3.1.1  

The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs (including student learning outcomes for educational program) and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results. (Institutional effectiveness)

RATIONALE FOR COMPLIANCE JUDGMENT

Nashville State Community College (NSCC) identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs (including student learning outcomes for educational program) and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results. NSCC’s mission statement [1] serves as the guiding element for institutional effectiveness measures, promoting comprehensive educational programs and exemplary service. Guided by the mission statement, primary processes that serve as the foundation for institutional effectiveness compliance are the performance funding and strategic planning processes, including the Institutional Effectiveness Tracking System (IETS).   NSCC academic processes and tools that help demonstrate and document compliance include several performance funding initiatives, participation in the National Community College Benchmark Project, the Kansas Study of Instructional Cost, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, Academic Program Reviews or Academic Audits, general education and major field exit tests, and program accreditation initiatives.

Administrative and Educational Support Services and Strategic Planning

Strategic planning, as coordinated by Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR), provides a basis for establishing and systematically reviewing and reporting progress made in administrative and educational support services outcomes. TBR established four planning priorities for the 2005-2010 strategic planning cycle; Leadership, Quality, Access to Learning, and Resourcefulness. Within the four planning priorities are sixteen objectives that are addressed in each college strategic plan [2]. Baseline values for each objective are listed along with annual benchmarks. Annually, a progress report is submitted to TBR which details actual performance level along with adjustment information, as appropriate [2]. This process effectively assesses whether or not the College achieved expected outcomes, given that the annual benchmarks represent improvements in the designated outcomes.

The Learning Resource Center (LRC) provides educational support services to students and faculty. Services provided by the LRC include online and on-ground Library services, testing center services, and online and in-person tutoring. The LRC periodically surveys students and faculty members in order to gauge its effectiveness in carrying out its mission of service. Feedback from students and faculty [3] is used to make improvements in service provided by the LRC.  Many faculty members, for example, responded that they did not believe the LRC services applied to their content area.  As a result, LRC orientations and class presentations now include content geared to a specific assignment in a specific course.   In addition, LRC staff make extended presentations to all new full-time faculty members during orientation.

The Computer Services Division maintains an Information Technology plan that was originally developed by a broad-based campus committee to ensure that the plan included feedback from all campus constituencies. Vision and  mission statements for Information Technology acquisition and deployment were developed, and serve to guide planning and decision-making activities. The plan is routinely reviewed and annual progress reports are disseminated to the College [4].

The Student Services area has been consolidated, placed under academic affairs, and come under the leadership of a new dean within the past year.  Although the primary challenge for Student Services for 2006-2007 is successful migration to the Banner student information system, the division is beginning to think ahead and identify priorities for the coming years.  A winter 2007 planning retreat for the dean and all department heads resulted in a draft three-year plan for the Student Services division [5].

Individual units within the College develop objectives in support of the strategic plan and consistent with their unit needs and priorities. The Institutional Effectiveness Tracking System (IETS), a web-based application developed in 2005, records the unit’s annual objectives and is accessible on the SACS website.  Each I.E. unit plan contains objectives to accomplish and assessment measures to use for evaluating results.  The IETS application is designed to enhance the sharing of goals, objectives and results across units and to enhance public accountability of improvement efforts. Assessment results are used in making budget decisions and closing the assessment loop to assure continuous improvement. I.E. plans are reviewed systematically to assess whether or not the college is accomplishing its goals.  Units assess the progress towards accomplishing these goals by June 30 of each year and add action plans to assure continued progress [6].

Educational Programs Outcomes and Performance Funding

Nashville State degree and certificate programs and courses have stated student outcomes.  Program outcomes are listed and/or described in the catalog under program descriptions [7] and course outcomes are attached to course descriptions in the online catalog [8].

Performance Funding, as prescribed by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC), is a major program for establishing and systematically reviewing and reporting progress made in educational program outcomes. Assessment at the college level is done annually as part of the THEC Performance Funding requirements, which are based on the Performance Funding standards. These assessments include surveys of currently enrolled students (CCSSE), alumni survey, and employer surveys. 

