Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Periodic Review Report
Presented by:
Bronx Community College
of the City University of New York
June 1, 2014
Chief Executive Officer:
Dr. Carole M. Berotte Joseph
President
Commission Action which preceded this report:
Reaccreditation, 2009
Date of Most Recent Decennial Evaluation Team’s Visit March, 2009
2
Chapter 1: Executive Summary Institutional Overview Preparation of the Periodic Review Report Summary of Major Institutional Changes Highlights of the Periodic Review Report Addenda to the Report Chapter 2: Summary of Institution’s Response to Recommendations from the Previous Evaluation and
to the Commission Actions Chapter 3: Major Challenges and Opportunities Chapter 4: Enrollment and Finance Trends and Projections Chapter 5: Organized and Sustained Processes to Assess Institutional Effectiveness and Student
Learning Chapter 6: Linked Institutional Planning and Budgeting Processes
Tables
Table 1: Course Assessments by Academic Department Table 2: General Education Course Assessment by Academic Department Table 3: One‐Semester Student Outcomes for Students in FYS Course Based on Implementation
Fidelity of Course Sections in Fall 2012 Table 4: Comparative One‐Year Academic Outcomes for Fall 2012 Entering Freshmen Table 5: Samples of Faculty Scholarship of Teaching Table 6: Post‐graduate Outcomes for BCC Students are Comparatively Strong Table 7: Performance Trends in History and Biology Courses at BCC Table 8: BCC’s 1‐year Retention Rate and 4‐yr Graduation Rate Table 9: Overarching Strategic Objectives with Corresponding Theories of Action Table 10: Bronx Community College Enrollment and Faculty Trends and Projections Table 11: BCC Operating Budget Trends Table 12: BCC Projected Revenue Table 13: Calendar of Annual Report/PMP: Preparation Table 14: Biology and MLT Faculty Assessment Efforts/Results Table 15: Proposed Structure of New BCC Faculty Seminar Table 16: Annual Planning, Assessment and Budgeting Calendar
Charts Chart 1: BCC Operating Budget FY10‐13 Chart 2: FY 2013 Expenditures by Major Purpose Chart 3: Institutional Planning and Assessment Model Chart 4: Academic Assessment Model Chart 5: Annual Operational Planning Model
3
Appendices Appendix 1: BCC Strategic Plan: 2014‐2019 Appendix 2: BCC Organizational Chart Appendix 3: Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee Membership Appendix 4: BCC Responses to the 2009 MSCHE Self‐Study Recommendations Appendix 5: Significant Accomplishments, Progress or Exemplary/Innovative Practices Documented in the 2009 MSCHE Evaluation Report Appendix 6: Culture of Pedagogy and Assessment in Biology Department – A Sample Appendix 7: Guidelines for Periodic Academic Review and Departmental Self Study Appendix 8: Schedule for Academic Program Review (APR) Appendix 9: First Year Seminar (FYS) General Education Rubrics Appendix 10: Writing Across the Curriculum Rubric Appendix 11: BCC Faculty/Staff Scholarship and Presentations Demonstrating Evidence‐Based and
Learning Centered Efforts, 2010 to present Appendix 12: BCC President’s Call for Annual Assessments and Plans Appendix 13: Sample Annual Departmental Report Appendix 14: Sample Annual Division Report Appendix 15: Sample Annual College Report Appendix 16: Sample Management Summary Report Appendix 17: Table of Departments by Division Completing Management Summaries Appendix 18: Guidelines for Periodic Review and Administrative Departmental Self‐Study Appendix 19: BCC Assessment Plan Appendix 20: BCC FYS Fidelity of Implementation (FOI) Rubric Appendix 21: BCC FYS Section Metrics Report Appendix 22: Acronyms
4
Chapter 1: Executive Summary Overview: Since its creation in 1957, the mission of Bronx Community College (BCC) of the City University of New York (CUNY) has been to provide access and opportunity for academic success and upward social and economic mobility to the widely diverse population of the Bronx, NY. As a comprehensive community college, BCC provides students with an education that enables them to move with equal facility into productive or rewarding careers and/or increasingly advanced higher education programs. The College’s vision is to graduate students who are “prepared to understand, thrive in and contribute to a 21st century global community marked by diversity, change, and expanded opportunities for life‐long learning and growth”. (See Appendix 1) Located on a 43‐acre, tree‐lined campus in the University Heights section of the Bronx, BCC offers academic programs that prepare students for careers and/or to continue their education at four‐year colleges. BCC provides students with enhanced learning opportunities through study abroad programs, presents an increasing emphasis on the STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) and opens doors to engage in breakthrough research at the Center for Sustainable Energy. The College offers evening and weekend classes for adults who work full‐time, and BCC provides a high quality, low cost, recently accredited, on‐campus Early Childhood Center for students juggling classroom demands with those of parenting. Students also benefit from the school’s newest architectural gem, the North Hall and Library, a blend of classic design with state‐of‐the art classrooms, group study rooms, and up‐to‐date information technology. BCC is America’s first community college campus designated a National Historic Landmark. BCC has 63 active programs registered with the New York State Department of Education: 31 are AA/AS degree programs; 25 are AAS programs; and 7 are certificate programs. Almost two‐thirds (61%) of the students are enrolled in transfer programs (AA/AS) , while 37% are enrolled in Associate in Applied Sciences (AAS) degree programs and 2% are enrolled in certificate programs. Students at BCC are largely low‐income and are immigrants or of immigrant descent from more than 60 countries. The vast majority (97%) are ethnic minorities, approximately one‐half (51%) are employed, almost one‐third (31%) are supporting children, 41% have an annual household income less than $15,000 and 27% are the first in their family to attend college. Almost all (90%) of entering BCC freshmen require remediation in one or more basic skill area (reading, writing, mathematics), with almost one‐quarter (24%) requiring remediation in all three (3) basic skill areas. Despite the variety of personal and academic challenges, BCC students are powerfully motivated to succeed. The College offers programs and services to ensure that all students can succeed. BCC graduates consistently demonstrate excellence in both the workplace and in senior colleges, including.
Strong performance on National Licensure exams for 2012 (pass rates were 86% for Nursing
NCLEX; 97% for Radiologic Technology Exam; 100% for Licensed Practical Nursing Exam); Strong transfer outcomes within CUNY (in Fall 2013, the average 1st semester GPA for AA/AS
transfers within CUNY was 2.85 for BCC compared to CUNY community college average of 2.69);
5
In addition, while BCC freshmen, compared to other CUNY colleges, do not do as well as on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) upon entry, BCC sophomore students demonstrated the largest “value added” gains in CUNY on the CLA in 2013. (The CLA is a standardized exam that measures general education skills of critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving and written communication. The test is designed to evaluate the relative “value added” by an institution to the students’ general education skills.) “Value‐added” performance on the CLA was recently added to the metrics used for the CUNY Performance Management Programs.
Preparation of the Periodic Review Report
The College’s Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee was established in January, 2013 to oversee and inform the College’s strategic planning and assessment activities, including oversight of the Periodic Review Progress. The committee’s functions, which were informed by recommendations in our 2009 Middle States Self‐Study are to:
Engage the campus regularly to revisit, reaffirm and/or update the mission, vision, goals and
strategic directions for the College; Monitor the College’s progress in responding to Middle States Self Study recommendations; Review, critique strategic/operational plans to assure correspondence with the College’s Plan; Participate in the development and oversight of the annual Performance Management Process
as well as the annual report. The committee is comprised of faculty and staff from every sector of the College (see organizational chart in Appendix 2), including each of the Academic Divisions of the College (Humanities, Sciences, Careers) and each of the Administrative Divisions of the College (Academic Affairs, Administration and Finance, Student Affairs and Enrollment Management; and Strategic Initiatives). The committee (see Appendix 3 for membership) worked in concert with the President’s Executive Council and was supported by the College’s Academic Assessment Team (Academic Assessment Manager and Assessment Fellows) and staff from the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment in the collection and analysis of information for the report as well as canvassing and consulting with all campus stakeholders. Major Institutional Changes and Developments since the Decennial Evaluation As part of the preparation of the PRR, the Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee identified three major changes and developments since the last Self Study that have impacted BCC. New Leadership The most significant institutional change at Bronx Community College involved a change in Presidential leadership. Carole M. Berotte Joseph became the fifth President of Bronx Community College in July, 2011. Since that time, she created a new leadership team, including new Vice Presidents of the following divisions: Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Strategic Initiatives. Additional executives have also joined her new team in Marketing and Communications, Legal Affairs, Affirmative Action, and Information Technology.
6
New Facilities More than $190,000,000 has been invested in capital projects over the past five years. The teaching and learning environment at the College has been tremendously enhanced by the construction of a state‐of‐art classroom building and library, construction of a state‐of‐the‐art child care center and the renovation of the Roscoe C. Brown Student Center Cafeteria and Bookstore. CUNY Pathways Effective Fall 2013, CUNY implemented the Pathways General Education Requirements across its undergraduate colleges. The centerpiece of Pathways is a 30‐credit general education Common Core. Once a student has met a Common Core area requirement at one CUNY college, that requirement will be met at any other CUNY college. Once fulfilled at one CUNY college, these general education credits will carry over seamlessly if a student transfers to another CUNY college. The Pathways initiative also aligns gateway courses for a number of popular majors. BCC Participation in the CUNY Pathways Initiative involved more than 100 course submissions (including the articulation of student learning outcomes relating to the Pathways General Education objectives). These required approval as part of the CUNY common core. This effort also required the redesign of approximately 50 AA/AS degree programs to incorporate the CUNY common core curriculum. Highlights of the Periodic Review Report The following pages provide a summary of the chapters comprising this Periodic Review Report. Chapter 2: Summary of BCC’s response to recommendations from the previous evaluation and to
Commission’s action This chapter summarizes how BCC has responded to the Self Study and Evaluation Team Recommendations from 2009 as well as the Commission Action in 2011. It specifically:
Highlights how Bronx Community College has addressed the 35 major recommendations made in
the College’s Self Study, 2009; (which are detailed in Appendix 4) Describes and provides evidence about how the College has responded to the single
recommendation made by the MSCHE Evaluation Team for BCC to demonstrate “progress in the development of learning outcomes in all academic programs and courses” and should implement “assessment in all courses and programs including General Education”;
Describes and provides evidence about how the College has responded to the Commission’s action following the Progress report in 2011 ‐ “To accept the progress report. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2014, provide evidence that student learning assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning in all programs, including general education (Standards 12 and 14).
Addressing these recommendations (and building on our strengths, including those which were commended by the Evaluation Team in 2009 (see Appendix 5), has yielded important improvements on campus since the 2009 team visit, which directly relate to the institutionalization of assessment used for improvements in all aspects of campus life.
7
Chapter 3: Opportunities and Challenges This chapter describes the major opportunities and challenges identified by the BCC community as part of the Periodic Review analysis and in the formation of the new Strategic Plan. The assessment included participation of all campus constituencies (in surveys of all campus academic, administrative and student support departments and in focus groups and meetings with students, faculty and staff). In addition, the analysis was informed by a comprehensive institutional self‐study undertaken through the auspices of the John Gardner Foundations of Excellence in the First Year Initiative (2010‐11), which also included broad participation from all campus constituents. The results of these efforts were synthesized by the Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee (which includes representation from each major administrative and academic division). This Chapter also highlights how and in what ways the College’s new Strategic Plan is expected to build upon strengths and opportunities and respond to challenges in the next five years Chapter 4: Enrollment and Finance Trends and Projections This chapter describes major enrollment and finance trends and projections for the last five years and coming five years. Enrollment and College budgets have both increased substantially over the past years. It is anticipated that over the next five years, both enrollment and corresponding budgets will continue to grow but at a slower pace, while the College is expected to maintain solid fiscal stability. Chapter 5: Institutional Effectiveness and Student Learning Assessment This chapter describes BCC’s assessment and improvement framework which includes regular, organized and systematic processes for student learning outcomes assessment (Standard 14) and Institutional effectiveness (Standard 7). It details key processes and assessment activities that have been underway and institutionalized since the Self Study, such as:
Institutional Effectiveness and Improvement (Standard 7), including:
The Institutional Planning and Assessment Model Annual Institutional Assessment and the CUNY Performance Management Process (PMP) Examples providing evidence of institutional improvements resulting from assessment Looking Forward ‐ Periodic Administrative Department Review and Self‐Study
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (Standard 14), including:
Academic Assessment Cycle The BCC Assessment Plan General Education, Course, and Program Assessment Periodic Academic Review and Departmental Self‐Study Examples providing evidence of improvements in student learning outcomes and/or student
success resulting from assessment
BCC’s First Year Program – A Case Study in Assessment for Continuous Improvement
Assessment leading to program development
8
Assessment of student learning outcomes Faculty development focused on student‐centered learning Assessment embedded program design Fidelity of implementation evaluation Programmatic outcomes assessment
Chapter 6: Linked Institutional Planning and Budgeting Annual Process This chapter: Describes the key processes by which BCC now links planning and budgeting. (The Strategic Plan
guides all multi‐year operational and budget plans and the annual planning and assessment process, guided by the CUNY PMP protocol links these processes).
