The institution demonstrates strong commitment to a mission that emphasizes achievement of student learning and to communicating the mission internally and externally. The institution uses analyses of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis in an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, implementation, and re-evaluation to verify and improve the effectiveness by which the mission is accomplished.
The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution's broad educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to achieving student learning.
Refer to http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/mission/ia_mission.html for narrative responses to the mission statement.
The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve student learning.
The core of the effort to produce and support student learning consists of utilizing a highly qualified and professional faculty who are given the necessary resources and support to deliver courses built around measurable student learning outcomes. Measurement of that learning is primarily done by faculty.
Courses are designed around outlines consisting of measurable student learning outcomes. These outlines are prepared by faculty who teach the courses. These course outlines are reviewed by division chairs and the curriculum committee. Production and review of outlines often involves referring to similar courses at comparable institutions.
The responsibility for the process of assessment, analysis, and redevelopment to improve student learning rests first and foremost on faculty. Each is a specialist in the area they are teaching, either via academic qualifications or through a combination of academic qualifications and experience.
Support for student learning also includes a number of divisions and programs that are outside of the classroom.
The Learning Resource Center is an important support facility providing both texts and Internet access. This facility is covered in the section under resources.
Other programs, some institutionalized and others supported by grants, provide support to students. These programs include tutoring programs and college-run grants that serve pre-college students.
The College has begun to build program level assessment of student learning outcomes. This effort has begun with a dynamic and active dialog on what constitutes important program level outcomes in each program. This is an ongoing conversation that is built on the knowledge of what works in our classrooms, the learning styles of our students, and on what is seen as important for our students to take away from a program.
The institution also organizes its key processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning.
Resource allocation is strongly decentralized, including facilities design, facilities usage, and financial resources.
The facilities were designed with input from a number of constituencies, both at the national campus and at the state campuses. The exception to this is the Chuuk State Campus which does not currently own its own buildings.
The classrooms at the national campus, built in the mid-1990's, were designed with input from the chairs of the respective divisions of the College at that time. The Learning Resource Center was designed under the aegis of the library committee and guided by a vision statement prepared by that committee. Design details down to and including the location and type of shelves and computers were specified by a faculty-staff team.
Facilities usage is directed by facility directors and division chairs. The division chairs prepare schedules of usage which are then approved by the Director of Academic Programs. Future facility plans are made in consultation with faculty and staff.
Individual facility directors and division chairs prepare budgets for their area. These budgets are submitted to the finance committee, a committee consisting of faculty, staff, and administrators, for inclusion in the College budget.
The extent to which an individual facility director or division chair shares their budget planning and preparation with others in the facility or division varies from unit to unit. Concern has been expressed as to the transparency of budgets in the state campuses, especially with respect to the faculty and staff who work in the state campuses.
The institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes.
All courses are based on course outlines that utilize measurable student learning outcomes. Measurement of these outcomes rests with faculty. At present there are no external mechanisms that provide evidence of achievement of student learning outcomes. All evidence of achievement resides with individual professors and instructors.
The methods of measurement vary from course to course, with each instructor specifying the measurement systems most appropriate to their course. Measurement methods include, but are not limited to, homework, quizzes, tests, midterm and final examinations, projects, presentations, papers, and performances.
The institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing evidence of institution and program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning.
1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes.
The college had recommended the use of student learning outcomes in course outlines for many years. Under the leadership of the then new Vice President for Instructional and Academic Affairs, all outlines produced after Fall 1992 had to be in a student learning outcome format.
In the Fall of 1995 [this date is pulled from memory and should be double checked with Quly and Spensin]the College embarked on the development of program health indicators as a way to measure the performance of all programs, not just academic programs. Many of these program health indicators were just that: single point in time indicators or measurements such as faculty to student ratios, freshmen intake to graduation rates, numbers of students counseled, number of books checked out, or number of air conditioners cleaned. While many indicators were internal to the College, a few were external. An accounting program might look at the number of graduates who successfully obtained jobs in their field.
In [1996-1997], as part of the development of a five year strategic plan [double check the date, but I think this was during the time Marie Abram was Director of Research and Planning. We had a day long meeting at Misko to drive the effort. Sue might remember the year.] the College developed program goals, objectives, and outcomes. These outcomes were not necessarily student learning outcomes, and in many divisions the previously developed program health indicators drove the development of the outcomes. That is, outcomes were developed that would be measured by the program health indicators.
