Quality Enhancement Plan
SLATED for Success
Student
Learning and Teaching
Effectiveness Development
Report to the On-Site Review Team, Site
Visit September 17-19, 2007
Submitted by
SACS Liaison Dr. Debbie Scott
(423) 585-6844
Dr. Wade McCamey President
Dr. Debbie Scott Vice President for Planning, Research and Assessment
Dr. Lori Campbell Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dr. Foster Chason Vice President for Student Affairs
Dr. Rosemary Jackson Vice President for Business Affairs
Dr. Eddie Stone Vice
President, Information Technologies
(served from 2004-2006)
Mr. Paul Todaro Interim Executive Director for Information and
(served from 2006-present) Educational Technologies; Director for User Services and Technical Operations
Mrs. Carla Todaro Faculty
Representative; Associate Professor of English and Assistant Dean of Humanities
Division
Ms. Carla Todaro (until January 2008) Chair, QEP Development Committee
Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Associate Professor, English
Assistant Dean, Humanities Division
(423) 585-6951 carla.todaro@ws.edu
Ms. Viki D. Rouse Writer, QEP Development Committee
Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Assistant Professor, English
Faculty Development
Ms. Janice W. Donahue (until May 2007) Team Leader
Coordinator, Academic Enrichment
Associate Professor, Developmental Education
Mr. Darrel McGhee (beginning August 2007) Team
Leader
Assistant Professor, History
Dr. Franklin M. Bangurah Professor, Developmental Mathematics
Mr. David Knowles Assistant Professor, History
Marketing
Mr. Joe Fall Team Leader
Walters State Sevierville Campus QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Business
Department Head, Hospitality Business
Ms. Amy Ross Division of Business QEP Representative
Walters State Articulation Officer
Associate Professor and Head, Business Management
Management
Mr. John Rose
Representative
Assistant Professor, Criminal Justice
Mr. Bill Sproat
Representative
Associate Professor, Biology
Outcomes Assessment
Dr. Betsy Dobbins,
Division of Health Programs QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Nursing
Dr. Mary D. Owens QEP Pilot Instructor
Professor, Mathematics
Mr. Chris Knight QEP Pilot Instructor
Division of Mathematics QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Mathematics
Coordinator of Developmental Mathematics
Mr. Allen Nix Division of Technical Education QEP Representative
Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science
Ms. Michelle Mitrik Division of Humanities QEP Representative
Assistant Professor, Spanish
Engagement Assessment
Mr. Charlie Williams Team Leader
Division of Public Safety QEP Representative
Associate Professor, EMT
M.A., Education, Thesis Focus: Learning Styles
Ms. Victoria Whitehead MSN, RN
Associate Professor, Nursing
Ms. Kimberly Bolton Division of Natural Sciences QEP Representative
Instructor of Biology
Ms. Kim Gunnin Director, Enrollment Development and Retention Services
Professional Staff QEP Representative
Literature Review
Dr. Chris Baker Team Leader
Division of Behavioral/Social Sciences QEP Representative
Professor, Sociology
Dr. Tina Wu Professor, Psychology
Mr. Jamie Posey Librarian
Automation Specialist
Mr. Thomas Duda Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science
Mr. Roger Beverly Institutional
Capability
Professional Staff QEP Representative
Assistant Vice President, Business Affairs
Note: In August 2007, the QEP Development Committee will end and the QEP Implementation Committee will begin. In preparation for the transition, the Outcomes and Engagement teams will merge, and members of the Literature Review team will join the Faculty Development team which will be led by Mr. Darrel McGhee in place of Ms. Janice Donahue. The member in charge of Institutional Capability will serve on a consultant basis only. Carla Todaro will serve as chair until January 2008 at which time Amy Ross will take the position as QEP Director.
Table of
Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 7
Introduction
to
Vision........................................................................................................................ 8
Students’ Economic and Educational Attainment Demographics.................................. 9
History of the College.............................................................................................. 11
Chapter One: QEP Foundations...................................................................................... 14
Methodology........................................................................................................... 14
Critical Issues to be Addressed................................................................................ 17
Early Development.................................................................................................. 20
Rationale................................................................................................................. 22
QEP’s Role in Institutional Effectiveness................................................................... 23
Chapter
Two: Community Involvement.......................................................................... 31
Development of the QEP......................................................................................... 31
Marketing the Message............................................................................................ 31
Chapter Three: A Review of Related Literature........................................................... 35
Introduction............................................................................................................. 35
Teaching/Learning Styles.......................................................................................... 35
Engagement............................................................................................................. 38
Chapter Four: Implementation Plan............................................................................... 42
Implementation of QEP Pilot Courses...................................................................... 42
Implementation Beyond the Pilot.............................................................................. 43
Implementation Timeline........................................................................................... 46
Chapter Five: Assessment.............................................................................................. 47
Selection of Learning Styles Instrument..................................................................... 47
Outcomes Measurement.......................................................................................... 48
Engagement Measurement....................................................................................... 55
Assessment in QEP Expansion Classes.................................................................... 56
Chapter
Six: Faculty Development................................................................................. 59
Chapter Seven: Institutional Capability ........................................................................ 63
Narrative................................................................................................................. 63
Budget ................................................................................................................... 67
Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 68
References........................................................................................................................ 69
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 76
Appendix
1,
Appendix 2, WSCC Student Focus Group Comments............................................. 79
Appendix 3, CCSSE Institutional Research Update 11-20-06.................................. 82
Appendix 4, 2001-06 Student Achievement, General Education............................... 86
Appendix 5, 2005-06 THEC Performance Funding Report...................................... 87
Appendix 6, 2006 Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP)............ 88
Appendix
7, 2005
Appendix 8, Soloman-Felder Learning Styles Questionnaire..................................... 90
Appendix 9, 2005 Student Cohort Data................................................................... 92
Appendix 10, Faculty Development Library Resources............................................. 94
Appendix 11, Teaching Styles Library Resources..................................................... 95
Executive Summary
The faculty, staff,
and students of
The focus of the Quality Enhancement Plan, “SLATED for Success,” is to increase student learning and engagement through faculty and student recognition of diverse student learning styles and incorporation of multiple modalities of teaching methods in an effort to engage students more fully in their educational environment, thus increasing student learning.
Introduction to
To facilitate student learning and transfer, the college maintains articulation, collaboration, and partnerships with public schools, technology centers, colleges, and universities. Service to business and industry is facilitated through the utilization of partnerships, networks, and customized programs and courses supporting the development of competitive products, services, and operations. The college provides faculty and staff of the highest quality dedicated to excellence in teaching, student learning, and service (Walters State Community College 2006-2007 College Catalog and Student Handbook, p. 7, par. 2 and 4 omitted).
Students’ Economic and
Educational Attainment Demographics
As a comprehensive
community college,
Higher than
average poverty, dropout, and unemployment rates are predominant
characteristics of rural mountainous counties in
Table 1. Educational Attainment: WSCC Service Area for 1980, 1990, and 2000.
County (%)
High School Degrees (%)
College Degrees
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
State 56.2 67.1 75.9 12.6 16.0 19.6
Cocke 40.1 50.4 61.2 5.3 5.5 6.2
Claiborne 38.8 50.8 60.3 6.9 8.0 8.9
Grainger 34.4 46.3 60.1 4.1 4.8 7.8
Greene 47.5 58.1 69.6 8.9 10.3 12.8
Hamblen 51.0 61.6 69.3 9.2 11.2 13.3
Hancock 28.6 42.4 55.9 4.2 5.1 10.2
Hawkins 47.1 58.0 70.4 6.7 8.4 10.0
Sevier 50.9 63.0 74.6 9.3 10.8 13.5
Union 36.2 45.6 56.3 2.8 4.5 5.8
(Source:
Table 2. Percent
of State Average for High School and College Degrees for WSCC Service Area--1980,
1990, and 2000.
County High
School Degrees College
Degrees
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
State 84 89 96 81 80 83
Cocke 71 75 80 38 38 30
Claiborne 70 76 79 54 50 45
Grainger 61 69 79 31 31 40
Greene 86 87 92 69 63 65
Hamblen 91 87 91 69 69 65
Hancock 52 63 74 31 31 50
Hawkins 84 87 92 54 50 50
Sevier 91 94 99 69 69 70
Union 64 68 74 23 31 30
(Source: Appalachian Regional
Commission)
History of the College
In
1957, the Pierce-Albright Report on Higher Education in
In
1969, the General Assembly authorized three more community colleges:
The
sixth community college in
Over
6,000 students were enrolled at
Programs
of study at
Chapter One: QEP Foundations
Methodology for
Selection of QEP Topic
In Fall 2004,
Question
1: If you could identify one issue
that seems to hinder student learning at
Question
2: What can
Answers to these questions widely varied, yet one thing remained constant: the enthusiasm generated in those focus groups by faculty who were given the time to speak about their greatest concerns regarding student learning, including the perception that they “spoke one language” while their students “understood another,” and their recommendations for how student learning could be stimulated and strengthened[WSCC1] , including stronger study skills and students’ knowledge of how they learn best.
In Summer 2005, Todaro and Kington conducted focus groups with all professional and support staff of the college from each campus, asking them the same two questions that they had asked faculty. Many focus group meetings extended longer than the one-hour time period simply because staff felt that they had much to share from their observations of students and learning that differed from the faculty’s perspective[WSCC2] . Because they saw the students outside of the classroom and listened to their concerns, worries, and life responsibilities, all of which served to distract the students from their studies and from forming social ties to the college and their peers, these staff members felt that faculty who could make the time in the classroom more meaningful and targeted more directly at the students instead of just at the material would be more successful in improving student learning. In short, these staff members called for student-centered learning environments.
In Fall 2005, Todaro
and Kington conducted eight separate focus groups for students at the
Question 1: If you could identify one issue that would improve your learning, what would it be? Or, what seems to hinder your learning?
Question 2:
What can
Just as faculty and staff quickly grew interested in the questions, so did the students. They had strong opinions about both questions once they were able to move beyond their skepticism regarding why they were being asked these questions in the first place. Students took responsibility for their learning (“I hinder my own learning because I have no discipline”; “I never learned how to learn”) and also laid responsibility at the door of the instructors and the institution (“My instructors move through the material too quickly for me to absorb it, and they never consider that I might have been left behind two chapters ago”; “Walters State could improve my learning by making our schedules more flexible and by offering student services at night and online”). They were eager to share their concerns, and they expressed a desire to “learn how to learn.”