Documents specific examples of increased linkages in recent years between planning and budgeting are documented as well as examples of budget decisions that have been informed by these linkages.
Charts the calendar of linked planning and budget processes.
Chapter 2: Summary of Institution’s Response to Recommendations from the Previous Evaluation and the Commission Actions The BCC Self‐Study in 2009 resulted in thirty‐five recommendations made in the report by the campus community. Those recommendations, along with how the College has responded to those recommendations, are summarized and each recommendation and college response is detailed (in Appendix 4). The 2009 MSCHE Evaluation Team Report determined that the College met each of the fourteen MSCHE standards, with only one recommendation. That recommendation focused on assessment of student learning outcomes for all academic programs and courses as well as General Education (Standards 12, 14) and a progress report was requested to be submitted in March 2009. Following the 2009 progress report, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education acted to accept the College’s progress report and requested that this Periodic Review Report “provide evidence that student learning assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning in all programs, including general education (Standards 12, 14). BCC’s Response to the 2009 Evaluation Team’s Recommendation The specific MSCHE Evaluation Team Recommendation follows:
The College should develop and implement assessment of student learning outcomes for all academic programs and course syllabi, building on efforts underway at the college. In the development and implementation of this plan, the faculty should make every effort to correct and analyze relevant outcomes data generated by review of actual student work, such as written assignments, standard examinations, team projects and presentations. These analyses should form the basis for subsequent planning and recommendations for improvement.
9
It is the recommendation that BCC submit a letter showing progress in the development of learning outcomes in all academic programs and courses. The progress letter should also indicate the implementation of assessment in all courses and programs including General Education.
BCC completed a Progress Report to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education on April 1, 2011, which demonstrated progress in the development of learning outcomes in all academic programs and courses as well as implementation of assessment in all courses and programs including in all courses and programs including General Education. The Progress report was accepted along with the Commission Action, cited (and responded to) below.
A summary of the Progress Report evidence included the following activities, products and results (which occurred between the Self‐Study in 2009 and the Progress Report submitted April 2011):
A General Education Committee was appointed to develop a college‐wide consensus regarding the student learning outcomes for each of the College’s General Education Proficiencies.
Institutional General Education student learning outcomes were developed The Office of Institutional Research collected inventories of all courses and programs (2009‐10)
to identify to what extent formal assessment already existed within BCC programs and where General Education proficiencies and objectives were covered in BCC courses.
Academic Affairs embarked on a systematic collection of syllabi for all BCC courses (SP 2010) General Education and Assessment committees merged into a single coordinated group
(including a new Academic Assessment Manager, a senior faculty member, a Dean from Academic Affairs, the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence and three faculty members).
The General Education and Assessment Team participated in the annual Summer Institute (in 2010) on General Education and Assessment sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU). The team developed an organized plan to provide a series of training workshops to prepare faculty to:
o Develop program level learning outcomes aligned with Institutional General Education outcomes
o Map and assess these outcomes at the course level in all degree programs o Document the results of assessment of student learning in all degree programs o Use the results of assessment for sustaining or improving student learning
The General Education and Assessment Team created and implemented a four‐workshop training curriculum, which actively engaged faculty in all academic departments to:
o Review General Education proficiencies and objectives at BCC o Coordinate course‐level and program‐level student learning outcomes o Align program‐level outcomes with BCC institutional level student learning outcomes o Map outcomes across courses in programs to determine where program‐level
assessment should take place o Revise syllabi to include course‐level outcomes and their links to specific General
Education proficiencies and objectives o Create rubrics or other assessment tools for course and program‐level assessment o Engage in data collection and sampling techniques, preparation of assessment reports
and actions plans, and documentation of improvements, decisions, and changes made as a result of the assessment activity
General Education and Assessment efforts widely publicized on campus
10
Implementation of a structure for assessment activity the followed the training program curriculum
Implementation of a Master Assessment Calendar for BCC
Most Recent Commission Action:
June 23, 2011: To accept the progress report. To request that the Periodic Review Report, due June 1, 2014, provide evidence that student learning assessment results are used to improve teaching and learning in all programs, including general education (Standards 12 and 14).
Building upon the progress made between the Self‐Study and Evaluation Team Visit in 2009 and the Progress Report and Commission Action in 2011, BCC has continued to further develop and improve the academic assessment infrastructure, the quality of academic assessment and the documentation of improvements in teaching and learning in all programs at the College that result from assessment effort. Assessment activity has increased, while the quality and utilization of assessment results to make improvements continues to grow. The total number of course assessments completed and submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs increased by 39% from 44 courses in Fall 2011 to 61 courses in Fall 2013 (see course assessments by academic department in Table 1 below).
Table 1: Course Assessment by Department Department Course
Number Course Name FA11 SP12 FA12 SP13 FA13
Art & Music MUS 11 Introduction to Music X X
ART 11 Introduction to Art X
Biology and Medical Lab Technology
BIO 11 General Biology I X X X X X
BIO 12 General Biology II X X X X X
BIO 22 Medical Terminology X X X
BIO 23 Human Anatomy & Physiology I
X X X X X
BIO 24 Human Anatomy & Physiology II
X X X X X
BIO 28 Microbiology and Infection Control
X X X X
BIO 81 Introduction to MLT X X
BIO 82 Clinical Hematology & Coagulation
X X X X X
BIO 85 Immunology / Serology X
BIO 86 Immunohematology X X X X X
BIO 87 Urinalysis and Body Fluids X
BIO 90 Clinical Internship X X X X X
11
Table 1: Course Assessment by Department (continued)
Department Course Number
Course Name FA11 SP12 FA12 SP13 FA13
Business and Information Systems
ACC 11 Fundamental Accounting I X X X X
ACC 13 Intermediate Accounting X X X X
BUS 10 Introduction to Business X
LAW 41 Business Law X
MKT 11 Principles of Marketing X
DAT 10 Computer Fundamentals & Applications
X
Chemistry ENV 11 Environmental Health X X X x
CHM 12 General Chemistry II X X X
ESE 11 Earth Sciences Science: The Earth
X X
CHM 17 Fundamentals: General Chemistry 1
X
CHM 11 General College Chemistry 1 X
Communication Arts & Sciences
COM 11 Fundamentals of Interpersonal Communication
X X
Education and Reading RDL 01 Basic Reading Skills X X
EDU 16 Literacy in Early Childhood Ed. X X X
EDU 40 Field Work Seminar X X X
EDU 10 Child Study—Birth to Grade 6 X
EDU 12 Contemporary Urban Education
X
EDU 30 Intro to Special Needs, Schools X
English ENG 11 Composition & Rhetoric 1 X
Health, PE & Wellness HLT 91 Critical Issues in Health X X X X
HLT 93 Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior
X X
HLT 94 Human Nutrition X X X X X
HLT 96 Health Education for Parenting X
PEA 11 Fitness for Life X X X X
PEA 15 Walking, Jogging, Weight Training
X X X X X
PEA 41 Jazz X
PEA 46 African, Caribbean, and Black Dance
X X X X
PEA 47 Beginning Salsa X X X X X
PEA 51 Stress Management X X X X
PEA 82 Introduction to Tai Chi Chuan X X X X
12
Table 1: Course Assessment by Department (continued) Department Course
Number Course Name FA11 SP12 FA12 SP13 FA13
Health, PE & Wellness REC 93 Intro to Therapeutic Recreation
X X
REC 95 Program Planning & Leadership in Recreation
X X
WFA 10 Workplace First Aid X
History GEO 10 Introduction to Human Geography
X
HIS 20 The American Nation X X
HIS 20H The American Nation Honors X
Mathematics and Computer Science
MTH 32 Analytical Geometry and Calculus I
X
MTH 33 Analytical Geometry and Calculus II
X
MTH 42 Linear Algebra X
MTH 05 X
Modern Languages ITL 11 Beginning Italian 1 X X X
SPN 11 Beginning Spanish 1 X
FRN 11 Beginning French 1 X
Nursing and Allied Health Sciences
RAD 11 Introduction to Radiology Tech.
X X X
RAD 12 Radiologic Exposure I X X X
RAD 13 Radiographic Procedures I X X X
RAD 14 Recording Media & Processing
X X X
RAD 16 Patient Care and Pharmacology
X X X
RAD 22 Radiologic Exposure II X X
RAD 23 Radiographic Procedures II X X
RAD24 Radiation Protection X X
RAD24W Radiation Protection (WAC) X X
RAD25 Radiographic Anatomy II
RAD 32 Imaging Modalities X X X
RAD 33 Radiographic Procedures III X X X
RAD 34 Radiographic Pathology X X X
RAD 42 Radiation Biology X
13
Table 1: Course Assessment by Department (continued) Department Course
Number Course Name FA11 SP12 FA12 SP13 FA13
RAD 43 Quality Assessment/Management
X X
CLE 31 Clinical Radiology III X X
CLE 61 Clinical Radiology VII X X
NUR 41 Nursing Process and Therapeutic Communication
X X
NUR 42 Fundamental Skills in Nursing X X
NUR 43 Mental Health Nursing X X X
NUR 44 Nursing of the Adult I X X X
NUR 45 Maternal, Newborn, and Women’s Health
X X X
NUR 46 Nursing of the Adult II X X X X
NUR 47 Pediatric Nursing X X X X
PNR 11 Nursing Skills 1 X
Physics, Technology, and Automotive Technology
ACS 10 Introduction to Auto. Tech X X
ACS 14 Manual Drives and Axles X
ACS 21 Steering and Suspension X
ACS 22 Auto Transmission &Transaxle X
ACS 24 Auto Electrical Systems X
ACS 45 Diesel Technology X
ACS 46 Diesel Performance X
PHY 11 College Physics X
NMT 71 Nuclear Physics Laboratory X
NMT 81 Clinical Nuclear Medicine X
PHY 11 College Physics 1 X X
Social Sciences PHL 11 Philosophy X
SOC 11 Sociology X
ANT 11 Introduction to Anthropology X X X
POL 11 American National Government X X
PSY 11 Introduction to Psychology X X X
The number of academic departments submitting General Education course assessments also increased
from 7 in Fall 2012 to 13 departments in Fall 2013. (see Table 2 below)
Table 2: General Education Course Assessment by Academic Department Department Gen Ed Course
Assessment in Fall 2012 Gen Ed Course Assessment in Fall 2013
Produced Outcomes Data in Fall 2013
Art & Music X X
Biology & MLT X X X
Business & Info Systems X X
Chemistry X X X
14
Communications Arts & Sciences
X X
Education & Reading X X X
English X X
Health, Physical Education & Wellness
X X X
History X X
Mathematics & Computer Science
X X
Modern Languages X X
Nursing & Allied Health X X X
Physics & Technology X X X
Social Sciences X X X
More important than the numbers of course assessments completed are the growing numbers of improvements in student learning and student success that are now being documented (either in annual or periodic reports). Some examples include: Increasing Global Awareness in History: A recent assessment of HIS 10/ HIS 11 (History of the
World) resulted in a reorganization of the course and syllabus. The assessment concluded that a long‐standing component of the course (historical identifications), which represented 40% of the grade on the final exam, was not the most effective way to assess historical learning. The identifications required more memorization than analysis and easily contributed to cheating. The identifications were replaced by an essay focused on “global awareness” in which students “discuss a historical theme, idea or movement across two or more world regions”, which was implemented in Fall 2012. Faculty members design their own questions, which are assessed by a common rubric. Not only do the faculty believe that the assessment used to measure student learning is a stronger and more appropriate assessment measure, but student success in the course(s) has improved significantly, with pass rates in HIS 10 (increasing from 51% in Fall 2010 to 71% in Fall 2013) and in HIS 11 (increasing from 56% in Fall 2010 to 72% in Fall 2013).