Two examples of this structure can be seen below.
| Program | Goal | Objective or Outcome | Objective Health Indicator (Program Health Indicator) | Present Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Math: Developmental | Provide support for students who do not have the prerequisite skills and understanding for college-level math courses. | Decrease class size | Section sizes at twenty per section or less | Average of 25 students per section Spring 2000. Fall 2002: MS 090 30 per instructor. MS 095 25 per instructor. MS 098 25 per instructor. |
| Science | To provide a quality science education for our students. | Maintain an effective full-time faculty to student ratio | Ensure full-time faculty ratio for science courses is no more than 60 students for 1 faculty member. | Fall 99: 60.8 to 1. Spring 00: 53.2 to 1. Fall 2001 and Spring 2002: 322 served by 7 faculty for a student to faculty ratio of 46. SC 101 20 students in four sections. SC 120 29 in two sections. SC 130 24 in two lecture sections. |
The structure seen above of goal-objective-indicator was developed for each division or area of the College by representatives from that division or area. These were developed not just for academic divisions but also for the Financial Aid Office, Office of Admissions and Records, the Business Office, Maintenance and Facilities, the Learning Resource Center, and all areas of the College.
This structure or portions of it can be seen in a variety of documents including the strategic plan and some of the indicators reported as part of the performance based budget.
The evolution of this goal-objective-indicator structure to a student learning outcomes structure at the program and institutional level is now occurring. This evolution is self-reflective dialog, and not necessarily the quiet reverie that the word self-reflection conjures up. This is an energetic discussion that permeates the campus. Specific models, formats, and implementations remain under discussion. Any examples presented have to be noted as being unofficial and unapproved at this point in time.
The following example derives from a physical education course outline and includes only a subset of all the student learning outcomes.
| Institutional Outcome | Program Outcome | Course Outcomes (PE 101j Joggling) |
|---|---|---|
| Students will be physically educated persons¹ | Students will learn skills necessary to perform a variety of physical activities¹ |
|
| Students will be physically educated persons | Students will value physical activity and its contribution to a healthful lifestyle¹ | TBD |
| Students will be physically educated persons | Students will determine baseline measures of personal fitness. |
|
| Students will be physically educated persons | Students will be able to identify common injuries, treatment, and preventive measures. |
|
| Students will be physically educated persons | Students will have an opportunity to experience the joys of aerobic exercise: the feelings of strength, energy, and stress release. | TBD |
| Students will be physically educated persons | Students will participate regularly in physical activity¹ | Students will engage in physical activity at least twice a week. |
¹ National Association for Sport and Physical Education national standards
In the above model the institutional and program outcomes are measured through accomplishment of the course outcomes. Separately there would need to be survey assessments done to provide external measurements of the institutional and program outcomes.
2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated purposes. The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived from them in measurable terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can be determined and widely discussed. The institutional members understand these goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement.
Institutional goals and purposes are captured in the strategic plans that are redeveloped on roughly a five year basis. These strategic plans are developed not from the top down, but from the bottom up. Members of the College and other constituencies all have input, through various mechanisms, into the plans of the College. Thus these plans are not unknown to the members of the College, they typically represent their collective thinking. Through a variety of formal and informal mechanisms, these goals and purposes are then communicated back to the members of the College.
There remains work to be done in shifting this process from a present orientation of looking at indicators to the use of measurable student learning outcomes. Much of this data is couched in the language of numbers of students in sections, pass rates in courses, and other spot indicators.
Utilization of measurable student learning outcomes at the program and institutional level will require the development of new methods and instruments of measurement. The College is only beginning to engage in an internal conversation of what measurable skills a student will carry away from the College at a program and institutional level. Skills at the course level are well defined by course outlines grounded in measurable student learning outcomes that are developed by the instructors who teach those courses.
3. The institution assesses progress toward achieving its stated goals and makes decisions regarding the improvement of institutional effectiveness in an ongoing and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation. Evaluation is based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data.
The overall effectiveness and evaluation of programs or institutional sectors remains an area in which improvement can occur.
Some areas regularly evaluate themselves, such as the Learning Resource Center. Through surveys and indicators, the Learning Resource Center evaluates the extent to which it is meeting or not meeting the needs of its constituencies and then modifies its plans to better meet those needs. The Learning Resource Center has gone from an institutional weak point in 1994 to an institutional strength at present.
