OUTCOMES-BASED ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK
FOR STUDENT LEARNING
Section III
Compiling the Assessment Plan & Report
Business, Engineering, and Technologies
Division Faculty
Health and Human Services Division Faculty
Columbus State Community College
1/31/2017
Columbus State Community College is committed to ongoing outcomes assessment
for continuous improvement of student learning and teaching strategies.
www.cscc.edu/assessment
1/31/17 ANM/ALM
Table of Contents
Outcomes-Based Assessment
Academic Quality Improvement & the Assessment Process at Columbus State.…….…….…..2
Due Dates for Turning in Plans & Reports…………..…………………………………………….………..…3
Outcomes-Based Assessment at Columbus State Community College……….………...…………4
College-Level Assessment: Institutional Learning Goals, Institutional Learning
Outcomes, and General Education Outcomes (Program Learning Outcomes for the Arts
&Sciences).…….……………………………………………………………….………………….…………..5
Assessment Process for Business, Engineering, & Technologies; and Health &
Human Services Faculty
1: Aligning/Mapping Outcomes
Select a Program Outcome…………….……………………………..…….…………….………………7
Align Program & Course Outcomes………………………..…….……………………….………..….7
Align Institutional Learning Goals (ILG) with Program & Course Outcomes…..…………..7
2: Create an Assessment Plan
Creating a Four-Year Plan…………………………………………………….…………………………..8
Sample Four-Year Plan…………………………………………………………………..……….……….9
Creating an Annual Plan…………………………………………………………………………………..10
Sample Annual Plan…..……………………………………………………………..…………………….11
3: Collect Data and Report
How to Report Data…………………..………..………………………………………………………....12
Sample Report of Results……………..………………………………………………………………....12
Sample Action Plan & Budgetary Request…………………….……..…….……………….………13
4: Communicate, Share & Close the Loop
Where to Turn in Plans & Reports, and Due Dates……………....…………………………….…14
Committee Responsibilities …………….………………...…………………………………….…….. 16
Assessment Committees
College Feedback Loop……………………………………………………………………………………………..21
Office of Academic Affairs Assessment Committee…………………………………………………….. 22
Institutional Learning Goals Subcommittees……………………………….…………………..23
Division Assessment Committees
Arts and Sciences Division Assessment Committee…………………………………………..25
Business, Engineering, & Technologies Division Assessment Committee…………….25
Health & Human Services Division Assessment committee…………….………………….25
Assessment Plan & Report Forms
Four-Year Plan Form …………………………………………………………………………………………….…27
Annual Plan & Report Form …………….………………….……………………………………………….…..29
Action Plan..................................……………….……………………………………………………………...30
_______________________________________________________________________________________
1
Academic Quality Improvement (AQIP) and the OutcomesBased Assessment Process at Columbus State
As a member of the Higher Learning Commission's Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), Columbus
State Community College is committed to an outcomes-based assessment process that is designed to show how
the institution is accountable for student learning. The graphic below illustrates the college's quality
improvement process that is used to (1) Improve student Learning, (2) Improve teaching strategies, (3) Document
success and identify opportunities for improvement and (4) Provide evidence of institutional effectiveness.
1. Identify
Learning
Outcomes to
Assess
2. Create an
Assessment
Plan
4. Communicate,
Share & Close the
Loop
3. Collect
Data &
Report
Figure 1. Quality Improvement Process for Assessment at Columbus State Community College.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2
Due Dates for Turning in Plans & Reports:

September 15
Business, Engineering, and Technologies faculty upload plans and
reports to:
https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/bet for Department Assessment
Committee Review.
Health and Human Services faculty upload plans and reports to:
https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/hhs for Department Assessment
Committee Review.

October 15
Plans and Reports Approved by Department Assessment Committee for
Division Assessment Committee Review.

March 15
Plans and Reports Approved by Division Assessment Committee for OAA
Assessment Committee Review. Division Assessment Committee
submits a summary of review with strategic and budgetary requests to
the OAA Assessment Committee. ILB Subcommittees begin reviewing
reports.