After completion of the focus groups, Kington compiled the individual responses and grouped them into seven categories:
1. Teaching/Learning Styles: Student learning can be improved by assessing and matching instructor teaching styles to student learning styles.
2. Motivation: Student learning can be improved by motivating students to learn.
3. Personal Responsibility/Accountability: Student learning can be improved by encouraging students to take responsibility for active learning and by holding them accountable for results.
4. Advising and Counseling: Student learning can be improved by streamlining and enriching the advising process.
5. Life Responsibilities: Student learning can be improved by the college facilitating coping strategies to assist students in balancing school work and classes with personal obligations.
6. Lack of Preparation for College: Student learning can be improved by preparing them for college-level work before they enroll in college-level courses and by increasing their awareness of “what it means to be a college student.”
7. Valuing Broad Education: Student learning can be improved by increasing their awareness of the relevance of all courses, not just those in their major or study.
8. Raising Standards and Quality: Student learning can be improved by raising performance standards and expectations in all courses and by maintaining consistency in quality across the disciplines.
During this time
period of the focus groups, Todaro and Kington conducted staff and faculty
forums to keep everyone apprised of the progress of the QEP topic selection
progress and to solicit further suggestions.
The SACS Leadership Team met monthly, and Carla Todaro provided periodic
updates to
Critical Issues to be
Addressed
As the faculty, SACS Leadership Team, and Executive Council began to discuss the focus group response categories, they found that a number of concerns overlapped. The faculty’s and staff’s deepest academic concerns included:
· They knew that they wanted their students to succeed for the students’ sake and to boost the institution’s retention and graduation rates.
· They knew that their students seemed uninterested, lacking motivation to stretch their thinking in their classes.
·
They recognized that many students came to
college underprepared to meet the content and study challenges imposed upon
them by college-level work. Indeed, many
students did not enter at college level: while the average ACT score in
· They realized that students brought “life” with them: work and family challenges that were very real and looming factors in their attempts at academic success.
After deliberation,
In November 2005, faculty members were given the opportunity to vote for one of the two QEP topics that had been formalized into statements of action:
1. Assess instructor teaching styles and student learning styles for one course or a common group of courses. Educate instructors and students about and direct them toward learning strategies suited toward their preferences, resulting in deeper, more relevant educational experiences and appropriate academic advising for the students. Match teaching styles to learning styles and measure learning success. Expectations and additional positive effects of this action could include increased student motivation, active learning, and personal responsibility for learning.
2. Determine
the life responsibilities that seem to negatively
impact student achievement in one course or a common group of courses. Instructors and students would co-design
course plans that address lack of preparation for college and meet the course
objectives and high standards of the class while working with, rather than in
opposition to, the other obligations and responsibilities of the students. Expectations and additional positive effects
of this action could include increased motivation, active learning, in-depth
advising practices, and personal responsibility for learning.
Faculty members were reminded to keep the tenets of the QEP in mind regarding SACS expectations:
· The plan of action must target an area of student learning that we can document as a need on our campus.
· The plan of action must focus on students: we must do something to students, for students or with students that positively affects their learning.
· The plan of action must be measurable: we must be able to show that learning was improved due to the action(s) we performed.
Although there was
strong support for the ideas of the second topic, many faculty members and the
QEP chair expressed concern that it would be difficult to narrow it to a focus
that could be measurable and directly linked to student learning. In the end, the faculty voted to adopt the
first topic that focused on the application of teaching/learning styles
knowledge to engagement and course competency.
Early Development
In February 2006,
At this time, the QEP Development Committee was formed from eighteen faculty members, two professional staff, and two faculty members as QEP Chair and QEP Writer/Reviewer. Carla Todaro, QEP Chair, distributed a packet consisting of a QEP Developmental Committee membership roster, dates and deadlines, QEP Development Committee tasks, excerpts from The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement covering aspects of the SACS review that pertain to the QEP, two sample tables of contents from the QEP documents of other institutions, and websites for Learning Style Assessment tools. In briefly reviewing material from the packet, the chair noted the importance of the QEP to the reaffirmation of accreditation process and explained the great deal of flexibility they had in developing the QEP to fit and benefit Walters State students.
The first charge of the QEP Development Committee was to narrow the QEP topic to an inspiring, transformative vision and a workable goal. Over several weeks, the committee discussed the possibilities and implications of the various components of the topic; they sent their ideas to the general faculty population for feedback. As a result of the discussion and feedback, they set a Walters State Quality Enhancement Plan Vision and Goal:
QEP Vision:
QEP Goal: To improve student engagement
and increase competency of learning outcomes,
Next, the
committee struggled with how to define “engagement”: some members equated
student engagement with individual motivation; others equated it with class
participation. After a thorough review
of the current literature on student engagement, they found the following
definition that seemed to be broad enough to encompass the differences between
courses yet narrow enough to be measured:
“[t]he concept of active
involvement on the part of students with faculty and staff, classmates, and the
subject matter” (Manzo, 2006, p. 4).
In Fall 2006, the
QEP Development Committee named QEP Representatives for each academic division,
each campus, and the
· Faculty Development
· Marketing
· Outcomes Assessment
· Engagement Assessment
· Institutional Capability
· Literature Review
Rationale
The QEP
Development Committee gathered and analyzed existing Community College Survey
of Student Engagement (CCSSE), ACT and Walters State Cohort data to determine
where the greatest area of need lay, considering such factors as engagement,
success and persistence rates, and overall course grades. A review of three years of ACT high school
profile data for Walters State’s ten-county service area indicated that 60-70% of
graduating high school seniors are not prepared for college-level work
(Appendix 1). ACT reports for the state
of
For these reasons,
Elementary Algebra (DSPM 0800 was selected for the QEP pilot that will begin in
August 2007. In Summer 2006, two
QEP’s Role in
Institutional Effectiveness
The goals of
Implicitly, the goal of this plan is to improve the learning environment by placing emphasis on “learning to learn,” underscoring for the student and for the instructor the vital connection between thinking, engagement, and deep learning. Explicitly, the methodology of this plan will improve the learning environment by sparking interest and motivation in the classroom, resulting in stronger student confidence due to higher levels of student competency. As by-products, the school expects to see persistence and retention rates climb as students and instructors scaffold new learning experiences upon the foundations of knowing themselves and using that knowledge to move forward and to surmount obstacles. Through the sharing of students’ individual learning styles, this learning environment will reach from the classroom out toward tutoring services, counseling services, advising services, retention services, and other key student services which play vital roles in helping students succeed. The QEP focus and student learning are inextricably linked through the causal relationship between an active knowledge of learning styles and increased engagement with the content, leading to a rise in content knowledge and a greater enthusiasm for teaching and learning.
Student focus groups revealed a strong desire for a faculty focus on various learning styles. Students asserted that they “have different learning styles [and] need different methods of teaching.” They also claimed that “presenting material in different ways makes it more interesting” because “teachers who only read information are not enjoyed. They do not discuss other perceptions.” They wanted teachers to “engage students more by asking questions in class, rather than just lecturing.” As a way to vary teaching styles and to address a diversity of learning styles, these students suggested “active learning - let students take a chapter to teach” and “group projects that help us to see other’s ways of working on tasks” (Appendix 2). Current literature in the fields of teaching and learning styles reveals that these are common student perceptions and that their suggestions are highly effective in the college classroom (Chapter 3: Review of Literature), and CCSSE concludes that students learn more when they are actively involved in their education and have opportunities to think about and apply what they are learning in different settings. Through collaborating with others to solve problems or master challenging content, students develop valuable skills that prepare them to deal with the kinds of situations and problems they will encounter in the workplace, the community, and their personal lives (2006 CCSSE Report).
Walters State takes pride in the fact that current CCSSE reports indicate that its students report a high satisfaction rate with instructors and instructors’ dedication to teaching and to student success (Appendix 3); nevertheless, students shared in focus groups that they do not feel empowered to understand the course material, nor do they feel that they participate in any “real” way with the skills they are expected to master. The idea of lack of or low engagement on the part of both faculty and students was repeated: faculty reported that “students think instructors are entertainers; they don’t want to put forth any effort”; they “come unprepared and want WSCC to pour in the information” (Appendix 2). In focus groups, students conceded that “student motivation is an issue” (Walters State Community College Student Focus Group Comments). However, students felt that student engagement was a responsibility of the instructor as well, claiming that “we need enthusiastic teaching…and better teacher engagement. You can tell which teachers love to teach and those who are just going through the motions” (Appendix 2). The QEP addresses this perception of low engagement by seeking new ways to reach out to students “where they are,” attempting to determine their learning styles, and then using an attention to those learning styles to help student involvement and participation become a strong factor in the learning and skills-mastery equation.
Student
Achievement in General Education data for 2001-2006 showed that
QEP
Relationship to WSCC’s Vision
The QEP fits into
the stated vision of
QEP Relationship to WSCC’s Mission
The QEP helps to
fulfill the stated mission of the institution:
it is a viable way to “guide the college into the twenty-first century”
because it is designed to keep instructors current in the field of learning
styles, and it is designed, through its focus on the student and his or her
particular learning tendencies, to offer students more individualized plans of
instruction and remediation than have existed in the past. The mission states that
QEP
Relationship to WSCC’s Strategic Plan
The four
components of
1. Leadership: The strategic plan states that, “as a comprehensive community college, Walters State will provide leadership to its geographically large and diverse primary service area promoting, documenting, and communicating the value of higher education to the economic development and quality of life for all stakeholders.”
The QEP, with its focus on strengthening both engagement with the course materials and achievement of course outcomes, leads faculty, academic support staff, and students toward a more meaningful educational (learning and/or teaching) experience, enriching the quality of life for all and leading to degrees that graduates can use to earn competitive salaries in the marketplace.
2.
Access:
The strategic plan states that, “
The QEP begins with students in developmental mathematics classes, traditionally a student population that carries with it academic, economic, and social obstacles to success. The use of an understanding of learning styles to reach students on a more individualized basis by capitalizing on their learning style tendencies provides students greater access to a diversity of content delivery. In addition, it increases the participation (engagement) of these students with the material, leading to greater chances for success and further access to higher level college courses. The integration of Student Services into this plan reinforces the access opportunities.
3.
Quality:
The strategic plan states that, “
The
QEP reflects
4.