Evaluation of faculty occurs on a regular basis, both by supervisors and by students. This data is then shared with the affected faculty member in order to assist them in their own self-evaluation.
While some areas regularly evaluate themselves through established instruments or processes, other areas are less well evaluated. The result is often discussions as to the effectiveness of a program without clear data.
One example of this is the Intensive English Program (IEP). The IEP was begun in 1996 as an English as a Second Language program run at the state campuses. The program was designed to replace a remedial English program that suffered from an atrocious loss of students.
Although the IEP assisted in retaining students, questions have arisen at the national campus over the perceived uneven quality of the students coming from the different campuses. Some instructors feel that there are quality problems in all four state campuses. The difficulty with the discussion is that there is little in the way of non-anecdotal data to look at, nor any comparison data to equivalent programs at other institutions.
A study that was dogged by unavoidable design flaws of the first IEP students at the Pohnpei campus in 1996 suggested that retention and subsequent graduation rates were higher for IEP alumni versus students in the remedial English program. This study was unable to come to any statistically significant conclusion as the sample sizes were too ultimately too small. Part of the complication was a high loss rate of students in the so-called control group who had taken remedial English courses instead of enrolling in the IEP program. There were too few students left to produce statistically significant comparisons of student performance in College level English courses. Ultimately the lower loss rate in the IEP program drove its adoption.
Initially students were placed directly into college level English post-IEP. Instructors in those courses noted that many of these IEP students were not capable of handling college level reading and writing courses. As a result, students were later placed into what used to be remedial English courses post-IEP. This has led to questions as to whether the IEP is performing as designed or whether it could ever perform as designed. Yet discussions remain at the level of opinion and anecdotal observation in the absence of comprehensive effectiveness data.
Evaluative studies are often driven by anecdotal observations. As a result, many studies are done outside of the office of research and planning. When a new placement system that was introduced in 2000 appeared to be non-predictive of success, a study was undertaken by the chair of the division. The result showed that the new system was no better than random at placing students. The anecdotal observations of the developmental math instructors were confirmed: students were in the wrong courses. Some students were placed to high and some too low.
This led to the development of a new placement instrument in 2001. The instrument was piloted in Spring 2002. A study of the results showed high rates of student success. Couple with the observations of the instructors involved, the new system was deemed a success.
The instrument was used in Fall 2002 and the results were studied again later that Fall. Preliminary results of that study confirm the test is placing students at a level in mathematics at which they can succeed. There was also the suggestion of a slight underplacement of students in the Fall. The mathematics division is now making minor modifications in the instrument to correct the underplacement effect. Modifications in the process and timing are also being done.
In a small two-year college the task of evaluating effectiveness, following up on anecdotal data, and redeveloping systems will often depend on individual units engaging actively in self-study.
When the business community indicated that the accounting graduates did not have the skills to be effective employees in local businesses, the business division undertook the development of a third year in accounting program to provide the necessary skills.
When the need arose to develop a social sciences program that would focus on the cultures and traditions of Micronesia, the social science division developed the Micronesian Studies program.
When the dormitory needed evening opportunities for recreation and shopping; recreation and maintenance teamed up to provide bus service three times a week to town for the dormitory students.
Each unit, formally or informally, identifies needs, assesses solutions, and implements improvements on an ongoing basis.
All units, however, could benefit from better data on the effectiveness of programs implemented.
4. The institution provides evidence that the planning process is broad-based, offers opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies, allocates necessary resources, and leads to improvement of institutional effectiveness.
The planning process at the College is driven by a wide variety of formal and informal structures.
Overall strategic planning and guidance is provided by the planning council, a council consisting of members of the College system at all levels, members of the community at large including traditional leaders, and members of government.
Degree granting academic programs at the College also have a program advisory council consisting of members of the College who work under that program and community members who work in that field.
Planning also occurs as a direct function of the Director of Research and Planning.
Other input comes from a variety of committees that tackle issues on a more tactical level. Occasionally, however, this committees drive planning on a larger scale. Data that indicated the students at the College were unfit is one factor driving the development of a physical education program. The development of this program came from internal processes at the College.