Improving Quantitative Reasoning in Biology: As part of the Quantitative Reasoning Initiative at BCC, faculty in the Biology Department focused their efforts on integrating and reinforcing quantitative reasoning skills in multi‐section introductory courses with multiple instructors. They identified the most important quantitative skills for each course, introduced those skills, and reinforced them over the course of the semester using targeted activities, in an effort to take a more systematic approach to quantitative literacy. Students were consistently overconfident and some quantitative skills saw minor improvement. Experiences in this initiative have informed much of the pedagogy work that has followed. It was determined that the key to getting faculty to participate is to integrate activities and assessments into the overall course structure, and maximizing the ease of implementation of both activities and assessment tools. The key to getting students to participate is integration of activities and assessments into the overall course structure & attaching a grade of some sort to the activities. (See Summary of “Culture of Pedagogy and Assessment” in BCC Biology Department in Appendix 6.)
Improving Reading Skills in Remedial Reading: The Department of Education & Reading uses its standardized RDL 01 Midterm Exam as a formative assessment tool for providing students with an analysis of their performance on RDL 01 (Basic Reading Skills) learning outcomes as expected at the
15
mid‐point in the semester. All RDL 01 instructors are supplied with RDL 01 Midterm Exam Item Analysis Checklists. The checklists align each Midterm Exam question with its corresponding RDL 01 learning outcome. Instructors review each graded Midterm Exam and tabulate the student's responses to the exam questions. Once completed the checklist allows the student (and the instructor) to recognize areas of strength and weakness. A subsequent Final Tally Form allows instructors to total all student responses per exam item, resulting in an assessment of overall class performance on the RDL 01 learning outcomes. All RDL 01 instructors generate Item Analysis checklists for each student and use that data to diagnose individual student’s areas of weakness. For each student, instructors will schedule review sessions that analyze the results and direct the student on a subsequent course of action. Recommendations include assigned tutoring, individualized or small‐group supplementary instruction, and/or additional assignments. With a benchmark that aims for at least 65% of the students successfully answering each of the RDL 01 Midterm Exam items aligned with course level outcomes, results of the assessment procedures for the Fall 2013 RDL 01 Midterm Exam found that RDL 01 students were experiencing difficulties with identifying main ideas, recognizing major headings, and comprehending cause‐effect relationships. All RDL 01 Final Tally data is accumulated and evaluated at the departmental ‐level for overall RDL 01 course performance. ) Results are also used to determine if the RDL 01 Midterm Exam is an effective tool for assessing the prescribed learning outcomes. Elements of the exam which appear to present extreme difficulty (or extreme ease) are re‐evaluated and considered for revision. New RDL 01 Midterm exams are constructed in light of assessment results.
BCC has invested fiscal and personnel resources to the academic assessment enterprise (including hiring professional assessment staffing, providing reassigned time for faculty to learn and mentor others in assessment practices, supporting faculty and staff in professional assessment development activities and investing in equipment and software to support academic assessment). Regarding program assessment, BCC has several academic departments that meet the rigorous assessment of student learning outcomes required by their external accreditors. These include the following programs: The Automotive Technology Program is accredited by the National Automotive Technicians
Education Foundation (NATEF) The programs in Business and Information Systems are accredited nationally by the Association
of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) The Electronic Engineering Technology Program is accredited by the Technology Accreditation
Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) The Nuclear Medicine Technology Program is accredited by the Joint Review Committee on
Education in Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT) The Paralegal Studies Program is approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) The Radiologic Technology Program is accredited by the Joint Review Committee on Education
in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT) The RN Nursing Program is accredited by the National League for Nursing Accrediting
Commission (NLNAC)
For those programs that are not externally accredited, the College has redesigned Academic Program Review (APR) and Departmental Self Study (see Appendix 7) to incorporate strong assessment expectations for all academic departments as they complete an Academic Review on a five year cycle (see Schedule for Academic Program Review (APR) in Appendix 8). These include the documentation of
16
student learning outcomes assessment to include: clearly articulated learning outcomes for courses, programs and general education; alignment of the course and program learning outcomes with the College’s General Education learning outcomes; demonstration of assessment of those learning outcomes; identification of how assessments are used for making improvements and documentation of those improvements. The requirement for academic program review as a formal periodic process, including both a self‐study and external evaluation is mandated by the CUNY Board of Trustees. Every year, each college is required to report annually about these academic reviews as part of the CUNY Performance Management Process. CUNY requires a 7‐year cycle of review, but BCC operates on a five year cycle for each of the academic departments at the College. Following preparation of the self‐study report and the external evaluators’ report, the academic department must prepare an evidence‐based action plan for improving instruction and the curriculum. External agency accreditation reviews follow agency generated guidelines and procedures for self‐study preparation that incorporate accreditation agency standards and procedural expectations. Further details about the academic assessment enterprise (including processes, products and results) are described in greater detail in Appendix 4 (which highlights the College’s responses to our own recommendations made in the 2009 Self Study) as well as in Chapter 5. Summary of BCC’s Response to Self‐Study Recommendations The specific institutional recommendations and responses to each of those thirty‐five recommendations made in the BCC Self‐Study are detailed in Appendix 4. A summary of the highlights of our institutional responses is provided below in groupings according to the 14 characteristics of excellence. Institutional Context and Resources (Standard 1: Mission and Goals; Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal; Standard 3: Institutional Resources) A new Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee (SPA) was appointed as an advisory committee to the President with expanded planning and assessment responsibilities. Most recently, the committee engaged the campus community in the review and revision of mission, vision, goals and strategic directions. As a result, a new Strategic Plan (2014‐19) is being developed (see Appendix 1) along with improvements in planning and assessment processes. The College has been systematically building capacity for and promoting the use of knowledge management to improve institutional decision‐making, resulting in enhanced student and institutional performance. The following highlight our efforts in this area:
Collaborative efforts by the departments of Information Technology (IT) and Institutional Research (IR) have resulted in the development of administrative systems and electronic analytical tools to support decision‐making with easily accessible and meaningful information/analysis;
Institutional support for building analytical capability among decision‐makers is provided in a variety of administrative and faculty development initiatives for faculty and administrators (which are routinely offered as part of the efforts of the Center for Teaching and Learning with
17
Technology (CTLT); the Academic Assessment Fellows; and the Administrative Council; and on an individual basis for Academic and Administrative Departments as they complete Self‐Studies and for grant writers (in the use of developing theories of change, logic models and strategic/operational plans).
BCC continues to maintain solid fiscal stability, including a balanced budget, strong rates of tuition and fee collection rates (97%) and increasing total voluntary support (from $1.6 million in FY10 to $1.9 million in FY13). In addition, the College has been quite successful in securing capital funding (more than $190 million) as evidenced by the significant infrastructure improvements and projects at BCC over the past five years. These include: construction of the 98,600 square‐foot North Hall and Library which provides state‐of‐the‐art classrooms and a new double‐height library, completion of an on‐site, state‐of‐the‐art Children’s Center and major renovation in our Cafeteria, Bookstore, and a multipurpose room in the Roscoe C. Brown Student Center. Leadership, Administration and Integrity (Standard 4: Leadership and Governance; Standard 5: Administration; Standard 6: Integrity) A formal program for orienting all students who are elected to the Student Government Association (SGA) and the College Senate was implemented. The SGA is given an overview as to the governance of the college during their initial training. This training usually takes place prior to the beginning of classes in the fall semester. They are apprised as to the importance of their roles and responsibilities and expectations. Faculty members are provided a less formal orientation by their academic departments and colleagues who have participated in governance bodies previously. The City University of New York has standard personnel evaluation forms, which are approved by Contract for each employment category and used at BCC. The Administrative Council (which is comprised of all campus directors and mid‐management level staff) has provided campus managers with working sessions on conducting effective performance appraisals. In addition, the College President has recently implemented a process whereby each level of performance appraisals are reviewed and approved by every level of the management hierarchy, up to and including the President. This effort is intended to provide oversight and accountability for consistent, appropriate and effective performance appraisal. A subcommittee of the Administrative Council engaged the community in a campus‐wide consideration of ethics and developed an ethics statement for campus‐wide review. It was decided in the revamping of the College’s Mission, Vision and Strategic Plan to incorporate the sentiments of the ethics statement in the new Strategic Plan. The College now has a fully integrated financial management system (CUNYfirst) that records all CUNY entities, including BCC, financial transaction data. This data is accessible and viewable by College administrators and CUNY Central administrators. We continue to have annual audits of all our financial operations. We also complete and submit to the, City, annually a business operational checklist called Financial Integrity Statement (Directive # 1). This checklist is intended to verify that all appropriate internal controls are implemented and working properly. Similarly, we complete annually the CUNY Internal Control Self‐Assessment Reports. In order to complete this report, actual tests and verification of internal controls must be effected. These tests are intended to identify possible operational weaknesses and strengthen controls where weaknesses are identified. New York State’s recently implemented “Project Sunlight” requires that all administrators (covered individuals) that influence
18
College purchasing decisions report all contacts (appearances) with vendors/contractors regarding potential purchasing decisions/commitments. This information is reported and maintained in a state wide database. Academic and Institutional Assessment (Standard 7: Institutional Assessment; Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning) BCC was able to demonstrate to the MSCHE Evaluation Team at the time of the last Self‐Study (2009) that the College had identified assessment as a major priority; invested significant resources in building assessment capability, and was able to document changes and improvements that resulted from assessment activities. While unevenness of analytical capability and use of analytics in decision‐making across the campus remains a challenge, the College has taken several steps over the past five years to increase use of evidence/analytics in decision‐making and to improve the quality of the assessment efforts and products. Bronx Community College has built an academic and institutional assessment infrastructure that provides for regular, organized and systematic evaluation: of the extent to which the college is fulfilling its mission and goals; of the extent to which students are mastering clearly articulated learning outcomes in courses, programs and general education proficiencies; and one that informs decisions and actions that lead to improvements in both institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes and success. Assessment efforts are conducted at every level of campus activity, including: annual and periodic assessments at the institutional, divisional, department levels; and periodic in‐depth program reviews, resource assessments, policy assessments and risk assessments. Student learning outcomes are routinely assessed at the course, general education, program and institutional level. A variety of assessment tools and methodologies are utilized depending upon the assessment effort. The BCC Institutional Planning Model and the Assessment Plan provide solid theoretical and operational frameworks for institutional and academic assessments at the College. Finally, the recent coordination of the calendars and activities for assessment reporting with operational and budget planning – all of which are linked to the College Strategic Plan – supports a program that facilitates the College in meeting its institutional and academic goals. Finally, the College has created and implemented a high impact program, First Year Initiative (FYS) that emerged out of a comprehensive analysis and which embodies the best academic and institutional assessment practices. This program is being strategically used both to positively impact student success in the first year and as an Incubator to improve assessment practice leading to improvements in student learning and institutional effectiveness across the campus. Student Retention and Services (Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention; Standard 9: Student Support Services; Standard 13: Related Educational Activities) First Year Program The College has made tremendous progress with respect to recommendations regarding the review, revision and improvement of the first year experience (and outcomes) for students. BCC has
19
spearheaded a college‐wide First Year Program which is designed to impact the success of all first year students. The program design was informed by an institutional self‐study and improvement plan conducted in 2010‐11, undertaken through the auspices of the John Gardner Foundation of Excellence in the First Year Institute.
Central to the First Year Program is a two‐hour, one‐credit course (FYS) that incorporates several high impact practices designed to enhance student engagement and success in the first semester. These features include: a dedicated academic advisor; a peer mentor embedded in the class; and active learning strategies. This course is a holistic introduction to college life. It combines orientation activities with an introduction to academic content and the academic skills required of successful college students. Students learn academic expectations and begin to develop personal strategies to meet them, clarify academic goals, and become familiar with campus resources and services. Students also engage in academic inquiry around topics selected and taught by a faculty member with a specific focus. The academic content provides insights and information on a topic of broad interest, creating natural opportunities to develop and practice academic skills. Students utilize an electronic portfolio (e‐Portfolio), which provides a vehicle for reflection on their transition to college and an online repository for their academic work. Academic and social supports are integrated into the course. To help new students adjust to college life and to facilitate their academic and social integration, peer mentors are assigned to course sections. Class activities introduce students to the academic skills they will need to be successful in all of their college courses and will facilitate student engagement with the College, faculty members and other students.
FYS Student Learning Objectives:
In reflective essays, class discussions and group projects, students will assess their academic and
personal goals, motivation and commitment to their own college success. Students will create a multi‐year academic plan. Students will use e‐portfolios to develop ideas and projects, demonstrate learning and reflect on
their college experience and career goals. In written papers and group projects, students will find, evaluate and use sources of information
gathered from traditional and technological resources. In written papers, classroom discussions and group projects, students will analyze, interpret,
evaluate and integrate information in order to solve problems.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes The student learning outcomes cited above relate directly to three general education objectives of the College: Personal and professional development; Information Literacy; and Reasoning and Analysis.
