classroom innovations result in creative learning environments

Classroom Innovations Result in Creative Learning Environments

A QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED

IN COMPLIANCE WITH CORE REQUIREMENT 2.12

October 5 – 7, 2010

Dr. Ervin Griffin, President

Dr. Erica Holmes, Vice President for Academic Affairs

Halifax Community College

2

Contents

I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………3

II. Introduction to Halifax Community College.......…………………………….4

III. Broad-Based Participation and Topic Selection…………………………….6

IV. Broad-Based Participation and QEP Development……………………….21

V. Definition of Learning and Student Learning Outcomes………………….23

VI. Literature Review……………………………………………………………..24

VII. QEP Initiatives………………………………………………………………...29

VIII. HCC Learning Community Pilot Study……………………………………..34

IX. Implementation Timeline……………………………………………………..37

X. Organizing for Success………………………………………………………42

XI. Communication of the Plan………………………………………………….55

XII. Assessment……………………………………………………………………56

XIII. Resources……………………………………………………………………..68

XIV. References…………………………………………………………………….71

XV. Appendices……………………………………………………………………74


3

Executive Summary

Halifax Community College’s (HCC) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) addresses what the College’s stakeholders suggest to be the primary barrier to student learning. This barrier is a weakness in the foundational skills that underlie the ability to self-regulate learning and solve problems.

HCC’s QEP will utilize two sets of Learning Communities (LC), CIRCLE One and CIRCLE Two, to facilitate the development of the skills necessary to self-regulate learning and to solve problems. As a result, the following will be enhanced: 1. Goal Management 2. Time Management 3. Stress Management 4. Problem Solving 5. Academic Self-Efficacy

CIRCLE One LCs link the study skills course (ACA 085), which all developmental English students are required to take, to a developmental English class (ENG 095). A second CIRCLE One learning community will link ACA 085 to a developmental math course (MAT 060). The LCs are titled “Steps to Reading and Writing Success” and “Steps to Math Success.” The primary goal of CIRCLE One LCs is to facilitate the development of self-regulated learning in the linked course.

CIRCLE Two learning communities link HUM 115 Critical Thinking and ENG 111 Expository Writing, as well as HUM 115 Critical Thinking and MAT 070 Introduction to Algebra. They are titled “English, It’s Critical” and “Thinking about Algebra.” CIRCLE One LC students will be encouraged to enroll as a cohort into a CIRCLE Two Learning Community the following semester.

The College will primarily target first-year developmental students; however, non-developmental English students, regardless of year, will be invited to participate in CIRCLE Two Learning Communities.

A pilot study for the Steps to Math Success learning community was implemented Spring 2010. The pilot study provided data to strengthen the CIRCLE One LC initiative and assessment plan, as well as to provide some baseline learning outcome data. Indirect assessment results suggest that the implementation of learning communities at Halifax Community College (HCC) may improve retention and pass rates for MAT 060 Basic Math Skills and ACA 085 Study Skills.


4

Introduction to Halifax Community College

On these statements the North Carolina Community College System is founded: The only valid philosophy for North Carolina is the philosophy of total education; a belief in the incomparable worth of all human beings…. that is why the doors to the institutions of North Carolina’s System of Community Colleges must never be closed…. We must take the people where they are and carry them as far as they can go... (Cited in Ralls, 2008).

In 1964, Dallas Herring took the brave steps to make a vision reality when he put into words this philosophy of the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS). His vision ultimately helped to propel extraordinary numbers of North Carolinians to higher levels of academic achievement and quality of life.

Today’s economic crisis emphasizes the salience of this mission, and the challenges community colleges face seem insurmountable. Forty-six years after Dallas Herring spoke these famous words, community colleges have opened their doors to unprecedented numbers of underprepared students, have been described as working on the “front lines” of higher education (Arenson, 1997), and were recently designated North Carolina’s “Economic Emergency Room” (NCCS, 2010). Despite their overwhelming tasks and gross underfunding, NC Community Colleges are making an enormous effort to prepare the 64% of entering students who need remedial education to receive a college education and to strengthen the State’s weakened job force (NCCS, 2010). CHALLENGES

Halifax Community College (HCC) services the second most economically distressed county in the State where 24% of its residents live below the poverty level (2009, GAO), the unemployment rate is 14.7% (2010, U.S. Dept. of Labor), and ten of its public schools (including three high schools) have been designated “low performing” (2009, NCDPI). Despite the grim economic and educational snapshots, the College has experienced record-breaking enrollments. It admitted 1,697 students at the beginning of Fall 2009, and the following spring experienced the largest spring enrollment in the history of the College-- 1,730 students. To illuminate the challenges this poses for the College according to the ASSET database, of those taking the Placement test Fall 2009, 96% percent placed into developmental Math Courses and 78% into Developmental English Courses. In contrast, 2004 records show that 82% of new students placed into Developmental Math and 59% of new students placed into Developmental English (Julia Horsley, HCC Testing Coordinator, personal communication, March 10, 2010). In only five years, rising enrollments have brought a 37% rate of increase for placement into Developmental Math and a 19% rate of increase for placement in Developmental English. To further illuminate the extent of HCC’s challenges, the 2008-2009 academic year saw overall success rates of 46%, 32%, and 65% for the Basic Math Skills, Introduction to Algebra, and Reading and Writing Success Courses, respectively. The overall success rates reflect the rate of students who completed and passed the courses relative to the number of students who


5

enrolled. Those rates fluctuated during the 2009-2010 academic year-- which saw 41%, 46%, and 58% rates of success. These numbers are not far from external statistics on the success of community college students in developmental courses. According to research reported by Visher, et al. (2008), even after several attempts, about 70 percent of developmental students pass all their precollege reading and writing courses, and about 30 percent pass all their developmental math courses. They state that most of these developmental students drop out due to discouragement and lack of financial resources. HCC’s alarmingly high rates of placement into developmental courses, coupled with low rates of achievement in developmental courses, have prompted the College to focus strategic planning in part on developmental education and assessment, and its Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) to target developmental math and English courses for its Learning Communities. THE HCC QEP: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE QEP

HCC strives to meet the diverse needs of our community by providing high-quality, accessible and affordable education and services for a rapidly changing and globally competitive marketplace. In support of the mission of the College, the primary goal of the QEP is to develop self-regulated learners and problem-solvers through learning communities. The outcome is that students will achieve greater academic success and, subsequently, enter the workforce with skills that local employers have identified as critical. Students who have the ability to direct their own learning will be better equipped to adapt to a changing environment (Schloemer & Brenan, 2006). As HCC continues to be a catalyst for educational, cultural, and economic progress in the Roanoke Valley, the chosen QEP topic reflects a general consensus that improved self-regulation and problem-solving skills will enhance learning and prepare students to anticipate and respond to the needs of an evolving global community. As students learn how to self-regulate through, improved goal management, time management, stress management and problem-solving skills, their likelihood of developing self-efficacy, succeeding academically and adapting to the changing demands of the workforce increases significantly. HCC will implement learning communities for developmental and college-level courses, and students and instructors will hold to the values that are intrinsic to the wellbeing of our campus and community. This will be evident by emphasis on the continual development of integrity, truth, humility, respect, and fair-mindedness. As the founders of the Learning Community movement, John Dewey and Alexander Meiklejohn, had originally conceived, learning communities at HCC will serve to:

Actively support the growth and development of a culture of service in our community by word, example, and collaboration

Inspire a life-long pursuit of education, both formal and informal

Embrace new and creative approaches to continually improve the quality of academics

Instill in self and others that diversity adds to the richness of the learning environment

and the personal development of all.

By holding true to our Mission, Vision, and Values, HCC will be able to demonstrate to the campus and community its dedication and responsibility toward continuous quality enhancement, serve the needs of our community, utilize its fiscal and educational resources wisely, and provide quality education and services with strategic learning outcomes.


6

Broad-Based Participation and Topic Selection

The QEP development process began April 2008, when the current Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Joy Cooley, appointed Dr. Julie Dilday (Department Head, Humanities and Social Sciences; Psychology Instructor) QEP Coordinator. Dr. Cooley, Dr. Dilday, and the current SACS Liaison, Ms. Cathy Farabow, worked together to develop a core, volunteer, QEP team. Members of the QEP team represent a variety of campus programs, which lend to unique points of view in terms of student learning. The initial team members were: Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Instructor; Verna High, Dental Hygiene Instructor; Sherry Agee, alumna and Administrative Assistant for the HCC Foundation; Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling; James McCachren, English Instructor; and Julie P. Dilday, QEP Coordinator. Teresa Raymond, SGA president, volunteered to be the team’s student representative. Mrs. Agee took medical leave in 2009. Calvin Stansbury, Math Instructor, filled the empty position during the 2009 – 2010 academic year, and the Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Dr. Edwin Imasuen, was added to the team after he was hired by the College during the 2009-2010 academic year. Dr. Dilday attended the SACS Summer Institute June 2008 to adequately prepare for QEP development coordination. The QEP team held its first team meeting August 4, 2008. The QEP coordinator shared what she had learned at the SACS Summer Institute before they began developing a plan and timeline for gathering data necessary for topic selection. Initial plans included:

A faculty informational meeting on the following day, during which round table discussions about issues in student learning would be implemented

The development and implementation of faculty, staff, student, and community surveys

Participation in the Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Implementation of Focus Groups.

Team members were asked to develop questions for a new student survey to be administered to the ACA (College Success) classes during the third week of the semester, and to develop new and creative ideas for data gathering and QEP promotion.

FACULTY DISCUSSION GROUPS, AUGUST 5, 2008 The QEP Coordinator held a one-hour informational meeting with the faculty on August 5, 2008. An informational PowerPoint presentation was discussed before guidelines for a proper

brainstorming protocol. After a “brainstorming icebreaker” activity, faculty answered open‐ended

questions asking for their definitions of student learning, perceived barriers to student academic success, and possible strategies for overcoming the identified barriers. Each faculty group submitted a report form documenting their findings. An analysis of data retrieved from faculty group report forms reveals that the faculty of Halifax Community College (HCC) defines student academic success as including:

• The demonstration of learning, with an emphasis on the behavioral/skill component • Passing classes, board and certification exams, and graduating • Well‐roundedness

• The demonstration of the ability to set and achieve goals


7

• The ability to secure and retain a job/career and to become a productive member of society

• High grades • The ability read and write at a college level • The ability to think critically

The HCC faculty most often listed the learning‐related barriers to student academic

success as: • Weak personal skills for success, (e.g. motivation, commitment, interpersonal skills,

communication skills, time‐management)

• Weak basic academic skills The faculty suggested several strategies to improve student academic success. They are listed according to the frequency they were directly listed or implied on the report forms:

• Faculty advising and mentoring program • Improved Student Support Services • Faculty development/teaching strategies • First Year Initiatives including improved ACA classes and course embedded workshops, programs, speakers • Student groups • Learning communities • Improved Summer Bridge program, and • Improved developmental education program

Adjunct Faculty and New Students

The QEP Coordinator provided an informational session with the Adjunct faculty during the adjunct orientation on August 7, 2008. Information was also relayed at the New Student Orientation.

BROAD-BASED SURVEY PARTICIPATION Students, Full-time and Adjunct faculty, as well as HCC staff and advisory committee members responded to surveys developed by the QEP Team and from the faculty discussion group data. Everyone was also invited to submit his or her feedback to the QEP suggestion box on the QEP webpage.

Comparison of “Academic Barriers to Success” Survey Results

Full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, staff, administration, new students, and general students were invited to take surveys focused on barriers to academic success and strategies to improve student learning. The response rates were: new (ACA) students, 45%; adjunct faculty, 59%; full-time faculty, 56%; administration, 29%; staff, 25%; general students, 50 responses. New students participated in two surveys: a longer exploratory survey, and a short survey nearly


8

identical to that for faculty and staff. They are referred to as “the new student short survey” and “the new student long survey” in the discussion.

Because many of the survey questions were exploratory in nature, the QEP team gathered a tremendous amount of data. That which is more relevant to the direction QEP topic selection took, is discussed here.

The faculty, staff, and students expressed similar and dissimilar points of view in terms of their definitions of academic success. We explored this question in order to determine what was most important to students and college employees in terms of “student learning.” Students and administrative staff consider passing classes, graduating, and securing a job as the definition of academic success. This is important to faculty and support staff; however, they place greater importance on reading and writing at a college level, as well as the ability to think critically.

Definitions of Student Success Considered “Extremely Important”

Figure 1

From the list of barriers to academic success listed by faculty during discussion groups, students rated those which they believed to be the most important. Students rated basic reading skills as more important than math skills. This was unexpected because developmental math classes are higher risk courses at HCC than developmental English classes. Students also rated personal skills for success as an important barrier to academic success. The QEP Team addressed this unexpected finding in a subsequent survey, discussed in the following sub-section.


9

Barriers to Student Success Considered “Most Important”

Figure 2

One of the barriers to student academic success most cited by faculty during the original discussion groups, and by students in this survey, was the personal skills for success such as, motivation, commitment, and time management. Interestingly, most ACA students rate these skills and attributes as being high to average in themselves. The most frequently “high” rated skills and attributes are: “Commitment to Career” 79%; “Commitment to Education” 75%; “Ability to Achieve Goals” 66%; “Motivation” 63%. The most frequently “average” rated skills and attributes are: “Ability to Manage Time” 56%; “Ability to Manage Stress” 50%; “Communication Skills” 51%; “Self-Esteem” 48%. The most frequently “low” rated skills and attributes are: “Ability to Manage Stress” 21% and “Ability to Manage Time” 15%. The QEP Team interpreted the new student survey results to suggest that new students perceive that primary learning-related barriers are stress management and time management.


10

Figure 3

All of the stakeholder groups were asked to rate strategies for the improvement of learning (originally listed by faculty in the original discussion groups) in order of preference. All groups rated a first-year program and more intensive advising as being the most desirable strategies.