Resourcefulness:
The strategic plan states that “
The QEP encourages collaboration through the bridges it builds between students, faculty, courses (on-ground, hybrid, videostream, and online) academic departments and divisions, campuses, library services, counseling and testing services, and advising services. Sharing fiscal, physical, and personnel resources among and between these entities allows sound, economical use of money, space, time, and faculty/staff.
QEP
Relationship to WSCC’s Campus Compact
In
Chapter Two: Community Involvement
Development of the QEP
Marketing the Message
The QEP
Development Committee’s Marketing Team was formed in February 2006. The team includes members from three
The Marketing Team’s
first task was to develop a motto for the QEP that would articulate the focus
in an easily understood and memorable way.
In March 2006, the team assembled to develop this motto and to brainstorm
ideas that would stimulate interest and excitement and educate all key
constituents including faculty, staff, students, and the
During Spring 2006, the Marketing Team developed an agenda of activities for 2006-2007. The means by which they decided to communicate the QEP message included the use of print and electronic media; promotional items and apparel; verbal updates at each campus, within academic divisions, and to the internal community at general assemblies, special student gatherings and through the involvement of student clubs. The team planned a logo contest that would be opened to all students/clubs at the college with the intent to engage students in developing a logo using the SLATED acronym. The developer of the winning logo would receive $500.00 and would be recognized at Walters State Pride Night in the Fall 2006 semester. The winning logo would become the emblem of the QEP to be used in many of the aforementioned marketing ideas.
In Fall 2006, QEP plans were unveiled to the faculty and the staff at the annual President’s Inaugural Breakfast, at the general faculty meeting in August, and in beginning semester division meetings by the QEP division representatives. The QEP Development Committee distributed ink pens and notepads displaying the QEP slogan at the breakfast, and faculty members distributed QEP bookmarks to students the first day of classes. During this semester, several students and student clubs entered the logo contest, and the committee selected a winner in November. The logo adopted is
In addition,
during this fall semester
In January 2007, the Marketing Team leader met with the other QEP team leaders to review the QEP marketing plan for the next five years. A preliminary marketing budget was established for presentation to the SACS Leadership Team for their approval. This budget was later modified after the spring budget hearings. The team developed and refined a media action plan and a list of promotional items to be distributed among all faculty, staff, and students with the “QEP: SLATED For Success” logo or slogan. The media campaign also included hanging 4’ x 6’ banners displaying the “QEP: SLATED For Success” logo inside the main entrance at each of the four Walters State campuses and centers, displaying 11” x 17” QEP posters in public areas and in classrooms, and utilizing 4” x 6” table tents on tables and counters in locations such as libraries and cafeterias. In addition, a one-page “QEP Frequently Asked Questions” flier was developed which pointedly addresses the fundamentals of the QEP. These fliers were distributed to academic administrators by the Vice President of Academic Affairs for distribution to all full-time and adjunct faculty members with the intention of delivering an encapsulated look at the purpose of the QEP. Finally, a QEP page was included in the Fall 2007 timetable of classes, and the “QEP SLATED For Success” logo will appear on the college home webpage as a student and community link for QEP updates and information beginning Fall 2007.
Looking to the
future, information regarding the QEP will be displayed on a series of slides
on the internal INFOSYS which is broadcast to all campuses. The slides will also be displayed on the
In Fall 2007, the
QEP Marketing Team will work in conjunction with the Vice President for Student
Affairs to upgrade the annual fall “Welcome Back Students” cookouts which are
held each September at the
The Marketing Team should stay intact throughout the entire timeline of the QEP for the purpose of QEP promotional continuity. The budget carries forth monies for each year to adequately support and promote the plan, as indicated in Chapter Seven.
Chapter Three: A Review of Related Literature
Introduction
In May 2006, the Literature Review team began to locate and summarize current literature and review best practices collected by the QEP Development Committee on teaching and learning styles, engagement, outcomes, and assessment, compiling the material in November 2006. Initial emphasis was placed on literature in developmental education, specifically math, with a focus on remedial student learning styles since this is the QEP pilot area of focus; however, the team also looked for information concerning the application of learning styles awareness to general education classrooms as well, since the QEP will head in that direction during the next five years. The ongoing process involved collaboration with the Faculty Development, Outcomes, and Engagement teams along with representatives from remedial math. The committee worked closely with on-campus faculty who are familiar with the concept of teaching and learning styles, and QEP team members periodically reviewed the literature[WSCC3] .
Teaching/Learning Styles
A number of researchers asserted that understanding student learning styles serves a dual purpose of helping instructors to address student diversity in learning styles and assisting students to improve learning by increasing self-awareness, engagement, and positive educational outcomes. Acharya (2002), in looking at ways in which learning style could impact student learning, used Keefe’s description of learning style as, “the composition of cognitive, affective, and physiological learning preferences” (cited in Acharya, 2002, ¶2). She indicated that Keefe believed that learning is a composition, and learning styles, like great constructions of architecture, use different elements to create an entire learning environment. In addition, much of the research emphasized that learning styles are a dynamic construction of learning preferences (Silver, Strong & Perini, 1997).
In considering best practices behind learning strategies, Boylan (2002) found that developmental students have more problems understanding and monitoring their own comprehension than do other students. He suggested that, “it is important to teach learning strategies in a variety of contexts to encourage [these] students to apply these strategies to different situations” (p. 99). Miglietti and Strange (1998) contended that teaching strategies should consider instruction goals, student characteristics, and course progression, indicating that a combination of multiple paradigms assists in providing a positive learning environment for students. These researchers’ study involved a population of both traditional and non-traditional students and confirmed that when learner-centered styles were deliberately addressed, higher course grades were the result (Miglietti & Strange, 1998). The preponderance of Miglietti and Strange’s work not only contributed to the conception that individuals’ learning styles indicate their preference in terms of ways in which they gather, process, and store information, but also concluded that students attained a greater sense of self-actualization through this method of learning.
Bill (1998) supported the findings of Miglietti and Strange and the concept of diverse learning styles when he concluded that when an instructor varied the presentation modality, a larger portion of students could be positively affected. Here, again, familiarity with students’ learning styles further supported the belief that learning preference contributes to the composition of cognitive, affective, and physiological learning.
Haar, Hall,
Schoepp, and Smith (2002) likewise discovered that it was important for teachers
to identify, by using a learning style assessment, the instructor’s principal
learning style in order to avoid teaching only to their own dominant and
preferred style of learning. Cross and Tilson (1997) additionally concluded
that when teaching style was congruent with the learning styles, the students
acclimatized to their learning environment exceptionally well. Ebeling (2000) believed that faculty
understanding of their own learning style, as well as that of students, is an
essential element of an effective educational community, creating a learning
environment that aligns the teaching plan with the variant learning styles
present (Ebeling 2000). Morrison, Rha,
and Helfman’s (2003) study examining the effectiveness of a teaching-learning
model indicated that by using different teaching modalities in the classroom,
students connected to meaningful learning experiences. Ballone and Czerniak (2001) analyzed a survey
sample of 109
Studies in the field showed that providing compatible instructional strategies, especially among less academically successful students, was an effective way to address success in remedial classes (Dunn et al. 1993; Rochford 2003). Rochford further claimed that students need to be tested for individual learning styles so that both students and instructors can use this information for optimum learning (p. 675). Application of learning styles inventories showed promise for increasing success in remedial writing classes (Houston, 1997) and remedial math classes (Nadkarni, 2004).
Successful
application of learning style inventories in all classes occurs best when
faculty are able to provide a broader array of teaching style options once they
understand how their students learn. The
American Mathematical Association of Two Year Colleges (2006) argued that an
effective mathematics curriculum is one that provides students of every
learning style an opportunity to engage in a topic, connect with the material,
and then stretch their learning capacity in other learning modes (Chapter 4).
Dunn and
Engagement
Combining teaching
and learning styles, instructors can design activities that engage students in
active learning. A doctoral candidate at
In an effort to improve student engagement, schools have been implementing efforts to incorporate “active and collaborative learning activities and promoting internship and senior capstone experiences” (What we’re learning, 2003, ¶53). This form of engagement seems to occur when teachers include activities that appeal to the way students like to learn. When instructors create strategies that arouse curiosity, stimulate interest, and motivate students to seek new information, the students become inquisitive (Caram & Davis, 2005). Students who are drawn to that level of inquisitiveness become actively charged to understand “why” and are not afraid to raise questions. Burns, Johnson, and Gable’s (1998) research emphasized that instructors should seek to create an atmosphere where students feel safe to risk failure for the sake of learning. If students are engaged to the extent that they are able to identify with and value schooling outcomes and participate in academic and non-academic school activities, then learning, teaching, and engagement unify into a learning community in which students are comfortable in classroom participation (Willms, 2000).
Forrest (2004) stated that “learning and teaching are active processes occurring simultaneously on a continual basis” (¶1). She contended that with a dual focus on learning and teaching styles, students would become engaged because they would become more motivated and attentive. She also concluded that the “process of exploring the effectiveness of one’s teaching styles enhances the ability to facilitate the learning process” (¶2).
Beck (2001) further supported the idea that teaching and learning are closely linked when teachers have an extensive repertory of teaching strategies. Nevertheless, he cautioned that instructors must take care not to stereotype students into categories, and students should be taught that tasks can be accomplished by using different styles. Beck (2001) also believed that “the student who feels locked into one style [is] likely to experience frustration when confronted with a task that [is] more successfully accomplished by integrating styles” (¶29).
Bowen (2005) provided great insight when he stated, “perhaps the most important contribution of engagement [is] the focus it brings to the learner’s personal relationship to learning” (¶12). Like others, Bowen (2005) recognized that engagement is dependent upon both teaching and learning. If learning styles were understood and teaching styles were manipulated to reach as many students as possible, engagement would complement the entire learning environment. Research showed that engagement in active and collaborative learning is essential for student success. The more actively engaged students are with faculty, available services, and other students, the more likely they will learn effectively and continue in college (CCSSE, 2005; 2006; Pascerella and Terenzini, 2005). Chen and McGrath (2003), supporting Bowen’s theory of creating learning environments of student involvement, studied a sample of 42 high school students to discover that learning combined with information that the students gathered collaboratively “often related to greater levels of student motivation, effort, satisfaction, and higher standards of student projects” (Chen & McGrath, 2003, 52).