Rubrics were created to assess student’s emerging proficiency in the first semester (see Appendix 9). The e‐portfolio platform used in the FYS course provides for a well‐coordinated random sampling of assignments which are used by FYS faculty for assessment activities at least 2 times per semester. The FYS course was first piloted with 5 sections in Spring 2012 and has grown to approximately 700 students, serving approximately one‐half of the freshmen class. Student outcomes (first and second term GPA, one‐semester and one‐year retention rates) are much higher for FYS students than other first term students – and as the program is growing, student outcomes are improving. In addition, we have
20
found that student outcomes are stronger in sections where faculty are stronger implementers of the course design (including the use of active learning strategies). Table 3: One‐Semester Student Outcomes for Students in FYS Course Based on Implementation
Fidelity of Course Sections in Fall 2012
Implementation Level
# Sections Average Credit Accumulation Range
Average GPA Range Re‐Enrollment Range
Strong 8 7.1 ‐ 9.7 2.38 – 2.88 81 – 100%
Moderate 7 5.3 – 6.6 2.08 – 2.58 71 – 86%
Weak 6 4.2 – 5.1 1.65 – 1.90 57 – 78%
Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education (Standard 10: Faculty; Standard 11: Educational Offerings; Standard 12: General Education) Faculty Development BCC has made significant progress in the development and coordination of faculty development activities at the College. The College was awarded a Title V grant from the US Department of Education (DOE) for an Integrated Instructional Technology Development Program, which provided the College with substantial resources developing its faculty development program. Throughout the course of the grant, the College institutionalized the current Center for Teaching and Learning with Technology (CTLT), along with dedicated professional staffing as well as reassigned time for faculty leaders’ participation. Currently all new faculty members participate in a semester‐long workshop, including the following topics: Career planning Ways to Implement your Syllabus in order to Develop Self‐Efficacy in Student Disposition Connecting Your Syllabus to Library Resources What to Expect During Your First Year Teaching at BCC Teaching to Student Strengths The Role of Disability Services in Support of Your Teaching Overview of Educational Technology Workshops at the CTLT E‐portfolio Basics for the Teaching Portfolio Identifying the Values and Priorities of your Department and Developing a Professional
Development Plan for your Bronx Community College Teaching Career: The Teaching Portfolio Advisement as an Extension of Effective Teaching Practice Faculty Approaches to Effective Advising Across Disciplines Navigating Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Writing Across the Curriculum in Digital Media Your Teaching Portfolio: Opportunities to Present Your Teaching Portfolio and Classroom Assessment Student Success Initiatives, Professional Development Opportunities, and High Impact Practices:
Implications for Research and Publication How to Maximize Time for Various Types of Research with Grants and Fellowships
21
The CTLT Leadership Group continues to coordinate and refine the faculty development program for all new as well as continuing faculty members. Academic Review and Self‐Study The Guidelines for Academic Program Review and Departmental Self Study (updated in 2011) and
designed to correspond with Middle States Characteristics of Excellence (see Guidelines in Appendix 7).
Each Academic Department participates in a Periodic Review every five years. The specific guidelines
that related to the “currency and comprehensiveness of the curriculum in the context of postgraduate
workplace and transfer expectations” include the following:
For departments with AA, AS, AAS degree and certificate programs, provide information on the transfer and success of graduates in baccalaureate programs within CUNY. The Office of Institutional Research can help to obtain this data, analyze and discuss how it can be used for designing direct assessment of student learning in specific courses and programs.
For AAS and Certificate programs, provide information on employment of graduates based upon surveys and outreach to graduates and employers. In support of this guideline, the Office of Institutional Research conducts and implements surveys and conducts focus groups with graduates, employers/prospective employers/faculty from senior colleges.
Departments that have associate degree programs evaluate the effectiveness of existing articulation agreements and describe plans for appropriate updating or modification. Indicate in the Self‐Study which agreements need to be updated, what specifically needs to be modified, and the department’s plans for doing this in collaboration with the senior colleges.
General Education Since the last Self‐Study in 2009, the College has devoted significant effort and resources to the systematic coordination of all General Education efforts on campus. In addition to the efforts and activities reflected in the 2011 Progress Report to MSCHE, which are summarized earlier in this section, the following have been accomplished: General Education assessment has been incorporated into the Guidelines for Academic Program
Review and Departmental Self‐Study, with the expectation that Department Self‐Studies will evaluate the extent to which the following have been accomplished: development of student learning outcomes aligned with General Education proficiencies and goals; determination of how and what student work or products have been assessed; development and use of assessment tools such as rubrics or other measurements with criteria for evaluating or rating student work; conducting outcomes analysis of all the levels of student performance and learning.
Another team participated from BCC participated in the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Institution on General Education and Assessment in 2013.
General Education assessment in courses is collected annually by the Academic Assessment Coordinator in the Office of Academic Affairs. Support for staff conducting effective general education assessment is provided by the Assessment Coordinator and Assessment fellows. One example included collaboration with the coordinators of the Writing‐Across‐the‐Curriculum Program. Students at BCC must complete two Writing Intensive Courses as a graduation
22
requirement. The creation of a single rubric to provide consistent assessment in the Writing Intensive courses has facilitated that process (See rubric in Appendix 10.)
Chapter 3: Major Institutional Opportunities and Challenges The major challenges and opportunities referenced below were identified by BCC as part of the Periodic Review analysis and in the formation of the new Strategic Plan (see Appendix 1). The assessment included participation of all campus constituencies (in surveys of all campus academic, administrative and student support departments, in focus groups and meetings with students, faculty and staff). In addition, the analysis was informed by a comprehensive institutional self‐study undertaken through the auspices of the John Gardner Foundations of Excellence in the First Year Initiative (2010‐11), which also included broad participation from all campus constituents. The results of these efforts were synthesized by the Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee (which includes representation from each major administrative and academic division). BCC Opportunities and Strengths
1. New First Year Seminar (FYS) shows promise in preparing first year students for academic success in all courses and in positively impacting 1st term and 1st year academic indicators. Extensive research and analysis regarding the course and its impact on student learning and success may help inform other initiatives at the College and beyond the College. (Standards 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
First piloted in SP12, each cohort of FYS students has demonstrated higher GPA’s, credit accumulation
and retention rates (even after one year). The program now serves about half of the freshman class. Table 4: Comparative One‐Year Academic Outcomes for Fall 2012 Entering Freshmen Freshman Seminar Status One‐year Retention
Rate Percent with GPA>=2.0 after one‐year
Average One‐year Credit Accumulation
FYS (n=418) 64% 81% 18.0
Traditional BCC Freshman Seminar (780)
57% 68% 12.2
Neither Seminar (n=326) 56% 72% 14.0
Students reported in a Fall 13 survey that the FYS experience helped them a great deal in: understanding academic expectations (74%); becoming aware of available services and resources (72%), becoming aware of courses and programs offered (68%); creating an academic plan (67%); developing academic/career goals (66%); understanding yourself (62%).
Collaborative research project with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) of Teachers College, Columbia University will contribute to improving program and student outcomes as well as program visibility and evaluation and research findings.
23
2. BCC has developed a strong, evolving faculty development program fostering student‐centered instruction geared toward improved learning outcomes and student success. New faculty development curriculum likely to improve teaching and learning across the campus. (Standards 10, 14)
Current faculty development entity (the Center for Teaching Learning and Technology) provides a full‐array of faculty development efforts ranging from single sessions to multi‐semester development programs.
Our BCC 2008 Learning By Design Title V Grant resulted in: 89 instructional areas (more than half of total) equipped with technology enhancements; educational technology staff infrastructure established and supported with college funds; participation of 13 departments engaging more than 40 faculty; technology enhancements introduced in curriculum of 47 courses; 2000 students received technology peer tutoring.
BCC faculty members are active in the scholarship of teaching. Appendix 11 documents more than 80 articles, presentations and books that demonstrate evidence‐based and learning‐centered teaching approaches. A few examples from this extensive list (including one from every academic department at the college) follows:
Table 5: Samples of Faculty Scholarship of Teaching
Department Samples of Faculty Scholarship of Teaching
Art & Music Kelley‐Williams, Jeanine. "A Tangible Benefit to Art Students; Widespread Use of e‐Portfolios." Hispanic Educational Technology Services (HETS) Best Practices Showcase, Feb 17, 2012
Biology & MLT
Abdullahi, A. and Gannon, M. 2012. Improving college students' success in gateway science courses: Lessons learned from an Anatomy and Physiology workshop. American Journal of Health Sciences 3:159‐168
Business & Information Systems
Perkins, Clarence. "Empirical Analysis of the Use of Accounting Workshops to Improve Outcomes in the Introductory Accounting Course" published in Accounting Instructors’ Report ‐ Fall 2011
Chemistry Jiminez, K. Aboubaker, Kaba, L. Brown, M. Rahman and S. Bhaskaran (2013) Undergraduate Research and Faculty Supervision‐Research Experiences in Geospatial Science and Technology Projects at the Bronx Community College, Perspectives on Undergraduate Research and Mentoring (PURM Issue 233.1, pp. 1‐9)
Communication Arts & Sciences
Magloire, J. G. (2010). Integrating General Education into a Communication Curriculum. Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 5(1).
Education & Reading
"Peer Mentoring: A Catalyst for Faculty Innovation" 9th Annual CUNY IT Conference John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York December 3, 2010 Charles Alston, Laura Broughton, Giulia Guarnieri, Moronke Oshin‐Martin, Stephen Powers, Albert Robinson
English DiTommaso, K. (2010). The connection between role model relationships and self‐direction in developmental students. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 27 (1), 4‐19.
Health, Physical Education & Wellness
Heller, J.R. and Baez, A (2013). Stress, Anxiety, Depression, and Violence: Findings from an Urban Community College and Implications for Practice. Presented at the Combined Annual Meeting of the New English & New York State College Health Associates, Burlington,VT. 2013
24
Department Samples of Faculty Scholarship of Teaching
History Getman, Jordi. “Thresholds of Innovation: Disciplines, Pedagogies and Student Expression Through ePortfolios,” Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence Based Learning Conference, Boston, 2011.
Library & Learning Center
C. Constantinou, Kenneth Schlesinger, & Michael J. Miller. Advancing Global Cultural Understanding Through Innovative Library Practice: Three Fulbright Experiences. Refereed panel presentation for the SUNY Library Association Annual Conference. Fashion Institute of Technology, New York, NY. June 7, 2012
Math & Computer Science
Bates, M. Community College Study of Mathematical Concepts and Skills Retention in Elementary Algebra: The Role of Distributed Practice and Problem‐Centered Learning. Poster session presented at: Improving Undergraduate Mathematics Learning. 2nd Annual City University of New York Mathematics Conference; 2012 May 18; New York, NY.
Modern Languages
Guarnieri, G. (2012). Deep Learning: Improving Oral Proficiency with Embedded ePortfolios. Presentation. Bronx Community College/CUNY.
Nursing & Allied Health
Panettieri, Regina C. Writing to Learn: Radiologic Technology. The American Society of Radiologic Technologists. March/April 2011. Vol. 82/No 4. Radiologic Technology
Physics and Technology
Moghaddasi, Jalil. Curriculum Mapping Presentation, Verizon Faculty Institute, Boston, MA. June 2011.
Social Sciences
Campagna, G., & Shane, R. (2010, May 7). The Scientific Method: Assessing Student Competencies in a Social Sciences Survey Course. Conference presentation at the 6th Annual CUNY General Education Conference, Kingsborough Community College, Brooklyn NY
3. Graduate Outcomes are Strong
(Standards 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14)
BCC Graduates perform relatively stronger than the average performance rates of CUNY community college graduates. Table 6: Post‐graduate outcomes for BCC Students are comparatively strong. Senior College Transfer
Success National Nursing Board Success
Six‐Month Grad Outcomes
1st term GPA of transfers from AA/AS programs
NCLEX Pass Rates(2013)
Job and educ. placement rates (2011‐12 grads)
BCC Grads
2.76 83.3 93.3
CUNY Community College Average
2.68 73.5 92.0
4. College has secured significant funds for capital improvements over past several years
More than $190,000,000 has been secured and invested in capital projects from 2008‐2013, including construction of a state‐of‐the art classroom/library building, a state of the art child care center and renovation of the Student Center and Bookstore.
25
5. The BCC Guidelines for Academic Program Review and Departmental Self‐Study (updated in 2011) incorporate a strong assessment component that is informed by three key ideas (complying with Middle States Standards) (Standards 7, 14)
Place documentation of student learning assessment at the heart of the academic review/reporting process;
Envision the scope of assessment as a department‐wide activity with assessment results used to make improvements;
Are intended to promote analytical and meaningful reflection upon teaching and learning as the basis for departmental planning.
6. College has recently witnessed substantial improvements in student academic success and
progress in the following college activities and programs. Assessment studies of these programs are helping to guide improvements in these as well as other areas of the College. (Standards 7, 8, 14)
The BCC Accelerated Studies in Associate Program (ASAP), which is a CUNY‐sponsored small program that provides a comprehensive academic and student support had impressive results. Most recently, the BCC ASAP program had a 2.5 year retention rate of 58%.
Students in the First Year Seminar (FYS), have demonstrated higher one semester outcomes (82% 1‐semester retention rate; and 69% first term GPA >=2.0); as well as higher one‐year outcomes (64% one‐year retention rate; 81% ‐ one‐year average GPA>=2.0) compared to other first semester students.
Recent improvements in student progress in mathematics remedial and gateway courses (including: pass rates in gateway Math courses (with C or better) progressively increased from 57% in Fall 2008 to 67% in Fall 2012 (again for the first time above the community college of 66.5%; The percentage of students who complete a credit‐bearing math course within 2 years of entry (while still relatively low) has increased from 22.1 % to 31.2% this past year; and pass rates in exit from remediation progressively increased from 27% in FA08 to 40% in FA12 (and for the first time in FA12, above the CUNY community college average of 38.8%).
College‐wide course pass rates have increased over past years from 69.7% in Fall 2010 to 72.8% in Fall 2013. There appears to be a correlation between the strongest adopters of excellent academic assessment practice and increased success in their courses.
College‐wide increases in pass rates are due largely to improvements in student success in a few courses with high enrollments in departments that have encouraged and facilitated student‐centered learning strategies and assessment of student learning outcomes.
In particular, performance metrics in the Biology and History departments in historically challenging courses (with low pass rates, high withdrawal rates and a high variability in performance metrics by instructor) improved a great deal over the past 4 years due to increasing focus on pedagogy and student‐centered learning strategies.
Table 7: Performance Trends in History and Biology Courses at BCC
Course FA10 FA11 FA 12 FA13
HIS 10 51% 54% 67% 71%
HIS 11 56% 62% 64% 72%
HIS 20 71% 74% 79% 78%
BIO 11 64% 60% 67% 67%
BIO 12 67% 62% 76% 75%
26
BCC Challenges The most difficult and significant challenge facing BCC is the relative lack of student academic progress and persistence (including retention and graduation rates). Two important factors that negatively impact student success include: (1) a high proportion of students enter the College without the academic preparation necessary to succeed (Standards 8, 9); and (2) there is uneven use by faculty of student‐centered pedagogy.
1. BCC has low Retention and Graduation Rates
(Standards 8, 9) BCC’s 1‐year retention rate and 4‐year graduation remains relatively low, despite recent increases. Table 8: BCC’s 1‐Year Retention and 4‐Yr Graduation Rates 1‐Yr Retention Rate 4‐Yr Grad Rate
Fall 2011 cohort 55% 15%
Fall 2012 cohort 58% 17%
2. There is uneven use of student‐centered pedagogy (which is associated with enhanced student learning/success) (Standards 8, 10, 11, 14)
An external evaluator of a Title V grant (for an Integrated Instructional Technology Development
Program, “Learning By Design”) focused on faculty development with technology observed that: “Title V built momentum but needed greater integration into the academic planning, budgeting and personnel processes” and “Title V activated those who were already convinced of the value of technology, as well as some who became convinced once they saw how the technology could benefit teaching and learning”.
3. There is a lack of integration between academic departments, special programs and student
supports (Standards 2, 7, 11, 13)
The final external evaluation report from the most recent “Learning by Design” Title V grant
recommended the following:” take an integrated curriculum‐based faculty development approach to training; ensure underlying staffing and infrastructure are in place so that efforts are successful”.
4. There are High Costs of Maintaining Aging Infrastructure
(Standards 3, 8)
The aging infrastructure of an historic landmark campus presents significant challenges to maintain. The campus has a significant backlog of deferred capital maintenance for building system renovations and for renewal of supporting infrastructure.
27
How BCC Strategic Plan will address College’s Opportunities and Challenges The new BCC Strategic Plan aims to institutionalize effective practice by enhancing the College culture – its beliefs, practices and rewards – in all areas of campus life. The overarching goal of the plan is to build a “Community of Excellence” characterized by a culture that: 1) fosters evidence‐based decision making; 2) promotes mentoring of faculty and students; and 3) facilitates collaboration, alignment and integration in all college activities and processes. The theoretically and empirically based objectives to help us reach this goal as well as the theories of action for them are as follows: Table 9: Overarching Strategic Objectives with Rationale/Theories of Action
Overarching Strategic Objectives Rationale/Theories of Actions
1. Foster continuous improvement with use of analytics/evidence driving all academic, student support and administrative decisions.
High performing institutions engage in the use of measurement and process improvement.
Knowledge management (a best business practice) is associated with effectiveness and efficiency and involves providing actionable data to those who are empowered to act accordingly.
Assessment of student learning outcomes leads to increased student success and deeper student learning.
2. Promote mentoring at all levels to support the learning and development of all members of the campus community.
The multiple benefits of student peer mentoring include: improved grades, increased engagement and retention for new students (mentees); and development of leadership and communication skills for mentors.
Accomplished teachers mentoring new and struggling teachers is associated with improved effectiveness in teaching and learning.
3. Facilitate (and reward) collaboration, integration and alignment of curriculum, student support and administrative processes.
Effective institutions demonstrate functional alignment and emphasize importance of coordinating instruction and student support
Student collaboration associated with improved learning outcomes Research more likely to inform teaching practice when conducted
collaboratively with faculty.
Chapter 4: Enrollment and Finance Trends and Projections Since the Fall of 1999, Bronx Community College has experienced tremendous enrollment growth increasing headcount enrollment from 6,844 to 11,368. This represents an increase of 66 percent. The only exception was a slight decrease of 1.4 percent in enrollment for the Fall 2012 semester. Similarly, our FTE enrollment grew 47 percent reflecting an increase from 5,493.60 FTEs in the Fall 1999 semester to 8,060.40 FTEs in the Fall 2013 semester. As reflected in the BCC Enrollment and Faculty Projections Report, Bronx Community College experienced a 9 percent increase in enrollment from Fall 2009 to Fall 2013 and a 7 percent increase in FTE enrollment for that same period of time. According to a US News article written by Allie Bidwell on December 12, 2013, college enrollments dropped by 300,000 students from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013. Bidwell (2013) posits that “overall college enrollment fell for the second year in a row in 2013, from about 20.2 million students in the fall of 2012 to about 19.9 million this year, according to a new report from the National Student Clearinghouse.” Bidwell (2013) further posits that “when looking at different types of higher education institutions, four‐year, for‐profit colleges had the largest enrollment decrease at 9.7 percent, followed by two‐year public
28
colleges at 3.1 percent. But enrollment at four‐year public colleges and four‐year private, nonprofit colleges actually increased by 0.3 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively.” Despite this downward trend for community colleges, Bronx Community College had a slight increase of 0.7 percent in enrollment during the Fall 2013 semester from 11,287 in the Fall 2012 semester to 11,368 in the Fall 2013 semester. Similarly, Bronx Community College’s FTE enrollment increased by 0.5 percent during the Fall 2013 semester from 8,022.90 to 8,060.40. Unfortunately, this upward trend may not continue as Colleges across the City University of New York experienced a drop in enrollment during the Spring 2014 semester, including Bronx Community College. Some of the factors cited as possible causes include changes in financial aid eligibility requirements, improvements in economic conditions, and a possible demographic shift. This suggests that enrollment growth will taper off in the near future as the net effects of these possible causes are realized. As such, Bronx Community College has deployed strategies to overcome these potential barriers in order to sustain our enrollment/economic base. One such strategy is the implementation of a new Phase Planning Schedule undergirded by Hobsons Connect and Retain (a customer relations management software system) to monitor our progress with the processing of allocated students (through the CUNY Central admissions processes). This was first deployed in the Fall 2013 semester and yielded excellent results reducing the percentage of direct admit students by 7 percent. (Direct admits are admitted directly to the College instead of through the University Admissions Processing Center). In the past, Bronx Community College relied heavily on direct admits to meet its enrollment targets. In addition, the college seeks to enhance its retention strategies by utilizing Hobson Retain to enhance communication to continuing students as well as continue its focus on existing strategies such as those used in successful programs, such as ASAP, FYS and more recently, Supplemental Instruction. This is in addition to the college’s plan to completely revamp its academic advising model. As a result of employment of these strategies, Bronx Community College anticipates that it will experience enrollment growth of 4 percent from Fall 2013 to Fall 2018. Reflecting on the mitigation of some of the potential enrollment barriers experienced during the Spring 2014, Bronx Community College projects a slight increase during the first 2 years of enrollment and modest increases during the latter 3 years of enrollment.
Table 10: Bronx Community College Enrollment and Faculty Trends and Projections
ACTUAL PREDICTED
Year 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19
Enrollment Data Calculated in Fall Semesters
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013 Fall 2014
Fall 2015
Fall 2016
Fall 2017
Fall 2018
Total Enrollment 10420 10740 11445 11287 11368 11425 11482 11597 11713 11830
FTE Enrollment 7562 7794 8248 8023 8060 8101 8141 8223 8305 8388
Full‐time Faculty 275 304 297 296 307 315 318 323 326 329
Part‐time Faculty 399 352 382 406 400 398 394 391 388 384
29
Financial Statement Structures, Funding and Projections The audited CUNY consolidated financials and IPEDS reports annexed to this PRR do not display exact matching numbers as the revenues and expenses in each were compiled using different methodologies, calculations and presentation styles. The College’s internal operating budget differs also from the overall available funding as it excludes University centrally held funds for items such as fringe benefits, heat, light and power. These funds, representing about 40% of the funding, are held centrally and used by the University to pay expenses for the College. In Fiscal year 2013, from an overall revenues and expenses of approximately $145M, the College’s controllable budget allocation approximated $80M. The primary sources from which Bronx Community College receives its funding are New York State, The City of New York and tuition and fees. New York State funds community colleges on an annual full‐time equivalent (FTE) student basis. The City of New York funds the community colleges on a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) basis. This MOE, by State Law, obligates the City of New York to maintain its funding at a level no less than the prior year. Currently, each student pays tuition of $2,100 per semester. All funds are centrally received by the University and distributed to all the community colleges using a Budget Funding Model. This Model has five segments, providing funding to all community colleges: (1) on an equal base level; (2) per student FTE; (3) based on Instructional and Departmental Research (I&DR) using student FTEs per discipline; (4) maintenance and operations (M&O), based on the size and configuration of physical plant; and (5) security (Public Safety) based on size and configuration of the physical plant. Operating Budget Overall funding for the College and the contributions from the sources mentioned above for years 2010 through 2013 are reflected below: Table 11: BCC Operating Budget Actual Revenues
FY 2010
%
FY 2011
%
FY 2012
%
FY 2013 Prelim
%
State Appropriation
$48,487,004.61
38%
$53,933,998.26
39%
$75,421,035.00
46%
$54,965,245.35
38%
City Appropriation
$37,022,381.51
29%
$41,284,785.58
30%
$41,479,785.00
25%
$41,687,183.93
29%
Tuition & Fee Revenue
$34,643,749.12
27%
$35,530,336.62
26%
$40,684,328.00
25%
$41,904,857.84
29%
Others (incl Fed Grants)
$6,348,962.47
5%
$6,324,197.99
5%
$6,579,373.40
4%
$6,842,548.34
5%
TOTAL
$126,502,097.71
100%
$137,073,318.45
100%
$164,164,521.40
100%
$145,399,835.45
100%
State contribution to overall funding, which is based on student FTE, remained essentially flat between Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year 2013. This is because the State’s FTE decrease of 20% per FTE was
30
offset by enrollment increases. (Fiscal Year 2012 numbers for State Funding are inflated by a one‐time capital adjustment of approximately $21M. The adjustment represents a one‐time transfer of debt from the University's books to College's books.) During the same period, tuition increased by approximately $1,100 annually. This more than offset the FTE decrease in State funding. In 2010, annual tuition stood at $2,800. By 2013, it increased to $3,900, an increase of 39% over the period. It is projected that through 2016, tuition will increase by $300 each year, reaching an annual tuition amount of $4,800. Fiscal Year 2013 shows an increased contribution by tuition to overall revenue, increasing to 29% from 27% in Fiscal Year 2010. The overall tuition and fees amount includes a Technology Fee that contributes approximately $1.8M annually to support the College’s technology infrastructure and provide for students’ technology needs. On an annual basis, current full‐time students pay $200 and part‐time students pay $100. This fee will be increased by $50 annually in Fall 2015. The other revenue category includes funds generated from auxiliary services, grants and fundraising. Controllable/Operating Budget Funds from the operating budget are spent directly by Bronx Community College and represent approximately 60% of the overall amount reported in the IPEDS report. (As previously stated, CUNY centrally retains approximately 40% the overall IPEDS reported funds to pay expenses for the College). Below is a graph showing the College’s internal operating budget for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2013:
Chart 1: Operating Budget
Fiscal Year 2014 is the College’s current operating year; however, it is listed among the projected years since it is still ongoing. The current fiscal year has seen a leveling off of enrollment, and there is an expectation that little, if any, growth will be experienced through Fiscal Year 2017. However, no decrease in enrollment is anticipated. In spite of the flat or marginal growth expectation in enrollment, tuition revenue is expected to yield a greater contribution to overall revenue.
31
State appropriations are expected to remain flat or decrease slightly as the trend has been that in times of economic downturn, education funding is among the first to be cut by the State. City appropriations are expected to remain consistent largely because of the MOE obligations. The College is continuing its effort to generate more revenue through grant activities, fundraising and auxiliary services.
Table 12: Projected Revenue
Projected Revenues
FY 2014 Projected
% FY 2015 Projected % FY 2016 Projected
%
FY 2017 Projected %
State Appropriations
$55,514,897.80
38% $56,070,046.78 37% $56,911,097.48
37%
$57,480,208.46 37%
City Appropriations
$41,895,619.84
28% $42,105,097.94 28% $42,315,623.43
28%
$42,527,201.55 27%
Tuition & Fees
$43,253,549.25
29% $46,452,086.11 31% $46,938,106.97
31%
$46,938,106.97 30%
Others (includes Federal Grants)
$7,116,250.27
5% $7,400,900.28 5% $7,696,936.29
5%
$8,004,813.74 5%
TOTAL
$147,780,317.17
100 $152,028,131.12 100 $153,861,764.18
100
$154,950,330.73 100
Expenditure Approximately 90% of the College’s operating budget, which is similar to the revenue budget in amount, is expended on personnel services. Roughly 65% of the overall budget is absorbed by instructional support services, student support services and library and organized activities. As the College moves to increase the full‐time to part‐time faculty ratio and increase the percentage of instruction delivered by full‐time faculty, greater expenditures have been devoted to instruction.
Projected Expenditure:
Expenditure projections do not anticipate major fluctuations for other than personnel services items with the exception of building maintenance. Because of the age of the College’s infrastructure, it is projected that significant expenditures will be incurred to maintain the buildings. Apart from building maintenance, the major expense driver will be instruction. There will be a growing share of the expenditures devoted to instruction, as the College continues to maintain a high percentage of instruction delivered by full‐time faculty, and as the College executes the CUNY mandate to increase productivity and redirect saving to instructional support.
32
Chart 2: FY 2013 Expenditures by Major Purpose
Chapter 5: Evidence of Sustained and Organized Processes to Assess Institutional Effectiveness and Student Learning Overview of Assessment at BCC: BCC has built an academic and institutional assessment infrastructure that provides for regular, organized and systematic evaluation of: the extent to which the college is fulfilling its mission and goals; the extent to which students are mastering clearly articulated learning outcomes in courses, programs and general education proficiencies; and one that informs decisions and actions that lead to improvements in both institutional effectiveness as well as student learning outcomes and student success. Assessment efforts are conducted at every level of campus activity, including: annual and periodic assessments at the institutional, divisional, department levels; periodic in‐depth program reviews; resource assessments; policy assessments; and risk assessments. Student learning outcomes are routinely assessed at the course, general education, program and institutional level. A variety of assessment tools and methodologies are utilized, depending upon the assessment effort. The BCC Institutional Planning and Assessment Model (first developed in 1999 and regularly updated) provides a solid theoretical and operational framework for institutional and academic assessment efforts and outcomes throughout the college. There is clear recognition that high quality assessment practice leading to continuous and effective improvements requires development of effective
Adult & Cont. Educ. 0.27%
College Discovery0.76%
Ext. & Public Svc.2.32%
General Inst. Svcs.9.33%
General Admin. Svcs.9.13%
Instruction & DR51.75%
Library2.68%
M&O Plant11.39%
Organized Activities1.16%
Student Services9.79%
Technology Fee1.41%
FY 2013 Expenditures by Major Purpose
33
assessment tools; strong analytical thinkers; and development efforts to support continuous improvement in effective assessment practice.
Foundations of Institutional Assessment, Effectiveness and Improvement at BCC (Standard 7 Institutional Effectiveness) The Institutional Planning and Assessment Model The College created a formal framework (Institutional Planning and Assessment Model) in 1999 to provide a conceptual basis and process for institutional planning and continuous, cyclical process of evaluation and improvement for all operations of the college. The Model, which is periodically updated, diagrams the cyclical processes the College must engage in, to link assessment, visioning, strategic planning, operational planning and outcomes.
Chart 3: BCC Institutional Planning Model
The components of the model, include: Contextual Assessment (which includes institutional self‐study, SWOT analysis, mission
assessment) Visioning and Strategic Planning (including the identification of strategies, goals and objectives
based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, financial and enrollment forecasts and environmental trends; establishment of 5‐year strategic plan)
Operational Planning (includes the establishment of operational objectives, budget plans and performance assessment measures)
34
Outcomes Assessment (includes the evaluation of the extent to which goals and objectives have been met)
Annual Institutional Assessment and the CUNY Performance Management Process (PMP)
BCC has engaged every department and unit of the College in annual processes of assessment and
planning since the creation of the Institutional Planning Model in 1999. The assessment results from the
prior year are intended to inform plans for the upcoming year.
The following efforts comprise the annual assessment activities of the College:
1. The CUNY Performance Management Process. (PMP)
The CUNY PMP is an annual process that is designed to engage all units of the City University in
planning, goal setting and assessment, leading to continuous improvement CUNY‐wide. To date, the
CUNY PMP assessment has focused on three goals (academic quality, student success, and financial and
management effectiveness) and includes measurement of nine performance objectives1:
The PMP analysis and reporting processes are initiated as part of the overall annual planning and
assessment efforts at the College. Early each spring semester, the President of the College requests an
annual report from each of the four major divisions of the College (Academic Affairs, Administration and
Finance, Student Affairs, and Strategic Initiatives), which includes an assessment of the past year as well
as a plan (including goals, targets and activities) for the upcoming year (see Appendix 12 for call letter).
Each Vice President subsequently calls for annual assessments and plans from each department of their
division. In this process, all units of the College submit a report (see sample Annual Report in Appendix
13) that includes the following:
departmental outcomes (including analysis of what contributed to those outcomes)
challenges, risks, and opportunities
goals and targets for the next year
resource assessment and needs (discussed more fully in later section)
Table 13: Calendar of Annual Report/PMP Preparation
Month Activity
February CUNY Chancellor initiates new PMP Cycle
March/April Presidential Call for Annual ReportsDivision Budget Call Letter Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) prepares information/analysis to support planning/assessment efforts
May Annual Division Report Submission and ReviewVPs Review of Annual Budget Submission Preparation of College Annual Report/PMP Submission Final Collection of Faculty Scholarship
June College Submission of PMP Report to CUNY
11 The PMP objectives have been revised for 2014-15.
35
Draft Start up Budget FY 2015Staples‐ Link Closing Date
Each Vice President is responsible for reviewing and providing feedback to each of the departments
submitting annual reports to them. A single Divisional Report is then synthesized and submitted to the
President of the College (see Appendix 14). The President’s Office in collaboration with the Executive
Council and the Strategic Planning and Assessment Committee create a single College‐wide Annual
Assessment and Plan which is submitted to the CUNY Chancellor (see Appendix 15). In all cases, the
assessment results inform subsequent goals and targets.
In an effort designed to correspond with the College’s academic efforts to articulate learning objectives
and assessment measures for every course, program and general education, the Administrative Council
(a body comprised of all administrative and student support department managers) embarked on an
professional development activity to articulate the objectives of each administrative department (to
provide a basis for assessment of those objectives). As a result, each administrative department
completed a “Management Summary”, which included the following:
Department Mission
Functions
Products
Services
Assessment Measures for functions, products and services
Each department uses the components of the management summary (mission, functions, products,
services and assessment measures) to inform their annual reporting. Each year, during the annual
planning and assessment period, each Division updates the Management Summary (see Appendix 16).
The full list of all Departments (by Division) who have completed Management Summaries is in
Appendix 17.
Examples Providing Evidence of Institutional Improvements Resulting from Assessment
Ideally, the intersection of assessment efforts results in improvements across the campus. The following are a few examples of institutional improvements resulting from assessment efforts: Licensed Practical Nursing Program – Improves Pass Rates on National Licensure Exam (NCLEX) As reported in the 2011 PMP Indicator Report, the BCC pass rates on the National Nursing Licensure Exam (NCLEX) dropped to a disappointing 72%, which was well below the CUNY community college average of 84%. Following a comprehensive assessment effort which revealed an outdated curriculum and a lack of test review activities, the Department implemented a transition curriculum, began development of a new curriculum, and implemented use of the Assessment Technology Institute (ATI) materials. The ATI is a review program integrated throughout all courses which provides students with continuous content review and scheduling of additional hours in both the skills practice lab and the simulation lab. By the time of the 2012 PMP Indicator Report, the pass rates on the NCLEX increased from 72% to 86% (with a corresponding increase in the numbers of test takers). The CUNY Community College average for that year was 84%.
36
BCC Early Academic Progress Grade Report (EAPR) Mid‐term grades have systematically been recorded at BCC for many years as an early warning vehicle. These grades follow the same format as the final letter grades assigned to students. An assessment study revealed that the mid‐term grades were highly correlated with final grades and that many faculty felt that the timing of mid‐term grades was too late to impact student behavior. In response to these findings, the College implemented an Early Academic Progress Report in Fall 2011, which was designed to be implemented in the 3rd to 5th week of the semester. The grading values were designed to address faculty and student concerns that the early report should encourage positive student behaviors and not discourage students. The grading values are: (1) exceeds course expectations; (2) meets course expectations; and (3) does not meet course expectations. On the electronic rosters, faculty may provide a single message for all students (such as “this assessment is based upon your class participation and first exam”) and/or individual messages to students (such as “your attendance is good, but you haven’t handed in all of the work”). In the first semester that the Early Academic Progress Grade was implemented, the following resulted:
The correlation between progress and midterm grades was substantially weaker than the
correlation between the midterm and final grades, supporting the assumption that an earlier warning may positively impact student success.
For the students who received grades of “not meeting expectations”, 44% received final passing grades and 12% withdrew.
Faculty reported in focus groups that students reacted positively to the EAPR. They also reported that they felt compelled to provide earlier assessments of student work to better inform students of their progress in courses.
To date, the completion of early progress reports has been optional. Discussion are currently underway regarding whether to make their completion mandatory/
Introducing Test Preparation to Improve Student Performance on Placement Tests In December 2011, a Freshman Year Advisory Committee, comprised of members from both academic and administrative departments led by the Director of Testing, was charged with improving student awareness and knowledge of the University placement tests. It was discovered through a survey administered to newly admitted students taking the University placement tests that 44% did not prepare for any exam and two‐thirds of those not preparing for any exam were not aware of the availability of test preparation resources. Key recommendations included making test preparation information more accessible to students through a redesigned Testing office website, better messaging of online test preparation resources and finally, it was recommended that in‐person test preparation workshops be designed to orient students to the three exams. The website redesign included a FAQ page developed with the input of committee members. Key admission correspondences to students were edited to include links to the website and in‐person information sessions were modified to highlight the importance of test preparation. In November 2013, the first series of in‐person test preparation workshops were developed by the Testing Office with assistance of a test preparation specialist in a specialized college preparation program. Based on an analysis of 74 workshop participants between November 2013 and January 2014, it was found that 61% placed out the lowest level remedial math level compared to 43% for all incoming
37
freshman. Reading and Writing placement levels did not differ markedly between workshop participants and the college average. Students reported very high levels of satisfaction with the workshop, with math orientation receiving the highest ratings followed by reading and writing. It was decided that more emphasis be placed on reading and writing orientation in future workshop administrations due to student feedback and placement exam results. The strong initial results of the workshop enabled the college to acquire University‐wide funding specifically for workshops and fourteen workshops are scheduled between May and July 2014 for the incoming class of Fall 2014.
Looking Forward ‐ Periodic Administrative Department Assessment In an effort to evaluate the quality of assessment practice and outcomes at BCC as part of the process for completing the MSCHE Periodic Review Report, the Strategic Planning and Assessment (SPA) Committee identified the important role that periodic review plays as part of the MSCHE evaluation processes as well as the periodic academic review process at the College. This strength was examined in the context of concerns about the variability in the quality of assessment activity and results across the administrative departments at the College. In response to this analysis, the SPA drafted Guidelines for Periodic Review and Administrative Departmental Self Study (see Appendix 18), which is currently being examined by the Administrative and Executive Councils.
The Periodic Review Process would mimic the Academic Review Process, which involves each
department (on a five year cycle) in a reflective report which provides evidence and analysis of the
extent to which and how well the department is:
Performing its primary functions and achieving its goals.
Contributing to the College’s ongoing and PMP goals
Contributing to the College’s Strategic Goals
It is anticipated that the Periodic Administrative Department Assessment Process will be ready for
piloting in Fall 2014.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (Standard 14)
Academic Assessment Cycle
The Academic Assessment Cycle at BCC is a comprehensive and coordinated framework that provides
feedback on student learning continually, over time. An effective assessment program reveals data on
course, program or institutional strengths and weaknesses as well as individual student learning. The
BCC program design below follows a well‐defined path for implementation and change.
PLAN: Establish a set of measurable learning outcomes based upon what the student is expected to
know or be able to do (students are provided with enough learning opportunities throughout the
semester for the student to master the materials).
38
ACT: Set learning outcomes benchmarks for the student to achieve. The benchmark decision must be
faculty‐driven.
Create assessment methods/activities to allow students to demonstrate what they know and
can do. These “methods” should be appropriate to the course and embedded within the
assignments to the class (essay, lab report, dance, final exam, etc.)
using rubrics or content analysis sheets, compare results to benchmarks
ANALYZE: Examine the percentage of students who meet the benchmark among other indicators, and
determine whether the benchmark is appropriately set, whether the assessment is appropriate to the
learning goals, and how the material is being taught.
ADJUST: Assessment should encourage departmental discussions about student learning, resources,
materials, technologies and techniques.
PLAN (START A NEW CYCLE): Establish the set of measurable outcomes based upon what the student is
expected to know or to be able to do at the end of the course or program.
Chart 4: Academic Assessment Cycle
The BCC Assessment Plan The BCC Assessment Plan outlines the College’s assessment units, activities, participants and timeframes
(see Appendix 19). The Assessment Plan is designed as a blueprint to facilitate a cycle of regular
(annual) outcomes assessment (which drives decisions about improvement plans and resource
allocation) as well as more in‐depth periodic review (usually every 3‐5 years) , which includes
39
assessment activities which accommodate accreditation requirements, impact mission review and
visioning as well as long range and strategic planning,
General Education, Course and Program Assessment
Since the last Self‐Study in 2009, the College has devoted significant effort and resources to the systematic coordination of all General Education efforts on campus. To this end, the following have been accomplished: The College made substantial investments in General Education Assessment, including the hiring of an Academic Assessment Manager as well as providing reassigned time to 3‐4 faculty members, who participate in training and mentoring faculty assessment practices across the campus. This Assessment Team has been charged with the implementation, training and oversight of the General Education and Assessment program. The Assessment Team has been actively involved in providing a variety of assessment development activities, including the following: 1. A comprehensive training and development program with four training workshops. The curriculum
included: review of General Education proficiencies and objectives at BCC; creation of and coordination between course‐level and program‐level student learning outcomes; alignment of program‐level outcomes with BCC institutional level student learning outcomes; alignment of course and program‐level outcomes with BCC General Education proficiencies and objectives; mapping of outcomes across courses in a program to determine where program‐level assessment should take place; revision of syllabi to include course‐level student learning outcomes and their links to specific General Education proficiencies and objectives; creation of rubrics or other assessment tools for program and course‐level assessment of these outcomes; data collection and sampling techniques; preparation of an assessment report and action plan for any pedagogical changes decided as a result of the assessment.
2. Completion of institutional level General Education student learning outcomes, which are presented on the College website and campus‐wide dissemination of information about general education, including a dedicated web page.
3. Incorporating in the Guidelines for Periodic Academic Review and Departmental Self‐Study the
expectation that Department Self‐Studies will evaluate the extent to which the following have been accomplished: development of student learning outcomes aligned with General Education proficiencies and goals; determination of how and what student work or products have been assessed; development and use of assessment tools such as rubrics or other measurements with criteria for evaluating or rating student work; conducting outcomes analysis of all the levels of student performance and learning.
4. Documentation of General Education assessment results collected and reported by the Assessment
Coordinator and Assessment Fellows.
5. Participation in the CUNY effort to assess General Education acquisition and institutional value added with the implementation of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) instrument.
40
6. Faculty and Staff members participated in a CLA assessment training workshop conducted by the Council for Aid to Education (CAE), which was utilized in the development of in‐house training program for the FYS faculty development program.
7. Participation in the CUNY Pathways Initiative (effective Fall 2013), which included more than 100 course submissions (including student learning outcomes relating to the Pathways General Education objectives) to be approved as part of the CUNY common core as well as the redesign of approximately 50 AA/AS degree programs to incorporate the CUNY common core curriculum
8. Effective Fall 2013, CUNY implemented the Pathways initiative across its undergraduate colleges. Pathways establishes a new system of general education requirements and new transfer guidelines across CUNY‐‐and by doing so reinforces CUNY's educational excellence while easing student transfer between CUNY colleges. BCC will soon commence plans for assessment of Pathways implementation.
Academic Program Review and Departmental Self‐Study
The BCC Guidelines for Academic Program Review and Departmental Self‐Study (updated in 2011) incorporate a strong assessment component that is informed by three key ideas (complying with Middle States Standards) that: (1) place documentation of student learning assessment at the heart of the academic review/reporting process; (2) that envision the scope of assessment as a department‐wide activity with assessment results used to make improvements; (3) that are intended to promote analytical and meaningful reflection upon teaching and learning as the basis for departmental planning. The requirement for academic program review (APR) as a formal periodic process, including both a self‐study and external evaluation is mandated by the CUNY Board of Trustees. Every year, each college is required to report annually of these academic reviews as part of the CUNY Performance Management Process. CUNY requires a 7‐year cycle of review, but BCC operates on a five year cycle for each of the academic departments at the College (see schedule in Appendix 8). Following preparation of the self‐study report and the external evaluators’ report, the academic department must prepare an evidence‐based action plan for improving instruction and the curriculum. External agency accreditation reviews follow agency generated guidelines and procedures for self‐study preparation that incorporate accreditation agency standards and procedural expectations.
The specific components of the Self‐Study Guidelines that pertain to assessment activities follow:
Programs and Courses
Identify student learning outcomes in departmental courses and programs, providing details of
what students should be able to demonstrate, know or perform after completing each required course and each program offered in the department. This includes courses in the department preparing the self‐study which fulfill curriculum requirements for students in programs offered by other departments. Explain why and how the learning outcomes will be important for graduating students who transfer to senior colleges and/or seek employment.
Discuss the alignment of course learning outcomes with the college’s institutional General Education learning outcomes. As appropriate, this should include mastery of discipline‐specific
41
content and skills which may be embodied in both the Personal Growth and Professional Development proficiency as well as other General Education proficiencies.
For each program in the department, provide a map or other vehicle for displaying the alignment of program learning outcomes with General Education proficiencies and goals, and discuss what this map or vehicle reveals about student learning in the program.
Identify sections of courses with special focus or modality (e.g., writing intensive, honors, teaching with technology), and the faculty who teach them. Describe the relationship between objectives of the course as it is usually offered and the objectives of the course when offered in this modality. Describe student learning assessment of these courses and what analysis of findings suggests about future offerings of them in this mode.
Student Learning Assessment
Since the last departmental self‐study, summarize faculty assessment of student learning
outcomes, indicating which courses have been assessed and how assessment results have been used. In particular, describe in detail faculty assessment activities in the last 2‐3 years with specific discussion of materials documenting these activities and results that are included in the Appendix of the self‐study. Your discussion should feature the process for:
Development of learning outcomes aligned with General Education proficiencies and goals. Determining how and what student work or products were assessed. Development and use of assessment tools such as rubrics or other measurements with criteria
for evaluating or rating student performance. Sampling and collecting student work. Conducting outcomes analysis of the levels of student performance and learning. Discuss how assessment findings are being used, or will be used, to improve or sustain curricular
currency, student learning and teaching effectiveness. Include a description of plans, and efforts already underway, leading to curricular reform or introduction of new teaching practices and resources.
Assessment Resources/Building Analytical Capacity
There has been a more than decade‐long effort to build a strong analytical system and capability at BCC in order to support an effective and efficient institutional assessment program. The College has sought to nurture a culture of analytically‐based planning and decision‐making, and to develop faculty and staff ability to interpret and utilize information and analysis in their day‐to‐day efforts as well as in their formal planning and evaluation activities. BCC has invested in the technological and personnel infrastructure necessary to support effective assessment practice at all levels of the College. In addition to the academic assessment development efforts and programs cited above, the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment provides analytical support for any variety of assessment demands, including accreditation review, departmental self‐studies, expanding general knowledge base, funding proposals, informing programmatic and policy decisions, marketing campaigns and program evaluations. Services include ad‐hoc data queries, qualitative and quantitative data analysis, survey design and administration, evaluation and assessment project planning, database development, and conducting focus groups and interviews.
42
The 2009 MSCHE Evaluation Team Report highlighted the following regarding analytical support for institutional assessment: “Institutional assessment activities at BCC have benefitted from excellent support from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment as well as the underlying systems made possible by Information Technology. These resources are described as being integrated and collaborative in assessment efforts, while serving as objective consultants to the campus community in the pursuit of BCC’s goals and targets”.
Examples Providing Evidence of Improvements in Student Learning Outcomes/Success
The increasing seriousness with which program review by the leadership in Academic Affairs and in the academic departments and the corresponding improvement of the quality of the programmatic analysis and the impact on student learning and success is apparent. The recent Self‐Study by the Biology Department demonstrates ongoing assessment embedded throughout the department. The following table from the Biology and MLT Department Self Study (2007‐13) demonstrates a variety of assessment efforts, with results (demonstrating improvements as well as new questions/challenges).
Table 14: Biology and MLT Faculty Assessment Efforts/Results:
Areas of Focus Purpose Description Results
Performance in a Gateway Science Course
Faculty involved:
Abdullahi, Akkaraju, Atamturktur, Gannon, Liachovitzky, and Tian
To address the extremely low passing rate in a gateway Human Anatomy & Physiology Course
A set of Pre‐anatomy and Physiology workshops were designed using student centered learning strategies. Workshops were offered over a three week period and student performance was assessed in the gateway course.
Weekend Study sessions during midterm and finals weeks.
Student performance was significantly improved in the gateway course (Atamturktur et al, 2007; Abdullahi and Gannon, 2012)
Weekend study sessions significantly increased passing rates and decreased withdrawal rates among those that attended (see Appendix E).
Scaffolding a Threshold Concept
Faculty involved:
Akkaraju and Wolf
To address poor student understanding of evolution by means of natural selection
Design a set of thoughtfully scaffolded learning modules using examples that have high relevance to students’ everyday lives.
Student performance was at or above benchmarks defined for the learning outcomes. Student performance in the evolution section exceeded above their overall performance. (manuscript submitted)
43
Areas of Focus Purpose Description Results
Online Learning Environment
Faculty involved:
Broughton, Abdullahi, Somenarain, Wolf, Akkaraju, Khan, and Liachovitzky
To address student performance in the online learning environment and to promote self‐learning
Monitor student perceptions to the online learning environment. Tailor learning modules and self‐learning tools such as McGraw Hill’s CONNECT to enhance student performance.
Student performance in an online learning environment is not significantly different from students using the traditional environment (Abdullahi, 2011; Wach et al, 2011; Someranarain et al, 2010; see Appendix E).
Course Re‐design To promote concept driven rather than content driven teaching practices
Courses are continuously being redesigned to promote a learning outcome based, concept driven, and student centered, learning paradigm.
Faculty involved:
Majority of the Biology Department.
Course re‐design in STEM and non‐STEM has improved student pass and student retention rates.
Faculty development experiences have played a major role in course re‐design (Broughton, 2007).
Writing to Learn and Learning to Write in Biology
Faculty involved:
Khan, Broughton, Akkaraju, and Tian.
To promote deeper understanding of scientific concepts by using writing to learn and learning to write strategies.
Writing to Learn:
Learning opportunities that strongly encourage students to practice the skill of answering essay questions are provided. Planning, organization, key concepts and terminology, completion, and accuracy are all emphasized in this learning experience. Learning to Write: The assignment, which is scaffold in four stages with customized rubrics for each stage walks the student through the unfamiliar territory of creative nonfiction writing about the evolution and origin of diseases.
Our data show that 80% of students perform or above the benchmark in long essay questions on the final exam.
Our data also shows that 78% of our students perform at our above the benchmark for the written assignment (manuscript submitted).
Quantitative
Reasoning
Improve quantitative
literacy
Identify the most important quantitative skills for each course, introduce those skills, and
Students were consistently overconfident and some quantitative skills
44
Faculty Involved:
Araya, Broughton, Lee,
and Liachovitzky
reinforce them overthe course of the semester using targeted activities, in an effort to take a more systematic approach to quantitative literacy.
saw minor improvement.
BCC’s First Year Program – A Case Study in Using Assessment for Continuous Improvement
As already documented in previous sections, the First Year Program emerged from a high quality institutional assessment under the auspices of the John Gardner Foundations of Excellence in the First Year Institute. In addition, analysis and assessment are embedded in every aspect of the program design. Faculty, students and advisors are provided with real‐time information/analysis that can be used to make decisions and inform action immediately. For example –at the beginning of the semester, students complete a survey (either the Noel Levitz or an internal affective assessment instrument) designed to determine at‐risk characteristics. These results are shared with students, faculty members and advisors as are skill placement data. Attendance is recorded on a daily basis and shared with advisors who can contact students immediately who are not attending class. The College administers an early progress grade in the 3rd‐6th week of the semester (whereby faculty members determine whether students are meeting; exceeding; or not meeting expectations). These grades are reported to students, FYS faculty and advisors for immediate intervention. Mid‐term grades are another opportunity for faculty and advisors to help students address challenges in any of their classes. To date, surveys have been conducted with FYS faculty, peer mentors and advisors – and these results along with student overall performance metrics are shared with each of the faculty members. Finally, faculty members engage with other FYS faculty (from a variety of disciplines) in assessing student work reflecting emerging proficiencies in: Personal and Professional Development; Information Literacy; and Reasoning and Analysis. As indicated previously, the students in the FYS courses are outperforming other BCC students in both their first and second semester. Faculty members teaching FYS appear to demonstrate improved student outcomes in subsequent semesters teaching the course. In addition, BCC has been awarded a CUNY Student Success Research Grant to collaborate with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) of Teachers College, Columbia University on a joint research project. The purpose of the study is to provide BCC with externally‐collected data that will allow for a
continuous improvement process, while also examining the potential impact of FYS and similar courses on community college students’ academic development and success. The primary goals
of the project are to (1) provide BCC with objective feedback on the implementation of BCC’s First Year Seminar (FYS) during the 2013‐2014 school year; (2) examine the implementation and implementation challenges of a revised student success course; and (3) understand how a revised student success course, with a focus on applied content, may contribute to sustained, improved student outcomes.
45
More specifically, the project is exploring the following research questions:
1. To what extent is FYS implemented according to its design principles and intent? 2. How does FYS influence student engagement a) in the FYS course and b) in college more broadly? 3. Does FYS, as implemented, encourage teaching‐ and learning‐ for‐application?
Fieldwork, including course observations, instructor and staff interviews, and student focus groups and interviews have been conducted during the 2013‐2014 school year. Fall 2013 data collection activities focus on course implementation and student and faculty experiences. Spring 2014 data collection continued to examine implementation fidelity while also examining the potential long‐term impacts of the course by investigating students’ use of their FYS experience in subsequent coursework. (See Appendix 20‐Fidelity of Implementation Rubric which is being used in the study and also as part of peer observation process in the program). Findings from this study have and will be used to provide BCC with information allowing for real‐time, data‐driven program refinement of the course. CCRC will also analyze and synthesize findings for external audiences. Preliminary findings have been released in spring 2014, with final reports in late 2014. Next research and evaluation projects and steps are being considered for the future. The program continues to provide faculty, staff and students with actionable and evaluative data throughout the course of the year. Faculty who taught in 2013‐14 will soon receive an analysis of student survey results for their FYS courses as well as comparative performance metrics for their FYS sections (see Appendix 21 – FYS Section Metrics). Looking Forward ‐ A Faculty Development Curriculum with Embedded Assessment Practice BCC has a robust and continuously improving faculty development program. The Center for Teaching Learning and Technology continues to coordinate and further develop the College’s Faculty Development Program. Building on existing programs a new plan for Fall 2014‐15 (see below) has been proposed which embeds assessment in each of the required sessions as well as includes an evaluation mechanism for each of the essential topics is planned. This plan is currently being vetted through appropriate faculty bodies. Table 15: Proposed Structure of BCC New Faculty Seminar (Fall 2014‐Spring 2015)
PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT CAREERS TEACHING TECHNOLOGY
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Fall: Meeting 1
Student Success Focus: Empathy
Debunking Stereotypes: The Philosophy of Assessment Introduction to your Teaching ePortfolio
Planning Your Career ePortfolio ePortfolio
Fall: Meeting 2
Being a Student: Flipped Classroom
Classroom Assessment Project (CAP) and
Teaching BlackBoard Online & BlackBoard
46
PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT CAREERS TEACHING TECHNOLOGY
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
how it relates to your Teaching ePortfolio
*come back with info from mentors about expectations
Fall: Meeting 3
Liminality and Active Learning
CAP: Planning and defining SLOs, Benchmarks and Rubrics
Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure
Teaching ePortfolio FYS
Fall: Meeting 4
Writing to Learn CAP: Project Proposal Presentations
Scholarship Blogging/Wiki on BlackBoard/ePortfolio
WAC
Winter Break
Spring: Meeting 5
Threshold Concepts
CAP: Refining proposal, Time Lines, and Data Collection
Governance CUNY Academic Commons
Learning Communities
Spring: Meeting 6
Maintaining Sanity: Integration vs. Adding On
Data Analysis – Is this meaningful to you?
Roles, Duties, Skills of Faculty
CUNYfirst and Advisement
Podcasting/Social Media
Spring: Meeting 7
Peer Reflection: In and out of the class
Presentation of Projects and Peer Critique
Leadership/Management Web Enhanced Course Development (I)
Honors
Spring: Meeting 8
Teaching ePortfolio
Re‐CAP: CAP Reflections
Present Career Plans Web Enhanced Course Development (II)
Quantitative Reasoning/THINQ?
SUMMER SEMINAR
Cross‐Pollination: New meets Old
Assessment integration in my course
Showcasing my course
PRODUCT Teaching ePortfolio
Classroom Assessment Data
Reappointment Packet Career Plan
Mini Experiences with different technologies
Pick a professional development path
EVALUATION Use rubric to evaluate ePortfolios
Report results of overall performance of the group
Use Rubric to evaluate CAPs
Report results of overall performance of the group
Use Rubric to evaluate Career Plan
Report results of overall performance in the group
Use Rubric to evaluate Teaching Tech use
Report results of overall performance in the group
Report results of overall performance in the group
Chapter 6: Evidence of Linked Institutional Planning and Budgeting Processes
The Annual Institutional Assessment and the CUNY Performance Management Process (PMP) is well
documented in Chapter 5. This section will demonstrate how ongoing planning, assessment and
47
budget/resource allocation decisions are coordinated and evaluated to most effectively meet the
College and University operational and strategic goals.
Following the 2009 Self Study and MSCHE visit, the Evaluation Team report noted: The College is to be commended for its transparency in the budget process and its well established and participatory planning process. Increasingly the activities and calendars for planning, assessment and budgeting have been coordinated
as have the processes for evaluations of departments and personnel and budget decision making.
Chart 5: Annual Operational, Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Model
The Vice Presidents develop operational and budget plans for their Divisions relative to College/Division
priorities and anticipated outcomes – all emanating from the College’s Strategic Plan. The President and
Vice Presidents meet regularly to assure that the operational plans are consistent with mutually agreed
upon institutional priorities and are adequately supported by the budget plans. Ongoing assessment of
each unit of the College informs ongoing decisions regarding strategic, operational and budget plan. The
Calendar for these processes follows:
48
Table 14: Annual Planning, Assessment and Budgeting Calendar
Timeline Activity
January
Mid‐year financial plan review and update; Post‐Fall semester outcomes assessment; Mid‐year review of annual plan progress
February
CUNY Chancellor initiates new PMP Cycle
March
Presidential Call for Annual Reports Division Budget Call Letter E‐Procurement/CUNYfirst Shutdown for Requisitions Average Salary Report FY 2014 Vacancy List Development Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) prepares information/analysis to support planning/assessment efforts
April
Third Quarter Financial Report FY 2014
May
Annual Division Report Submission and Review VPs Review of Annual Budget Submission Preparation of College Annual Report/PMP Submission Final Collection of Faculty Scholarship
June
College Submission of PMP Report to CUNY Draft Start up Budget FY 2015 Staples‐ Link Closing Date
July
Draft Ending Budget Condition FY 2014 Initial Budget Allocation from CUNY Reconcile Draft Budget Condition with CUNY Allocation Finalize Budget eProcurement/CUNYfirst Opens for Submission of Requisitions
August
Initial Budget Allocation from CUNY Implement Draft Budget SPA review/feedback of Division Reports
September Share Annual Report with Campus CommunityConsultation with College Personnel and Budget Committee Finalize Start‐up Budget
October
First Quarter Financial Report FY 2015
49
November Fall semester indicators calculated and distributed across campus for discussion, analysis.
December Mid‐year review of operational and budget plans.
Financial Plan Process:
The College financial plan is developed from an internal and external components process. These processes occur separately and independently but eventually the components logically come together to produce a coordinated and effective optimal budget. Internal component: The College begins the financial plan process during the month of March of the prior fiscal year by issuing a budget call letter to all department heads and vice presidents. The budget call letter, accompanied by a budget request template, asks all department heads to prepare and submit their budget needs to their respective VP for the upcoming year. Department heads are required to prepare their budget requests factoring the established strategic goals for the departments. These department requests are then vetted and negotiated with the VPs of divisions. The VPs review and ensure requests consistency with the strategic objectives of the division. After negotiating and approving the budget requests, they’re submitted to the Division of Administration and Finance in May for compilation and submission to the President’s cabinet and other appropriate governing bodies. During the month of June, the Cabinet and other governing bodies do their due diligence to ensure that the overall draft budget is consistent with the College’s strategic goals and objectives. Before implementation, the College has to make sure that the funding received from the University Model is sufficient to cover the overall draft college budget. External Component: The City University of New York uses a Community College Funding Model to provide funding to its component community colleges. The University prepares and distributes this Model by early July of each fiscal year. When received, the Division of Administration and Finance compares the Model funding to the overall draft college budget and submits the finding to the cabinet. The cabinet then decides whether to increase, decrease or maintain budget as in the draft and approve a final budget. The final overall budget is then returned to the Division of Administration and Finance for implementation and monitoring. All expenditures against the budget are carefully monitored during the fiscal year to ensure that overspending does not occur.
Conclusion: Bronx Community College has thoroughly responded to the 35 recommendations made in the 2009 Self‐Study, as well as the single recommendation made by the MSCHE Evaluation team and the MSCHE
50
Action in 2011. Bronx Community College continues to adhere to all of the MSCHE Standards, as demonstrated in the 2009 Self‐Study, the 2011 Progress Report and this Periodic Review Report. As demonstrated throughout this Periodic Review, since the last Self‐Study, BCC has made substantial progress in over the past five years in building a culture of analytically and evidence driven decision making. The College continues to improve the integration and coordination of strategic and operational planning with budgeting and assessment efforts. BCC has a well‐established cyclical structure in place, whereby all courses and programs (including general education) have clearly articulated student learning outcomes and are routinely assessed. The quality of assessment practice leading to improvements in student learning and success continues to improve. Looking forward, as part of the reflection inherent in this Periodic Review process, the College has identified a well‐conceptualized plan to continue to improve the quality of academic assessment as well as the outcomes resulting from those assessments. The comprehensive plan for faculty development (referenced in Chapter 5) provides the development and mentoring to support high quality, student‐centered instruction, which embeds assessment at all levels. BCC also has a well‐established cyclical structure in place for the structured, ongoing institutional planning, budgeting and assessment. Looking forward, the College has identified a plan to improve the quality and depth of administrative and student service departments (as referenced in Chapter 5) with the implementation of a Periodic Review of administrative departments. The new Strategic Plan will provide the focus for all upcoming operational planning, budgeting and assessment in the next five years. Engaging in this Periodic Review Process has provided the College with a substantial opportunity to reflect on the progress we have made as well as plan to improve our efforts and outcomes going forward.