Most Desired Strategies to Improve Learning

Figure 4

Discussion of Broad Results: Advising and Developmental Courses The full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and new student surveys all indicate a need for more intensive advising and mentoring for students. It is notable that the longer new-student survey suggests that 34% of ACA students do not know what a tracking-sheet is. However, 98% of ACA students know who their advisors are and 92% have actually met with their advisors. The majority of ACA students rated positive feelings after pre-registration/registration. Nearly half of new student respondents (49%) were not taking a developmental course the semester of the survey. Those students who indicated that they were taking developmental courses were most frequently taking:

o Math 060 (33%) o English 095/095A (13%)

Almost all students who stated that they were taking Math 060 were confident of passing. This is an unexpected finding because an analysis of Spring 2008 grade rosters for all sections of Math 060 show a retention rate of 62% and a pass rate of 72% for completers. Grade rosters for developmental education have been analyzed since 2008, and the data is discussed in a subsequent sub-section. Student expectations coupled by the fact that 49% of new student respondents stated that they were not enrolled in a developmental education course Fall 2008 may explain the disparity between Faculty and New Student perceptions of a need for an improved developmental education program at HCC. For example, an improved developmental education program was the most frequently marked strategy for full-time faculty (58%), and it was one of the least marked strategies for ACA students (27%). Also notable are student perceptions about their ACA classes: 79% find it helpful to their academic success, which is not consistent with student focus group results (see Student Focus Group Results in subsequent section). Forty -Five percent of ACA student respondents also


11

indicated a desire for HCC to implement a first year program; 44% would like to see more intensive advising and mentoring.

An Unexpected Finding

In order to increase internal validity of the final student survey administered to HCC’s student body via Gmail, a new question regarding barriers to success was added. The QEP team had considered the possibility that new students’ understanding of question # 2 of the short ACA student survey administered September 2008 was more generalized than intended. We questioned whether the answer “basic reading skills” as the most “important barrier to student academic success” reflected a generalized perception of the entire student body rather than the individual student’s personal barrier to success. The “basic reading skills” finding was unexpected. According to institutional records, the highest risk courses at HCC are math classes, particularly developmental math. We expected that students would name math as the more important barrier to academic success. For the final overall student survey administered in November and December of 2008, the question “Using a scale from 5 to 1, 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important, please rank the following learning-related barriers to academic success in order of importance, using each number only once.” Consistent with respondents to the new student survey, basic reading skills was ranked the most important (54%) barrier to academic success. Personal skills were ranked the second most important (31%). The clarifying question, “Which of the following is your greatest barrier to successfully reaching your personal academic goals?” followed. Math skills were ranked the number one greatest barrier (48%); personal skills were ranked the number two greatest barrier (30%). Reading skills was ranked near the bottom (6%). The implication of this finding is that the internal validity for the question, “Using a scale from 5 to 1, 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important, please rank the following learning-related barriers to academic success,” is weak. It appears that many students did not understand the question as the survey writers had intended. Based on the answers to the clarifying question in the final student survey, one may infer that the actual greatest learning related barriers to student academic success at HCC are:

Math skills, and

Personal skills for success.


12

Figure 5

Community Input

The QEP Team sent a survey to a sample of 135 advisory committee members of Halifax Community College. Advisory committee members consist of area community members, including those who employ our graduates. Ten surveys were returned undeliverable. Forty-Six surveys were completed and submitted. (46/125 = 37% response rate).

Advisory members were asked the following questions: 1) Which of the following skills do you expect HCC graduates to have developed at HCC? 2) What are the 5 most important skills you think that HCC graduates need to have to

successfully secure and retain a job? 3) Which skills do you perceive to be stronger for the HC graduates you have had contact

with? 4) What skills do you perceive to be weaker in the HCC graduates you have had contact

with? 5) (Open-ended) In your opinion what does HCC need to do to better prepare its students

for the workforce?

Advisory Committee Survey Results

Figure 6

According to responses, the five most expected and important skills are basic computer skills, effective communication skills, effective interpersonal Skills, problem solving skills, and critical thinking skills. Of these five skills the respondents rated:

Basic Computer Skills as the stronger skill set in our graduates


13

Effective communication as both the second strongest of the skills, as well as the weakest of the skills (alongside critical thinking)

The largest disparity between weak and strong ratings is critical thinking skills. This appears to be, in respondents’ opinions, the weakest skill, tied with effective communication.

Writing, time management skills, problem-solving, and effective interpersonal skills was also listed as the weaker skill set.

Of the eleven skill sets surveyed, only three skill sets rate higher in the response “stronger in HCC graduates” than “weaker in HCC graduates.” Those skills are basic computer, reading, and goal setting/achievement.

FOCUS GROUPS

During the Fall 2008 semester, the QEP Team solicited faculty, staff, and students to participate in volunteer focus groups. Patsy Ferguson from the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce facilitated the focus groups.

Each set of focus group questions was designed to meet agreed upon focus group outcomes, was derived from survey results, and may be found in appendix A. Student focus groups were held on November 21, 2008. Sessions were transcribed, analyzed and summarized.

Student Focus Group Results

Outcome #1: to understand how students perceive the college in helping them achieve their goals.

Students tend to view the college as being effective in helping them meet their goals. Our strength is the helpfulness of faculty and staff, as well as programs like the Men of Distinction, Student Support Services, tutoring, and financial aid. Our weaknesses are that we sometimes don’t take the time to explain things. Especially for students entering the college for the first time, we tend to assume that they know more than they do about processes like financial aid and registration. We can leave them confused and frustrated. Some students perceive math as their primary weak area. They would like to see more emphasis on helping students succeed in math.

Outcome #2: To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed.

Again, some students find math to be an area of weakness; and one student participant in particular would like to see an improvement in math instruction. Students also would like to see instructors teach to a variety of learning styles. Advising, in terms of how informed advisors are about courses students need to take, should also be improved. And for students who feel uncomfortable making complaints, provide an anonymous suggestion box. A perception is that some students have been blackballed. Again, what students find helpful to their success are student support services and the opportunity to become involved in activities and organizations. Of particular importance is the accessibility of the college, the opportunity to transition to a four- year institution, and the friendliness and helpfulness of the college community. This is what keeps students coming back.


14

Outcome #3: To clarify and discuss student survey results

This set of questions did not generate much discussion. It’s possible that the students didn’t understand some of the concepts, like structured first year, intensive advising, and student interest groups. Generally, they did not like the idea of structure in the first year. They enjoy the flexibility and choice offered by the community college. There is an interest in participating in groups and organizations, particularly those specific to individual programs (i.e., nursing). Most of the discussion centered on advising: instructors’ need to be more accessible in terms of extended office hours; advisors need to be more informed about college transfer; registration needs to be extended so that it is less hectic; offer more advising for all students, not just first year students; be aware that non-traditional students need more support – don’t assume that they know more than they do. Outcome #4: To understand students’ academic experience at the College

Each student spoke about specific academic experiences he or she has had at the college. Math is a difficult subject area for some of our students. Some students in the focus group, however, found the more challenging courses like Math and A&P to be the most rewarding classes. Some students named instructors known for being “hard” instructors as their best instructors. Qualities and characteristics they like about these instructors are availability; the ability to break down difficult and abstract material into simpler concrete concepts that students could more easily grasp; using study guides that student works on; willingness to help students outside of class; teaching to a variety of learning styles; and motivating students to work harder. The question about online instruction received mixed results. Some like it and some do not. Some of the positives: it gives the opportunity to practice teaching self; student can take time working on an assignment and submit it at 2 a.m. No student in the focus group ever considered leaving school because of developmental courses. These courses are seen by some as beneficial, particularly for students who have been out of school for a while. Issues with developmental courses include: receiving inconsistent information from different program advisors regarding scores needed to place out of developmental math; instructors are required to move too quickly through the subject matter; and, an all day math lab is needed. One student had previously dropped a course due to being under prepared for the course and a lack of encouragement from the instructor. She said that more encouragement and fewer “put downs” may have helped her be more successful with the class. She plans to take the class again when she is better prepared.

Negative feedback was given for ACA classes. Most of the focus group found it to be a “waste of time.” They would rather see the class offered online, as an optional elective, or as a book, only. Only one student said she enjoyed the class. Outcome #5: To understand the significance of relationships in student persistence and success

Relationships appear to be important to student persistence. In the opinion of the QEP Coordinator, the most powerful and insightful comments came from students speaking of the relationships and interactions that helped them to persist in school and to achieve academically.


15

Based on some of these comments, one may infer that students come to the Community College not only to learn course work, but to develop personally. We teach and nurture the “whole” person when we relate to, encourage, listen to, and help our students. When we fail, as described so poignantly by one student participant, we do damage.

Faculty and Staff Focus Group Results

A group of faculty and staff participated in a Focus Group on December, 5, 2008. The sessions were transcribed, analyzed, and summarized. Consistent with the student focus group protocol, general outcomes agreed upon by the QEP team and survey results guided question development. Questions may be found in Appendix B. Outcome #1: To understand how faculty/staff perceive the college’s effectiveness in meeting student academic needs.

Faculty and staff focus group participants tend to view the caring and supportive nature of the faculty and staff as a key ingredient to meeting student needs. A great deal of discussion focused on the willingness of most faculty and staff to go the extra mile to help HCC’s students achieve their goals. Another strength mentioned was the relevance of the college’s programs to the area.

Outcome #2: To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed.

The goal for outcome #2 was to focus on learning issues that emerged from surveys, the student focus group, and an analysis of high risk courses at HCC. The first issue discussed was the math skills issue. A mastery learning program for developmental math was suggested. According to one participant who has researched Mastery Learning, it is a tested and successful program that involves developmental students “picking up where they left off” the semester after receiving an IP (in progress) in math. A math lab with tutors and computer software could be part of the plan. Discussion about adding constant “backtracking” and “reinforcement” as a pedagogical improvement (if not already implemented) followed. (Disclaimer: No math instructors participated in the focus group, so current pedagogical practices were unknown by the group). Other suggestions included: more practice, more homework, preparation for placement testing; and videos on loan from Student Support Services. The second learning issue discussed was time management and stress management skills. There were fewer solutions offered and more discussion about what the problems are. There was some consensus that one-on-one work seems to work better for students than group work (i.e., counseling vs. ACA class). Students have individualized problems with their lives outside the college. Other suggestions involve improving communication by “going where they are” (ex., MySpace) and imbedding time management and organizational lessons in conjunction with project assignments. Outcome #3: To clarify and discuss student and faculty survey results

The goal for outcome #3 was to clarify and discuss some of the issues that emerged from faculty and student survey results and to make suggestions for a preferred QEP topic. The top three strategies to improve student learning suggested by faculty surveys were improved developmental education, more intensive advising, and a structured first year program. An


16

improved developmental education program was one of the least requested by students. The faculty and staff focus group participants discussed little about a structured first year program beyond the fact that our applied programs are already sequential (structured), so the only thing we could improve upon is the ACA courses. Weaknesses in the spoken and written English language emerged as a learning issue at the college. Many of our students don’t seem to transfer what they learn in developmental English courses to other classes. A great deal of discussion centered on intensive advising as a way to reach developmental students: motivate them, encourage them, and teach skills that many of us (faculty and staff) take for granted. It was suggested that one-on-one work is more effective for the culture of our students, who can be intimidated in groups and who often do not have family support. We need to find a way to get the entire faculty to “buy in” to the importance of individual work/advising. A seemingly equal amount of discussion focused Math skills and/or developmental education as a QEP topic. Suggestions revolved around a mastery learning component to developmental math classes, a math lab, and math across the curriculum, writing across the curriculum, and a developmental computer skills class as a component to improving developmental math skills. Outcome #4: To understand what the college needs to do to achieve “faculty buy-in” for a quality enhancement plan.

Many of the faculty and staff participants had to leave prior to the conclusion of the focus group. Those who remained made suggestions about how to achieve “faculty buy in” to a QEP. Discussion focused on a few key points: communicate the plan, including where it came from and the reasons for it; give faculty a sense of ownership; assure faculty that the plan is more than just a plan, that we will actually implement it; and all good plans evolve-- give faculty the freedom to express concerns or issues about the plan; keep deadlines and expectations clear; acknowledge the hard work of faculty and staff, and maybe give some release time or build some work days into the calendar. ANALYSIS OF HIGH RISK COURSES Beginning Spring 2008, the QEP Coordinator conducted analyses of the highest risk courses for Halifax Community College (HCC) students. High risk courses are those with retention and pass rates of less than 70%. It became apparent that developmental education courses, in particular developmental math, as well as College Algebra, are trouble spots for our students. An unexpected realization is that ACA 085- Study Skills, has a lower overall success rate than expected. The college offers four ACA courses for first year students. ACA 118 is offered to pre-nursing students, ACA 122 is offered to college transfer students for credit, and ACA 111 is offered to students pursuing an Applied Science degree. Students who place into developmental English are generally enrolled into ACA 085 (Basic Study Skills) during their first semester, and then take the next level ACA course their second semester.


17

Developmental Education Retention and Pass Rates

Spring 2008

Developmental

Courses

Enrolled Retention Rate Pass Rate for

Completers

MAT 050 6 50% 66%

MAT 060 110 62% 72%

MAT 070 125 64% 65%

MAT 080 28 61% 65%

ENG 085 40 72% 86%

ENG 095 80 61% 82%

2008-2009 Developmental Education

Course Enrollment Retention Rate Pass/ C or better

for Completers

Fall 2008

MAT 050 11 38% 50%

MAT 060 169 68% 61%

MAT 070 126 67% 64%

MAT 080 34 82% 32%

Spring 2009

MAT 050 20 65% 31%

MAT 060 152 75% 69%

MAT 070 147 73% 59%

MAT 080 38 82% 45%

Fall 2008

ENG 075/075A 14 64% 78%

ENG 085/085A 73 68% 90%

ENG 095/095A 120 82% 89%

Spring 2009

ENG 075/075A 13 85% 64%

ENG 085/085A 69 75% 88%

ENG 095/095A 92 68% 86%


18

2008-2009 ACA Retention and Pass Rates

Course Enrollment Retention Rate Pass/ C or better

for Completers

Fall 2008

ACA 085 123 78% 95%

ACA 111 79 91% 89%

ACA 118 58 91% 96%

ACA 122 41 98% 98%

Spring 2009

ACA 085 72 64% 100%

ACA 111 64 89% 80%

ACA 118 30 93% 89%

ACA 122 46 93% 70%

These statistics were shared with the institution via blackboard, email to School Chairs and administration, and to faculty during meetings about QEP development. TOPIC IDENTIFICATION: FACULTY DISCUSSIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL VOTING The next step of topic identification began during faculty orientation Spring 2009. An informational PowerPoint presentation, “In Search of a QEP Topic,” was discussed along with QEP research results obtained during Fall 2008. Faculty then formed breakout groups and brainstormed topic ideas grounded in the QEP research. Topic ideas were submitted and the overall topic list later reviewed and synthesized by the QEP team. The list was placed into electronic voting ballots for faculty/staff and students. On January 15, 2009, the faculty/staff voting ballot was delivered via email and the student voting ballot was administered via blackboard. The results for both votes identified “Personal Skills for Success” as the broad topic. The Faculty and Staff voted for the narrower topic, “Develop Self Efficacy and a Work Ethic by Targeting Personal Skills for Success.”