September 15
ILG Subcommittees submit summary of review with recommendations to
OAA Assessment Committee. OAA Assessment Committee provides
summary of review with recommendations to the College.
What to turn in for each course assessed:
(1) PLAN for the upcoming year - File includes: (1) Four Year Plan, (2) Annual Plan, and (3) Blank
Action Plan
(2) REPORT of Last Year’s Results - File includes: (1) Four Year Plan, (2) Annual Plan, and (3)
Completed Action Plan with Results
3
Outcomes-Based Assessment at
Columbus State Community College
Outcomes-based Assessment Vocabulary
Learning Goals (Categories): Learning Goals are defined by Driscoll and Wood (2007)
as “broad, non-specific categories of learning, such as critical thinking, communication,
ethics, multicultural understandings, science literacy" (p. 54).
Learning Outcomes (Expectations): Learning outcomes are defined as the
expectations of what students should be able to do, achieve or demonstrate at the end of
a class period, course, program, or degree (Driscoll & Wood, 2007; New Leadership
Alliance for Student Learning & Accountability, 2012).
In 2012 Columbus State assembled a General Education task force consisting of a team of faculty from across the
college who did extensive research to create a set of college-wide learning goals and outcomes.
College-Level Goals & Outcomes: To insure that there is a standard for learning expectations set across campus,
the college established Institutional Learning Goals and Outcomes. The goals establish the college-wide
categories of learning while the Institutional Learning Outcomes establish the expectations that are embedded in
all degrees, programs, and courses across the college.
Program-Level Outcomes: Each program at Columbus State has created a set of learning expectations. The
General Education Task Force led faculty from across the college in revising the General Education Outcomes that
serve as the program learning outcomes for the Arts and Sciences. Each program in the Business and Engineering
(BET), and Health and Human Services (HHS) divisions has created its own program outcomes.
Course-Level Outcomes: The expectations of learning for each course are documented in the course syllabus. To
determine whether students are meeting the learning expectations set across the college, faculty use outcomesbased assessments by aligning the college, program, and course-level outcomes.
Outcomes-Based Assessment: Faculty create instruments of assessment that measure whether or not students
are meeting expectations set at the course, program, and college level. Data is collected during the course
learning activities to determine whether or not students are meeting benchmarks set.
College-Level
Program-Level
Course-Level
Institutional Learning Goals & Outcomes
BET/HHS Program
Learning Outcomes
Arts & Sciences Program
Learning Outcomes
(Determined by each program)
(General EducationOutcomes )
BET/HHS Course
Learning Outcomes
Arts & Sciences Course
Learning Outcomes
4
Figure 1. Aligning Learning Outcomes: Course, Program and College
College-Level Assessment Outcomes
Autumn 2016
Institutional
Learning Goals
Institutional Learning
Outcomes
BET/HHS Course
Syllabi
A & S Program Learning Outcomes
1) Critical Thinking
Apply critical and creative
reasoning, including diverse
perspectives to address
complex problems.
2) Ethical Reasoning
Identify, assess, and develop
ethical arguments from a
variety of perspectives, and
engage in the ethical use of
technology and information
Demonstrate mathematical
and statistical knowledge
through solving equations,
interpreting graphs, and
being able to work with other
forms of numeric data.
Identify and apply the use of
science/scientific methods to
advance knowledge in
contemporary society.
3) Quantitative Skills
4) Scientific Literacy
General Education Outcomes
5) Technological
Competence
Utilize knowledge and skills to
properly incorporate
technology into one’s
discipline.
6) Communication
Competence
Demonstrate the ability to
communicate effectively in
both written and unwritten
forms.
a) Recognize, define, & analyze a problem.
b) Examine issues by identifying and challenging assumptions and
biases, including one’s own, and by distinguishing
substantiated fact from opinion or misinformation.
c) Apply learned concepts and knowledge to make decisions
relevant to problem solving.
d) Develop problem-solving strategies and evaluate their practical
and/or ethical implications.
e) Draw logical, well-supported conclusions by testing them
against relevant criteria and standards.
f) Adjust conclusions and viewpoints if new information becomes
available.
a) Evaluate moral and ethical judgments based on value systems.
b) Develop knowledge of past successes and failures recognizing
the impact of individuals and societies at large.
c) Demonstrate the ethical and legal use of technology and
information obtained from sources.
a) Perform mathematical computations using appropriate
methods to arrive at accurate results.
b) Analyze, interpret, and/or formulate inferences from data such
as graphs, charts, tables, or other quantified data.
a) Demonstrate an understanding of the scientific methods of
discovery, inquiry, analysis, and problem solving.
b) Interpret the fit between scientific hypotheses and available
data.
c) Differentiate between scientific and non-scientific methods of
inquiry.
d) Demonstrate an understanding of science as a way of
examining the natural world.
e) Recognize the implications of scientific discovery for society.
a) Apply appropriate technologies and devices as tools for
creating, researching, organizing, analyzing, and/or
communicating information and ideas.
b) Locate, understand, synthesize, and evaluate digital
information and data.
c) Demonstrate a comprehension of essential issues related to
digital information security.
a) Write clearly and effectively in language appropriate to the
audience, technology, purpose, and context.
b) Speak clearly and effectively in language appropriate to the
audience, technology, purpose, and context.
c) Develop and demonstrate effective processes for composing
texts.
d) Listen actively and demonstrate understanding of received
information.
5
7) Cultural and Social
Awareness
Recognize democratic values
and civic/community
responsibilities associated
with a socially, politically,
economically, and historically
divers world.
8) Professional and
Life Skills
Recognize and/or
demonstrate skills and
activities that enhance
professional values,
teamwork, and cooperation.
e) Demonstrate college-level reading comprehension.
f) Access, evaluate, analyze, and synthesize information from a
variety of perspectives, using a variety of sources.
a) Identify historic, political, cultural, social, environmental, or
economic factors that shape contemporary public issues.
b) Recognize the historic and contemporary contributions,
perspectives, or identities of divers groups.
c) Demonstrate knowledge of democratic and civic values.