Planning can also be driven by outside constituencies. The College is the only post-secondary institution in the Federated States of Micronesia. Hence when the national government calls on post-secondary institutions to train citizens in tourism, marine sciences, and agriculture, it is the College that must respond. Each of these calls arose from national or state strategic plans, and each call led to the development of a program at the College. The most recently added was the Hotel and Restaurant Management program.
Planning and the processes that develop new programs also occurs informally as members of the College interact with the broader community. Individual members of the College often see community needs and as a result develop programs to meet those needs. These programs are then routed through formal channels for approval, but the start of the planning process was a conversation held off campus in the evening between a member of the College community and the broader community at large.
Once a need enters the system, resource deployment depends on the personnel tasked with meeting that need. For the most part the College develops and deploys programs or processes to meet the need.
There are limitations on resources at the College. If a meeting a need has high costs and the demand is low, the College might not be able to meet that need.
In some cases where the demand is low and the cost is high, but the benefits are real, the process will proceed but at a slower and more affordable pace. For a number of years there has been the realization that our software systems in the Office of Admissions and Record, the Financial Aid Office, and the Business Office need to be integrated. This recommendation first came from an outside consultant in 1997. Software that could handle all three areas has proven prohibitively expensive to implement, and may not remove all double entry of data for the units involved. Not all of this is within the control of the College: the Financial Aid Office uses required United States Department of Education software for their financial aid work. This software does not currently appear to be designed to integrate with other systems software. While the demand for integrated systems is low, there would be a real benefit both to students and to constituencies such as the FSM national and state scholarship officers.
Other limitations involve the difficulties the College faces with long term financial planning. The College remains dependent on an annual allotment from the congress of the Federated States of Micronesia. This allotment is subject to change and introduces uncertainty in the College's long term financial planning.
Another major source of funding is through the United States Pell grant to students. This funding is dependent on the continuing inclusion of the citizens of the Freely Associated States in the Pell grant program. The United States Congress has made no long term commitment as to the inclusion of the citizens of the Freely Associated States.
5. The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate matters of quality assurance to appropriate constituencies.
[I'm not sure that we do produce quality assurance documentation to external constituencies. We release some indicators - number graduating, number passing the entrance test. But beyond this I do not know what we release that would actually constitute quality assurance. I will have to leave this area to others to comment upon.]6. The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and resource allocation processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as appropriate, all parts of the cycle, including institutional and other research efforts.
At the center of the effort to produce a systematic cycle of process review is the Director of Research and Planning and the Assessment Committee.
As the effort to shift from program or objective health indicators to program and institutional outcomes has only begun, systematic review of the later is yet to occur.
Two issues have impacted the ability of the Assessment Committee to function. The first is a lack of data, even with respect to indicators. The College used manual record systems up until 1995. In 1995 the College began using a home grown database for tracking basic student indicators, primarily grades.
Researching indicators has involved being able to construct queries on the database.
The second issue has had an impact on the ability of the Director of Research and Planning to construct those queries: turnover in the position. The College now has its fourth Director of Research and Planning since 1994. Each of the last three Directors has either been new to the College and to Micronesia, or relatively new to the College system. Setting up and institutionalizing cycles of planning and assessment requires multiple years of effort.
Turnover in the lead position, and the only College employee specifically tasked with research, has meant continuous change in the direction and thrust of planning and assessment. Each new director requires on the order of a year to comprehend the annual calendar of research and assessment needs. The director then usually needs a second year to implement changes, modifications, and additions. obtaining buy-in from units also requires time and effort. By the time a regular calendar of planning and assessment is in place, the director has often moved on and a new director with new ideas and desires has come on board.
Another factor in the past has been that the paucity of data coupled with unfamiliarity with who actually has the necessary data, or what data is actually held in a given system, has led to a nonproductive blame game. There has been a tendency to blame personnel or systems the inability to generate data. Or to make demands on units that handle data which the unit cannot meet. Data requests have been made in the past without regard to the present load being carried by the unit or to the amount of labor involved in the data entry necessary to generate the desired data.
Stability, continuity, and institutional memory in the director of research and planning position, possibly couple with expansion of the position into a multi-employee office, would benefit the ability of the College to close the circular cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and redevelopment.
7. The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systematic review of their effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services, and library and other learning support services.
[Jeepers, this is another meta-area that is not likely a strength. Some units do evaluation, but few assess the assessment mechanisms for their effectiveness in improvement. I am open to comments in this area as well from either Group I members or anyone else. My guess is that only the LRC might actually have looked at their assessment instruments in terms of their effectiveness.