Improve Personal Skills for Success Students: 47% Faculty/Staff: 54%

Improve Math Skills Students 37% Faculty/Staff: 23%

Improve Advising and Mentoring Students: 17% Faculty/Staff: 24%

On January 27, 2009 the QEP Coordinator presented “A Recommended QEP Topic” to the Halifax Community College Board of Trustees. Several board members offered feedback on


19

the topic, including the need to prepare students for the workforce by giving them hands-on experiences with interviewing techniques. Trustee members were asked to contact the QEP Coordinator with more feedback via email communication.

Refining the Topic

A “personal skills” survey was delivered via email to faculty and to staff on February 5, 2009. They were asked to rate their perceptions of student personal skills. The results of the survey were analyzed and compared to the results of previous student surveys and the advisory committee survey. The QEP Outcomes Team used the survey results to choose specific personal skills to target in the QEP.

Summary of Student Personal Skills Surveys

Figure 7

Questions related to personal skills were included on two student surveys administered in September 2009. Students rated various skills as perceived in themselves. Skills were rated as “high,” “average,” or “low.” Most students rated these skills as either high or average. The chart reflects responses rated as “average.” The most frequently rated “average” skills for general students are:

Stress Management (34%)

Time Management (40.4%)

Social Skills (52%) The most frequently rated “average” skills for ACA students are:

Time Management (29.2%)

Communication Skills (44.6%)

Stress Management (28.5%)

Self-Esteem (43.1%)


20

The faculty/staff personal skills survey, administered in February, 2009, rated personal skills as “above average,” “average,” and “below average.” Most skills were rated by faculty and staff as “average” or “below average.” The chart reflects the percentage of responses rated “average.” Critical thinking, problem solving, and self-efficacy were not included on the student surveys. The most frequently rated “average” skills as perceived by faculty/staff are:

• Critical Thinking (18.4%) • Time Management (26.5%) • Stress Management (26.5%) • Problem Solving (30.6%)

The Advisory Committee Survey, administered in December 2008, addressed personal skills perceived to be stronger and weaker in HCC graduates. Self-efficacy was not included on the survey. The most frequently rated “weaker” skills as perceived by advisory committee members are:

• Critical Thinking (50%) • Effective Communication (50%) • Time Management Skills (38%) • College Writing Level (38%) • Problem Solving Skills (33%) • Effective Interpersonal Skills (33%)

According to the Advisory Committee Survey, the following “weak” skills are also deemed to be the most important skills for securing and retaining a job:

• Effective Communication Skills (74%) • Problem Solving Skills (59%) • Effective Interpersonal Skills (56%) • Critical thinking (52%) • Time Management (46%)

Four Surveys Comparison

Comparisons of the four surveys suggest that all four stakeholder groups believe that the following personal skills are least developed in HCC students/graduates:

Stress Management

Time Management

Advisory Committee members and Faculty/Staff also agree that the following personal skills are least developed in HCC students/graduates:

Critical Thinking

Problem Solving

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving were not included on the Student Surveys.


21

The specific skills identified by the QEP Team to target for QEP learning outcomes are: Goal Setting and Achievement, Time Management, Stress Management, and Problem Solving. The presumption of the team is that mastery experiences with these specific topics will naturally enhance students’ academic self-efficacy.

Broad-Based Participation and QEP Development

Faculty and Staff were given the opportunity to volunteer to participate in various QEP

sub-teams. Each sub-team was developed based on volunteerism. SPRING 2009

The QEP Outcomes and QEP Literature Review sub-teams began their work during spring semester. The Outcomes sub-team was charged with using data gathered the previous year to develop a definition of learning and QEP goals and learning outcomes. They met each week for 4 weeks until the work was complete. The Outcomes team consisted of the following members:

Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Faculty

Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator

Cathy Farabow, English Faculty & SACS Liaison

Sherida Gholston, Director of Student Support Services

Verna High, Dental Hygiene Faculty & QEP Team Member

Daniel Lovett, Director of PRIDE – Male Mentoring Program

Donny Moseley, Prison Faculty

Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling & QEP Team Member

Catherine Sykes, Dental Hygiene Faculty

The Literature Review Sub-Team began working after the Outcomes Sub-Team had developed a definition of learning, goals, and learning outcomes. They used the information to guide their literature review. The Literature Review sub-team consisted of the following members:

Sherry Agee, Alumna and Administrative Assistant to the VP of Institutional Advancement & QEP Team Member

Bryan Carter, English Faculty


Walter Goode, English Faculty

James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member

Sandra Weden (chair), English Faculty

Don Worrock, Electronic Resources, Technical Assistant


22

SUMMER 2009 At the close of Spring 2009 semester, the Literature Review Team met, discussed their findings, and made recommendations for QEP Initiatives that were based on best practices. They recommended that the College enhance the ACA 085 study skills class, develop an initiative to facilitate the development of Self-Regulated Learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008), and implement Learning Communities.

The QEP Initiatives Sub-Team met several times over the summer to further develop the team’s recommendations and create a detailed initiatives plan. The QEP Initiatives Sub-Team consisted of the following members:

Bryan Carter, English Faculty

Cornelius Dickens, Student


Barbary Hasty, Dean of Student Services and Enrollment Management

Daniel Lovett, Director of PRIDE- male mentoring program

James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member

FALL 2009 The QEP Coordinator met with faculty during Fall Orientation and discussed progression of QEP Development. They were each invited to participate in several QEP Initiatives teams to further develop the recommended initiatives of the summer Initiatives Sub-Team. They were also invited to participate in other sub-teams to further develop the QEP. Each Fall 2009 sub-team and volunteer members are listed:

ACA 085/ENG Learning Community Development Team o Bryan Carter (chair), English Faculty o James McCachren, English Faculty & QEP Team Member o Sandra Weden, English Faculty o Chris Wright, ACA Faculty

ACA 085/MAT 060 Learning Community Development Team o Bryan Carter, English Faculty & Chair of ENG LC Development Team o Brenda Cousins, Continuing Education o Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator (Pilot Study Team) o Chuckie Hairston (chair), Math Faculty o Calvin Stansbury, Math Faculty & QEP Team Member (Pilot Study Team) o Nina Swink, Math Faculty & Math Department Head

Learning Strategies Team (Research Learning Strategies for ACA Learning Communities)

o Jason Bone, Industrial Maintenance Faculty & QEP Team Member o Sithah Campbell, Early Childhood Education Faculty o Donny Moseley, Prison Faculty


23

o Catherine Sykes, Dental Hygiene Faculty o Gloria Tysinger (chair), Graphic Design Faculty o Alice Vaughan, Interior Design Faculty o Jenne Vaughan, Psychology Adjunct Faculty

Student Services Initiative Team o Howard Bethany (chair), Alumnus & Book Store Clerk o B.T. Brown, School of Public Services Chair & Early Childhood Education

Instructor o Sherida Gholston, Director of Student Support Services o Teresa Mayle, Counselor – Student Support Services

HUM 115 Critical Thinking/ENG 111 Learning Community Development Team o Walter Goode (Chair), English Faculty o Thomas Schwartz, VP for Institutional Advancement & Critical Thinking Instructor o Carolyn Stuart, Director of Counseling & QEP Team member

Assessment Team o Julie Dilday, Psychology Faculty & QEP Coordinator o Julie Galvin, Biology Instructor & Science Department Head o Edward Imasuen, Director of Institutional Effectiveness o Nina Swink, Math Instructor & Math Department Head

QEP Marketing/Communication Team o Julie Dilday, Psychology Instructor & QEP Coordinator o Kim Edwards (co-chair), Graphic Artist o Melanie Temple (co-chair), Public Relations o Gloria Tysinger, Graphic Design Instructor o Alice Vaughan, Interior Design Instructor o Jenne Vaughan, Psychology Adjunct Instructor o Holly White, Nursing Instructor

QEP Video Team o Sandra Weden, English Instructor o Cliff Jones, Graphic Design Adjunct Instructor o Sandra Weden’s ENG 101 class

Definition of Learning and Student Learning Outcomes

For the purpose of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), learning is defined as a series of transformative experiences that result in improved competence in the core foundational skills and attitudes that drive success and lie at the heart of a work ethic that will enhance graduates’ ability to secure, retain, and excel in a career. The core foundational skill on which the QEP focuses is goal management, which will be accomplished with a concentration on goal setting and goal achievement through strategic learning. Relative to this concentration, behavioral/cognitive skills include 1) time-management and 2) problem solving; key affective


24

enhancements include 1) stress management and 2) improved academic self-efficacy. Thus students’ ability to undertake the transformative experiences of learning is dependent on their ability to motivate themselves and sustain positive attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and thoughts that will enable them to manage self and adjust to change in an evolving global community. The overarching goal of Halifax Community College’s (HCC) Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) is to develop self-regulated learners and problem solvers through learning communities. Specifically, as a result of participation in the College’s QEP, students will acquire the knowledge to:

1. Develop an academic goal management and strategic learning plan. 2. Monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal management and strategic learning plan. 3. Implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented tasks. 4. Manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student

academic success. 5. Use critical thinking skills to analyze available information and devise solutions to

problems. 6. Relate personal academic self-efficacy to academic goal achievement.

Literature Review and Best Practices SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Confucius’ (551-479 B.C.) famous words embody the self-regulated learning

model on which Halifax Community College (HCC) builds its QEP. According to Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach (2008), education has failed students by not teaching them how to learn for themselves. High school drop-out rates as high as 40% in some areas in the country indicates that students are not prepared for life-long learning. The QEP Topic discussions among HCC faculty, staff, and students, resonate with Zimmerman et al.’s (2008) assertions that low-performing students lack self-regulated learning skills. It is the ability to self-regulate learning that HCC constituents agreed was the primary barrier to HCC student academic success.

“Academic self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions

intended to attain specific educational goals, such as analyzing a reading assignment, preparing to take a test, or writing a paper” (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach 2008, p. 2). Academic underachievement is related to a failure to self-regulate learning (Schloemer, P. & Brenan, K., 2006). Halifax Community College’s Learning Community Initiative is based on the self-regulated learning (SRL) “Academy Model” posited by Zimmerman et al., who state that the development of SRL skills results in increased intrinsic motivation because it gives students a sense of control of their own learning (2008).

SRL: The Academy Model

The self-regulated learning cycle suggested by Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (2008) and based on the Cognitive Psychologist Albert Bandura’s (1993) work on self-efficacy and self-regulation is an open-ended process that incorporates 4 self-reinforcing steps:


25

1. Self-Evaluation 2. Goal Setting and Strategic Planning 3. Self-Monitoring 4. Outcome evaluation and strategy revision

Figure 8

Students learn and practice the steps of the cycle, subsequently developing the metacognitive skills necessary to understand their own academic strengths and weaknesses, as well as the ability to develop strategies for strengthening their weaknesses. To become more self-regulated, students should develop the following:

1. Realistic goal setting skills and commitment 2. Heightened academic self-efficacy 3. Lowered academic anxiety (Bandura, 1993; Liff, S., 2003; Zimmerman, Bonner, &

Kovach, 2008). According to the research, students who can effectively self-regulate and maintain high self-efficacy are more likely to meet their academic potential (Bandura,1993; Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008; Liff, S., 2003; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008).

SRL and Goal Management

A first step in becoming a self-regulated learner is to set challenging yet realistic academic goals. Strategic planning for goal achievement and self- monitoring follows (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008). Simple surveys and assessments can be completed in class to monitor strategies and goal achievement. This process has been helpful in the development of Goal Management skills, as indicated by Schloemer and Brenan’s (2006) three-year study with university accounting students. Even though it was not required, as a result of writing attainable goals, some students began keeping a daily time log to document learning


26

activities. Other by-products included increased enthusiasm for the course, improved learning behaviors such as time on task and student collaboration, as well as decreased number of absences and missed homework assignments. Students’ ability to regulate learning and achieve academically improved after they wrote personal academic goals and monitored the strategies they developed to meet those goals. Winne and Stockley (1998) assert that successful learners are goal-directed. However, writing long-term goals is not sufficient for self-regulated learning. To illustrate, they cite a study by Morgan that suggests that learning outcome goals and study goals are met more often by students who set specific, short-term “sub-goals.” Long-term and short-term goals provide students with a reason to create learning strategies. And according to the literature, monitoring learning strategies and goal outcomes facilitates the development of self-regulation and motivation (Liff, 2003; Winne & Stockley, 1998).

Time Management

Success in college is positively correlated with clearly stated goals, time management skills, and time on task (George, D., et al., 2008). And time management goals are the first targeted by Zimmerman’s Academy Model for SRL. According to Zimmerman et al., students must learn to manage study time because not to do so is antithetical to self-regulated learning (2008). Instructors can facilitate time management skills by first having students log all use of time over a two-day period. After a lecture on time management, students bring their time logs to class and collaborate with other students, who help them to detect patterns in time-use and to develop alternative time strategies. The overall goal is that students create and monitor the use of a flexible guide for weekly academic work. This should cause them to reflect on and assess the effectiveness of how they use their time, develop time-management skills, and subsequently gain control over their own schedule (Hofer, Yu, & Pintric, 1998, p. 76). Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (2008) offer a Self-Monitoring form for study time that may be used to facilitate the development of time-management skills (Appendix C).

Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura (1993), Educational Psychology has historically focused on how the mind works in terms of processing, organizing, and retrieving information. He argues that more than knowledge and reasoning abilities is needed for academic effectiveness. It is students’ beliefs about their ability to regulate their own functioning and to exercise control over their environments, or their “efficacy beliefs,” that influence how they “feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave” (p. 118). An individual’s perception of self-efficacy impacts these domains of functioning through four major processes: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective.

Purposeful behavior is regulated by foresight, and constructed goals. Stronger perception of self-efficacy influences higher goal-setting and commitment. People with stronger self-efficacy visualize success-related scenarios that serve to guide their actions. Those plagued by self-doubt are guided by failure related visualizations. He supports his position by describing a study conducted by Collins (p. 119). Children with differing levels of mathematical ability were selected to participate. At each level (“low, medium, and high”), some of the children had high self-efficacy and others had self-doubt. At each level, children with higher self-efficacy performed math problems better; they were more likely to re-work problems they failed more accurately than children at the same ability level, but who exhibited higher levels of self-doubt. It is self-efficacy, he says, that guides the use of skills in a more effective manner.


27

As indicated by organizational research, evidence of performance mastery strengthens self-efficacy, efficient thinking, and performance. Social evaluation (feedback) has also been shown to increase self-efficacy, which, in turn, can alter performance levels. Feedback that highlights mastery experiences rather than deficiency can heighten perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Feedback focusing on deficiencies can have the opposite effect. In sum, Bandura (1993) states,

Learning environments that construe ability as an acquirable skill, deemphasize competitive social comparison, and highlight self-comparison of progress and personal accomplishments are well-suited for building a sense of efficacy that promotes academic achievement. (p. 119) Bandura (1993) asserts that the best way to equip students for academic

success is to improve self-efficacy and self-regulatory skills for life-long learning. High self-efficacy is related to more challenging goals and persistence to meet those goals. Monitoring self-efficacy is an affective mechanism for the development of self-regulated learning. Low self-efficacy ratings can help students to identify areas to apply more effort. Subsequently, they may self-correct learning strategies before receiving a low grade. Academic success leads to increased self-efficacy, higher motivation, and the tendency to take more responsibility for learning (Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, 2008).

Stress-Management

Students who do not believe they have some control over their environmental stressors have higher levels of anxiety and impaired functioning. Students with low academic efficacy are more likely to exhibit achievement anxiety. Higher academic efficacy is related to academic achievement. Therefore, according to Bandura (1993), the best way to relieve academic anxiety is to build a strong sense of efficacy. “This is achieved through development of cognitive capabilities and self-regulative skills for managing academic task demands and self-debilitating thought patterns” (p. 134). Avoidance behavior is common with people who do not believe they can cope. They tend to view challenging situations as threatening. People will choose challenging activities if they believe they have the capability of coping and achieving. Self efficacy beliefs impact the choices that guide life direction. “The stronger people’s belief in their efficacy, the more career options they consider possible, the greater the interest they show in them, the better they prepare themselves educationally for different occupations, and the greater their staying power and success in difficult occupational pursuits” (Bandura,1993, p. 135). The relationship between a positive mood and low tension with academic efficacy, realistic yet challenging goal setting, and academic achievement has been documented in the literature (Liff, 2003; Neuville, Frenay, & Bourgeois, 2007). According to Liff (2003), the regulation of stress is a component of the learning process, particularly for at-risk students. Her study supports Bandura’s assertion that the ability to control physiological stress reactions is related to efficacy and achievement. Recent research by Putain, Conners, & Symes (2010) supports Bandura’s theory and indicates that the inverse correlation between test anxiety and achievement is mediated by certain cognitive distortions (see Beck et al., 1979). And Wong found a relationship between Beck’s cognitive triad (see Beck, 1979) and negative self-view with debilitating anxiety among undergraduates (2008).


28

Problem-Solving The ability to problem-solve is a necessary component of self-regulated learning. Belfiore & Hornyak state that student’s knowledge of when and when not to problem-solve, as well as the ability to solve problems during self-monitoring is necessary to manage self in the absence of an instructor (1998).

The ability to effectively analyze and solve problems is inherent to the development of critical thinking skills as posited by Paul and Elder (1996, 2005). The authors outline and discuss nine “elements of thought” and seven “intellectual standards” for developing and assessing student critical thinking skills. The elements of thought are: 1) Purpose, goal, or end in view; 2) Problem to be solved; 3) Point of view or frame of reference; 4) Concepts or ideas; 5) Assumptions; 6) Implications or consequences; 7) Inferences; 8) Conclusions. The intellectual standards are: 1) Clarity; 2) Accuracy; 3) Precision; 4) Relevance; 5) Depth; 6) Breadth; 7) Logic. LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Learning Communities (LCs) have been around since the 1960s and began with Alexander Meiklejohn’s Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin and the work of John Dewey. They gained popularity in the 1980’s and 1990’s and today take many forms (Smith et. al., 2004). The most common model utilized by community colleges is two or more courses thematically linked for a common student cohort (Visher, et. al., 2008).

An extensive body of literature exists describing the positive impact of Learning Communities on retention, academic achievement, and graduation rates (Laufgraben, 2005; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et. al. 2004; Visher et. al., 2008); however, only 20% of two-year institutions utilize them (Laufgraben, 2005). This observation, coupled with low achievement rates, supports Laufgraben’s assertion that despite a preponderance of new research describing how individuals actually learn and the development of technologies to support student learning, colleges and universities are still relying on outdated and ineffective methods of teaching and learning (2005).

Learning Communities have been named as one solution to low achievement in Higher Education. A study examining “conditions of excellence in higher education” and conducted by direction of the National Institute of Education (NIE) suggested that Learning Communities would help bring the focus of Higher Education back to Student Learning. The researchers asserted that institutions were failing to meet society’s expectations for higher education and ignoring information on student achievement and retention (Shapiro & Levine, 1999, p. 10).

Learning Communities are reported to be a method to facilitate stronger connections and collaboration among faculty and students, connections among various courses, relevant application of classroom learning to the real world, critical thinking, personal and social growth, and service to society. They shift the focus away from teaching-centered to student-centered learning and, if implemented effectively, may lead to institutional transformation and play a role in general education reform (Laufgraben, 2005; Shapiro & Levine, 1999; Smith et. al., 2004).

In recent years, due to a paucity of well-designed research on the student outcomes of Learning Community participation, several institutions have begun collecting and analyzing data on the causal effects of Learning Communities on educational outcomes. The first major review of the effectiveness of learning communities was carried out in 2003 by leaders of the National Learning Communities Project, based at The Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education at The Evergreen State College. Taylor, Moore, MacGregor, and Lindbald analyzed, synthesized, and drew conclusions for research and assessment reports for


29

learning communities implemented through 2003. They reviewed 32 formal research studies and 119 assessment reports from 78 institutions of higher education. Major findings include:

Learning communities are being implemented in a variety of institutions of higher education

Most learning community programs are designed for first-year students

Learning communities strengthen retention

Learning communities strengthen academic achievement Areas for improvement as indicated by the study:

Assessment should focus on intervention strategies and the direct assessment of learning outcomes rather than retention and pass rates alone

Future studies should focus on the quality of student learning and intellectual development

An examination of Learning communities’ effects on people who serve on teaching teams needs to conducted

Issues related to developing, sustaining, and institutionalizing learning communities programs should be studied

Because there is no standard learning community model, curricula, co-curricular activities, as well pedagogical and assessment strategies need to be examined (p. iv).

The authors assert that there is sufficient data to indicate that learning communities have positive student outcomes. However, retention and pass rates are not sufficient to deepen and clarify the body of literature. Direct assessments of learning outcomes and intervention strategies are needed to indicate what factors contribute to learning community success and to which specific populations of students (p. 66).

Kingsborough Community College in New York developed one of the larger and more rigorous studies with community college students as part of the “Opening Doors” project. The authors found that at the conclusion of the project, learning community students felt more integrated and engaged than controls, attempted and passed more courses in the first semester, and completed Developmental English requirements more quickly than the control group (Scrivener, et. al., 2008).

As an effort to improve the success rates in community colleges, the Lumina Foundation for Education launched a massive multi-year national initiative called “Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count.” Eighty-two Institutions in 18 states are now involved in the grant-funded project. The effort primarily focuses on data collection and analysis to “build a culture of evidence” to improve learning outcomes. The implementation and assessment of Learning Communities has been but one strategy attempted to improve academic outcomes. In the first year of project implementation, 11 of 27 participating colleges used Learning Communities as an instructional strategy to help achieve specific project goals and improve student-learning outcomes. Some of these colleges targeted developmental courses, and others focused on credit-bearing courses (Brock et. al., 2007). The outcomes of the initiative have not yet been published.

In addition to the Lumina Foundation, in 2009 the Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education to the National Center for Postsecondary Research (NCPR), MDRC and other NCPR research partners completed a two-year “demonstration” of learning

http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/


30

communities at six community college sites. It used an experimental research design to take the work of Kingsborough Community College a step further. The study emphasized the impact of Learning Communities on the completion of developmental education and the results will be published in 2010 (MDRC, 2010).

Learning Communities are suggested to be a promising intervention to improve the outcomes of developmental education in community colleges. Based on an in-depth case study by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) of 15 community colleges in the United States, positive outcomes have been documented to the extent that Perin (2005) asserts that they are worth the resources and effort that goes into their design and implementation.

QEP Initiatives

Four QEP initiatives will serve as the vehicles to help students develop self-regulated learning and problem-solving skills:

1. Enhanced Study Skills Course Initiative: The developmental study skills course, ACA 085, has been redesigned to teach students how to learn by self-regulating learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman, Bonner, & Kovach, R., 2008). All of the QEP learning outcomes fall neatly within the context of self-regulated learning (SRL). By developing the chosen personal skills for success, self-regulated learning will be enhanced. By using best practices for developing self-regulated learners, QEP learning outcomes should be met. Students will utilize several tools to help them develop self-regulated learning skills, which are described in the assessment section.

2. Learning Communities Initiative: First-year developmental students will be invited to enroll in one of two CIRCLE One learning communities (LC): “Steps to Math Success” or “Steps to Reading and Writing Success.” These learning communities link the newly re-designed ACA 085 Study Skills course with MAT 060 Basic Math Skills and ACA 085 Study Skills with ENG 095 Reading and Composition Strategies. The overarching goal for CIRCLE One learning communities is to facilitate the development of self-regulated learning by specifically targeting goal management, time management, stress management, and academic self-efficacy. Problem-solving will be targeted to the degree that it involves creating new learning strategies within the context of the self-regulated learning model. The overarching goal for CIRCLE Two learning communities is the facilitation of the critical thinking skills that enhance the students ability to solve problems, as well as the reinforcement of self-regulated learning skills.

The original CIRCLE One cohorts will be encouraged to enroll in the subsequent CIRCLE Two LCs the following semester. Steps to Math Success students will enroll in the “Thinking about Algebra” LC, which will be offered during the same time slot as the original CIRCLE One LC, and the Steps to Reading and Writing Success students will enroll in the “English: It’s Critical” LC, also offered during the same time slot as the original CIRCLE One LC. CIRCLE Two LCs link HUM 115 Critical Thinking with MAT 070 Introductory Algebra and HUM 115 Critical Thinking with ENG 111 Expository Writing. The number of Learning Community sections will increase until full-implementation is achieved during academic year 2013-2014. And beginning Fall 2011, two additional CIRCLE Two LCs will be offered for students who placed out of developmental courses.


31

Semester One

CIRCLE One Learning

Communities

Semester Two

CIRCLE Two Learning Communities

Steps to Math Success

ACA 085 – Basic Study Skills/

MAT 060- Basic Math

Thinking about Algebra

MAT 070 – Introduction to Algebra/

HUM 115- Critical Thinking

Steps to Reading and Writing

Success

ACA 085 – Basic Study Skills/

ENG 095 – Reading &

Comprehension Strategies

English, It’s Critical

ENG 111 – Expository Writing/

HUM 115- Critical Thinking

3. Student Services Initiative: will target academic self-efficacy, stress management, and

problem-solving goals within the context of CIRCLE One LCs. Special workshops and projects will be facilitated by student services staff. Multiple workshops on stress management will be provided, as well as communication, Financial Aid rules, and test-anxiety. Student services staff will also be involved in problem-oriented service projects that are appropriate for individual cohorts and budget. Student Support Services counselors will be available for referral for high anxiety, low self-efficacy, and other behavioral or attitudinal problems.

4. Professional Development Initiative: will provide education and support to faculty and staff who participate in the Quality Enhancement Plan. The institution was fortunate to have professional development funds available during the 2009-2010 academic year through a Title III Grant. Therefore, the following professional development opportunities were made available to faculty and staff during QEP development:

January 5, 2010: Best Practices in Learning Communities workshop provided by Kristie Sullivan of Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst, NC.

March 18-19, 2010: “Promoting Achievement, Motivation, and Strategic Learning: Essential Tactics and Applications to College Settings” provided by Dr. Timothy Cleary, University Wisconsin –Milwaukee.

June 27-July 1: National Summer Institute on Learning Communities provided by the Washington Center, Evergreen State University. Three CIRCLE Program faculty members and the Dean of Curriculum attended.