d) Recognize the impact of an issue at the local, national, and/or
global level.
e) Demonstrate an understanding of community and civic
responsibility.
a) Demonstrate skills needed to fulfill professional and academic
standards of punctuality, professional image, self-discipline,
teamwork, leadership, responsibility, and personal
accountability.
b) Evaluate the impact that choices make in supporting a
personal and professional life of meaning and value.
c) Recognize or participate in the artistic, cultural, recreational,
educational, and professional activities necessary for success in
one’s career or academic discipline.
Institutional Learning Goals, Institutional Learning Outcomes, and General Education Outcomes were
approved in 2015 and will be implemented college-wide by Autumn 2016.
6
Assessment Process for Business, Engineering, &
Technologies; and Health & Human Services Faculty
1: Aligning/Mapping Outcomes
The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) requires that the Institutional Leaning Goals are incorporated throughout
the curriculum at the college.
(a) Course: Select appropriate Institutional Learning Goals (ILG), and select some or all Program outcomes
(example from NURS 2861 Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Course).
(b) Program: Align the appropriate ILG with the Program Outcomes.
(c) College: Align the appropriate Institutional Learning Goals with the Program and Course Outcomes.
Institutional
Nursing Program Outcomes
NURS 2862 Selected Course Outcomes
Learning Goals
Professional and
Implement safe, competent, nursing
Demonstrate the role of the nurse through the
Life Skills
care in the role of the Associate Degree use of the nursing process in providing patientNurse.
centered care with the therapeutic use of self
with patients, families, and groups
experiencing psychiatric symptoms.
Ethical Reasoning
Analyze legal, ethical, and economic
Establish professional patient and team
concepts that influence nursing
member relationships to address mental
practice.
health needs while maintaining appropriate
ethical and legal boundaries.
Critical Thinking
Synthesize knowledge from nursing
Implement evidence-based nursing care to
and related disciplines using critical
promote health and self-care behaviors in
thinking skills.
patients with mental health needs using the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the quality
and safety education for nurses’ initiative.
7
2 (a): Creating a Four-Year Plan
Four-Year Plan for Courses in a Program: Tracking Follow-up
Faculty do not need to assess every course in their program, but should choose the most relevant courses that
reflect curricular opportunities for all students to achieve the Institutional Learning Goals and Outcomes. Faculty
may recognize courses where there are concerns in student learning, and select those courses.
Faculty should make a four-year plan where they identify the Institutional Learning Goals and Program
Outcomes they plan to assess for each of the next four years. As each year goes by, faculty must indicate
whether students met the benchmark set by faculty. If a benchmark in a particular year is not met,
faculty must follow-up in the next year. This means that those Institutional Learning Goals and Program
Outcomes that did not meet the benchmark the previous year are now added to the assessment plan
for the current year. For follow-up assessment, faculty should make revisions to their course planning to
improve student learning to meet the benchmark.
Four-year Plan Form:
Institutional
Learning Goal
2015-16
Program Learning Outcome
Plan
Met
Benchmark?
Yes No
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2016-17
Plan
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2017-18
Plan
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2018-19
Plan
Was Benchmark met
last year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
8
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Sample four-year plan for NURS 2862 Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Course:
2015-16
2016-17
Plan
Plan
Institutional
Learning Goal
Program Learning Outcome
Met
Benchmark?
Professional and
Life Skills
Implement safe, competent, nursing care in the
role of the Associate Degree Nurse.
Yes No
(circle one)
Ethical
Reasoning
Analyze legal, ethical, and economic concepts
that influence nursing practice.
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
2017-18
Plan
Critical
Thinking
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
2018-19
Plan
Cultural and
Social
Awareness
Was Benchmark met
last year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Synthesize knowledge from nursing and
related disciplines using critical thinking
skills.
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Manage nursing care for a diverse population of
clients in a variety of practice settings.
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
9
Yes No
(circle one)
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
Yes No NA
(circle one)
2 (b): Creating an Annual Plan
For Business and Engineering, and Health and Human services courses, faculty must create an annual plan (see
form below) that aligns course learning outcomes with the program learning outcomes and institutional learning
goals to be assessed for that year.
Instrument of Assessment: This refers to the evaluation method faculty are planning to utilize in the
assessment of student learning. In this part of the plan, faculty will identify whether they are using an
assignment, a project, a problem solution set, multiple choice test questions, performance competencies,
etc.
Performance Indicators: In this part of the plan, faculty will identify the skills that are evaluated by the
instrument of assessment. If faculty are using multiple choice test questions as their instrument of
assessment, then the performance indicators would be the content of the multiple choice questions. If
the instrument of assessment was a problem solution set, the performance indicators would be the
equations or problems that students were asked to solve.
Performance Criteria: This is identifying what students must do to demonstrate that they have learned
the skill being assessed. For example, if using a set of 10 multiple choice questions, the performance
criteria may be set so that students who answer 7/10 questions correctly have met the performance
criteria to demonstrate they have learned the skill. If assessing equations, faculty would indicate how
much of the equation students must be able to solve to demonstrate that they have learned the skill in
question. Similarly, if using a rubric, there may be categories set at "poor," "average," "above average,"
and "excellent. The performance criteria may be set at "average." Therefore, those students who receive
an "average" or better have demonstrated that they have learned the skill being measured.
Benchmark (B): Benchmark is indicated by the letter "B" on the Assessment plan form below. This is set