Current research suggested that developmental, and/or
minority and part-time students often experience less engagement and social
integration into college campus systems than traditional full-time students in
nondevelopmental classes (Boylan, 2002; CSSEE, 2005; 2006; Lederman, 2006;
Triesman, 1992; Swail, 2006). In
addition, recent studies drawing on the National Survey of Student Engagement
showed that good practices of engagement may be particularly important for the
success of underprepared students, a population that is representative of a
large portion of
Recent studies made the case that assessment of student engagement is important for institutional improvement (Banta, 1992; 2002). Assessment is crucial to developing evidence to build strategies for improving student success and campus relationships and culture (CSSEE, 2006; Kuh et al., 2005a; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005) and works best when it engages faculty and students in the process (Rouseff-Baker and Holm, 2004).
Chapter Four: Implementation Plan
Implementation of QEP Pilot
Courses
In the
spring of 2007, the QEP Development committee collected baseline data in four
DSPM 0800 classes through the use of pre- and post-tests containing test items
linked to course objectives. They
analyzed this data to determine a baseline for course outcome improvement in
the pilot classes beginning Fall 2007.
They studied recent CCSSE data to determine a baseline for student
engagement improvement in the pilot classes.
In the spring of 2007, the QEP pilot instructors attended faculty
development conferences and workshops focused on the use of learning styles in
mathematics classes and on assessment; one particularly useful conference was
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics conference. They will continue to participate in training
of this kind during the summer and fall.
In Fall
2007, the QEP pilot instructors will introduce QEP concepts to two treatment
classes each; they will also conduct two control classes each so that they may
compare the effects of the treatment to the fall data as well as to the spring
2007 data. These instructors will administer the Soloman-Felder Learning Styles
Inventory (Appendix 7), discussed at length in chapter five, during the first
week of classes and will use that data to help guide their teaching and their
tutoring of students. They will direct their teaching—including introduction of
concepts, skills practice, group activities, and homework-- to the eight types
of learning styles identified by Solomon-Felder: active, reflective, sensing, intuitive,
visual, verbal, sequential, and global. These
instructors will not isolate and teach to only one learning style; in fact,
they may incorporate several into one lesson or simultaneously; for example, it
is quite easy to present material both visually and verbally (and quite common
to do so in mathematics), and it makes sense to pair sequential and global
learning since they work somewhat like two sides of the same coin. The goal of each mathematics unit is to present
material and design activities that allow students of each learning style to
respond. A lesson on an algebraic formula, for example, might include presenting
an overview of what the formula is supposed to do and what it looks like, verbally
explaining each step of the formula while visually manipulating the factors in
the formula, allowing the students to manually manipulate the factors in the
formula, and then giving students some quiet reflection time to think through
what has been presented before they begin to practice the formula
themselves.
These
instructors will also administer a pre-test the first day of classes to be
paired with a post-test on the final day of classes. Mastery of course competencies of individual
students as well as of the classes will be compared to measure overall semester
progress. These mathematics instructors
also will administer periodically throughout the semester a qualitative
assessment of engagement, tailored to the specifics of this particular
mathematics course in this particular mathematics division. They will use feedback from these short
engagement assessments to redirect their teaching and their students’ learning
as the semester progresses. Near the end
of the semester, a short version of the CCSSE will be administered to these
classes, and results will be analyzed and used to redirect the next semester’s
QEP classes.
The
mathematics classes included in this QEP pilot will make extensive use of the
Math Learning Lab, located in the same building. Tutors from this lab will be trained in the
Solomon-Felder LSI and will be instructed to work with the students who need
remediation according to their particular learning style. Instructors will teach to the diversity of
learning styles in the classroom, while tutors will use individual learning
styles to provide one-on-one supplementary teaching and practice.
QEP
Implementation Beyond the Pilot
From Spring
2007 until 2012, the college plans to include the Solomon-Felder LSI in the online
registration process for all new students.
Each student will be required to complete this LSI before they can exit
the registration window, and the Solomon-Felder site will provide them with instantaneous
information concerning how to study and learn according to their particular
learning styles. Walters State will maintain
a database of the learning style results for access by faculty, tutors,
counselors, advisors, and retention officers in order to help tailor student
support to many areas of the students’ academic careers. This information will enable each person
working with the student communicate more effectively with that student and to
help that student make academic decisions suitable to how that student learns
and understands. LSI information will be included on each faculty member’s
student roster the first day of classes; these faculty members will be free to
use the information as they please until their discipline is enveloped into the
QEP expansion, at which time there will be specific teaching/learning styles
guidelines incorporated into those classes.
The hope is that this information will also be available for analysis so
that we can determine which learning styles
The QEP
application will be expanded according to the following progression:
·
developmental
mathematics
·
developmental
reading and writing
·
General
Education
·
other
classes to which the QEP may be applicable.
Before
each expansion level, the QEP Implementation Committee will analyze engagement
and course outcomes data in previous QEP classes and make general recommendations
for revisions to future classes. In
preparation for each level of expansion, the upcoming discipline will gather
baseline course outcomes and engagement data to guide them in setting goals for
engagement and competencies increases when their disciplines participate. Faculty, tutors, and related Student Services
personnel will attend learning styles and course assessment training at the
Walters State QEP Summer Institute which will begin in Summer 2008; they will
also attend discipline-specific conferences and workshops in learning styles
and assessment. This expansion will take
place in courses offered on all campuses as well as in online courses offered
in the specific disciplines. In
addition, adjunct faculty as well as full-time faculty will have opportunities
to participate in QEP training and courses, and the training will be offered in
a variety of formats, including videostreaming and/or ITV.
As
each discipline enters the QEP, it will tailor the QEP to fit its course
content and departmental/division goals.
No two disciplines will administer the QEP the same way, nor should
they. The purpose of the QEP is for each
instructor in each class to be able to engage his or her students at a higher
level of understanding and performance than was done previously. Each instructor will be fully acquainted with
Felder-Solomon’s eight learning styles and how to direct his or her teaching to
those styles, but the instructors in each discipline will retain great
flexibility in determining how to go about this. Assessments will remain the same as in the
pilot courses.
QEP
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
|
Spring 2007 |
Assess DSPM 0800 baseline classes for pilot data; Provide faculty development for pilot instructors; promote QEP awareness |
|
February |
QEP Document due to WSCC Review Board |
|
Summer 2007 |
Revisions and additions to QEP Document; Faculty development for pilot instructors |
|
July |
QEP Document due to SACS |
|
Fall 2007 |
QEP Fall Rollout begins; QEP Pilot classes (DSPM 0800) begin |
|
September |
SACS On-Site Visit (3 days) |
|
Spring 2008 |
Pilot courses data collection and assessment; Address SACS recommendations and file progress report Continue QEP in all pilot instructors’ DSPM 0800 classes |
|
Summer 2008 |
Faculty development for all DSPM instructors |
|
Fall 2008-Spring 2009 |
Goal: 70% of DSPM (approximately 40 sections) incorporating QEP |
|
Summer 2009 |
Faculty development for all developmental instructors |
|
Fall 2009 |
Goal: 70% of all developmental classes (approximately 75 sections) running QEP |
|
Spring 2010 |
Data collection and assessment: plan for application of QEP to General Education Classes |
|
Summer 2010 |
Faculty development for all Gen Ed instructors |
|
Fall 2010 |
Goal: 70% of all General Education courses (approximately 140 sections) running QEP |
|
Spring 2011 |
Data collection and assessment; plan for application of QEP to other (non-Gen Ed) courses |
|
Summer 2011 |
Faculty Development |
|
Fall 2011 |
Goal: 70% of all courses running QEP |
|
Spring 2012 |
Reassessment of effects of QEP: Have we transformed our institution by enhancing student learning? |
Chapter Five:
Assessment
Learning Styles
Instrument
The QEP Development Committee examined several learning styles indicators in an attempt to choose one that would serve the purposes of the quality enhancement plan, would be helpful rather than cumbersome or intrusive to the instructor, and would be applicable to many disciplines. In 2006, Janice Donahue, leader of the QEP Faculty Development Team, and Charlie Williams, leader of the QEP Engagement Team, conducted a workshop for the QEP Development committee to further acquaint them with learning styles and their usefulness to the classroom. Subsequently, the committee examined the VARK (Visual-Aural-Read/Write-Kinesthetic) Inventory, but after committee members had taken the inventory and studied the literature, they determined that VARK might not be applicable to some disciplines and that its questions did not isolate the academic information needed. Next, they examined the Felder-Soloman inventory and found it to be better suited to the needs of the institution.
The Felder-Soloman Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) incorporates components of well-established personality and learning styles assessments, including the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Myers-Briggs, VARK, and Left and Right Brain Analysis. Therefore, the QEP Development committee, composed of many full-time faculty members, was confident that this inventory would lend students and faculty the flexibility to apply the knowledge gained from the inventory to many academic disciplines. In addition, this inventory provides students with many resources and support materials for individual and group studying according to particular learning style. Finally, the online version of the inventory was offered “at no cost for non-commercial purposes by individuals who wish to determine their own learning style profile and by educators who wish to use it for teaching, advising, or research,” (Felder), making it a particular cost advantage.
Outcomes Measurement
The Outcomes Team was formed in September 2006 as a subcommittee of the college-wide QEP Development committee. The team charge was to plan activities, assessments, and data collection/analysis for the Fall 2007 QEP pilot and five-year implementation, contributing to the overall QEP goal of improving student engagement and increasing competency of learning outcomes. A learning outcome is defined as “a level of knowledge, skills, [and] abilities that the student has attained” (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2002, p. 2).
The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2006) reported that an effective value-added model of outcome assessment should draw on recognized and tested national instruments and employ a multi-faceted approach to address institutional improvement and inform public policy making. For instance, the General Education measure such as the Measure of Academic Proficiency (MAPP) provides a direct measure of student college learning. More specifically, Miglietti and Strange’s (1998) research on using teaching and learning strategies in remedial classes showed that teaching strategies are positively associated with learning outcomes but should be considered in light of student characteristics, learning styles, and course goals. They pointed out that addressing learning and teaching styles should vary due to variations between disciplines. Ideally, measuring course outcomes should draw on standardized institutional measures but also should reflect the diversity of indicators that are specific to a particular course within audits and other embedded assessment tools. Chapter 3 validates the strategy of the WSCC QEP plan and its focus on engagement and course outcomes; namely, that an increased focus on teaching and learning styles and engagement is central to improving student learning and success.
