value assessment only inasmuch as it preserves accreditation rather than as having value in itself for improving the quality of instruction.

c. Students

Student involvement in planning and evaluating assessment has been minimal. In most programs, students understand and appreciate the importance of assessment not only for determining their own learning, but that of their instructors. Increasing student participation is clearly an opportunity for improving the Trinidad State Junior College assessment program.

III. Institutional Support:

a. Resources

Resources are made available as a yearly budget item for faculty release time and a stipend to the assessment chairperson. This budget also pays for the CAAP tests, so the sample size is relatively small. Adjunct faculty, and faculty who score added, embedded assessments receive no additional pay. Some type of incentive or remuneration needs to be added to the assessment program to increase participation of adjunct faculty. Qualified administrators and staff have begun to teach more courses; this should both increase the connection between them and regular faculty and also aid in the completeness to which the entire college engages in assessment. Presently all faculty participate two or three times per year in assessment workshops during regular staff development programs; these programs are produced and presented entirely by local faculty.

b. Structures

The assessment committee has established a regular assessment calendar which is discussed yearly at the first in-service of each academic year. Syllabi and course-information sheets have been standardized to ensure quality and completeness. Assessment reporting has been designed to minimize extra work for faculty and, at the same time, optimize the information flow through all appropriate stakeholders. The assessment committee regularly revisits implementation plans to optimize them for these desiderata. Evaluating the effectiveness of changes has not yet reached levels the committee desires and is therefore an opportunity for improvement in the overall assessment program. The single most important element required for this improvement is a system of accountability. This continues to be a regular discussion item at assessment committee meetings.

IV. Efficacy of Assessment

The purposes and relationships between faculty evaluation, assessment, and institutional effectiveness have not yet been solidified. Faculty are, however, increasingly engaged in interpreting assessment results and doing their best to make good use of these results. Closing the assessment cycle loop continues to be a significant challenge and opportunity for improvement in the overall assessment program.

Executive Summary

The assessment program at Trinidad State Junior College has developed significantly since the October 2000 focus visit.

Course-level assessment has been expanded from very few courses to a large fraction of the total taught by full-time faculty. The single biggest improvement for this is to extend assessment to courses taught by adjunct faculty.

Program level assessment continues, though several programs that were active in 2000 have stopped reporting while others have begun and still others have never reported. This is a major area of concern. Through state-mandated structures, the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees have evolved to being nearly identical and so the assessment committee plans to continue scrutinizing their respective program goals.

General education assessment has come from zero to a fairly well developed system using embedded assessments plus a nationally normed instrument. Results are entered into a computer database for a variety of analyses. Because this system is somewhat new, there are very few changes to curriculum, so the efficacy of the results is unknown. The process of producing the embedded assessments itself has been a productive activity. Through this activity, faculty have critically examined what is meant by general education. Ideas have been seeded to promote the development of authentic critical thinking in general education courses. Questions like “how can I get my math students to really think mathematically rather than simply memorizing techniques?” have become more common in daily conversation at the coffee machine. Trinidad State Junior College seems to be developing a grass-roots assessment culture, perhaps in spite of itself.