by the faculty and should reflect the percentage of students who are expected to meet the performance
criteria. Due to the nature of the material in some courses where students tend to struggle, faculty may
set a lower benchmark than in a course where students tend to have higher levels of success. If
benchmarks are not met, faculty may need to make adjustments to see if they improve student learning.
Follow-up (F): "F" indicates whether the assessment is a follow-up from last year. See discussion of
follow-up on instructions for the four-year plan.
PLAN
Institutional
Learning
Goals
Program
Learning
Outcomes
Course
Learning
Outcomes
Instrument
of
Assessment
10
RESULT
S
Performance
Indicator
Performance
Criteria
B
F
N
#
%
Sample Annual Plan for NURS 2862 Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing:
RESULTS
PLAN
Institutional
Learning
Goals
Professional
and Life
Skills
Program
Learning
Outcomes
Implement
safe,
competent,
nursing
care in the
role of the
Associate
Degree
Nurse.
Course
Learning
Outcomes
Demonstrate
the role of the
nurse through
the use of the
nursing process
in providing
patientcentered care
with the
therapeutic use
of self with
patients,
families, and
groups
experiencing
psychiatric
symptoms.
Instrument
of
Assessment
Clinical
Evaluation
Tool
Clinical
patient
concept map
of nursing
process
implementation
11
Performance
Indicator
Performance
Criteria
7 competencies:
therapeutic
use of self,
therapeutic
communicatio
n techniques,
mental status
examination,
assess coping,
use nursing
process,
participate in
intervention
group, teach
patients and
families.
Satisfactory
evaluation:
rarely requires
direction,
guidance,
monitoring, or
support, and
almost always
exhibits a
focus on the
client,
accuracy,
safety,
skillfulness,
professionalis
m, efficiency,
organization,
and initiative
for learning.
B
%
F
95
No
N
#
%
3: Collect Data and Report
The Annual Assessment Report consists of two sections: (A) Results and (B) Action Plan.
(A) Results: Faculty collect the data from the students in their course as indicated by their plan.
N - Number of students who completed the assigned item in the course.
# - Number of students who demonstrated they have learned the skill in question.
% - Percent of students who demonstrated they have learned the skill in question. The
percentage is calculated as the (number of students who demonstrated they have learned the
skill in question) / (number of students who completed the instrument of assessment).
The following sample Annual Assessment Report includes the two sections (A) Results and (B) Action Plan using
fictitious data for NURS 2862:
PLAN
Institutional
Learning
Goals
Professional
and Life
Skills
Program
Learning
Outcomes
Implement
safe,
competent,
nursing
care in the
role of the
Associate
Degree
Nurse.
Course
Learning
Outcomes
Demonstrate the
role of the nurse
through the use
of the nursing
process in
providing
patient-centered
care with the
therapeutic use
of self with
patients,
families, and
groups
experiencing
psychiatric
symptoms.
Instrument
of
Assessment
Clinical
Evaluation
Tool
Clinical
patient concept
map of
nursing
process
implementation
Performance
Indicator
Performance
Criteria
7 competencies:
therapeutic use
of self,
therapeutic
communication
techniques,
mental status
examination,
assess coping,
use nursing
process,
participate in
intervention
group, teach
patients and
families.
Satisfactory
evaluation: rarely
requires direction,
guidance,
monitoring, or
support, and
almost always
exhibits a focus
on the client,
accuracy, safety,
skillfulness,
professionalism,
efficiency,
organization, and
initiative for
learning.
B
%
F
RESULTS
N # %
95
No
60
58
97
(B) Action Plan: For each course being assessed, faculty answer the following questions based on the
reported findings from their data for the course:
1.
Assessment of Data:
a. Planned Assessment: Based on the data collected this past year (not indicated as follow-up
on this past year’s annual assessment plan and report), discuss the teaching strategies used
and student performance in relation to the benchmarks set.
Example: This past year the nursing process was depicted in graphic form and designed
specifically for the patient with mental illness. The students used this in individually
planning for patient care, and then used it in group work towards the end of the course.
Revisiting the learning tool allowed the students to see their growth and areas for
improvement. The nursing process is one of the core elements of the professional skill of
12
the nurse. Students exceeded the benchmark and indicated the tool was helpful to their
learning.
b. Follow-Up Assessment (if needed): If faculty followed up this past year from a previous
report where the students did not meet the benchmarks, describe the corrective action
taken this year. Explain whether or not the corrective action added to this year’s
assessment was successful. Discuss performance in relation to benchmarks set.
Example: Not applicable. (There was not any follow-up data from a previous report to
assess.)
2.
Instructional Planning: What are the plans for the course based on the data collected this past
year? If students did not meet the benchmarks this year, describe the teaching strategies
planned for the next academic year to improve student learning in this course.
Example: Based on the data collected, this assignment fostered professional nursing skill.
Therefore, the strategic plan includes the continuation of this tool in all clinical learning in
the Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing course. Students met the benchmark for this year so
we will not need to follow-up next year.
3.
Strategic and Budgetary Requests: List any strategic planning needs for the college and
budgetary requests for improving student learning:
Example: Our action plan does not require additional funding or other college resources at this
time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Feedback:
Department Assessment Committee:
Division Assessment Committee:
4: Communicate, Share, and Close the Loop
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Step 1: Upload Plans and Reports
Due September 15:
By September 15, faculty should upload the assessment documents to SharePoint. The assessment documents
include two files:
(1) PLANS for this year’s assessment – File includes: (1) Four Year Plan, (2) Annual Plan, and (3) Blank Action
Plan for the upcoming year; and
(2) REPORT of last year’s results – File includes: (1) Four Year Plan, (2) Annual Plan, and (3) Completed Action
Plan with Results.
Business, Engineering, & Technologies faculty should upload the assessment documents to the folder with their
department’s name to https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/bet
13
Health and Human Services faculty should upload the assessment documents to the folder with their
department’s name to https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/hhs
When uploading files to SharePoint:


Log in with CSCC user name and password.
To locate Library and Files tab, click in white space, and it will appear.
BEFORE
AFTER

No changes should be made under the Page tab; doing so may result in the loss of the SharePoint
page.

Click Upload Link
14





Browse to file location, and click OK.
File includes (1) Four Year Plan, (2) Annual Plan, and (3) Blank Action Plan for the upcoming year.
Fill in the metadata fields to identify year, department, and course alpha.
Fill in the metadata field to identify plan or report.
To complete Report section and upload: (1) Select document from appropriate Plan, and (2) Click
Download a Copy from Files tab




Save file to computer.
Complete Action Plan with Results.
Upload Completed Report.
Use the Upload feature to submit documents. Do not drag and drop documents into SharePoint or
metadata is lost.
If problems uploading are encountered: contact Trish Malloy, Systems Administrator for
Information Technology Department at [email protected] or 614-287-3856.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Step 2: Reports Approved by Department Assessment Committee:
September 15: Department Assessment Committee Review Begins to be Completed by October 15

Beginning September 15, The Department Assessment Committee will download the Plans and Reports
from SharePoint and begin their review. The Department Review should be completed by October 15.

The Department Assessment Committee review includes:
1.
Ensuring faculty are (1) appropriately aligning outcomes, (2) following their four-year plan, (3)
using valid instruments of assessment and reasonable performance indicators, (4) following up
where needed, and (5) making reasonable action plans.
15
2.
Approving Plans and Reports on SharePoint:
o Click on the Report, and a check will appear next to it.
o Click on the Library tab across the top margin.
o Click Quick Edit, and then go to the Column for Approval and select yes or no.
o When finished, click Stop Editing this list.
3.
4.
Identifying best practices, areas for improvement, and budgetary needs.
Communicating results of review to faculty, Division Assessment Committee, and other
appropriate stakeholders.
Documenting a summary of the results of the review, including best practices and budgetary
needs, for the department.
Uploading the summary of the review to the “Approved by Department Folder” in SharePoint.
5.
6.
October 15: Department Assessment Committee Review Completed
______________________________________________________________________________________
Step 3: Reports Approved by Division Assessment Committee
October 15: Division Assessment Committee Review Begins to be completed by March 15

