Read the Curry College NEASC 2012 Self-Study Report.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

37 subcommittee began reviewing 1000‐level courses across programs to identify patterns evident in syllabi and frame next steps regarding possible templates for oversight and ongoing review. Develop additional guidelines for credit‐bearing internships While each department proposes and oversees its own internships, guidelines are inconsistent. Progress has been made to address this issue. A comprehensive review of the internship process included the recent creation of an interdisciplinary team that has clarified disciplinespecific expectations for internship quality, the mechanism for assuring oversight of such quality, and the specific learning outcomes required from each internship experience. The next step will be to increase the multiple means by which such outcomes are assessed and to explore cross‐area validation of such assessments. Assess the criteria for awarding credit for skill‐based classes, physical education courses, and other non‐traditional credit‐bearing courses The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee agenda for the 2011‐2012 year includes a subcommittee review of relevant syllabi, focused on documentation of academic content and level of student learning and achievement. The subcommittee is tasked with reporting back to the UCC in Spring 2012 with a summary of findings. The subcommittee began its work with the above review of 1000‐level course syllabi as a means of documenting criteria for the awarding of credits in traditional academic courses. lxxxvi Learning Outcomes Assessment Curry College’s approach to developing and supporting learning outcomes assessment is consistent with its prioritization of sustainable academic quality. The LOAC has emphasized three commonly recognized stages of assessment work: having clear and measurable learning outcomes at the course, program, and institution‐wide levels; implementing assessment online methods that provide authentic and helpful insight about what and how students are learning; and making decisions and improvements based on evidence about student learning. The Committee has provided in‐depth feedback and guidance to academic programs regarding their progress, supported departments in developing next steps, and worked collaboratively with the CAO to emphasize the importance of making progress through these stages and recognizing the ongoing nature of assessment for continuous improvement. As documented in the summary chart lxxxvii and detailed in the E‐forms, this approach has built capacity and expertise from within academic areas. Seven programs (undergraduate majors, master’s, and non‐degree) moved from developing assessment methods to acting on evidence from their implementation; and two programs transitioned from development to approval of commonly accepted learning outcomes. In addition, campus‐wide learning outcomes assessment has progressed in areas of information literacy, general education, technology literacy, and capstone‐level writing. Salient examples of “closing the loop” (Category 1: using assessment information to inform decision making and improvements) include: • Mathematics: Common outcomes and end‐of‐semester assessments in Statistics led to careful analysis of content variation across sections, common student errors, and identifiable patterns of learning. Faculty piloted a new common introductory curriculum Curry College 2012 Self-Study Standard Four
38 with enhanced online support for homework and strategy instruction, trained all fulland part‐time faculty in the new format, and will be offering the redesigned sequence in 2011‐12. • PAL: Initial learning outcomes assessment studied student metacognition through indirect methods in 2009‐10, and subsequent course‐level learning outcomes and methods of instruction were assessed in 2010‐11 (e.g., inventory of syllabi followed by program‐wide recommendations by the faculty). • Information Literacy: Pilot work with Project TRAILS (Tools for Real‐time Assessment of Information Literacy Skills, a free, online instrument), 12th Grade Level, revealed enhanced effectiveness of student learning through library instruction when specific assignments were integrated with content‐specific course material. lxxxviii Expanded assessments were next implemented in Fall 2011 using college‐level Project SAILS (Standardized Assessment of Information Literacy Skills, a fee‐based on‐line instrument supported by the College) in Applied Computing 1000, a required first‐year technology literacy course, to better understand information literacy gains in the first year. lxxxix While the above documented gains in academic program learning outcomes assessment represent progress, a priority in the Projection section is to ensure that every academic program regularly assesses what and how students are learning and incorporates that information into curricular, pedagogical, and other planning. In addition to supporting all academic programs to advance toward these goals, the LOAC has a significant role to play in advocating and advancing priority pilot initiatives that take a broad view of institutional progress. New pilots and initiatives informed by evaluation of assessment progress are expected to be furthered through the proactive work of the committee in recommending projects that increase the iterative use and assessment of learning outcomes in both curricular and co‐curricular areas. In supporting such developments within the academic domain, some important gains have already been achieved, and insights have emerged that have created consensus about the need for action. In the case of introductory statistics, for example, prioritization of learning outcomes assessment—reported to be a source of frustration for full‐time, part‐time, and crossdisciplinary faculty—paved the way for widespread adoption of a new curriculum and a high degree of participation in faculty development and training. This progress has informed the efforts of a new interdisciplinary “Curriculum Innovation Community” (a faculty learning community focused on curriculum support for Quantitative Literacy), thus impacting program development and resource requirements beyond the individual program. In the student life and co‐curricular domain, the College has also built learning outcomes assessment, both direct and indirect, into a wide range of programs and services. The process of bringing together faculty and staff from academic and student affairs in the same workshops series (Spring 2011) led to an enhanced understanding of common purposes and challenges in supporting student learning. For example, commonalities and intersecting priorities were identified in: learning outcomes in curricular internship instruction and student organization leadership; learning outcomes assessment for peer tutors and student employees; and the Curry College 2012 Self-Study Standard Four
Page 1 and 2: Curry College Self-Study Report Jan
Page 3 and 4: ii III. Institutional Characteristi
Page 5 and 6: iv 12. List all programs accredited
Page 7 and 8: vi CHIEF INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Fun
Page 9 and 10: viii Academic Dean’s Office coord
Page 11 and 12: x assessment learning goals and mea
Page 13 and 14: xii Significant program expansion w
Page 15 and 16: 2 accessible in multiple locations:
Page 17 and 18: 4 Of these multiple efforts, Strate
Page 19 and 20: 6 the College’s Mission Statement
Page 21 and 22: 8 academic units. In addition, the
Page 23 and 24: 10 writing sequence xxv ; and stand
Page 25 and 26: 12 • Offer distinctive, relevant,
Page 27 and 28: 14 Standard Three: Organization and
Page 29 and 30: 16 policy and planning and peer fac
Page 31 and 32: 18 The College demonstrates a stron
Page 33 and 34: 20 process of reviewing their self
Page 35 and 36: 22 NEASC visit in 2002, the organiz
Page 37 and 38: 24 Increased opportunity for study
Page 39 and 40: 26 • MACJ: Police Career Incentiv
Page 41 and 42: 28 submitted to the department chai
Page 43 and 44: 30 Table 4.1: Progress Summary of L
Page 45 and 46: 32 management data helps department
Page 47 and 48: 34 • Recent purchase of Atomic Le
Page 49: 36 cohort model; similar completion
Page 53 and 54: 40 • Develop a system to assess t
Page 55 and 56: 42 Standard Five: Faculty Descripti
Page 57 and 58: 44 Part‐time faculty teaching loa
Page 59 and 60: 46 attendance. xcvii Faculty are al
Page 61 and 62: 48 articulated only for full‐time
Page 63 and 64: 50 initiatives to move the College
Page 65 and 66: 52 Advisors actively participate in
Page 67 and 68: 54 Standard Six: Students With a lo
Page 69 and 70: 56 class members by cohort, allowin
Page 71 and 72: 58 programs are described in detail
Page 73 and 74: 60 Staffing within Student Services
Page 75 and 76: 62 College has placed a priority on
Page 77 and 78: 64 continue to hear from students o
Page 79 and 80: 66 structures and supports for dive
Page 81 and 82: 68 systematic oversight for what ar
Page 83 and 84: 70 The curriculum and student learn
Page 85 and 86: 72 the Appraisal section. Students
Page 87 and 88: 74 faculty “selectors,” each re
Page 89 and 90: 76 technological environment. The C
Page 91 and 92: 78 Standard Eight: Physical and Tec
Page 93 and 94: 80 Facilities are constructed and m
Page 95 and 96: 82 technology through hosted applic
Page 97 and 98: 84 Standard Nine: Financial Resourc
Page 99 and 100: 86 of May 31, 2011 with the majorit
Page 101 and 102:
88 gradually developed a culture of
Page 103 and 104:
90 making that provides for suffici
Page 105 and 106:
92 requirements. As described withi
Page 107 and 108:
94 Standard Eleven: Integrity Descr
Page 109 and 110:
96 available; it also appears in ga
Page 111 and 112:
98 consider developing and implemen
Page 113 and 114:
100 ix Mission Statement Survey in
Page 115 and 116:
102 cvi First Year activities in wo
show all

Read the Curry College NEASC 2012 Self-Study Report.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?