Pilot
Class
The QEP Development Committee selected Elementary Algebra (DSPM 0800) as the target course for the QEP pilot project because 2005 Walters State Cohort Data showed this as the area of greatest need within its developmental educational program (Appendix 8). DSPM 0800 extends the topics of DSPM 0700 and includes problem solving with algebraic expressions, including simple trinomial factoring, linear equations, inequalities, and functions. Satisfactory completion of DSPM 0800 allows the student to enroll in DSPM 0850, Intermediate Algebra. Mary Owens and Chris Knight agreed to serve as instructors of the target course sections.
During September 2006, Outcomes Team members met to continue work on the project. At this point, Owens and Knight were invited to join the Outcomes Team as members because their input was critical to defining the evaluation process. Their addition to the team and the reassignment of several other original team members resulted in the team being comprised of five faculty members (a team chair and four members).
Before the study design could be outlined, it was necessary to understand the current procedures for testing. Team members determined that the final student grade would verify student mastery of the learning outcomes, if the outcomes were directly tied to each of the final exam questions. Team members also discussed the educational interventions necessary to affect change in the treatment groups. The actual instructional interventions would be designed to address the learning styles of the students and would necessitate the determination of each student’s learning style and each teacher’s teaching style. This discussion led Outcomes Team members to the realization that the Outcomes Team and the Engagement Team missions were significantly intertwined.
By the end of September, discussions by Outcomes Team members and correspondence between Owens and Todaro resulted in the refinement of the experimental design. The study design was proposed as follows:
· Determine student and teacher learning styles at the beginning of the semester. A variety of learning activities will be used in the classroom to target the different learning styles present among the students.
· Assess student competency at the beginning of the semester. The level of student competency at the beginning of the semester is identified by the student’s placement in DSPM 0800. Students are placed in this class by ACT, Course Compass, GED scores, or the successful completion of DSPM 0700. Course placement is further screened by a departmental diagnostic test on the first day of class. Students may opt to test out of the course by passing a departmental Challenge Test given the first week of class.
· Utilize a pre/post-test design to determine course competency in DSPM 0800. The pre-test will consist of 25 questions tied to course outcomes identified as critical by the instructors. The post-test will consist of the same 25 questions embedded in a longer, more comprehensive 50-question final examination. Comparison of student performance on the 25 pre- and post-test questions will facilitate end-of-course evaluation of student competence. Students will take the pretest during the first week of class at the beginning of the semester, unaware that the same questions would be included in the final examination.
· Perform the following assessments:
o Administer the Feldman-Soloman learning styles assessment tool during the first week of classes.
o Determine student achievement by comparing pre-test and post-test exam grades.
o Determine course success rate: the percent passing compared to other DSPM 0800 classes during the same and/or past semesters.
o Ascertain course retention: the number and percentage of students who completed the course during the same and/or past semesters.
During the month of October, Owens and Knight constructed a scoring rubric for the pre-test. They reviewed the course outcomes and identified 25 questions from a past DSPM 0800 final examination that would measure competence of 8 of the 9 course outcomes.
Course
Outcomes
The student will develop and demonstrate the
ability to:
1.
Verbally,
numerically, graphically, and symbolically represent functions.
2.
Graph,
analyze, and solve linear equations using multiple approaches.
3.
Graph
and solve linear inequalities.
4.
Solve
absolute value equations.
5.
Perform
basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of
polynomials.
6.
Solve a system
of linear equations in two variables graphically.
7.
Factor
polynomials.
8.
Solve
real world problems integrated throughout the course.
9.
Use
calculators and computers in learning and doing mathematics.
Owens and Knight decided not to specifically
address Outcome 9 since it could be effectively evaluated in other course
outcomes. They discussed at length a
working definition of “competency.” A
student will be designated as competent in a course outcome if he or she
correctly answers a minimum of 75% of the problems tied to that outcome. Because some of the outcomes were measured by
less than four questions, a student might have to answer all of the problems
correctly to be designated as competent.
A rubric describing the assignment of test items to course outcome
follows. Also included is the number of
items a student needs to correctly answer to be deemed competent in the
particular objective.
Course
Outcome
|
# of items (competence) |
Problem
# on the instrument
|
|
CO1 (functions) |
4 (3) |
2, 4, 6, 10b |
|
CO2 (graph, solve = ) |
6 (5) |
5, 8, 9, 11, 12b, 13 |
|
CO3 (graph solve <) |
3 (3) |
12a, 12c, 14 |
|
CO4 (solve | | = ) |
1 (1) |
12d |
|
CO5 (Poly operations) |
4 (3) |
1, 17a, 17b, 17c |
|
CO6 (systems) |
2 (2) |
15, 16 |
|
CO7 (factor) |
2 (2) |
18a, 18b |
|
CO8 (Applications) |
3 (3) |
3, 7, 10a |
To be deemed competent in the course, the student must be found competent in Course Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8. These objectives were identified as critical to the understanding of the course material. Twenty questions addressed the critical objectives and comprised 80% of the 25 questions.
In November 2006, discussion turned to the refinement of the pilot study. Outcomes assessment and data analysis would be practiced in targeted courses in Spring 2007. This data would provide baseline data for the pilot study to be implemented in Fall 2007.
The experimental
procedure was outlined. During Fall
semester 2007, four classes will be selected for the pilot study. They will be taught by Owens and Knight, and
each will have a treatment and control group.
All four classes will receive the 25-item pre-test and the 50-item post-test. The treatment groups will receive instruction
appropriate to the learning styles present in each class; the instructors will
use a diversity of teaching styles to try to reach as many learning styles as
possible without compromising the content or slowing the pace of the course. The control groups will be taught in the
historically typical lecture/group work format.
The larger QEP Development Committee determined that the Learning Styles
Inventory created by Richard M. Felder and Barbara A. Soloman from
In mid-January
2007, a meeting was held to review the activities of the Outcomes Team over the
past few months in preparation for writing the QEP report. Data from past semesters of DSPM 0800 was
requested from the Division Dean, and retention data was requested from
Owens and Knight reviewed the DSPM 0800 student final examinations from the Fall 2006 classes. To gain information about the reliability and validity of the pre-test, Owens and Knight administered the 25-item test to 5 sections of DSPM 0800 during the second week of class, Spring 2007[WSCC4] .
During the next few weeks, the evaluation criteria for the pilot study were reviewed and refined. The criteria include the following:
Student Competency
Student competency
of the outcomes will be verified by a comparison of the pre- and post-test
scores. Based on the findings of the QEP
project at
Course Success Rate
We expect to see at least 60% of the students in the treatment groups pass the course. The course pass rate will be compared with the course pass rate for the past two years (when the textbook was changed to the current edition). The pass rate in Fall 2005 was 53%. The pass rate in Fall 2006 was 57%.
Course
Retention
We expect to see an increase in the percentage of students in treatment groups who complete the course. In Fall 2005, 553 students began the course, 183 students failed, and 75 students withdrew during the semester. The course retention rate was 53%. In Fall 2006, 436 students began the course, 155 students failed, and 65 students withdrew. The course retention rate was 49%.
Currently, there is no mechanism in place to track students from DSPM 0800 to DSPM 0850. This can be accomplished by requesting that the information be collected by the Institutional and Educational Technology department. The current student tracking system, however, will be replaced throughout the Tennessee Board of Regents colleges by the Banner System prior to the start of the Fall 2007 semester, which may present challenges in terms of seamlessly implementing the technology of the QEP data.
The
Use of the Learning Lab
All students will be encouraged to utilize the Math Learning Lab on their own, and the students also will go to the Math Learning Lab as a regularly scheduled class activity. Tutors will keep a copy of the treatment group students’ learning styles so that they may tailor their tutoring to the individual student. Control group students will be tutored without consideration of their learning style. Learning Lab tutors will keep a record of all student interactions.
Engagement Measurement
The Engagement team, led by Mr. Charlie Williams, has determined a course of action for the measurement of engagement in each QEP classroom. Inherent to the plan is the belief that students’ increased awareness of learning styles will be motivation in and of itself—knowing oneself is valuable insight. It is also the expectation of the team that when faculty direct their attention and their presentation of materials and activities to students’ specific learning styles, those students will both feel more engaged with the material, classroom, and teacher and will demonstrate explicit signs of engagement, including increased participation in activities, question-asking, and general interest.
Before each new discipline enters the QEP implementation, it will administer measures of student engagement in order to gather baseline data. The CCSSE will be administered to all classes each spring, and the shortened version the CCSSE will be administered to fall QEP classes and those classes which will enter the QEP implementation the following semester. Results from these CCSSEE assessments will be used to gauge current engagement and to set baseline goals for increased engagement in each class.
In addition to the formal CCSSE, instructors in each class will measure engagement periodically based upon what they as instructors have agreed upon with their academic departments defines “engagement” in their particular discipline. They will discuss and decide how engagement is displayed to the teacher and perceived by the student in that discipline, and that academic department will design a qualitative measure of engagement to be used throughout the course as a way for the instructor to know a general engagement level of his or her students and be able to adjust teaching methods accordingly. Assessment questions may range from participation in group activities to individual initiation of contact to attendance practices; however, part of this assessment must include questions concerning whether or not the students feel that their level of engagement is influencing their mastery of course outcomes. As current research shows, students’ perceptions of their own engagement with course material and instructors can have a direct impact on students’ performance on measures of course competencies.
Assessment in QEP
Expansion Classes
By the fall semester 2008, the instructors of 70% of all DSPM sections (DSPM 0700, 0800, 0850, and 0870) should be participating in the QEP project by incorporating an awareness of student learning styles into their courses. DSPM 0700 is Basic Mathematics, a pre-algebra course which includes problem solving with fractions, percents, proportions, integers, geometry, variables, simple linear equations, tables and graphs. DSMP 0850 is Intermediate Algebra which includes problem solving with polynomial, quadratic, rational, and radical functions. DSPM 0870 is a combination of DSPM 0800 and DSMP 0850. The same pre-test/post-test study design utilized in the pilot study will be used to collect data. Data collection will include determination of the student’s learning style, student use of the Math Learning Lab, student competency of course outcomes, course success rate, and course retention rate.
By the fall semester 2009, 70% of all developmental classes should be participating in the QEP learning styles project, working to increase and assess engagement and improve writing and mathematics competencies. The specific design of this participation is dependent upon substantive changes to curriculum and assessment due to the Tennessee Board of Regents Remedial and Developmental Redesign mandate. Once the redesign has taken place, then the QEP team will evaluate which components of the current QEP design are applicable and will work with the developmental coordinators and instructors to implement the QEP in the classes. In these meetings, discipline-specific plans will be outlined, and then these plans will be further developed by instructors during the Summer 2009 QEP Institute.