32

Date QEP-Related Professional Development Activity

Attendees Cost

February – April, 2009

NC-NET Blackboard Course –

Learning Communities

Julie Dilday, QEP Coordinator

$ 0

January 5, 2010 “Clearing the Path: Building and Sustaining Learning

Communities” Presented by Kristie Sullivan, Sandhills Community College

All Faculty; Student Services Staff;

PRIDE Staff

$ 600

March 18-19, 2010 “Promoting Achievement, Motivation, and Strategic Learning: Essential Tactics

and Applications to College Settings” Presented by Dr. Timothy

Cleary, University Wisconsin Milwaukee

All Faculty; Counselors

$6000

June 27-July 1, 2010 National Summer Institute on Learning Communities at the Washington Center,

Evergreen State College

Julie Dilday, QEP Director Walter Goode, English/Critical Thinking Instructor

Calvin Stansbury, Math Instructor

$4666

August – December, 2010 Online Course:

CT 700 – Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning

Three Critical Thinking

Instructors

$3276

August, 2010 Workshop: Developing and Assessing integrated assignments

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury, and Walter Goode

All faculty $65 Supplies/materials

January, 2011 Workshop:

Teaching, Learning, and

Assessment in HCC’s

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Thomas Schwartz, Walter

Goode, Julie Dilday

New CIRCLE 2 Faculty $65

Supplies/materials

January – May, 2011 Online Course:

CT 701 –Critical Thinking for

Instruction and Learning

Three Critical Thinking

Instructors

$3276

July, 2011 “Train-the-Trainer Video

Series”

Graduates from CT 700

course and NSILC

$2184

August, 2011 Workshops:



CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury,

and Walter Goode


August, 2011 Workshop:




Supplies/materials

Professional Development Plan


33

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Tom Schwartz, Walter Goode,

Kevin Argo, Julie Dilday


CT 700 – Introduction to

Critical Thinking for Instruction

and Learning





and Learning


January, 2012 Workshops:



CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials

January, 2012 Workshop:

Teaching and Learning in

CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Thomas Schwartz, Walter

Goode, Kevin Argo, and Julie

Dilday


Supplies/materials

March, 2010 “Promoting Achievement,

Motivation, and Strategic

Learning: Essential Tactics

and Applications to College

Settings” (The next level)

Dr. Timothy Cleary, University

Wisconsin Milwaukee

All Faculty;

Counselors and Student

Services Staff

$6000




CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

Julie Dilday, Calvin Stansbury,

and Walter Goode


Supplies/materials

August, 2012 Workshop:



CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials


Presented by,

CIRCLE 2 Faculty


Supplies/materials





Supplies/materials


34

HCC Learning Community Pilot Study

The Pilot-Study Team organized and implemented the “Steps to Math Success” Pilot Study Spring 2010. Advisors were encouraged to register students who reported math anxieties and low self-efficacy in math. Twenty first-year students registered for the learning community and fifteen students completed it. The QEP assessment plan was used to evaluate the success of the learning community, and as a result, several improvements have been planned for more effective CIRCLE One learning community implementation and assessment. The complete assessment grid for the Spring 2010 pilot study may be found in Appendix D. Assessment grid changes resulting from closing the loop on Pilot Study assessment are indicated by red font.

INDIRECT MEASURES: RESULTS

Learning community (LC) students surpassed the 85% pass rate benchmark for the ACA 085 Study Skills section and did not meet the 85% pass rate benchmark for MAT 060 Basic Math Skills. Eighty-seven percent of LC students passed ACA 085 and 67% passed MAT 060. However, when compared to MAT 060 stand-alone courses, the LC students exceeded the 59% pass-rate for MAT 060 as a whole. Even though stand-alone ACA 085 classes show a 92% pass-rate, its low retention rate, 64%, indicates a low overall success rate for traditional ACA 085 courses as compared to the pilot study group. The benchmark for retention is set at 80%.

CIRCLE Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty




and Learning

Two Critical Thinking

Instructors

$2184




and Learning

Two Critical Thinking

Instructors

$2184




CIRCLE 2 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 2 Faculty

CIRCLE 2 Faculty $65

Supplies/materials




CIRCLE 1 Learning

Communities:

Presented by,

CIRCLE 1 Faculty


Supplies/materials


35

In sum, the pilot LC sections ended the semester with 79% retention for Math and ACA as compared to 77% for stand-alone MAT 060 classes and 64% retention for ACA LC students. The ACA 085 LC group had an overall success rate of 68% while traditional ACA 085 classes had a 59% overall success rate. Overall success rate considers the number of students who pass as compared to the number of students who enrolled in the course.

Math Self-Efficacy scores showed improvement for the LC students at the end of the semester. The Math Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES) (Betz & Hackett, 1993) was administered to students in all ten sections of MAT 060 at the beginning of the semester. Mean scores for each MAT 060 section range from 4.7 to 5.8. The overall mean is 5.3, which according to percentile equivalents published by the authors (1993); HCC students are in the 20th percentile as compared to undergraduate samples. Scores ranging from 4.7 (for females) and 5.3 (for males) constitute the 20th percentile for math self-efficacy for undergraduate students. The LC group was one of three sections that scored a mean below 5.0, indicating that advisors in fact registered students reporting math anxiety and low math self-efficacy. The benchmark for MSES improvement is: “80% of LC students will score higher on the MSES as compared to pre-semester scores.” Mean scores for the group as a whole rose from 4.9 to 5.3. Because the group was 86% female, overall, the group moved from the 25 th percentile to the 35th percentile in math self-efficacy over the course of the semester. Ten students took the pre and post MSES. Of those ten, 60% showed increased math self-efficacy over the course of the semester.

Indirect Assessment Results for “Steps to Math Success” as Compared to

Non-Learning Community Students Spring 2010 Pilot Study

Figure 9


36

HCC Math 060 MSES Scores, Spring 2010

4.8

5.8

5.25.5

5.14.8

5.55.8

5.3

4.7

5.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

LC 1 LC 2 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 10A

Pre-Score

Post-Score

Figure 10

DIRECT MEASURES: RESULTS

The direct assessment results for the Steps to Math Success Learning community suggested that significant pedagogical improvements need to be made. As a group, students did not meet the 90% proficient benchmark for any of the student learning outcomes.

Eighty percent are proficient with the following student learning outcomes:

Develop an academic goal management plan that will enhance academic success.

Manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student academic success.

Proficiency rates for other student learning outcomes are:

Implement and monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal management plan: 33%

Implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented tasks: 54%

Solve problems by analyzing available information and devising solutions to problems: 66%

Relate personal academic self-efficacy to academic goal achievement: 60% Student portfolios and capstone essays were assessed with the HCC Self-Regulated learning (SRL) and HCC CIRCLE One Capstone Essay Rubrics. They are located in Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively.


37

CLOSING THE LOOP As a result of pilot study implementation and low success rates on direct assessments, the Pilot Study team has developed several strategies to improve pedagogy for the CIRCLE program:

1. Spend less time learning how to graph with software. Begin Semester by having students list assignment due dates on a printed calendar for portfolio/journal. Students will list long-term goal for LC courses. Students will list short term goals and strategies for specific assignments. Plan will be reviewed during one-on-one conference with LC instructors, during which feedback will be given and plan “checked-off-on”.

2. Spend less time in class re-writing daily schedules each week. Students will develop one basic weekly schedule template. Each week they will schedule time for LC course goal-oriented tasks as they relate to “due date calendar.” Each week they will complete pre-printed form monitoring their actual use of time. These forms will be part of short-term goal setting and monitoring.

3. Lecture on cognitive distortions prior to mid-term. Identify class time at least every other week to discuss cognitive distortions as identified in stress diaries. Give class time each week for students to review and update stress diaries.

4. Implement strategies for “Math Improvement Plan” requiring students to participate in tutoring if they do not pass first math quiz. Identify students who do not pass first quiz and schedule one-on-one consultations with Math Instructor for learning strategy development.

5. Use dated pre-printed reflection forms for students to analyze the SRL cycle. Use pre-printed grade tracking graph for strategy monitoring. Discontinue use of computer software for graphing. It’s too time-consuming.

6. Begin Capstone Essay no less than three weeks before the end of the semester. One revision must be made for each essay.

Overall, the CIRCLE Program Pilot Study demonstrates promise for successful implementation of HCC’s QEP. Indirect measures indicate that learning communities focused on the facilitation of the development of self-regulated learning and problem-solving skills enhance learning and academic self-efficacy for some students. Retention and pass rates exceed that of traditional courses, and for more than half of LC students, academic self-efficacy improves. Direct measures support the College’s position that the foundational skills needed for self-regulated learning are under-developed in HCC students and the deficit is the primary barrier to learning. Direct measures also provide important baseline data describing where weaknesses lie in the QEP CIRCLE One Learning Communities so that the plan may be further developed.

Implementation Timeline

Halifax Community College’s (HCC) CIRCLE Program will utilize two sets of Learning

Communities to develop self-regulated learners and problem solvers. As a result, the following

student success skills will be enhanced:

1. Goal Management 2. Time Management


38

3. Stress Management 4. Problem Solving 5. Academic Self-Efficacy

The CIRCLE Program is inclusive to all students; however the CIRCLE One Learning Communities (LC) will target first year developmental students. CIRCLE Two LCs target CIRCLE One LC completers as well as students who placed out of Developmental English. The following outline describes how the CIRCLE Program will continue to grow from semester to semester, as well as the number of students it should impact in relationship to expected enrollment.

A Pilot Study involving the Steps to Math Success Learning Community was implemented Spring 2010. This trial run allowed the QEP Team to assess strengths and weaknesses of the planned learning community program, as well as to work out logistical registration issues prior to official implementation. The CIRCLE Program will launch one CIRCLE One Learning Community and one CIRCLE Two Learning Community during Fall 2010. Subsequently, new sections of learning communities will be added until full-implementation is reached during Academic Year 2013–2014. At that time, seven-CIRCLE One LCs and nine-CIRCLE Two LCs will be implemented, impacting about 360 students per semester and more than 1,460 students by 2015.

The maximum number of students who will be scheduled in Learning Community Sections is 20.

Learning Community Scheduling Timeline

Spring 2010

Pilot Study

Fall 2010

CIRCLE Two LCs

Fall 2010

CIRCLE One LCs

Spring 2011

CIRCLE Two LCs

Spring 2011

CIRCLE One LCs

Steps to Math

Success

(STMATHS)

Thinking About

Algebra

(TAALGEBRA)

Steps to Reading and

Writing Success

(STRWS)


(EIC)

Steps to Math Success

(STMATHS)

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50

MAT070 M-F10-10:50

HUM 115 MW

11-12:20

ENG 095/095A

M-F 8-8:50

Lab TTH 9-9:50

ACA 085 MW

9-9:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM115 MW 11-12:20

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50

Steps to Reading and

Writing Success

(STRWS)

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50


39

Fall 2011 CIRCLE Two LCs

Fall 2011 CIRCLE One LCs

Spring 2012 CIRCLE Two LCs

Spring 2012 CIRCLE One LCs


TAALGEBRA (20) STRWS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115

MWF 11-

11:50

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50

MAT 070 M-F 10-

10:50

HUM 115 MW 11-

12:20

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

EIC (20) STRWS (20) EIC (20) STRWS (20) EIC (20)

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MW 11-

12:20

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50 Lab TTH

9-9:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50 F

11-11:50

ENG 111

MWF 10-

10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50

ACA 085 MW

11-11:50 F

11-11:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

EIC (20)

EIC (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30- 11:50

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50

MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085 MW

12-12:50 F

12-12:50

MAT 070 M-F

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

TAALGEBRA (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STRWS (20) EIC (20)

MAT 070 M-F

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30- 11:50

MAT 070 M-

F 9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30- 11:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 11-11:50

Lab TTH

12-12:50

ACA 085 MW

12-12:50 F CCD

12-12:50

ENG 111 MWF

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

EIC (20)

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F

9-10:20

MAT 070 M-F

9-10:20


40






STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20)

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085

MW 11-11:50

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115

MWF 11-11:50

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50

STRWS (20) EIC (20) STRWS (20) EIC (20) STRWS (20)

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

ENG 095 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085

MW 11-11:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

ENG 095 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50


MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50

MAT 070 M-F

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085

MW 12-12:50

MAT 070 M-F

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50


ENG 095/095A

M-F 11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50

ENG 111 MWF

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

ENG 095/095

A M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085

MW 12-12:50

ENG 111 MWF

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50


MAT 060 M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50

MAT 070 M-F

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

MAT 060 M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085

MW 9-9:50

MAT 070 M-F

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

MAT 060 M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50


ENG 095/095A

M-F 8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50

ENG 111 MWF

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

ENG 095/095

A M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085

MW 9-9:50

ENG 111 MWF

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50


ENG 095 Online

ACA 085 W 6-7:50

TH 6-6:50

ENG 111 Online

HUM 115 W 6-8:50

ENG 095

Online

ACA 085 W 6-7:50

TH 6-6:50

ENG 111 Online

HUM 115 W 6-8:50

ENG 095 Online

ACA 085 W 6-7:50

TH 6-6:50

TAALGEBRA (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F

9-9:50

HUM 115 TTH

10-11:20

MAT 070 M-F

9-9:50

HUM 115 TTH

10-11:20



ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50


41






TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F 10-

10:50

HUM 115

MWF 11-11:50

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50 F 11-11:50

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

MAT 060 M-F

10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50 F 11-11:50

MAT 070 M-F

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50


ENG 111

MWF 10-

10:50

HUM 115

MWF 11-11:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50 F 11-11:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 10-10:50

ACA 085 MW 11-

11:50 F 11-11:50

ENG 111 MWF

10-10:50

HUM 115 MWF

11-11:50

TALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F 11-

11:50

HUM 115

MWF 12-12:50

MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50 F 12-12:50

MAT 070 M-F

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

MAT 060 M-F

11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50 F 12-12:50

MAT 070 M-F

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50


ENG 111

MWF 11-

11:50

HUM 115

MWF 12-12:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50 F 12-12:50

ENG 111 MWF

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 11-11:50

ACA 085 MW 12-

12:50 F 12-12:50

ENG 111 MWF

11-11:50

HUM 115 MWF

12-12:50

TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20) STMATHS (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F

8-8:50

HUM 115

MWF 9-9:50

MAT 060 M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50 F 9-9:50

MAT 070 M-F

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

MAT 060 M-F

8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50 F 9-9:50

MAT 070 M-F

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50


ENG 111

MWF 8-8:50

HUM 115

MWF 9-9:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50 F 9-9:50

ENG 111 MWF

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50

ENG 095/095A

M-F 8-8:50

ACA 085 MW 9-

9:50 F 9-9:50

ENG 111 MWF

8-8:50

HUM 115 MWF

9-9:50


ENG 111

Online

HUM 115

W 6-8:50

ENG 095 Online

ACA 085 W 6-7:50

TH 6-6:50

ENG 111 Online

HUM 115 W 6-8:50

ENG 095 Online

ACA 085 W 6-7:50

TH 6-6:50

ENG 111 Online

HUM 115 W 6-8:50

TAALGEBRA (20) TAALGEBRA (20) TAALGEBRA (20)

MAT 070 M-F

9-9:50

HUM 115 TTH

10:00-11:20

MAT 070 M-F

9-9:50

HUM 115 TTH

10:00-11:20

MAT 070 M-F

9-9:50

HUM 115 TTH

10:00-11:20

EIC (20) EIC (20) EIC (20)

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50

ENG 111 TTH

9-10:20

HUM 115 TTH

10:30-11:50


42

Organizing for Success

QEP IMPLEMENTATION

QEP Director

The QEP Director will be responsible for the coordination of QEP implementation as reflected in the following duties, as well as other activities necessary for successful implementation:

1. Scheduling a. Creating Learning Community Schedule. b. Working with administrative assistant to the Dean of Curriculum to design the

Learning Communities section of the schedule. c. Working with the Registrar to set up Learning Communities in Colleague. d. Working with Room Scheduler. e. Working with School Chairs to ensure instructors are not scheduled for classes

during linked course time-slot. 2. Faculty Staff Development

a. Coordinate and assist with workshop design and implementation. b. Plan and implement Faculty Development Workshops. c. Develop and Gather workshop materials. d. Work with room scheduler. e. Work with Dean of Curriculum’s office to schedule workshops. f. Order books and supplies. g. Participate in professional development activities. h. Schedule faculty/staff for off-campus professional development activities. i. Maintain open-door policy to support faculty and staff involved in Learning

Communities. j. Submit nominations for faculty awards for Learning Community participation. k. Request advertisement when additional faculty are needed to implement QEP.