The Division Assessment Committee pulls the Reports for each department from the “Approved by
Department” folder on the SharePoint website and completes the following tasks:
1. Each department representative presents the Reports from the programs in their department
and discusses and shares any best practices and/or problematic results.
2. Discuss strategic and budgetary requests for each department, and make a summary of these
requests to be forwarded to the OAA Assessment Committee.
3. Document a summary of the review, including best practices, suggestions, areas for
improvement, budgetary needs, and communication.
4. The Checklist for Reviewing Assessment Plans and Reports may be used to guide the review:
16
CHECKLIST FOR REVIEWING ASSESSMENT PLANS and REPORTS
BET and HHS Assessment Committees
Program/Discipline:
Date Reviewed:
By Whom:
Section
Institutional
Learning
Goals/Outcomes
(ILGs) Provided
Program
Learning
Outcome(s)
Provided
Course Learning
Outcome(s)
Provided
ASSESSMENT PLAN
Criteria for Evaluation
Are the ILGs as defined in the CSCC OutcomesBased Assessment Handbook included in the
evaluation?
Are Program learning outcome(s) identified and
aligned with ILG(s) and course outcome(s)?
Are the course learning outcomes aligned with
the ILGs and program learning outcomes?
Are they measurable?
17
Yes
No
Notes
Instrument of
Assessment
Identified
Performance
Indicators
identified
Performance
Criteria Identified
Benchmark(s)
Identified
Section
Results
Action Plan
Is it clear to which students these outcomes
apply?
Is a method clearly identified to assess student
learning? (E.g. assignment, problem set, multiple
choice test questions, performance
competencies, etc).
Are the skills that are being evaluated by the
instrument of assessment identified?
Is it clear what the student must do to
demonstrate they have learned the skill being
assessed?
Are the percentages of students who are
expected to meet the performance criteria
provided?
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Criteria for Evaluation
Is there evidence of data collection and
evaluation as indicated in the plan?
Is there evidence of reflection regarding teaching
strategies used and student performance in
relation to benchmarks?
Is Follow-Up Assessment/Corrective Action
provided to close the assessment loop (if
applicable)?
Are there plans provided for the course based on
the data? Are teaching strategies provided for the
next academic year?
Any strategic needs or budgetary requests for
improving student learning identified?
Yes
No
N/A
Notes

If the Division Assessment Committee determines the program report is sufficiently complete, approve
the Report on SharePoint:
1. Click on the Report, and a check will appear next to it.
2. Click on the Library tab across the top margin.
3. Click Quick Edit, and then go to the Column for Approval and select yes or no.

Reports approved by Department and Division Assessment Committees are automatically moved to
Approved Reports
March 15: Division Assessment Committee Review Completed
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Step 4: Review by OAA Assessment Committee
18
March 15: OAA Assessment Committee Review Begins

The OAA Assessment Committee will:
1. Review strategic & budgetary requests from each Division Assessment Committee to present to the
Cabinet.
2. Coordinate with faculty fellows to make sure that reviewed reports placed in the Approved by
Division Assessment Committee folder are posted on the Columbus State Community College
assessment web site.
3. Oversee the Institutional Learning Outcomes subcommittees.
4. Fulfill other obligations specified in their charter.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Step 5: Review by Institutional Learning Outcomes Subcommittees
March 15: Institutional Learning Outcome (ILO) Subcommittee Review Begins to be completed by
September 15