At this time, the developmental classes include the developmental mathematics classes described above plus DSPS 0800 Learning Strategies, as well as the developmental reading and writing classes, including DSPR 0700 Basic Reading, DSPR 0800 Developmental Reading, DSPW 0700 Basic Writing, and DSPW 0800 Developmental Writing.
Data collection will include determination of the student’s learning style, student use of the Math Learning Lab and Writing Tutor, student competency of course outcomes, course success rate, course retention rate, and periodic informal (instructor/department designed) as well as formal (CCSSE) engagement assessments.
By the fall semester 2010, 70% of all General Education courses will be incorporating QEP study design, interventions, and methods of evaluation. In order to determine which components of the QEP study design will apply, the QEP team will analyze results of the pilot classes and the developmental classes. This analysis will show common elements that can span the curriculum, teaching, and assessment methods of all General Education and which elements were specific to previous classes but will not be applicable to General Education. The QEP Development Committee will meet with the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Chief General Education Officer, the deans, and the instructors involved with General Education to plan for the application of the QEP to specific General Education disciplines. In these meetings, discipline-specific plans will be outlined, and then these plans will be further developed by instructors during the Summer 2010 QEP Institute. Each discipline entering the QEP implementation will detail outcomes measurements and use of results of measurements in a similar manner to the way that has been done for the developmental mathematics pilot courses. See the Walters State Catalog (2006-2007), p. 51, for a listing of Walters State General Education core requirements.
By the fall semester
2011, 70% of all courses listed in the
Chapter Six: Faculty Development
Many studies have pointed to faculty development as a key focus for the successful understanding of teaching styles and their application to learning styles inventories (Boylan, 2002). Examples of best practices used to address learning styles include effective teaching seminars where faculty design and implement their own format (Boylan, 2002); this is the type of seminar that the QEP Summer Institute will offer each summer to each discipline entering QEP implementation.
Ms. Janice Donahue was Faculty Development Team leader until May 2007. In August 2007, Mr. Darrel McGhee, assistant professor of history, will take Ms. Donahue’s place and will carry forward the faculty development plans for 2007-2012 along with the QEP Summer Institute that will begin in the summer of 2008.
The charge of the Faculty Development Team is to plan in-house and external faculty development opportunities in the area of teaching, learning, engagement, and assessment as these topics relate to individual learning styles. Faculty development opportunities will initially focus primarily on the two pilot instructors and will extend to the remaining faculty as other units of the college are incorporated into the QEP process. These opportunities will take place before and during the academic semesters as well as during the summer institute; in addition, the team will provide external conference and workshop opportunities as well as print and online resources.
With the support of the Walters State Library, a
With the support of the Department of Information and Educational
Technologies and in coordination with the Outcomes, Engagement, and Literature
Review Teams, the Faculty Development Team identified electronic resources to
post on the
The QEP pilot instructors have engaged in training and workshops
related to their discipline and the QEP initiative[WSCC7] . They have also studied websites,
articles, and books related to addressing diverse learning styles in the classroom. One greatly anticipated faculty development
opportunity[WSCC8] is a workshop partnership with
In Spring 2008, the Faculty Development Team will support the QEP Implementation Committee by participating in the analysis of the pilot course data and helping prepare the draft document to address the SACS recommendations. The team will identify for the developmental math faculty opportunities to attend in-house and off-site training, online courses, and workshops they identify as germane to learning styles, student engagement, outcomes assessment, and mathematics[WSCC9] . The Faculty Development Team also will plan the WSCC Learning Styles Summer Institute to begin during the summer of 2008. The institute will be an opportunity for faculty to receive concentrated in-house training in learning styles, student engagement, and outcomes assessment. The 2008 Institute will be open to the faculty-at-large; however, it will focus specifically on the needs of developmental math faculty and the experience and data analysis results developed by the pilot course instructors. The goal is to incorporate approximately 40 sections or 70% of the developmental math courses into the QEP process during Fall 2008 and Spring 2009. Planning will include identifying criteria for participation, delineating institute content and speakers, identifying a “common text” for distribution to and use by all institute participants, and locating other printed and online resources that will be used to conduct and support the institute.
During Spring 2009, the Faculty Development Team will facilitate
internal and external training opportunities for all developmental education
instructors. In accordance with the TBR
system,
In Spring 2010, the Faculty Development Team will support the QEP Implementation Committee by participating in the analysis of QEP data. Additionally, the Faculty Development Team will facilitate internal and external training opportunities for all General Education instructors. Planning for a third summer institute will take place in the spring. In anticipation of larger numbers of participants, the number of sessions will increase, and the content will change to reflect the educational and planning needs of the General Education faculty and their various disciplines. The expectation is that academic deans will attend the institute along with their faculty. Again, the institute will rely heavily on the expertise and recommendations of our experienced QEP faculty as well as outside consultants. Following the third summer institute, the goal is to incorporate approximately 140 sections or 70% of all General Education course sections into the QEP process Fall 2010 and Spring 2011.
In Spring 2011, the Faculty Development Team will support the QEP Implementation
Committee by participating in further analysis of the QEP data. Additionally,
the Faculty Development Team will facilitate internal and external training
opportunities for all General Education instructors[WSCC10] .
Planning for a fourth summer institute will take place in the spring. Again, the institute will rely heavily on the
expertise and recommendations of our experienced QEP faculty and outside
consultants. Following the fourth summer
institute, the goal is to incorporate approximately 70% of all
Chapter Seven: Institutional Capability for Initiation and
Continuation of the QEP
Narrative
1.
2.
Other
qualified individuals include the QEP Implementation Committee leaders:
Faculty
Development: Mr. Darrel McGhee, Assistant Professor of
History. Mr. McGhee has strong
interpersonal and organization skills as well as a deep-seated interest in
faculty development. Marketing: Mr. Joe Fall, Ed.S., Associate Professor of
Business and Department Head, Hospitality Business. Mr. Fall has an extensive background in
management and promotion with several hotels and restaurants in the Northeast
and Southeast. Outcomes/Engagement
Assessment: Dr. Elizabeth Dobbins, Associate
Professor of Nursing, and Mr. Charlie Williams, Associate Professor, EMT. Dr. Dobbins’ interest is assessment, and she
contains particular understanding of outcomes assessment. Mr. Williams recently completed his Master’s
degree; his thesis focused student engagement and the use of learning styles in
the classroom. He also has conducted
several learning styles workshops for
3.
The additional budget for QEP will not be a
burden on the college. In Fiscal Year 2006, the college received student
tuition revenues net of scholarship allowances in the amount of $7,557,172 and
state appropriations in the amount of $16,999,100. At 2006 fiscal year end, the college’s
current assets were $8,421,067, and current liabilities were $4,831,854. The
college increased its net assets in this period by $4,424,980.
As the QEP develops, adjustments can be made in
the October 2007 revised budget and in future budgets to ensure the program’s
objectives are met. The Walters State Business Office, as part of its duties
for the college, will provide reports of expenditures and monitor available
budget amounts through out the fiscal year.
The QEP Development Committee anticipates
various physical and human resources needs to implement and sustain the
QEP. The Math Learning Lab has been
relocated from
As the QEP is implemented across disciplines and
across
4.
5.
Budget
|
|
|
|
|
‘07-’08 |
‘08-’09 |
‘09-’10 |
‘10-’11 |
‘11-’12 |
5-Year Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Conferences/Seminars |
$2,000 |
$4,000 |
$6,000 |
$10,000 |
$3,000 |
$25,000 |
||
|
|
Summer Institute |
|
$1,000 |
$2,000 |
$3,000 |
$5,000 |
$2,000 |
$13,000 |
|
|
|
Books/Resources |
|
$500 |
$1000 |
$1000 |
$2,000 |
$500 |
$5,000 |
|
|
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CCSSE |
|
|
$10,800 |
$10,800 |
$10,800 |
$10,800 |
$10,800 |
$54,000 |
|
Marketing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall 2007 Rollout |
|
$15,000 |
|
|
|
|
$15,000 |
|
|
|
QEP Awareness/Promotion |
|
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$12,000 |
||
|
|
Printing |
|
|
$1,500 |
$1,500 |
$1,500 |
$1,500 |
$1,500 |
$7,500 |
|
Tutoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peer Tutors for Math/Writing Lab |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
$20,000 |
||
|
Printing, Postage, Supplies |
|
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
$6,000 |
||
|
Travel |
|
|
|
$500 |
$500 |
$500 |
$500 |
$500 |
$2500 |
|
QEP Director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 class release for FT Faculty |
$2,000 |
$2,000 |
$2,000 |
$2,000 |
$2,000 |
$10,000 |
||
|
|
+ $2,000 stipend |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total |
|
|
|
$38,500 |
$30,00 |
$33,000 |
$40,000 |
$26,500 |
$170,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$50,600 |
$33,000 |
$34,500 |
$45,000 |
$28,500 |
$191,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The
2007-2008 budget has been approved, and the monies have been allotted to the
QEP account. The budget for the
remaining years must be submitted and approved each fiscal year; therefore,
they are projections only.
Conclusion
The QEP literature
review indicated that many studies have shown a correlation between recognition
of teaching and learning styles, implementation of diverse modes of delivery,
and improved outcomes in terms of student learning and engagement. For its Quality Enhancement Plan,
QEP committee members were divided into the areas of focus encompassing specific tasks related to the implementation of the plan. Marketing communicates and promotes QEP concepts throughout the academic community. Faculty Development provides opportunities for training in the areas of teaching/learning styles and assessment. Outcomes Assessment identifies expected academic outcomes and assessment methods. Engagement Assessment seeks ways to define, improve, and measure student engagement. Institutional Capability developed a five-year budget and examined how the college could sustain the QEP’s fiscal and physical resource needs. Literature Review located respected and timely scholarship in the QEP areas of focus. Each of these teams projected markers and goals for the next five years, and each team contributed to articulating the plan, detailing short-term and long-term goals in each area.
Baseline
assessments in the developmental math classes were implemented in Spring 2007,
and the pilot courses are scheduled for Fall 2007, with incremental increases
each year until the plan is incorporated into 70% of all courses at
References
Acharya, C. (2002, September). Students’
learning styles and their implications for teachers. CDTL Brief, 5(6),
1-8. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
http://www.cdtl.nus.edu/brief/Pdf/v5n6.pdf.
