As mentioned above, the 1999 Plan included the
identification of an individual responsible for the coordination of assessment.
When the Plan was written, LCO College did not yet have academic divisions that
would allow for another level of coordination and communication. This would
occur in the 2001 spring semester. In addition, two design elements in the 1999
Plan may have affected the implementation of the assessment plan at LCO: first,
the coordinator’s position description itself, and second, the separation of
coordination from the academic branch of the College.
The duties of coordination detailed in the 1999 Plan were
to be conducted by Research and Development Director with a half-time dedication
to assessment with the rest of the time devoted to institutional planning
processes and grant-writing. The R&D Director, by design, was not a member
of the faculty and reported directly to the College President, as to “provide
for more objective assessment of instruction and learning by not placing the
Academic Dean in a position his/her responsibilities may generate conflict of
interest” (page 22, 1999 Assessment Plan). This design may have contributed to
the difficulty of the implementation of the 1999 Plan in two ways:
·
First, the half-time allotment to coordination of assessment,
while minimal given the design of the plan, would have competed with the
attention needed for grant writing and planning. These are critical activities
requiring full attention and resources when underway. These two sets of
responsibilities for R&D and Assessment are not usually synergistic,
although the same kinds of skills may be involved. Given the focus and energy
required to write grant proposals that generate considerable revenues for the
College, assessment of student outcomes would not hold the same level of
priority.
·
Second, faculty ownership and buy-in of assessment is critical and
required. The 1999 Plan indicated that removing oversight of assessment
activities from the Academic Dean would assure more objectivity as not to
“generate conflicts of interests.” This statement taken directly from the
1999 Plan suggests that the quest for objectivity and separating assessment from
the academic oversight processes may have been designed to alleviate faculty
misgivings about the purposes of assessment. Given the considerable literature
in the annual NCA Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional
Improvement regarding faculty attitudes towards assessment, the separation
of assessment from accountability processes (real or perceived with respect to
assessment) would address any remnants of faculty resistance. However, without a
faculty infrastructure in 1999, such as a divisional organizational structure or
academic leadership, the opportunity to use the results of assessment to improve
curriculum through the work of faculty became more difficult. Indeed, when the
R&D director left the College, the assessment program lost the primary means
of coordination and follow-up. Even
though some of the divisions formed in the Spring 2001 semester continued to
examine and refine the assessment plan, it became more difficult for the College
to retain a systematic focus and momentum previously enjoyed.
In summary, the coordination of assessment as a half-time position was under-resourced without an infrastructure to support its implementation. Because the coordination and implementation of the 1999 Plan was separated from the academic area, it would have been difficult to maintain the faculty ownership and buy-in essential for its continued development. With the hiring of an assessment coordinator who had been a faculty member at another institution, any residual faculty misgivings about the use of assessment results should be put to rest.