The ILO Subcommittees will:
1. Be comprised of faculty from across the College and focus on an individual ILO.
2. Review approved assessment reports and make recommendations to the OAA Assessment
Committee by September 15.
3. Evaluate the ILOs and their relationship to program and course learning outcomes.
4. Develop College wide assessment measures.
5. Identify and discrepancies in the way assessment is occurring across the curriculum.
6. Identify curricular changes that may need to be examined at the College.
7. Summarize findings and submit to the OAA Assessment Committee for recommendation to the
appropriate offices or committees at the College.
September 15: ILO Subcommittees Reviews Completed
_______________________________________________________________________________________
19
Assessment Committees
College Feedback Loop
Reporting: The College has developed faculty committees to lead assessment initiatives to promote student
learning. Assessment begins with course faculty as they design objectives for learning and methods for assessing
learning. Programs and Departments continue the process with reviews and evaluation of assessment plans and
reports. This is followed by the Division Assessment Committees, then the Office of Academic Affairs
Assessment Committee who then report to the College Cabinet.
Evaluation: The Institutional Learning Outcome (ILO) Subcommittees, comprised of faculty from across the
College, will evaluate how the ILO and General Education Outcomes are being used in the Assessment Reports.
Institutional Learning Goals, ILOs, and General Education Outcomes are reviewed for revision every four years.
The ILO Subcommittees will also develop and recommend College wide assessment measures and evaluate gaps
in assessment and curriculum. In addition, the ILO Subcommittees will submit recommendations to the OAA
Assessment Committee who communicates them to the appropriate office or committee at the College.
Communication: Communication of assessment is posted on the College’s Assessment homepage.
20
OAA
Assessment
Committee &
ILO
Subcommittees
Division
Assessment
Committees
CSCC Cabinet
CSCC Web Page
Appropriate
Office &
Committee
Department
Assessment
Committees
Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) Assessment Committee
Co-Chairperson
Adele Wright
Kyriakoula Drakatos
Division Assessment Committee
Representative
Steve Levin, Co-Chairperson
Angela Fry, Co-Chairperson
Member
John Nedel
Judith Dann
Stephen Logan
Philip Maclean
Lauren Jones
Patrick Fiorelli
Gene Strickland
Division
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Arts & Sciences
Division
Department
Mechanical Engineering
Technology
Humanities
Department
Business & Engineering
Health & Human Services
Automotive Technology
Mental Health & Addiction
Studies/Developmental Disabilities
Department
Mathematics
Humanities
English
Mathematics
Developmental Education
Accounting
Division
Arts & Sciences
Arts & Sciences
Arts & Sciences
Arts & Sciences
Arts & Sciences
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
21
Digital Photography
Charles Kassor
Thomas Shanahan
Faculty Fellow
Adam Moskowitz
April Magoteaux
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Health & Human Services
Division
Arts & Sciences
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies Representative;
Health & Human Services
Aviation Maintenance Technology
Paralegal Studies
Department
Social Science
Nursing
Assessment Faculty Fellows
The Assessment Faculty Fellows are available to provide information, training, and assistance for assessment of
student learning. Suggestions for improvement of assessment at the College are much appreciated. April
Magoteaux is available at [email protected] or 287-5158, and Adam Moskowitz is available at
[email protected] or 287-5816.
Institutional Learning Goal Subcommittees of OAA Assessment Committee
The Institutional Learning Goals subcommittees consists of faculty from across the college. These subcommittees
will evaluate the college’s institutional learning goals along with the general education outcomes. They will identify
gaps and discrepancies, and share ideas and practices about ways in which the learning goals are assessed collegewide. In addition, these subcommittees will also evaluate the Institutional Learning Goals and their relationship to
program and course learning outcomes. They will communicate recommended changes for these outcomes to the
college.
There is one Subcommittee for each Institutional Learning Goal:
1. Critical Thinking
2. Ethical Reasoning
3. Quantitative Skills
4. Scientific Literacy
5. Technological Competence
6. Communication Competence
7. Cultural and Social Awareness
8. Professional and Life Skills
22
Institutional Learning Goals Subcommittees
Of OAA Assessment Committee
Critical Thinking
Chairperson
Division
Department
Member
Mark Bocija
Dea Boster
Brent Funderberk
Kyriakoula Drakatos
Adam Moskowitz
Division
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Department
Humanities
Humanities
Social Sciences
Humanities
Social Sciences
Ethical Reasoning
Chairperson
Edgar Velez
Member
April Magoteaux
Alesa Mansfield
Division
Arts and Sciences
Division
Health and Human Services
Arts and Sciences
Department
Humanities
Department
Nursing
Humanities
Quantitative Skills
Chairperson
Division
Department
Member
Patrick Fiorelli
Division
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Department
Accounting
Philip Maclean
John Nedel
Mathematics
Mathematics
Scientific Literacy
Chairperson
James Stewart
Member
Nicole Brandt
Jeanette Ferguson
Division
Arts and Sciences
Division
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Department
Social Sciences
Department
Psychology
Biological & Physical Sciences
Technological Competence
Chairperson
Ann Palazzo
Member
Bree Frick
Nick Lakostik
Division
Arts and Sciences
Division
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
23
Department
English
Department
Psychology
English
Communication Competence
Chairperson