The American Mathematical Association of Two Year Colleges (AMTYC). (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing mathematics standards in the first two years of college. Retrieved December 26, 2006, from http://www.bc.amatyc.org/doc/CH4.html.
American
Association of
Ballone,
L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001, December). Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 6(2), 44. Retrieved October 31, 2005, from the ERIC database
[463146].
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage.
Banta,
T. (2002). Building a scholarship of
assessment.
Banta,
T. (1992). Making a difference: Outcomes
of a decade of assessment in higher education.
Beck, C. (2001, Summer). Matching teaching strategies to learning style preferences. The Teacher Educaton., 37(1), 26. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Bill, J. A. (1998, Summer). Problems in
statistics: Learning style, age, and part-time students. Education, 118(4),
526-528. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
Expanded Academic ASAP database.
Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991,
September). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1
(ERIC Digest ED 340272). Retrieved May
20, 2006, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-4/active.htm.
Bowen,
S. (2005, Winter). Engaged learning: Are we all on the same page? Peer
Review, 7(2), 4-7, Article 827165091. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Boylan,
H. R. (2003). What works: Research-based
best practices in developmental education.
Burns, D. E., Johnson, S. E., &
Gable, R. K. (1998, May-June). Can we generalize about the learning style
characteristics of high academic achievers? Roeper Review, 20(4),
276-281. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
Caram, C. A., & Davis, P. B. (2005, Fall). Inviting student engagement with questioning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(1), 18-23. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Chen,
P., & McGrath, D. (2003, Spring). Moments of joy: Student engagement and
conceptual learning in the design of hypermedia documents. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 402-422. Retrieved October 3, 2005,
from ProQuest database.
Commission on Colleges. (2006). The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement.
Community
College Survey of Student Engagement. (CCSSE). (2005). Engaging the students, challenging the odds.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CSSEE). (2006). Act on fact: using data to improve student success.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (March 4, 2002). Student learning outcomes workshop. CHEA Chronicle, 5(2). Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http://www.chea.org/Chronicle/vol5/no2/Chron-vol5-no2.pdf.
Cross, D. S., & Tilson, E. R. (1997,
September-October). Tools to assess students’ learning styles. Radiologic
Technology, 69(1), 89-92. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from Expanded Academic
ASAP database.
Cruce, T. M., Wolnick, G., Seifert, T. A.
& Pascarella, E. T. (2006). Impacts
of good practices on cognitive development learning orientations, and graduate
degree plans during the first year of college.
Journal of College Student
Development, 47(4), p. 365.
Retrieved October 4, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Dembo,
M.H. (2004). Motivation and Learning Strategies for College Success: A
Self-Management Approach (2nd ed.)
Dodds, R. A. (2004, December). Learning
style appropriate study methods the benefits of awareness. Atlantic Economic
Journal, 32(4), 335. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from InfoTrac database.
Drew, C.P. (1990). Are You Spoon-Feeding Your Students? A Paper on Facilitating a Collaborative Learning Experience. 15 May 1990. Eric Digest [ED324046]. Retrieved November 14, 2006, from CSA database.
Dunn,
R. &
Ebeling, D. G. (2000, November).
Classroom practice - Adapting your teaching to any learning style. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(3), 247. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP
database.
Fairchild, E. E. (2003,
Summer). Multiple Roles of Adult Learners.
New Directions for
Student Services, 102, 11.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. Index of learning styles. NC University. http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.htmlForrest, S. (2004, March-April). Learning and teaching: The reciprocal link. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 35(2), 74-89. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from ProQuest database.
Fritz, M. (2002, Spring). Using learning
styles inventories to promote active learning. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 32(2), 183-188. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from InfoTrac
database.
Hayes, A. (1996,
April). Assisting Adult Students on
Award-Bearing Courses: Some Issues and Strategies. Adults Learning, 7(8), 192.
Howell,
C.L. (2001). Facilitating Responsibility for Learning in
Honigsfeld, A. & Dunn, R. (2006). Learning-style characteristics of adult learners. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 14-31.
Houston,
L. (1997). Knowing learning styles can improve self-confidence of developmental
writers. Teaching English in the
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004,
September). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement
and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273. Retrieved
October 3, 2005, from Expanded Academic ASAP database.
Kuh, G. S., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T, Shoup,
R, & Gonyea, R. M. (2007). Connecting the dots: Multifaceted analyses of
the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE, and the
institutional practices and conditions that foster student success. (Report prepared
for the Lumina Foundation for Education) Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/connecting_the_dots report.pdf.
Kuh, G. S., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H.,
& Whitt, E. J. (2005a). Assessing
conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student
engagement and success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. S., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H.,
& Whitt, E. J. et al. (2005b). Student
success in college creating the conditions that matter.
Lederman, D. (2006). “Engagement” and the underprepared. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/01/engage.
Lucas, U., & Myers, J. (2004, November). Supporting Student Awareness: Understanding Student Preconceptions of Their Subject Matter Within Introductory Courses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 459-471.
Manzo,
K. (2006). Survey Offers Options for At-Risk Students. Community College
Week, 18(11/12), 4-13. Retrieved Tuesday, February 27, 2007 from the
Academic Search Premier database.
Marques, J.F. (2005, August). Best Practices in Adult Advising: A Team Conclusion. Advisor, 19(8), 4-5.
Miglietti, C.L., & Strange, C.C.
(1998, Summer). Learning styles, classroom environments preferences,
teaching styles, and remedial course outcomes for underprepared adults at a
two-year
Morrison, J. L., Rha, J., & Helfman,
A. (2003, September-October). Learning awareness, student engagement, and
change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education for
Business, 79(1), 11-17. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from Expanded Academic
ASAP database.
Pascerella,
E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college
affects students: A third decade of research.
Rochford, R. (2003). Assessing learning styles to improve the quality of performance of community college students in developmental writing programs: A pilot study. Journal of Community College Research and Practice, 27, 665-677.
Rouseff-Baker, F. & Holm, A. (2004). Engaging faculty and students in classrooms: Assessment of learning. New Directions for Community Colleges, 126, 28-42.
Sayles, S., &
Schilling, K.M., & Schilling, K. (1999, May). Increasing Expectation for Student Effort. About Campus, 4(2), 4.
Silver, H., Strong, R., & Perini, M. (1997, September). Integrating learning styles and multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 22-27. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from InfoTrac database.
Swail, W. S. (2006). Part 1: Barriers to student retention and success on college campuses. Student Success A Publication of the Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://ww.studentsuccessretention.org 20063/feature.html.
Triesman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372.
Vaiie,
A., Cabanach, R., Gonzalez-pienda, J., & Pineiro,
VanSciver, J.H. (2005, March). Motherhood, apple pie, and differentiated instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 534-35.
Walters State Community College 2006-2007
College Catalog and Student Handbook.
Walters State Community College Faculty
Focus Group Report (2005).
Walters State Community College Student
Focus Group Comments (2005).
What we’re learning about student
engagement from NSSE [National Survey of Student Engagement]: Benchmarks for
effective educational practices. (2003, March-April). Change, 35(2),
24-32. Retrieved October 3, 2005, from
InfoTrac database.
Willms, J. D. (2000). Student
engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Retrieved
October 3, 2005, from http://www.pisa.ocd.org/dataoecd/42/35/33689437.pdf.
Appendices
Appendix
1
Appendix 2
|
Walters State Community College
Student Focus Group Comments |
|
Technology |
|
Teachers
should utilize |
|
We need
more hands on
technology courses - how to do excel spreadsheets instead of bits and bytes. |
|
Computer
access is very good at WSCC. The
library has done well with the labs. |
|
More
orientation of the services offered at the library such as on-line research. |
|
Computers
in the science building are slow and need to be replaced. |
|
Some
classrooms need to be updated - power point and smart classrooms. |
|
|
|
Mandatory
computer class not relevant.
Proficiency exam does not accurately measure what we need to
know. It only asks terms rather than
what we need to know such as using programs, functions, how to make a power
point presentation. Need more practical
applications. |
|
Computer
competency exam very hard - not realistic. |
|
|
|
Standardization of Course Work/Teacher Expectations |
|
Course
material/teachers expectations should be standardized. |
|
We need
timely reporting of progress/grades - sometimes it’s a couple of weeks before
we get tests returned. |
|
Course
outlines and hand-outs are very helpful to students. |
|
Instructors
should follow same grading scale. We
should know upfront what expectations are -
its confusing -clarify grades. |
|
Don’t know what instructors are looking for. |
|
We need to
be informed at all times of our status, grade wise. Don’t know what teacher is looking for. |
|
All gen ed
classes need to be standardized. |
|
Make sure
all required classes are really needed. |
|
Evaluate
all teachers and courses and get feed back.
WSCC should follow up on evaluations. |
|
|
|
Preparation
for College |
|
Need better math skills - our learning is crippled
if we do not have a good foundation. |
|
Not well prepared for college math. |
|
Need
better note taking and study skills- teachers talk too fast. |
|
ACT is a
guessing test - should not be the only determinate of which classes placed
in… math etc. |
|
Different
work ethic at college. |
|
College
weeds out those that do not want to be here. |
|
Better
preparation on series classes like Comp 1, Comp 2. |
|
|
|
Attendance/Behavior
Policy |
|
Attendance
policy should be the same in all classes. |
|
Excused
absences - sickness - should be allowed. |
|
Some
students are very disruptive in class.
They are rowdy, talking on cell phones etc…. especially in |
|
gen ed
classes. |
|
Student/Teacher
Motivation |
|
Student motivation is an issue. |
|
Better teacher engagement - teachers should show
enthusiasm - you can tell which teachers love to |
|
teach
and those who are just going through the motions. |
|
We need
instructors who care about the students progress. If the teacher does not care, it makes us
not care. |
|
Its
important that we form relationships with our instructors. |
|
Instructors should focus on students - better relationships with
instructors. |
|
Instructors
need to relay to students that they are capable. This will build confidence. |
|
We need
enthusiastic teaching. |
|
More
motivated enthusiastic teachers. |
|
Teachers
late to class sometimes. |
|
|
|
Life
Issues |
|
Children
and family responsibilities get in the way.
Its hard to go to school with children. |
|
Preschool
program was very good for students with children. |
|
Our jobs
get in the way - but some of us must work.
Employers do not care about our school work. Some of the teachers are sympathetic;
others are not. |
|
Need to
re-open the daycare. We need snow days
& vacation service. Drop-ins would
be great. |
|
Childcare
needed at WSCC. |
|
We need
the preschool brought back. |
|
Want the
preschool brought back. |
|
|
|
Time/Stress
Management |
|
We need
time management skills-there are just not enough hours in the day. |
|
Maybe a
time management class- we need the structure to help us learn. |
|
We need study skills training. |
|
Freshman
Experience not effective for everyone. |
|
Stress is
an issue for many of us. We need maybe
a stress management class or support classes. |
|
We need
time management, stress management and study skills help. |
|
Students
are unaware of many existing programs |
|
Contact
students who request help, target help and then follow-up. |
|
Better
time management skills. |
|
Access |
|
Need more
access for library services. |
|
Library
should be open later in the evening for evening students and open on the
weekends. |
|
Need
additional access to computers in more places. Library lab not open late. |
|
More
flexibility in course offerings - some courses are only offered during
certain semesters- especially sequence courses. |
|
Need more
activity classes such as PE during the day.
Many are only offered at night. |
|
Library
should be open late and early. Also
open on weekends. |
|
Computer
labs need to be open at different times and longer hours. |
|
|
|
Advising/Counseling |
|
We need
better advising. The records
department is helpful, but we need ongoing help. |
|
We need
better career planning & counseling services. Not just coming in, but all
the way through graduation. |
|
Advising
could be improved. Some advisors are
uninterested. |
|
We need
advice on classes, transfers etc. Advisors should show concern for students. |
|
Bad
advising can impede learning because students get frustrated and are less
focused. They don’t care and quit
trying. |
|
|
|
Learning/Teaching
styles |
|
We need
more hands on
technology courses - how to do excel spreadsheets instead of bits and bytes. |
|
We need to
know the relevance of gen ed courses.
If we talk about ways
of using the skills, we may be more interested. |
|
Relevance
of courses- How would I use this knowledge? |
|
We have different learning styles. We need different methods of teaching. |
|
Job
shadowing and field trips would be helpful.
More hands on
experience. |
|
One
student may not like power points (spoon feeding)- They may just not be engaged. |
|
Presenting material in different ways makes it more interesting. |
|
Active learning - Let students take a chapter to teach. |
|
Group
projects help us to see other’s perceptions. |
|
Some
teachers like debates in classrooms, others do not. |
|
Teachers
can engage students
more by asking questions in class, rather than just lecturing. |
|
Teachers
who only read information are not enjoyed.
They do not discuss other perceptions. |
|
Some
teachers encourage questions, but then get real defensive when you ask
one. Embarrassing to students. |
|
We like
atmospheres where each person’s opinion is respected. |
|
Smaller
classes - more one on one attention. |
|
|
|
Other |
|
We would
like student ID cards. Willing to pay
for them. We could get discounts at
many places if we show our student IDs.
Sometimes free admission to Dollywood.
We are missing out. |
Appendix 3
Research
No. 1106-03
Institutional
Research
Update
REPORT NAME: Community
College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) 2006 Results
REPORT DATE: November
20, 2006
RESEARCH FOCUS: Enrolled Students’ perceptions of college programs and services; faculty
perceptions’ of students and programs
MISSION/PLAN RELEVANCE: Strategic Plan Goal 1.1.3, Strategic Plan Goal 3.1.1,
Strategic Plan Goal 3.1.4, Strategic Plan Goal 3.1.5,
Performance Funding Standard 2,
USE OF RESEARCH RESULTS: Providing evidence to support changes and improvements
in WSCC’s programs and services
OFFICE(S) COORDINATING RESEARCH: Office of Planning, Research and Assessment
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Debbie Scott (extension 6844) debbie.scott@ws.edu
OFFICE OF PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND
ASSESSMENT
Executive Summary
The 2006 Community College Survey of
Student Engagement (CCSSE)
Introduction
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
provides information about effective educational practice in community colleges
and assists institutions in using that information to promote improvements in
student learning and persistence. CCSSE’s goal is to provide member
colleges with results that can be used to inform decision making and target
institutional improvements. Student engagement, or the amount of time
and energy that students invest in meaningful educational practices, is the
underlying foundation for CCSSE’s work. CCSSE’s survey
instrument, the Community College Student Report (CCSR), is designed to
capture student engagement as a measure of institutional quality. CCSSE is the
Enrolled Student Survey that will be scored for Performance Funding during the
2005-2010 cycle. WSCC will administer the survey again in Academic Year
2008-2009.
CCSSE Member Colleges
Beginning this year, CCSSE will utilize a 3-year
cohort of participating colleges (2004 through 2006) in all of its data
analyses[1],
including the computation of benchmark scores. This cohort is referred to as
the 2006 CCSSE Cohort. This new approach increases the total number of
institutions and students contributing to the national dataset, which in turn
increases the reliability of the overall results. In addition, the 3-year
cohort approach minimizes the impact, in any given year, of statewide consortia
participation.
The 2006 CCSSE Cohort is comprised of a total of 447
institutions across 46 states participating between 2004 and 2006. Two hundred
forty-seven of these member colleges are classified as small (< 4,500), 105
as medium (4,500-7,999), 57 as large (8,000-14,999), and 38 as extra-large
institutions (15,000 + credit students).[2]
One hundred nineteen of the Cohort member colleges are located in urban areas,
119 in suburban areas, and 209 in rural areas.
Student Respondents
Credit classes were randomly selected – stratified by time
of day (morning, afternoon, and evening) – from institutional class data files
to participate in the survey. Of those sampled at our institution, 802 students
submitted usable surveys. The number of completed surveys produced an overall “percent
of target” rate of 94%. Percent of target rate is the ratio of the adjusted
number of completed surveys to target sample sizes. (The adjusted survey count
is the number of surveys that were filled out properly and did not fall into
any of the exclusionary categories.3)
2006 Student Respondent Profile
To compare the characteristics of student respondents with
the characteristics of the underlying student population for each participating
college, CCSSE uses the data reported by the institution in its most
recent IPEDS Enrollment Report for the following variables: gender, race and
ethnicity, student age, and enrollment status (part- or full-time). The data
are aggregated to compare the 2006 CCSSE Cohort survey respondent
population to the total student population of the 2006 CCSSE Cohort
member colleges.
Gender (survey item #30) - Of the 797 student respondents at our
college who answered this item, 36% are male and 64% are female. This mirrors
the full population of the CCSSE Cohort community college students,
comprised of 41% males and 59% females.
Age (survey item #29) - 2006 CCSSE student respondents at
WSCC range in age from 18 to 65+ years old. Approximately 91% are between 18 to
39 years old; 66% are 18 to 24 years old while 25% are 25 to 39 years old.
Racial Identification (survey item #34) - 90 percent of student respondents identify
themselves as White/non-Hispanic, 1% as Hispanic/Latino/Spanish, 3% as Black or
African American, and 1% as Asian. 1 percent of the student respondents are Native
American. Two percent marked “other” when responding to the question, “What is
your racial identification?”
International Students (survey item #33) - 2 percent of our students responded yes
to the question, “Are you an international student or foreign national?”
Enrollment Status (survey item #2) – 77 percent of the student respondents at
WSCC report attending college full-time, while 39% of the 2006 CCSSE Cohort
colleges’ total student population attended full-time. Only 23% of surveyed
students report being part-time college students, compared to 61% as reported
to IPEDS. This inverse representation is a result of the sampling technique and
the in-class administration process. For this reason, survey 3 If a student
does not answer any of the 21 sub-items on item 4, answers “Very Often” to all
21 items, or answers “Never” to all, the survey is excluded. .
Results are either weighted or disaggregated on the
full-time/part-time variable so that reports will accurately reflect the
underlying student population.
Complete Report
The complete report is posted on
Community College Faculty Survey of
Student Engagement (CCFSSE)
The faculty teaching the courses selected for CCSSE participated
in the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE). The
resulting report enables participating institutions to view faculty
expectations and perceptions of student engagement alongside student responses.
It is important to note that the side-by-side tables, while illustrative, are
not entirely equivalent – that is, the CCSSE asked students to report
perceptions and experiences across the period of the current academic year. Faculty, in contrast, were asked to describe
their practices in a specific selected course, as well as to indicate their
perceptions of student experiences in the college more generally. These statistics represent
• 53% female; 47% male
• 89% Caucasian, 5% African-American, 4% other, 2%
Asian/Asian-American, Pacific Islander
• 65% full-time; 35% part-time
• 32% instructor/lecturer; 30% associate professor; 20%
assistant professor; 9% professor; 7% other
Complete faculty data may be found on the on
Highlights of Faculty and Student
Responses
• 47% of faculty and 19% of students say the students receive
prompt feedback (written or oral) from the faculty about their performance
• 11% of faculty reported that students have never skipped
class; 55% of students reported they have skipped class
• 58% of faculty report it is important that students
participate in internships, field experiences, co-op experiences, or clinical
assignment; 19% of students report they have participated
• 68% of faculty report it is important that students
participate in developmental/remedial reading classes; 24% of students have participated
• 61% of faculty report it is important that students
participate in study skills courses; 29% of students have participated
• 53% of faculty and 29% of students felt WSCC very much
emphasizes providing students the support they need to help them succeed at the
college
• 4% of faculty and 39% of students felt WSCC emphasizes
helping students cope with their non-academic responsibilities (work, family,
etc)
• 54% of faculty thought that students worked 21 to 30
hours per week; in reality, only 16% of students work these hours, and 44% of
students actually work more than 30 hours per week
• 77% of faculty thought that students spent 1-5 hours per
week participating in college-sponsored activities (organizations, campus publications,
student government, intercollegiate or intramural sports, etc.); 79% of
students reported they spent no hours in these activities
• A majority of both faculty (82%) and students (65%) felt
that academic advising/planning is important to students
• A majority of both faculty (68%) and students (54%) felt
that career counseling is important to students
• A majority of both faculty (74%) and students (45%) felt
that skills labs (writing, math, etc.) are important to students
• A majority of both faculty (79%) and students (67%) felt
that computer labs are important to students
Appendix 4
Appendix
5
Appendix 6
2006
Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP) Report
Appendix
7
Appendix
8
(First 17 Questions of Questionnaire—Total 43 Questions)
|