THEC Performance Funding standards call for periodic review of all academic programs. The accreditation process is used for programs that have an accrediting body, while a comprehensive academic program review or academic audit process is used for programs with no available accreditation.  A calendar is established at the beginning of each five-year Performance Funding cycle, which lists each academic program, the year of the review, and type of review that will be conducted [9]. The academic program review schedule assures that units are reviewed internally and by an external reviewer on a regular basis.  External reviewers provide a narrative report completed, standardized checklists that assess relevant components, such as:

• Clear program outcomes

• Curriculum that reflects program goals  

• Clear course outcomes for students

• Appropriate measures of course and program outcome achievement

• Appropriate goals for general education and elective courses

• Appropriate measures of general education and elective course outcome achievement

• Program improvement actions

• Evaluation of follow-up data on completers

• Periodic curriculum evaluation 

Accreditation organizations prescribe qualities and characteristics that programs must meet in order to achieve initial accreditation or to be re-accredited. Findings by visiting committees must be resolved, usually within some specified time period. Accreditation standards generally require a self-assessment that identifies program strengths and weaknesses, as well as an improvement plan. Follow-up reports that show adequate progress toward improvement plans are submitted to the accrediting organization at regular intervals. Every NSCC program that can be accredited has achieved accreditation.  Seven NSCC A.A.S. programs and two certificate programs are accredited.  Early Childhood is in the process of seeking initial accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).  The Automotive Technology program undergoes periodic review by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE).  Two of the most recent programs to achieve reaccreditation and initial accreditation are the Occupational Therapy Assistant degree and the Culinary Arts degree [10].

The program review process may be conducted in a traditional form or alternatively through the use of the Academic Audit process. The traditional comprehensive program review requires a self-study and is evaluated by an external reviewer using THEC’s program review checklist [11]. The Academic Audit process, which also requires a self-study, examines program quality with respect to the guidelines published in TBR’s Academic Audit Handbook. The Academic Audit is a faculty-driven process that examines the quality of program processes in five focal areas; (1) Learning Objectives, (2) Curriculum and Co-Curriculum, (3) Teaching and Learning Methods, (4) Student Learning Assessment, and (5) Quality Assurance.  The two latest programs to their reviews are the Entrepreneurship program, which used the traditional comprehensive program review process [12], and the Office Administration program, which used the Academic Audit process [13].

Student learning outcomes assessments for academic programs are accomplished primarily through general education and major field testing. Like the program review/accreditation process, the Major Field Assessment schedule is documented in the Performance Funding calendar [9]. This process, explained in the THEC guidelines, enables units to select the best mode of assessment through standardized or locally developed tests. Majors have used a variety of standard instruments. For example, both Occupational Therapy Assistant and Electrical Engineering Technology use a national exam as their major field assessment test. The Occupational Therapy Assistant program uses COTA, a licensure exam, while the Electrical Engineering Technology program uses NICET, a national certification program. Another option available to programs is to develop their own assessment tool. Using such a test allows for the major field assessment instrument to relate directly to current curricula. The Business Management program uses a locally developed exit exam that reflects expected student learning outcomes. The results are assessed to determine if the expected outcomes are being achieved and student performance is improving. Continuous improvement items are established as a result of the assessment [14].   

In preparation for the 2006-2007 academic audit of the A.A./A.S. degrees, the college reviewed and revised its General Education outcomes.  Nine competencies were identified and serve as guidelines for all general education learning.  These competencies address general education learning outcomes for both career and transfer programs.  NSCC graduates will be able to:

1.        Write clear, well-organized documents.

2.        Locate, evaluate and use multiple sources of information.

3.        Prepare and deliver well-organized oral presentations.

4.        Participate as team members and team leaders.

5.        Apply mathematic concepts to problems and situations.

6.        Use critical thinking skills.

7.        Use and adapt current technologies.

8.        Appreciate cultural diversity and the influence of history and culture.

9.        Apply scientific thought processes to a range of situations.

The NSCC campus processes for assessing and documenting that students are achieving the General Education competencies includes multiple measurements at the course, program and college-wide levels.  The attached matrix of General Education Competencies, Assessments, and Results provides examples of documentation of achievement of general education competencies [15].

The Office of Institutional Research at the College provides a central focus for the assessment process and serves as a warehouse for assessment information.  As documented in the 2005-2006 Performance Funding Annual Report, several actions have resulted from the review of the data. As objectives are met, new objectives or adjustments to existing objectives are adopted. This process takes into consideration (a) SACS requirements, (b) existing NSCC assessment practices, and (c) benchmarks and best practices from other institutions.