The only other situation that comes to mind is the recent and ongoing effort to replace the faculty evaluation instrument. The present 1-10 form used by personnel has been viewed as not only having nothing to do with effectiveness but with being irrelevant to faculty. Some, however, view the proposed replacement system as equally irrelevant to improving effectiveness. Others feels improving the effectiveness of faculty is not the goal of the evaluation form or the faculty evaluation by supervisor system and prefer to handle improving faculty effectiveness outside of the realm of supervisor evaluation. There remains a division on whether faculty evaluation should be used as a stick to drive improvements in effectiveness or whether evaluation should remain summative while other mechanisms are deployed to improve instructor effectiveness. ]
While working on this report I read an article that argues not only that grade inflation is a myth, but research has shown that grades can be counter-productive to student learning. I have to thank the anonymous donor of the article - I found it on my desk at work. You can and should read the article, there is an online copy at: The Dangerous Myth of Grade Inflation http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/gi.htm
The article mentions some accredited institutions that have abandoned grading altogether. In doing so they argue that they are directly improving student learning. This fascinated me, so I have crudely cobbled together some information from their web sites. These are institutions where every faculty member sees themselves as part of a team and for whom student learning is truly paramount. These are institutions in which each and every faculty member has to have internalized the goals, missions, and objectives of the institution or they could not function as a faculty member. Lest you scoff at these schools, they are accredited in different regions and could not be more different from each other in terms of geography and student body. And their degrees are every bit as good, dare I say "if not better" than the one we provide.
One line in particular from NCF caught my eye: "Students' progress should be based on demonstrated competence and real mastery rather than on the accumulation of credits and grades. One should also note that while NCF serves "gifted" students in small, intensely personal classes, and Hampshire is an elite liberal arts institution, Evergreen operates in Olympia and on native American reservations on the Pacific Coast. The academic profile of some of Evergreen's students probably resembles that of our own students."
Alverno's unique emphasis on learning the abilities needed to put knowledge to use -- commonly called "ability-based education" -- has gained national praise.
Since the early 1970s, the Alverno College faculty have been developing and implementing ability-based undergraduate education, redefining education in terms of abilities needed for effectiveness in the worlds of work, family, and civic community. The distinctive feature of an ability-based approach is that we make explicit the expectation that students should be able to do something with what they know.
The specific abilities identified by our faculty as central to our approach to liberal arts and professional education are:
Since 1976, the Alverno College Educational Research and Evaluation office (ERE) has been conducting an ongoing research program. We began by tracking entire classes of students, from entry to graduation. We undertook intensive studies of our alumnae up to five years after college, to ascertain whether and how they are using the abilities they learned in college, compared with abilities of other working professionals and managers in corporate and nonprofit agencies in the Milwaukee area and nationally. Our studies continue to examine relationships among teaching, learning, and assessment in general education and across different major fields, and to study deep and durable learning and development.
In 2000, we published Learning That Lasts: Integrating Learning, Development, and Performance in College and Beyond. (Jossey-Bass). These studies integrate leading educational theories, formal research, literature and practice review, collaborative inquiry, and ongoing educator experience. Graduates demonstrate effective performance and contribute as professionals and citizens. Alverno students grow and change in significant ways as a result of the Alverno curriculum.
Alverno College has also begun collecting data on its student perceptions through participation in NSSE — the National Survey of Student Engagement. Academic Affairs and Educational Research and Evaluation (ERE) have collaborated to assist faculty and staff to use NSSE data for improving student learning. A press release communicates Alverno's findings.
Another report helps prospective students and their families use NSSE results to choose a college and to learn about new strategies faculty have designed to foster even more student engagement.
For more information about our educational research program, call 414-382-6263 or send your request for dialogue, catalogue or free reprints, along with your name, address and phone number to ere@alverno.edu.
The Evergreen State College is a progressive, public liberal arts and sciences college located in Olympia, Washington, in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. Since opening its doors in 1971, Evergreen has established a national reputation for leadership in developing innovative interdisciplinary, collaborative and team-taught academic programs. The college has a vibrant undergraduate program, a graduate program, and five public service centers that constitute a unique academic setting. The College values a student-centered learning environment, a link between theory and practice, and a multicultural community of diverse faculty, students and staff working together. Current enrollment is approximately 4,300.