Division
Department
Member
Judith Anderson
Frank Barnhart
Deborah Bertsch
Lauren Jones
Steve Logan
Scott Milsap
Division
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Department
English
Communication
English
Developmental Education
English
Communication
Cultural and Social Awareness
Chairperson
Division
Department
Member
Stephen George
Adam Moskowitz
Amy Ng
Irene Petten
Shauna Sowga
Division
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences
Department
Humanities
Social Sciences
Social Sciences
Social Sciences
Social Sciences
Professional and Life Skills
Chairperson
Division
Department
Member
Amy DiBlasi
Division
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Business, Engineering, &
Technologies
Department
Business Office Applications
Jack Popovich
Finance and Real Estate Programs;
Business Programs
Division Assessment Committees
Arts and Sciences
Arts and Sciences Assessment Committee
Co-Chairperson
Judy Dann
Kyriakoula Drakatos
Member
Francis Cobbina
Terry Eisele
Brent Funderberk
Frankie Hale
Mort Javadi
Luis Latoja
Stephen Logan
Melissa Logue
Philip Maclean
Department
Humanities
Humanities
Department
Biological and Physical Sciences
Modern Languages
Social Sciences
Communication
Biological and Physical Sciences
Modern Languages
English
Modern Languages
Mathematics
24
Scott Milsap
Adam Moskowitz
Jon Nedel
Mark Polifroni
Dave Tom
Communication
Social Sciences
Mathematics
Psychology
Psychology
Business, Engineering, & Technologies
Business, Engineering, & Technologies Assessment Committee
Co-Chairperson
Steve Levin
OAA Assessment Committee Member
Lydia Gilmore
Member
Charles Kassor
Patricia Opong
Department
Automotive Technologies
Business Management
Department
Aviation Maintenance Technology
Computer Science
Health and Human Services
Health and Human Services Assessment Committee
Co-Chairperson
Angela Fry
OAA Assessment Committee Member
Jon Packer
Department
Human Services
Criminal Justice
Emergency Medical Services Technology
Member
Department
Don Laubenthal
Hospitality Management
Jeffrey Rowe
Veterinary Technology
Mary Ellen Tancred
Medical Laboratory Technology
Jane Winters
Nursing
______________________________________________________________________________________
References
An Institutional Self-Assessment Tool for Excellent Practice in Student Learning Outcomes Assessment, (2012)
New Leadership for Student Learning and accountability. Washington, D.C.
Committing to Quality: Guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education (2012). New
Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability. Washington, D.C.
Driscoll, Amy and Swarup Wood (2007) Developing Outcomes-based Assessment for Learner Centered
Education: A Faculty Introduction, Stylus, Sterling Virginia, p.54.
More information about the New Leadership Alliance's 2012 recommendations can be found at:
http://www.chea.org/alliance_publications/default.asp
25
Assessment Plan & Report
Forms
26
Planning Assessment-Form #1
Program____________________________________________________Faculty______________________________
Four-year Plan
Institutional
Learning Goal
2015-16
Program Learning Outcome
Plan
Met
Benchmark?
Yes No
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2016-17
Plan
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2017-18
Plan
Was Benchmark met last
year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Yes No NA
(circle one)
Yes No
(circle one)
2018-19
Plan
Was Benchmark met
last year? Yes or No
If no, did you follow-up this year?
Yes or No
Yes No NA
(circle one)
*This form must be updated each year and uploaded to https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/bet or
https://staffcscc.sharpoint.com/hhs by September 15 (along with the assessment report and action plan).
Use your Columbus State Community College username and password to log in.
Page 1 of 1
27
Planning Assessment-Form #2 (page 1 of 2)
Annual Plan & Report
Program__________________ Year________________Faculty__________________
REPORT
PLAN
Institutional Learning
Goal
Program Learning
Outcome
Course & Learning
Outcome
Instrument of
Assessment
Performance
Indicator
Performance
Criteria
B
F
N
N represents the number of students who completed the assessment
# represents the number of students who demonstrated that they have learned the skill in question.
% represent the percent of students who demonstrated that they have learned the skill in question
*For each course assessed, this completed report (with attached action plan) should be uploaded by Sept 15, to
https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/bet or https://staffcscc.sharepoint.com/hhs use your Columbus State Community College username and
password to log in.
#
%
Planning Assessment-Form #2 (page 2 of 2) Course__________________ Year_____Faculty__________________
Action Plan
(C) Action Plan: For each course being assessed, faculty answer the following short-answer questions
based on the reported findings from their data for each course:
1.
Assessment of Data:
a. Planned Assessment: Based on the data collected this past year (not indicated as follow-up on
this past year’s annual assessment plan & report), discuss the teaching strategies used and
student performance in relation to the benchmarks set.
b.
Follow-Up Assessment (if needed): If faculty followed-up this past year from a previous report
where the students did not meet the benchmarks, describe the corrective action taken this
year. Explain whether or not the corrective action added to this year’s assessment was
successful. Discuss performance in relation to benchmarks set.
2.
Instructional Planning: What are the plans for the course based on the data collected this past
year? If students did not meet the benchmarks this year, describe the teaching strategies
planned for the next academic year to improve student learning in this course.
3.
Strategic and Budgetary Requests: List any strategic planning needs for the college and
budgetary requests for improving student learning: