Northwest Commission on College and University (NWCCU)
Annual Update for WSQA
Academic Year 2009-2010
College Name: North Seattle Community College
Contact Person: Dr. Mary Ellen O‟Keeffe, Assessment Liaison Officer
Contact Phone: 206-527-3701
Contact email: [email protected]
Accreditation recommendations to the
College and year of recommendation
From April 2007 Full-Scale Visit
The Committee recommends that
North Seattle Community College
complete the development of a
student learning assessment
process (Standard 2.B), that this
process be put into effect so as to
encompass all of its offerings and
programs (2.B.1) on a regular and
systematic basis (2.B.2), and that
the College provide evidence that
its assessment activities have led to
the improvement of teaching and
learning (2.B.3) (Policy 2.2).
(Spilde, 2007, p. 51)
From October 2008 Focused
Actions taken by the college to address
recommendations
After its April 2008 Focused interim visit,
the college developed a Comprehensive
Assessment Plan (CAP) in which it
identified four levels of assessment: (1)
classroom, (2) program, (3) institutional and
(4) institutional research, and assigned
leadership responsibility for each level to
members of the Assessment Committee. In
developing the plan, we identified the
Assessment Committee as the focal point and
central place where the various patterns of
student learning are brought together to be
discussed and recommendations made for
next steps. Throughout the year, the
committee took several steps to begin
implementing the plan and to strengthen
1
Improvement results
As a result of these improvements, we received
three commendations and one recommendation
at the conclusion of our Focused Interim Visit in
April 2010.
Commendations
1. North Seattle Community College is
commended for its thoughtful approach to
engaging faculty in assessment at the
institutional level, and using the results to
make improvements in the educational
program dictated by the evaluative process
in ways that are consistent with the
institution‟s culture (2.B.1, 2.B.3, 2.2).
Notable examples of excellent practice
include replacement of general education
outcomes with “Essential Learning
Accreditation recommendations to the
College and year of recommendation
Actions taken by the college to address
recommendations
Interim Visit
Although North Seattle Community
College has made progress toward
the development of a student
learning assessment process, there
is still more progress which must
be made. The college must move
from a phase of planning for
assessment to the actual systematic
collection of assessment evidence
and a demonstration that this
evidence of student learning has
led to the improvement of teaching
and learning. (Standard 2.B.1;
2.B.2; 2.B.3; and Policy 2.2).
(Rupert, 2008, p.9)
student learning outcomes assessment
practices campus wide. These steps were
reported in its Focused Interim Report of
April 2010.
Improvement results
Outcomes,” and successful efforts to assess
class assignments using common rubrics
for information literacy and civic
engagement, with resulting curricular
improvements.
2. The college is to be commended for
At the classroom level, we put greater
developing a strong assessment culture and
emphasis on the Assessment Loop Form
engaging faculty at the classroom level in
(ALF) as a means of collecting evidence of
assessment and improvement of teaching
classroom-based assessment. We converted
and learning (2.B.3). Especially notable is
what had previously been a Word document
the use of “Assessment Loop Forms” to
form to an on-line form and in that process
prompt faculty reflection that has resulted
provided more examples and guidance for
in changed, improved practices.
how to complete the form. We provided
reassigned time to a faculty member who
3. The college leadership has committed
analyzed the previous years‟ ALFs, and on the
financial resources and time to support
basis of her findings provided guidance to
faculty work in assessment, including
faculty in areas where the ALFs showed a
dedication of college-wide “Collaboration
weakness, most notably (1) writing clear
Days” to assessment discussions within
learning outcomes and (2) distinguishing
departments, Faculty Interest Groups to
various types of evidence to substantiate
complete work on specific assessment
student learning or the lack of it. To
topics of interest, retreats to provide time
complement these efforts, we have continued
for extended conversations, and
to encourage and support use of two other
reassignment time for a faculty member to
highly successful class-level assessment
coach individual faculty in assessment
methods: Small Group Instructional Dialogue
projects. This commendable support
and Peer Observation Program. In Winter and
honors and encourages faculty work that
Spring Quarters we initiated end-of-quarter
leads to clearly defined assessment
“reflection times” at which faculty were
processes (2.B.1) and improvement of
invited to share insights from their classroom
teaching and learning (2.B.3).
assessment efforts.
department and program level, we
conducted program review with six
departments or programs (ABE, ESL,
philosophy, nursing, math, and electronics)
using our existing program review
2
Recommendation
1. While program review processes at North
Seattle Community College are being
adapted from a 5-year to a 7-year cycle, the
college has only recently reached a
Accreditation recommendations to the
College and year of recommendation
Actions taken by the college to address
recommendations
model/protocol. At the same time, we spent
the year reexamining our definition of
“program” and at year‟s end made the
decision to redefine a “program” in terms of a
degree or certificate. This meant virtually no
change on the professional-technical side of
the house, but it was a major change with
respect to the transfer side. For example,
whereas under our previous model
philosophy, history or world languages were
considered programs, under the new
definition, the Associate of Arts degree is the
program and these disciplines are contributors
to that program. This change was made to
create interdisciplinary conversations about
and assessment of program-level learning
outcomes that span multiple disciplines. In
developing the CAP, we designed a facultydriven program assessment model that will be
tested for the first time in 2010-11 by
assessing the Associate of Science degree and
two professional-technical programs (likely
nursing and accounting).
institutional level, we revised our
General Education Learning Outcomes,
adopting in their place Essential Learning
Outcomes. We replaced the General
Education Task Force with a college-wide
Assessment Committee and began a
systematic assessment of the newly-adopted
Essential Learning Outcomes. We conducted
focus groups with students to determine how
well they thought the college practiced the
values of caring, collaboration, diversity,
innovation, integrity and quality that, as stated
3
Improvement results
decision to define degrees and certificates
as programs to be assessed. It is
recommended that North Seattle
Community College implement program
assessment processes consistent with its
Comprehensive Assessment Plan that
encompass all of its offerings, specifically
for each of its degree and certificate
programs (2.B.2).
From Evaluator‟s Report, April 2010.
In a letter to NSCC President Mark Mitsui dated
August 5, 2010, NWCCU President Sandra
Elman wrote that “the accreditation of North
Seattle Community College has been reaffirmed
on the basis of the Spring 2010 Focused Interim
Evaluation which addressed [the April 2007 and
June 2008 recommendations regarding
assessment].” The commission asked that “the
College submit an addendum to the institution‟s
Spring 2011 Year One Report to address
Recommendation 1 of the Spring 2010 Focused
Interim Evaluation Report.”
Accreditation recommendations to the
College and year of recommendation
Actions taken by the college to address
recommendations
in our strategic plan, promote continuous
learning and growth.
These thee levels of assessment rely primarily
on direct evidence of student learning. That
is, faculty look at student work on specific
assignments to make determinations about
student learning. The CAP also noted that
institutional research data can provide indirect
evidence of student learning through data
such as student grades, persistence rates,
completion rates, student survey results and
the like. Under the CAP, the college will
conduct three student surveys on a rotating
basis. In 2010-11, for example, it will
administer the Community College Survey of
Student Engagement (CCSSE). In the two
following years it will conduct a graduate
survey and a student satisfaction survey.
These data, along with other institutional
research data, will complement the direct
evidence of student learning being examined
by faculty at the classroom, program and
institutional levels as described above.
faculty development is so crucial
to faculty„s learning and growth we have
initiated two year-long faculty development
seminars, Pedagogy 101 and 102, to support
teaching, learning and assessment at the
individual class level.
Adapted from Focused Interim Report, April
2010
4
Improvement results