It is about creating a community that works together to build knowledge, experience and insight. Everything we do is designed to foster collaborative learning among students, among faculty and between students and faculty. Our faculty is dedicated to teaching, to helping students learn to think critically, solve real-life problems and make the connections that lead to greater understanding.
Seminars and other aspects of Evergreen programs promote active learning. We believe it is not enough for students to receive information passively in a large lecture hall. At Evergreen, students discuss ideas in seminars, write about ideas in collaborative and individual assignments, explain ideas in presentations and practice applying ideas in laboratories and workshops. They challenge their own and others' ideas.
Students demonstrate PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT in their learning by planning their course of study at Evergreen. Students prepare an annual Academic Plan that they discuss with their current faculty; this plan will change to reflect students' evolving interests and academic needs.
We believe that if teaching and learning are to be effective, they must draw from many perspectives and include a multiplicity of ideas. This is true for teaching across disciplines; it is also true for teaching across differences. Evergreen believes in preserving and articulating differences of ethnicity, race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than erasing them or pushing them to the sidelines, and this belief is reflected in the design and content of our programs.
This distinctive approach means that the day-to-day experiences of Evergreen students differ in significant ways from the experiences of students at most colleges and universities. For example, education at Evergreen is not sectioned into traditional academic disciplines like mathematics, English and biology. We do not believe in isolating bits of learning and presenting them as if they had no connection to other types of learning.
Evergreen faculty members typically work in teams of two, three or four to create these programs. The focus on interdisciplinary learning means program participants might look at problems in health care from the points of view of biology, history, philosophy, sociology, economics and literature. Or they might study the physical world through the interplay of physics, chemistry, philosophy and mathematics.
Students learn to apply their ideas and theories and skills in the "real world." At Evergreen, we call it bridging theory and practice. Students may work with real-world communities as a program assignment or develop an internship that allows learning and the application of that learning to take place within a business, public agency or a nonprofit organization.
Those interactions contribute to another distinctive process central to Evergreen's educational philosophy-the narrative evaluation system. At the end of a program, students discuss their academic progress one-on-one with faculty and receive written evaluations of their progress. Students also prepare self-evaluations, discussing their accomplishments, learning environment, new understandings and goals for the future. As students prepare for graduation, they work with a faculty advisor to create a SUMMATIVE SELF-EVALUATION, reflecting on their entire undergraduate experience, and their achievement of their own learning goals. And students evaluate their faculty, as well. Evaluations are an important part of the learning experience, and students receive support from their faculty and from Academic Advising as they learn to reflect on and articulate their experience.
These principles infuse the Evergreen curriculum and guide academic planning for both faculty and students. We believe that they will provide the context within which our graduates can meet the following expectations:
A successful Evergreen graduate will know how to work well with others, not only in the workplace or social contexts, but as an active participant in the struggle for a more just world. You will assume responsibility for your actions as an individual and exercise power responsibly and effectively.
A successful Evergreen graduate will understand that by giving of yourself you make the success of others possible. A thriving community is crucial to your own well-being. The study of diverse worldviews and experiences will help you to develop the skills to act effectively as a local citizen within a complex global framework.
A successful Evergreen graduate will know how to listen objectively to others so as to understand and accept a wide variety of viewpoints. By developing a genuine interest in the experiences of others, you will learn to ask thoughtful questions, to communicate persuasively, and express yourself creatively.
A successful Evergreen graduate will have the ability to appreciate and critically evaluate a range of topics, across academic disciplines. As you explore these disciplines, you will develop a greater curiosity toward the world around you, and its interconnections, that will enhance your skills as an independent, critical thinker.
A successful Evergreen graduate will understand the importance of the relationship between analysis and synthesis. Through being exposed to the arts, sciences and humanities, and coming to your own critical understanding of their interconnectedness, you will learn to apply appropriate skills and creative ways of thinking to the major questions that confront you in your life.
As a culmination of your education, demonstrate depth, breadth and synthesis of learning and the ability to reflect on the personal and social significance of that learning.
