Following LCOOCC's accreditation visit in March 1998, the task of re-creating the institutional assessment plan was delegated by the college president to the Academic Dean. As the dean serving at that time was an interim dean, not much transpired until a new dean was hired the following September. Prior to that time, a faculty member who had served on the assessment committee created an outline for the development of an institutional assessment plan, identified the expectations of such a plan as defined by NCA criteria, and described in writing the role assessment should play in the overall administration of the college. This document assisted the new Academic Dean, who chaired the Assessment Committee, and the other members in that committee, with organizing their efforts early in the fall semester.
Committee members undertook a process of educating themselves with the language and research of assessment and familiarizing themselves with assessment plans from a variety of other institutions of higher education. Throughout the fall semester members of the committee worked in small groups with the rest of the faculty to stimulate discussion and dialogue regarding the assessment of learning, rather than teaching, and to begin the drafting of specific degree/certificate outcomes and objectives. During the month of December the Academic Dean resigned and the college hired a new President, as the previous President had planned for retirement in the spring of 1999. An interim Academic Dean was appointed from within existing administration and a new college President came into position in the last week of January.
Utilizing the framework for the academic assessment plan presented by the Assessment Committee, an administrative and faculty-wide dialogue was begun to answer the following question. "What skills, knowledge, aptitudes and values should every student graduating from Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College possess?" At weekly Administrative Council meetings and Faculty meetings this question was discussed until the General Education Assessment Plan presented in this document was generated. Initially, broad outcomes were defined, then specific objectives within each and finally means of assessing these objectives were identified. This took place through a process of initiation by the faculty and presentation of their ideas to the administration for feedback. A back and forth dialogue was maintained by the academic dean and a faculty member who attended all of these sessions. The ultimate responsibility for the final wording of the plan as it is presented here was the responsibility of the faculty. The administration's role was to provide insight and suggestions. The college's Board of Regents will provide final approval for the plan. This approval, and/or requisite modifications prior to approval, will be accomplished by the end of the current academic year on May 19, 1999.
The process of creating the General Education Assessment Plan had a number of valuable results other than the Plan itself. Lively discussions transpired within every committee meeting. Individuals that had seldom been heard from in committees often contributed valuable insights and ideas. These group processes have set the precedent and built a sense of teamwork that will undoubtedly prove crucial during the implementation of the Assessment Plan. As a result of these carefully directed work sessions all administrative staff and faculty were given the opportunity to help define LCOOCC's new General Education Outcomes. This broad ownership in the plan increases the likelihood the it will be implemented effectively and that the college staff will be collectively responsible and invested in seeing that positive change in student learning is the end result.
As both the faculty and administration "wrestled" with the phrasing of what often started out as broadly stated idealistic concepts, the power of a single word to drastically transform the meaning of a sentence was apparent to all. A reference sheet of action verbs, collated according to Bloom's Taxonomy, was provided to all participants to assist in the delineation of outcomes and objectives. The subsequent learning that took place in the writing of objectives became apparent over the course of the plan development as individuals became more effective at stating objectives. While developing the means of assessment, the distinction between the assessment of teaching versus learning, and the difference between indirect and direct measures of assessment were topics that were frequently discussed. Words like "rubric" and "matriculation" rapidly became a part of everyone's working vocabulary.
Contemporaneous with meetings to define the General Education Assessment Plan were smaller meetings of faculty teams clustered about their academic areas of expertise to define outcomes, objectives and means of assessment for each degree/certificate program. These discussions were framed about a now familiar, albeit slightly modified question: "What skills, knowledge, aptitudes and values should every student graduating with a (name of degree/certificate) possess?"
By now, most of the faculty had become familiar with the language and requirements needed for a solid Plan. Still, time constraints held problems for some committees. Another quandary facing some teams was the mindset of looking at the Degree or Certificate Program from how it was currently defined by existing courses and curricula. The team, finding themselves in this predicament, would write a plan heavy in some areas and weak in others. The Assessment Coordinator and Academic Dean made themselves available for those teams to help redirect their efforts. This process of redefining the learning outcomes and objectives for each degree/certificate program is one that will continuously evolve as input is sought from employers and faculty from transfer institutions in the region with which LCOOCC has established relationships.
Aside from the efforts to devise assessment strategies for learning outcomes, the broader concept embraced by institutional effectiveness has not been neglected. While not as well defined as the academic plan at this point, the identification of particular programs and components to be assessed, and who is responsible for implementing these efforts has been completed. Some of the initial results from these program reviews are included in this document, with the admission that most of these broader assessment measures are yet to be described.
The following seven steps present a framework for
the development of the assessment plan. Accompanying these steps are some basic
questions that form the substructure of the Process of Plan Development. Often,
the sequence of the steps is unidirectional.
What general knowledge and skills do you expect each graduate to attain? Are these goals linked to the university’s mission statement and academic assessment outcomes?
Step
2: Identify specific Objective(s) for each Outcome
What are the desired learning objectives that stem from each outcome? Under what circumstances will you know a goal has been met? What change do you expect to occur? What types of performances are students expected to demonstrate at the end of instruction?
Step
3: Select assessment methods/measures for each objective
Are appropriate and well-designed assessment measures being used? For each expected objective, are two or more measures being used? Are formative and summative methods and direct and indirect measures being used?
Step 4: Develop performance criterion(a) for each objective
What knowledge or skills will a student have or possess when the outcome is achieved? Since performance must be confirmed through evidence, what level of performance is acceptable?
Step 5: Conduct assessments/results of analysis
Are the measures selected valid, reliable, and systematically applied? Is assessment information to be collected in a systematic useful manner? How is assessment information to be analyzed? Is the timeline appropriate for the collection of data? Are the results of the analysis being compared to the performance criterion(a)?
Step
6: Feedback channels and process for change
What actions will result from the assessment of information? What changes are necessary to improve the curriculum or other academic activities? What feedback channels are necessary to assure continuous improvement of practices and to provide information for considering change to the objectives or processes of the academic program? Are assessment results and resource needs being channeled into institutional planning processes?
Step 7: Evaluate whether or not the performance criteria were met and the Outcomes/Objectives achieved
What strengths and weaknesses are evident as a result of the evaluation? Is there continued integration of the mission, goals, and assessment activities?