A successful Evergreen graduate will be able to apply the personal frame of reference you develop as a result of this unique education in order to make sense of the world. This understanding will allow you to act in a way that is both easily understood by and compassionate toward other individuals across personal differences
The Evergreen State College is a public, liberal arts college serving Washington state. Its mission is to help students realize their potential through innovative, interdisciplinary educational programs in the arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. In addition to preparing students within their academic fields, Evergreen provides graduates with the fundamental skills to communicate, to solve problems, and to work collaboratively and independently in addressing real issues and problems. This mission is based on a set of principles that underlies the development of all college programs and services.
Principles that guide Evergreen's educational programs: Teaching is the central work of the faculty at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Supporting student learning engages everyone at Evergreen-faculty and staff.
Academic offerings are interdisciplinary and collaborative, a structure that accurately reflects how people learn and work in their occupations and personal lives.
Students are taught to be aware of what they know, how they learn, and how to apply what they know; this allows them to be responsible for their own education, both at college and throughout their lives.
College offerings require active participation in learning, rather than passive reception of information, and integrate theory with practical applications.
Evergreen supports community-based learning, with research and applications focused on issues and problems found within students' communities. This principle, as well as the desire to serve diverse placebound populations, guides Evergreen's community-based programs at Tacoma and Tribal Reservations.
Because learning is enhanced when topics are examined from the perspectives of diverse groups and because such differences reflect the world around us, the college strives to create a rich mix in the composition of its student body, staff, and faculty, and to give serious consideration to issues of social class, age, race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.
Faculty and staff continually review, assess and modify programs and services to fit changing needs of students and society.
As evidenced by these principles, an important part of Evergreen's educational mission is engagement with the community, the state, and the nation. One focus of this engagement is through the work of public service centers that both disseminate the best work of the college and bring back to the college the best ideas of the wider community.
Hampshire students qualify for the Bachelor of Arts degree by completing a full-time program composed of three levels, or Divisions, of study.
Students complete Division I during their first three semesters. The first two semesters constitute the First-Year Program , in which students take a First-Year Tutorial with their advisors and complete eight courses, which must include a course in each of the college's five Schools. The third semester involves systematic evaluation and reflection upon their first-year work, with development of a plan for Division II.
In Division II , or the Concentration , they explore their chosen field or fields of emphasis through an individually designed program of courses, independent work and, often, internships or field studies.
In Division III , or Advanced Studies , students complete a major independent study project centered on a specific topic, question, or idea.
In addition to these requirements, students must include volunteer service to Hampshire or the surrounding community as part of their Hampshire education and, in Division III, are asked to look beyond the specific focus of their work by integrating their scholarship into the larger academic life of the college. The faculty also expect all students to consider some aspect of their Hampshire work from a non-Western perspective. A complete description of Division I, II and III, which comprises the College's academic program, may be found in Non Satis Non Scire , the Hampshire College policy handbook.
Who We Are: The independent public honors college for the state of Florida as established by the Florida legislature on July 1, 2001.
What We Believe: Throughout the history of New College, four principles have defined the college's educational philosophy: each student is responsible in the last analysis for his or her own education; the best education demands a joint search for learning by exciting teachers and able students; students' progress should be based on demonstrated competence and real mastery rather than on the accumulation of credits and grades; and students should have, from the outset, opportunities to explore in depth, areas of interest to them.
History: Founded in 1960 as a private college for academically talented students, New College became a public college in 1975 through a merger with the State of Florida System which resulted in its affiliation with the University of South Florida. Today, as the state's independent honors college, New College of Florida has retained its distinctive academic program and high standards which make it a college of choice for students who can manage the freedom and responsibility for designing their own education.
Enrollment: 640 students, all full-time; 74% Florida residents.
Admission: Highly competitive (one of only 56 colleges, and the only Florida school, selected for Barron's Guide to the Most Competitive Colleges, 2001 Edition).
Tuition: Same tuition as at all Florida public universities. For 2002-2003, New College in-state tuition is $3,030, non-resident tuition $13,810. Named a "Best Buy" by the Fiske Guide to Colleges 2003 and ranked the seventh best value in public higher education by Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, Oct. 2002.
Ratio: 11:1
Faculty: 58, all full time at New College, all teach and advise freshmen through seniors 98% hold an earned Ph.D. or terminal professional degree.
Majors: Offered in over 30 arts and sciences disciplines, plus individually arranged multi disciplinary, interdisciplinary and special topic majors.
Class size: Average class, 24 students. 61% of all classes have fewer than 20 students. Over 400 individualized tutorials occur each semester.
The New College academic contract enables each student to develop an individual academic program of coursework, tutorials, field and lab research, study abroad, and so on, in close consultation with a faculty member.
Non-graded, narrative evaluations encourage exploration and mastery instead of competition. Intensive independent study projects during January, individual study or group activities such as an acting workshop or an ecological tour of Florida, build research and project management skills.
All students complete a senior thesis. Students can apply for competitive grants to support their research and theses.
The mission of New College is to offer an undergraduate liberal arts education of the highest quality in the context of a small, residential public honors college with a distinctive academic program which develops the student's intellectual and personal potential as fully as possible; encourages the discovery of new knowledge and values while providing opportunities to acquire established knowledge and values; and fosters the individual's effective relationship with society.
As a member of the State University System of Florida, New College of Florida, the four-year residential liberal arts honors college of the State of Florida, preserves its distinctive mission as a residential liberal arts honors college. To maintain this mission, New College of Florida has the following goals:
New College pursues these goals through highly selective admissions, an individualized and intensive "academic contract" curriculum, frequent use of individual and small-group instruction, an emphasis on student/faculty collaboration, a required senior thesis, and innovative approaches to the modes of teaching and learning.
In particular, the College since its inception has subscribed to and attempted to foster the following principles:
The mission and goals of New College evolved out of intensive dialogue about higher education at the College's inception, involving administration, trustees and the charter faculty. Subsequently, the faculty developed a unique curriculum that enabled it to realize the four principles that appear above and to sustain the College's broad commitment to individualism, pluralism, flexibility, freedom, and excellence.
Other notes
In response to the question, "In what ways can the College document that its planning processes have lead to improvement in institutional effectiveness?" I have been provided by a subgroup member with the following:
These answers were the result of interviews conducted by the subgroup member. The complication is that I have not seen any direct studies of how some of these documents have improved institutional effectiveness. For example, Title III showed in a 1997 study that technology in and of itself did not improve student performance between a pretest and post-test versus regular classroom teaching unaided by technology. At the time it was argued that technology enabled the exploration of mathematical systems that would normally be too complex to handle by hand calculations. The technology also allowed new forms of information presentation. Whether this means the course was more effective is arguable in the face of no statistically significant improvement in underlying learning.
Likewise, strategic plans are responses to present and perceived future needs. They are not documentation that the planning process leads to improvement in effectiveness.
There are remain serious doubts in many quarters that performance based budgeting, whatever that means, is going to have any direct impact on student learning per se. Performance based budgeting will provide us with the cost of particular programs, allowing program by program decisions. Performance based budgeting, however, is no panacea.
A quote was passed along from the subgroup, "The passage of the 5-Year Strategic Plan by the Board of Regents last year was a major accomplishment. In this plan, each department and office state priorities, objectives, and measurable outcomes for each activity for the next five years." I know the plan includes priorities and objectives and is truly a major accomplishment. I do not recall seeing measurable student learning outcomes in the plan. Maybe I am too hung up on measurable student learning outcomes, but I think this is what WASC wants ultimately: what can your students do, what do your students know, and what do the students value?
Program evaluations currently usually involve indicators and not student learning measurements. Indicators, such as enrollment rates and grade point averages, do not measure effectiveness in terms of student learning, and this appears to be the new thrust in the WASC standards.
Annual reports also, as far as I know, do not refer to student learning per se.
If we have to report student learning, then we may have very little to report beyond our outlines utilize student learning outcomes and faculty measure students using those outcomes. The rest of the College is still reporting program or objective health indicators. And we are likely years away from program wide evaluations of programs such as the general education core. I am also unclear how non-teaching units such as maintenance are going to generate anything other than indicators.
I think my concerns connect to those expressed by the education division in regards the two-year education degree: we did not always produce effective teachers.
There are also a whole host of questions surrounding knowing exactly what it is one wants students to know at a program level. The science faculty has looked at the math placement test and said that they could not do some of the more advanced problems on the test. My guess is that few faculty know what meme is, and even fewer can identify a dangling participle.
These issues of "What is learning" have to be thrashed out before we can measure effectiveness. I am deeply appreciative to Robert Churney for finding some material that helped me understand what a general education program evaluation might look like.
Ultimately, for the purposes of the self-study, I can see cobbling together a couple paragraphs about the discussion that has begun. This discussion is nothing if not a self-reflective conversation on institutional effectiveness and learning.