3. Recruitment and Outreach – faculty, staff, and students a. Work with graphic designer to develop marketing materials. b. Submit requisitions for marketing materials. c. Recruit faculty to teach Learning Communities. d. Recruit students to participate in Learning Communities. e. Coordinate and implement marketing plan. f. Record and edit “Student Voices” videos. g. Present CIRCLE Program information at New Student Orientation. h. Meet with Dean of Curriculum on a regular basis. i. Meet with Student Services staff to develop and implement co-curricular activities

related to Learning Communities. j. Recruit Student Services staff to teach special topics for CIRCLE One LCs. k. Meet with CIRCLE Program Advisory Team on a regular basis.

4. Troubleshooting problems and resolving issues a. Meet with students. b. Meet with faculty.


43

c. Meet with Dean of Curriculum. d. Meet with Dean of Students. e. Meet with Advisory Team.

5. Assessment a. Support faculty with integrative assignment and rubric development. b. Work with IE Director and CIRCLE Faculty Assessment Team to implement

CIRCLE Program Assessment plan. c. Administer standardized assessments. d. Monitor usage of standardized assessment permissions. e. Purchase standardized assessment permissions. f. Analyze assessment scores. g. Evaluate pass rates, retention rates, and persistence rates for learning

community students as compared to non-learning community students. 6. Closing the Loop

a. Work with CIRCLE Program faculty and IE Director to use assessment results to improve CIRCLE Program.

b. Publicize assessment results to all constituent groups. 7. Budget

a. Implement QEP according to Budget. b. Work with Vice President for Institutional Advancement to secure grants for QEP

funding. 8. Write and submit 5-Year Impact Report to SACS COC.

The CIRCLE Program will be coordinated by the QEP Director under the supervision of the Dean of Curriculum and the advisement of the CIRCLE Program Advisory Team. The director will meet with the Dean of Curriculum at a consistent day and time every two weeks to discuss the progress of program implementation. She will also meet with the advisory team a minimum of once per month to report on CIRCLE Program implementation, discuss successes, and resolve issues. The advisory team will consist of twelve individuals representing student services, faculty, staff, administration, and students. The team will provide support and advice involving CIRCLE Program recruitment, implementation, problems, and program improvements.

CIRCLE Program Advisory Team

The CIRCLE Program Advisory Team will consist of the following individuals: 1. Dean of Curriculum 2. Dean of Student Services 3. Registrar 4. School Chair for Arts and Sciences 5. CIRCLE program faculty member & National Summer Institute on Learning Communities

(NSILC) Graduate 6. CIRCLE program faculty member & National Summer Institute on Learning Communities

(NSILC) Graduate 7. Director of Admissions 8. Director of Learning Resources Center 9. Director of Institutional Effectiveness 10. Director of PRIDE Program 11. Chair for Curriculum Committee


44

12. Faculty recommended student member

CIRCLE Program Assessment Team CIRCLE Program assessment will be carried out by CIRCLE Faculty throughout the duration of the semester. End of semester assessment will take place after classes end. All CIRCLE Faculty members will meet with the QEP Director and Director of Institutional Effectiveness to assess QEP learning outcomes according to the assessment plan. The assessment team will discuss successes and failures, as well as make recommendations for improvement. The QEP Director will share results with the Dean of Curriculum and Advisory Team, who will make final recommendations for program improvements.

End of year evaluation will be carried out by the CIRCLE Faculty Assessment team and take place in May. Indirect evaluations such as pass, failure, retention, and persistence rates will be made by the QEP Director and Director of Institutional Effectiveness in collaboration with the registrar during the summer months. Final program improvements will be finalized during the summer and presented to the campus community at the beginning of each fall semester.

CIRCLE Program Organizational Chart


45

CIRCLE Program Implementation Grid

Academic Year 2010 - 2011

Date Goals Activity Responsible Parties Cost

April 2010

Develop the Human Resources Necessary to implement the HCC CIRCLE Program

Advertise and accept applications for full-time Math Instructor. Develop Interview Committee.

President, VP of Academic Affairs, School of Arts and Sciences School Chair, Mat Dept. Head, Human Resources

$1,000 advertising cost Included in development budget

April 2010

Develop the Human Resources Necessary to implement the HCC CIRCLE Program

Advertise and accept applications for full-time Psychology Instructor. Develop Interview Committee. Psychology Instructor to cover course load for QEP Director,

President, VP of Academic Affairs, School of Arts and Sciences School Chair, Department Head, Human Resources

$1,000 advertising cost Included in development budget

May 2010

Provide Professional Development for effective Implementation of HCC CIRCLE Program

Enroll *CTF members to CT 700 (level one): Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for Fall 10 Semester http://www.critical thinking.org/professional Dev/onlinecourses.cfm #credit

QEP Coordinator and Purchasing Officer will Secure Registration. *CTF will take class.

$1092 per person $3,276 total Included in development budget

Aug. – Dec. 2010

Initiate the HCC CIRCLE Program –

Collaborate, Implement, and Assess CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs Prepare for Spring Implementation

CIRCLE Faculty with oversight from QEP Director and CIRCLE Advisory Team

Instructional Materials, Software, Books $1,000

Aug. – Dec. 2010

Professional Development for effective Implementation HCC CIRCLE Program

CT Faculty members will take to CT 700 (level one): Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for 3 Graduate Credit Hours.

CT Faculty $1092 per person ( + repeated budget information)

Aug. 2010

Assess CIRCLE Program Administer GSE to CIRCLE 1 Students Administer TER to sample CIRCLE 2 Students

QEP Director GSE $0 TER 100 – 10= 90

June 27 – July 1 2010

Provide Professional Development for effective Implementation HCC CIRCLE Program

Participate in Washington Center/Evergreen State University’s *LC Summer Institute

QEP Coordinator & *IE Director will provide data and submit application in March 2010. Three CIRCLE Faculty and Dean of Curriculum will attend the Institute.

$1,050 x 4 = 4,200 (tuition) $600 x 3 = $2,400 (airline) $450 (car) Meals – 56x3 = $224 $7,274 total Included in development budget

July 2010 Assess CIRCLE Program Order permissions for Test of Everyday Reasoning (*TER)

QEP Director $780 100 permissions

Aug. 2010

Develop Human Resources for effective CIRCLE Program Implementation

Hire Math Instructor to begin Fall semester 2010

President, VP of Academic Affairs, Arts & Sciences Chair, Math Dept. Head, Human Resources, Interview Team

$4, 300 mo. salary. $1296 mo. / cost of benefits. Total: $5596 mo. (10 months) $55,963 Total

Aug. 2010

Develop Human Resources for effective CIRCLE Program Implementation

Hire Psychology Instructor to begin Fall semester 2010 Instructor will cover course load for QEP Director.

President, VP of Academic Affairs, Arts & Sciences Chair, Department Chair, Human Resources, Interview Team

$4, 300 mo. salary. $1296 mo. / cost of benefits. Total: $5596 mo. (10 months) $55,963 Total

http://www.criticalthinking.org/professionalDev/onlinecourses.cfm#credit






46

Sept. 2010

Prepare for CIRCLE Implementation

Prepare and Submit a schedule for LC offerings

QEP Director $0

Oct-Dec. 2010


Provide 3 Workshops for at least 4 CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: Self Regulated Learning Model; Workshop 2: Implementing LC Workshop 3: Assessing the LC SLOs

CIRCLE Pilot Study Faculty, Professional Development Committee

Handouts: 30 8.5 x 11 b&w x 6 (30 x .10 = $3) $3 x 6 = $18 6 2” ring binders – 6x $3.50 = 21 $39 total

Oct-Dec 2010

Fill two CIRCLE 1 LCs for Spring 2011

Advertisement Flyers, Website, HCC Electronic Sign, Social Networking; GMAIL

CIRCLE Advisory, Team, QEP Director Advisors

Flyers (50 x .30 = $15) $15 total

Dec. 2010

Assess CIRCLE Program Administer GSE to CIRCLE 1 Students Administer TER to CIRCLE 2 Students

QEP Director GSE $0 TER 90 – 10= 80

Dec. 2010


Enroll *CTF members to CT 701 (level two): Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for Spring 11 Semester http://www.critical thinking.org/professional Dev/onlinecourses.cfm #credit

QEP Director and Purchasing Officer will Secure Registration. *CTF will take class.

$1092 per person $3,576 total

Jan-May 2011

Initiate the HCC CIRCLE Program

Collaborate, Implement, and Assess two CIRCLE 1 CIRCLE LCs

CIRCLE Faculty with oversight from QEP Director and CIRCLE Implementation Team

Instructional Materials, Software, Books $1,000

Jan. 2011 Gather Baseline Assessment Data for CIRCLE 1 & 2 LC Students

Administer the *MSES for 20 MAT LC and the *GSE for 20 ENG LC students & *TER to CIRCLE 2

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES – 100 -20 = 80. TER 80-20=860

Feb. 2011

Analyze Baseline Assessment Data

Analyze scores for MSES and GSE IE Director, QEP Director, CIRCLE Assessment Team

$0

April 2011

Gather End of Semester Assessment Data

Administer the GSE to ENG LC students; Administer the MSES to MAT LC students Administer TER to CIRCLE 2 Students

QEP Director

GSE $0 MSES 80 -20 = 60 TER 860-60=800

April 2011

Develop Human resources to Implement the CIRCLE Program

Recruit 12 in-house faculty members to implement and assess two CIRCLE 1 LCs and four CIRCLE 2 LCs for Fall 2011 semester

CIRCLE Advisory team, QEP Director CIRCLE Faculty

50 color copies 50x.30=15 $15 total

April 2011

Transition CIRCLE Program to Fall Implementation

Register CIRCLE 1 LC students to CIRCLE 2 LCs

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty

$0

April 2011

Offer LC sections for non-CIRCLE 1 students for Fall 2011

Register non-CIRCLE 1 students to CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors Flyers 50 8.5x11 color (50x.30=15) $15 total

May 2011


*CTF members will take CT 701 (level two): Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for Fall 10 Semester http://www.critical thinking.org/professional Dev/onlinecourses.cfm #credit

QEP Coordinator and Purchasing Officer will Secure Registration. *CTF will take class.

$1092 per person $2, 384 total *repeated budget information

May 2011


Enroll to CT 700 (level one): Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for Fall 2011 Semester

QEP Director and Purchasing Officer will Secure Registration. *CTF will take class.

$1092 per person $2, 384 total












47

May –July 2011

Assess CIRCLE 1 LC Learning Outcomes, Retention Rates, Pass Rates

Follow CIRCLE Assessment Plan Begin tracking Persistence rates of non LC Developmental Students and LC students

CIRCLE Faculty, CIRCLE Assessment Team QEP Director, IE Director

$0

June - July 2011

“Close the Assessment Loop”

Develop a plan of improvement for CIRCLE Program based on Assessment Results

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty CIRCLE Assessment team

$10, 168 summer contract CIRCLE Dir.

July 2011 Provide Professional Development for effective Implementation HCC CIRCLE Program

Update 3 Professional Development Workshops for new CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: SRL Model Workshop 2: Implementing LCs Workshop 3: Assessing the LC SLOs

QEP Director, National Institute Graduates, CIRCLE Implementation Committee

Handouts: $3x15=$45 15 x 3.50 = 52.50 $97.50 total

Academic Year 2011-2012


July 2011


Purchase “Train-the-Trainer” video series for CIRCLE Faculty who provide professional development workshops to faculty and staff. All CIRCLE faculty will view videos. http://www.4ulr.com/ products/humanres/ professionaldev/ trainthetrainerseries.html

CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director w/ Purchasing Officer

$2,495.00 total

Aug 2011


Enroll CTF to CT 701 (level two): Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for Spring Semester 2012 http://www.critical thinking.org/professional Dev/onlinecourses.cfm #credit

QEP Director $1092 per person (x2) 2,184 total

Aug. – Dec. 2011

Professional Development for effective Implementation HCC CIRCLE Program

CT Faculty members will take to CT 700 (level one): Introduction to Critical Thinking for Instruction and Learning for 3 Graduate Credit Hours http://www.critical thinking.org/professional Dev/onlinecourses.cfm #credit

CT Faculty $1092 per person ( + repeated budget information)

Aug 2011


Provide 3 Professional Development Workshops for new CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: SRL Model; Workshop 2: Implementing LCs Workshop 3: Assessing the LC SLOs

National Institute Graduates CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director

(Handouts: $3x15=$45 – 15 x 3.50 = 52.50 $97.50 total) (+repeated budget information)

Aug-Sept 2011


Design Professional Development Workshop for new CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

CT Faculty (enrolled in CT Course) CIRCLE 2 Faculty QEP Director

Handouts: $3x6 = 18 6x3.50=21 $39 total

Aug-Dec 2011

Implement Spring ’12 stage of QEP

Implement and Assess two CIRCLE 1 and four CIRCLE 2 Learning Communities Spring 2012

CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director

Instructional Materials $1000

Aug 2011

Gather Baseline Assessment Data for CIRCLE 1 LC Students

Administer MSES to 20 MAT LC students; Administer GSE to 20 ENG LC students Administer TER to CIRCLE 2 students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 60 -20 = 40 TER 860-80=780

Sept 2011

Begin CIRCLE Program Assessment

Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSE, & TER

IE Director CIRLCE Director

$0

http://www.4ulr.com/products/humanres/professionaldev/trainthetrainerseries.html













48

Sept 2011

Increase number of LCs offered for Spring Semester Transition CIRCLE Program to Spring 2012 implementation

Recruit 60 students to register four CIRCLE 1 LCs and 40 student to register for two CIRCLE 2 LCs Flyers, Website, HCC Electronic Sign, Social Networking Sites; GMAIL

Advisors CIRCLE Faculty

Flyers 50 8.5x11 color (50x.3=15) $15 total

Oct 2011

Fill CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs Register CIRCLE 1 LC students to CIRCLE 2 LCs; Register non-CIRCLE 1 students to two CIRCLE 2 LCs; Register new students to four CIRCLE 1 LCs.

Advisors, CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director Registrar

$0

Nov 2011

Gather assessment data for CIRCLE 1 LCs

Administer 40 GSE to ENG LC students Administer MSES to 40 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 40 -40 students 0 permissions left Order 500 permissions $350 total

Nov 2011

Gather assessment data for CIRCLE 2 LCs

Administer Internally develop CT test to 80 CT students Administer TER to sample CT students

HUM 115 Faculty QEP Director

Nov 2011


Provide 3 Professional Development Workshops for new CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: Self Regulated Learning Model; Workshop 2: Implementing LCs Workshop 3: Assessing LC SLOs

National Institute Graduates CIRCLE 1 CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director


Nov 2011


Offer 2 Hour Workshop for new CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director

Handouts: $3x6 = 18 6x3.50=21 $39 total +(Repeated Budget Information)

Nov –Dec 2011

Assess CIRCLE 1 LCs Calculate Mean Scores, SD, for MSES and GSE; Compare to pre-semester data analysis

QEP Director, IE Director

$0

Nov –Dec 2011

Assess CIRCLE 2 LCs Calculate Mean Scores, SD, for TER Calculate scores for internally developed test, Compare results to pre-semester data

HUM 115 Faculty IE Director QEP Director

$0

Dec 2011

Assess QEP Assess SLOs, Pass Rates, Retention rages, and Persistence rates of all LC students. Compare to Pass, Retention, and Persistence of non-LC students.

CIRCLE Faculty IE Director QEP Director Registrar

$0

Jan 2012

Transition to Spring ’12 implementation of QEP

Register 80 new students to four CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 non-CIRCLE 1 students to two CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors QEP Director CIRCLE Faculty

$0

Jan-May 2012

Implement next stage of CIRCLE Program

Teach and assess four CIRCLE 1 LCs and four CIRCLE 2 LCs

CIRCLE faculty QEP Director

Instructional Supplies and Software $1000

Jan 2012

Gather Baseline Data for CIRCLE 1 LCs

Administer GSE to 40 ENG LC students; Administer MSES to 40 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 500 permissions - 40 = 460 permissions

Jan 2012


Administer internally developed *CT Test; Administer *TER


$0

Feb 2012

Analyze Baseline Assessment Data for CIRCLE 1 LCs

Calculate Mean Scores and SD for pre-semester assessment

IE Director QEP Director

$0

Feb 2012

Analyze Baseline Assessment Data for CIRCLE 2 LCs

Calculate Mean Scores and SD for pre-semester assessments


$0


49

Mar 2012

Develop Human Resources to implement QEP

Recruit new CIRCLE Faculty for Fall ’12 implementation of CIRCLE Program

CIRCLE Faculty CIRCLE Advisory Team QEP Director


Mar 2012


Begin Advertising for new HUM 115/ENG 111 Faculty

President, VP Academic Affairs, Arts and Sciences Chair, QEP Director, Human Resources

$1,000

April 2012

Transition CIRCLE Program to Fall ’12 implementation

Register CIRCLE 1 LC students to four CIRCLE 2 LCs; Register 120 new students to six CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 non-CIRCLE 1 students to two CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors CIRCLE Faculty CIRCLE Director

$0

April 2012

Gather post semester assessment data for CIRCLE 1 LCs

Administer GSE to 40 ENG LC Students, Administer MSES to 40 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 460 permissions - 40 = 420 permissions

April 2012

Gather post semester assessment data for CIRCLE 2 LCs

Administer internally developed CT Test to 80 CIRCLE 2 Students, Administer TER to sample CIRCLE 2 students


$0

April – May 2012

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate mean scores of all internally developed and standardized tests Compare results to pre-semester data

CIRCLE Faculty IE Director QEP Director

$0

April– June 2012

Assess CIRCLE Program Assess Student Learning Outcomes for four CIRCLE 1 and 4 CIRCLE 2 LCs Calculate Retention, Pass, and Persistence rates of LC students vs. non LC students

CIRCLE Faculty IE Director QEP Director Registrar

$0

June – July 2012

Close the Loop Develop Improvement Plan based on Assessment Results

CIRCLE Faculty IE Director QEP Director CIRCLE Advisory Team


July 2012


Update and coordinate professional development workshops for new CIRCLE 1 Faculty to be implemented in August 2012



July 2012


Update and coordinate professional development workshops for CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty to be implemented August 2012

CIRCLE 2 Faculty QEP Director

Handouts: 30 8.5x11 $3x10 = 30 10x3.50=35 $65 total



August 2012


Hire new HUM 115/ENG 111 Faculty President, VP Academic Affairs, Arts and Sciences Chair, QEP Director, Human Resources

$4, 300 mo. salary. $1296 mo./ cost of benefits. Total: $5596 per month (for 10 months) Carry number to next academic year’s grid $55,963 Total

Aug 2012

Provide Professional Development for effective QEP implementation

Provide 3 Professional Development Workshops for new CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: SRL Model Workshop 2: Implementing LCs Workshop 3: Assessing the LC SLOs

National Institute Graduates CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director

(Handouts: 30 8.5x11 $3x10 = 30 10x3.50=35 $65 total) +(repeated budget information)


50

Aug 2012


Provide workshop for new CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty


(Handouts: 30 8.5x11 b&w x 10 (30x.10=3) $3x10 = 30 10 2” ring binders 10x3.50=35 $65 total) +(repeated budget information)

Aug 2012

Fill CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs

Register 120 new students in six CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 students in two CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors $0

Aug-Dec 2012

Implement next stage of CIRCLE Program

Implement six CIRCLE I LCs Implement six CIRCLE 2 LCs Assess CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs


Instructional Materials, Software $1000

Aug 2012

Gather baseline assessment data for CIRCLE 1 LC Students

Administer GSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students; Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 2 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 420 permissions -60 = 360 permissions left

Aug 2012

Gather baseline assessment data for CIRCLE 2 LC students

Administer internally developed CT Test Administer TER to CIRCLE 2

HUM 115 Instructors, QEP Director

$0

Aug 2012

Transition CIRCLE Program to (Spring 2013)

Develop online CIRCLE 1 Learning Community (Fall ’13)

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director , Director of Distance Learning

$0

Sept 2012

Assess CIRCLE LCs Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSES, and internally developed CT Test


$0

Sept 2012

Transition CIRCLE Program (Spring ’13)

Recruit and register 120 new students for six CIRCLE 1 LCs and 40 students for two CIRCLE 2 LCs Flyers, Website, HCC Electronic Sign, Social Networking Sites; GMAIL

Advisors, CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director

Flyers (50x.3=15) $15 total

Oct 2012

Transition CIRCLE program (Spring ’13)

Register CIRCLE 1 LC students in six CIRCLE 2 LCs (Spring ’13)


$0

Nov –Dec 2012

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students Administer GSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students

QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 360 permissions - 60 = 300 permissions left

Dec 2012

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Administer internally developed CT Test Administer TER to CT students


$0

Dec 2012-Jan 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate and compare Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSES, Cornell CT to pre-semester data Asses Pass, Retention, and Persistence Rates of all CIRCLE students vs. non LC students Assess Student Learning Outcomes

CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director IE Director Registrar

$0

Jan 2013

Transition CIRCLE Program to Spring ’13 implementation

Register 120 new students to six CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 students to two CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors $0

Jan-May 2013

Implement Spring ’13 CIRCLE Program

Teach & assess six CIRCLE 1 LCs and eight CIRCLE 2 LCs


Instructional Materials $ 1000

Jan 2013


Administer GSEs to 60 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students; Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 300 permissions -60 = 240 permissions left

Jan 2013


Administer internally developed and TER to CT students


$0

Jan 2013

Transition to Full QEP implementation for Fall ‘13

Continue development of online CIRCLE 1 Learning Communities


$0


51

Feb 2013

Assess CIRCLE LCs Calculate Mean Scores and SD for pre-assessments

IE Director QEP Director

$0

Mar 2013


Recruit CIRCLE Faculty to implement full QEP

CIRCLE Faculty CIRCLE Advisory QEP Director

Flyers (50x.3=15) $15 total

April 2013

Transition CIRCLE Program to Full Implementation for Fall 2013

Recruit and Register 140 new students for CIRCLE 1 LCS. Recruit and Register 40 students for 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs Flyers, Website, HCC Electronic Sign, Social Networking Sites; GMAIL

Advisors CIRCLE Faculty CIRCLE Advisory Team QEP Director


April 2013

Gather post-semester assessment data


QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 240 permissions - 60 = 180 permissions left

April 2013




460-160 = 300

April – May 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Score of Internally developed tests and standardized externally developed tests Compare to pre-semester data Interpret Results


$0

April – June 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program Assess Student Learning Outcomes for CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs Calculate Retention, Pass, and Persistence rates of LC students vs. non LC students


$0

June - July

Close the Assessment Loop Develop improvement plan based on Assessment Results

QEP CIRCLE Faculty IE Director QEP Director


July 2013


Update and coordinate professional development workshops for new CIRCLE 1 CIRCLE Faculty (August 2012)



July 2013


Update and coordinate professional development workshops for CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director




Aug. 2013


Provide 3 Professional Development Workshops for new CIRCLE Faculty: Workshop 1: Self Regulated Learning Model; Workshop 2: Implementing LCs Workshop 3: Assessing the LC SLOs

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty, National Institute Graduates

(Handouts: 30 8.5x11 $3x10 = 30 10x3.50=35 $65 total) +(Repeated Budget Information)

Aug. 2013

Provide Professional Development for effective QEP Development

Provide workshop for new CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

QEP Director, CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

(Handouts: $65 total) +(repeated budget information)

Aug. 2013

Transition to full QEP implementation

Register 40 students for 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs; Register 140 new students for 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs

Advisors Registrar

$0

Aug. – Dec. 2013

Implement CIRCLE Program LCs

Implement and Assess 7 CIRCLE 1 and 8 CIRCLE 2 Learning Communities


Instructional Materials and Software $1,000


52

Aug. 2013

Gather Baseline Data for CIRCLE 1 CIRCLE LC students


QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 180 - 60 = 120 permissions left

Aug. 2013

Gather Baseline Data for CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE LC students

Administer internally developed CT Test; Administer TER to CIRCLE 2 students

HUM 115 Faculty, QEP Director

$780 order 100 permissions

Aug. 2013


Begin Development of online CIRCLE 2 Learning Community to be implemented Spring ‘14

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director, Dir of Distance Learning

$0

Sept. 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSES, TER, and internally developed CT Test

QEP Director, IE Director, HUM 115 Faculty

$0

Sept. 2013


Recruit and Register 140 new students for 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs and 40 students to 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs Flyers, Website, HCC Electronic Sign, Social Networking, GMAIL

Advisors, CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director


Oct. –Nov. 2013


Register CIRCLE 1 LC students to 7 CIRCLE 2 LCs

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty Registrar

$0

Dec. 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students; Administer GSES to 80 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 120- 60 = 60 permissions left

Dec. 2013

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Administer internally developed CT Test; Administer TER Test toCT students

HUM 115, QEP Director

$0

Dec. 2013 – Jan. 2014

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSE, TER and compare to pre-semester data Assess Pass rates, retention rates, and persistence rates of all CIRCLE students vs. non LC students. Assess Student Learning Outcomes

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director, IE Director Registrar

$0

– Jan. 2014


Register 140 new students to 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 students to 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs

Advisors, QEP Director

$0

Jan. May 2014

Implement CIRCLE Program Learning Communities

Teach and assess 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs and 9 CIRCLE 2 LCs


Instructional Materials and Software $1,000

Jan. 2014

Gather Baseline Assessment data


QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 60-60 = 0 permissions left Order 500 permissions $350 total

Jan. 2014

Gather Baseline Assessment Data

Administer internally developed CT Test and TER to CT students


$0

Feb. 2014

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Calculate Mean Scores and SD for pre-assessments

QEP Director, IE Director $0

April 2014

Transition CIRCLE Program to Full Implement. for Fall 2014


QEP Director, CIRCLE Advisory Team, CIRCLE Faculty Registrar

Flyers $15 total

April 2014


Administer GSE to 80 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students; Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 500- 60 = 440 permissions left


53

April 2014


Administer internally developed and TER to 180 CT students


$0

April – May 2014

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Score of Internally developed tests and standardized externally developed tests; Compare to pre-semester data; Interpret Results


$0

April – June 2014

Assess CIRCLE Program Assess Student Learning Outcomes for CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs; Calculate Retention, Pass, and Persistence rates of LC students vs. non LC students

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director, IE Director

$0

June – July 2014

Close the Assessment Loop Develop improvement plan based on Assessment Results

QEP Director and available CIRCLE Faculty


July 2014

Provide professional development to effectively implement the QEP

Update and coordinate professional development workshops for CIRCLE Faculty to be implemented in August

QEP Director and available CIRCLE Faculty

Handouts: 30 8.5x11 b&w x 10 (30x.10=3) $3x10 = 30 10 2” ring binders 10x3.50=35 X 2 workshops $130 total

Academic Year 2014 – 2015

Date Goal Activity Responsible Parties

Cost

Aug. 2014


Provide Professional Development Workshop for CIRCLE 1 CIRCLE Faculty

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty, National Institute Graduates

$65 total) +(Repeated Budget Information)

Aug. 2014


Provide Professional Development Workshop for CIRCLE 2 CIRCLE Faculty

QEP Director, CIRCLE Faculty

SAA

Aug. 2014

Fill CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 Learning Communities

Register 140 new students to CIRCLE 1 LCs; Register 40 students to CIRCLE 2

Advisors Registrar CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director

$0

Aug. –Dec. 2014

Implement CIRCLE Program Implement and Assess 7 CIRCLE 1 Learning Communities and 9 CIRCLE 2 Learning Communities


Instructional Materials $1,000

Aug. 2014

Gather baseline data for CIRCLE Learning Communities


QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 440 - 60 = 380 permissions left

Aug. 2014

Gather baseline data for CIRCLE Learning Communities



$0

Sept. 2014

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSE, TER, and internally developed CT Test


$0

Oct.- Nov. 2014

Transition CIRCLE Program to Spring ’15 implement.

Recruit and Register 140 new students for 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs and 40 students for 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs.

Advisors, QEP Director, CIRCLE Implement. Team

Flyers $15 Total

Nov. 2014

Transition CIRCLE Program to Spring ’15 Implement.

Register CIRCLE 1 students to 7 CIRCLE 2 Learning Communities

CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director Advisors Registrar

$0


54

Nov. – Dec. 2014

Gather Post Assessment Data

Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students; Administer GSES to 80 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students

QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 380 -60 = 320 permissions

Dec. 2014

Gather Post Assessment Data

Administer internally developed CT Test; Administer TER to CT students


$0

Dec. 2014 – Jan. 2015

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Scores and SD for MSES, GSES, TER and compare to pre-semester data Assess Pass rates, retention rates, and persistence rates of all CIRCLE students vs. non LC students. Assess Student Learning Outcomes

CIRCLE Faculty QEP Director, IE Director Registrar

$0

Jan. 2015

Fill Spring ’15 Learning Communities

Continue registering 140 new students for 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs and 40 students for 2 CIRCLE 2 LCs.

Advisors $0

Jan. – May 2015

Implement CIRCLE Program Teach and assess 7 CIRCLE 1 LCs and 9 CIRCLE 2 LCs

CIRCLE Faculty with oversight from QEP Director and CIRCLE Advisory Tearm

Instructional Materials $1,000

Jan. 2015

Gather Baseline Data for CIRCLE 1 Learning Communities


QEP Director GSES $0 MSES 320 -80 = 240 permissions left Order 150 permissions $100

Jan. 2015

Gather Baseline Data for CIRCLE 1 & 2 LCs

Administer internally developed CT Test and TER to CT students

HUM 115 Faculty and QEP Director

$0

Feb. 2015

Assess CIRCLE Program LCs Calculate Mean Scores and SD for pre-assessments


$0

April 2015

Transition CIRCLE Program to Fall ’16 Implement.


CIRCLE Faculty, QEP Director, Advisors CIRCLE Advisory Team

Flyers $15 total

April -May 2015


Administer GSE to 80 CIRCLE 1 ENG LC students; Administer MSES to 60 CIRCLE 1 MAT LC students

QEP Director GSE $0 MSES 240 -60 = 180 permissions left

April – May 2015




$0

April – May 2015

Assess CIRCLE Program Calculate Mean Score of Internally developed tests and standardized externally developed tests; Compare to pre-semester data; Interpret Results


$0

April – May 2015

Assess CIRCLE Program Assess Student Learning Outcomes for CIRCLE 1 and CIRCLE 2 LCs; Calculate Retention, Pass, and Persistence rates of LC students vs. non LC students


$0

May – June 2015

Prepare 5 Year Impact Report

Prepare 5 Year Impact Report QEP Director, IE Director

$11, 211 Summer contract – QEP Director

*Acronym Legend: CTF - Critical Thinking Faculty; CT-Critical Thinking; LC - Learning Community; IE - Institutional Effectiveness; MSES: Math Self-Efficacy Scale; GSE: General Self-Efficacy Scale; TER: Test of Everyday Reasoning; SRL: Self-Regulated Learning; + Repeated Budget Info.


55

Communication of the Plan

Communication of the QEP began Fall 2008 at Faculty orientation, and each subsequent Faculty orientation for two years. The QEP Coordinator consistently explained what a QEP is and its purpose within the context of PowerPoint presentations, and used those opportunities to enlist volunteers to serve on QEP sub-teams. Faculty, staff, and students who participated in topic identification and QEP development were briefed on the definition and purpose of the QEP. Each time that faculty met during the beginning of the semester, the QEP Coordinator discussed development up to that point and took feedback and answered questions. The QEP was also defined for students at each New Student Orientation and some Student Forums since 2009. The public relations officer also published an article about the QEP in the college newsletter, Halifacts, on November 7, 2008 (Appendix J). The QEP Coordinator developed three newsletters during 2008-2009 to keep the campus and community informed of the topic selection process. The newsletters were posted on the QEP webpage http://halifaxcc.edu/SACS/QEP/index.htm and were mailed to the Board of Trustees to keep them informed.

The QEP Coordinator met with the Board early in 2008 to explain the QEP development process, and again January 27, 2009 to discuss the topic selection process, the topic selected by the Institution, and to solicit feedback from the Board. Many individuals including students, faculty, staff, administrators, and community members were involved in QEP development during the 2009-2010 academic year. This information is documented in the “Broad-based Participation” sections. The QEP Marketing Team and senior administration developed a marketing plan in which implementation began Fall 2009, and will be implemented in force beginning August 2010. The plan includes:

One-hour professional development workshop on advising students about learning communities at HCC and registering students for learning communities (October 22, 2009).

o Workshop offered to all faculty advisors and student services staff

QEP title and facts displayed on electronic sign at the front of the college (Fall 2009-ongoing)

QEP “facts” displayed on Blackboard (Fall 2009- ongoing)

CIRCLE Program Logo displayed on all screensavers in computer labs (Summer 2010 – ongoing)

Bookstore items with QEP logo for sale: jump drives, polo shirts, calendars, and notebooks (August 2010)

QEP Jigsaw activity for faculty: August 2, 2010

QEP Day, September 9, 2010: student giveaways- QEP t-shirts, book-bags, pens- to be be given away during quiz bowls and competitive activities

QEP Banners to be placed on campus

QEP Logo transparencies to be placed on the main windows of the Administrative Building

One-panel cards listing the learning communities students may register for to be given away at New Student Orientations

One-panel informational cards to be given to all full-time and adjunct faculty at Faculty Orientation August 2010

http://halifaxcc.edu/SACS/QEP/index.htm


56

Student created video about the CIRCLE Program to be shown during New Student and Faculty Orientations August 2010, as well as the first student forum Fall 2010

Student created video about the CIRCLE Program to be posted on the College’s website, and a “quiz bowl” competition created on Blackboard

Student groups to develop CIRCLE Program bulletin boards across campus. The Bulletin boards will be judged by the QEP Marketing team and SGA sponsored prizes awarded. Boards will be judged based on accuracy and creativity.

Student Support Services, SGA, and PRIDE will collaborate with the QEP Director and implement a “CIRCLE Program Day” at the College’s Center (auditorium). A Starbuck’s Kiosk has been requested for the event, and recruitment materials will be distributed. Student Support Services, the PRIDE Male Mentoring Program, and campus clubs will be marketed as well. The event will feature competitive games and prizes. This event will be held in September and sponsored by Student Support Services and the PRIDE Male Mentoring Program.

After initial implementation, the College will continue to communicate the plan with a video series called, “Student Voices,” in which students talk about their experiences in the CIRCLE learning communities, and linked to the HCC website and played on monitors across campus during registration day.

Indirect assessment results will be printed on colorful cards and placed in Faculty and Staff Mailboxes.

Invitation letters will be mailed to students who place into developmental courses.

Assessment

The HCC Circle Program will be assessed according to the achievement of program

goals and student learning outcomes. The assessment plan will be carried out by the QEP Director and Faculty Assessment Team in conjunction with the Director of Institutional Effectiveness, who will collaborate with the CIRCLE Program Advisory Committee in making decisions for improvement of the CIRCLE program. As a result of participation in HCC’s CIRCLE Program, students will be proficient in the following self-regulated learner competencies:

Developing plans and set goals to achieve and manage academic success

Monitoring plans

Maintaining weekly task schedules

Managing time

Managing stressors

Achieving goals

Conducting a causal analysis of the relationship of self-efficacy to goal achievement

Analyzing information

Devising solutions to problems

The overarching goal of the CIRCLE Program is to facilitate the development of self-regulated learning and problem solving through learning communities. The following specific


57

learning outcomes will be measured via internally and externally developed direct and indirect assessment tools:

1. Students will acquire the knowledge to develop an academic goal management plan. 2. Students will acquire the knowledge to monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal

management plan. 3. Students will acquire the knowledge to implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented

tasks. 4. Students will acquire the knowledge to manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive

stressors that impact student academic success. 5. Students will acquire the knowledge to use critical thinking skills in order to analyze

available information and devise solutions to problems. 6. Students will acquire the knowledge to relate personal academic self-efficacy to

academic goal achievement.

The assessment tools for the HCC CIRCLE Program Assessment plan include the following:

CIRCLE One LEARNING COMMUNITIES, DIRECT ASSESSMENTS

Student Learning Portfolio

Each student participating in CIRCLE O and CIRCLE Two Learning Communities will be required to bring a 1” 3-ring binder to class in which to keep academic artifacts. CIRCLE faculty will assess student portfolios with rubrics throughout each semester. End-of-semester and end of academic year program assessment will be carried out by the CIRCLE faculty assessment team and QEP Director in conjunction with the Director for Institutional Effectiveness. The student learning portfolios will contain the following artifacts:

Goal Management Plan

At the beginning of the semester, students will develop a goal management plan listing long-term goals for Learning Community courses. Students will also list intermediate and short-term goals, as well as learning strategies for specific assignments. The goal management plan will be reviewed and discussed during a one-on-one conference between student and instructor, during which feedback will be given and the plan assessed. Students will be given opportunities to revise the plan as the semester progresses.

Time Management Plan

A basic weekly schedule identifying segments of time for goal-oriented tasks listed on the Goal Management Plan will be included in the student portfolio. Each week students will reflect on their use of their time management plan (Appendix C).

Weekly Grade Graphs

Students will use a pre-printed line graph template to chart weekly grades, self-efficacy scores, and time spent in preparation the week prior to graded assignment or test (Appendix E)


58

Test Analyses

Each week, developmental math students will analyze tests and writing assignments for specific types of errors. Analyses will include written strategies for improvement (Appendix F)

Self Regulated Learning (SRL) Reflection Forms

After completing analyses and graphs, students will complete pre-printed reflection forms analyzing strategies used the week prior and reasons for test or assignment outcomes (Appendix G)

Stress Management Inventories

Early in the semester, CIRCLE One students will be provided with three stress inventories to help them reflect on their personal stress levels, identify stressors, and understand how the perception of stressors influences their experience of stress. Three inventories have been selected rather than one so that students may witness the relationship between “stressors” and “perception of stress” as measured by the following individual scales:

1. Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale is a popular stress scale used in General Psychology and Health Psychology courses and was first published by Holmes and Rahe (1967). It identifies major life events from the clinical experiences of the authors. Each event is given a score, and respondents select which events have occurred in their lives over the past year. A score of 300 or more indicates that the individual has an 80% chance of becoming sick in the near future. The scale has been criticized partly for not considering the impact of individual appraisals of stress (Cohen, 1983).

2. Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The Perceived Stress Scale is one of the most widely used measures for an individual’s appraisal of stress in his or her life. Validity studies show a relationship between high PSS scores and 1) Failure to quit smoking, 2) Failure for diabetics to control blood sugar level, 3) Greater vulnerability to stress-related depressive symptoms, and 4) More colds (Cohen, 1983; Cohen, 1988).

3. The Survey of Recent Life experiences (SRLE). The Survey of Recent Life Experiences

considers the impact of “everyday hassles” over life events occurring across time. The summative experience of everyday hassles is posited to have an overall negative effect on an individual’s stress level (Kohn & MacDonald, 1992).

Stress Diaries

After class readings, lecture, and activities involving stress-management inventories, strategies, and Beck’s cognitive distortions (Beck et al., 1979), students will keep weekly diaries identifying stressors, moods, and cognitive distortions that may be exacerbating their stress


59

levels (Appendix F). Stress Diaries will be included in portfolios and assessed with the Self Regulated Learning Rubric (Appendix I).

Physiological Stress Chart

Students will be shown how to track physiological stress by tracking heart rate. They will be given the opportunity to participate in progressive-relaxation exercises to lower heart-rate. They will utilize the chart in Appendix G to track and note differences in heart-rate after the progressive relaxation exercises.

Capstone Essay and Rubric Review

Near the end of the semester, students will be required to write an essay reflecting on their development of self-regulated learning. Students will be provided with the grading rubric, which may be found in Appendix H. Steps to Math Success students will include calculations of rates of short-term goal achievement, the accuracy of which will be determined by the Math instructor. Essays written by Steps to Reading and Writing Success students will be assessed for writing outcomes as outlined by the ENG 095 course and by the English instructor. The essays, in conjunction with the student portfolios, will be assessed for CIRCLE program learning outcomes via the HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric and Capstone Essay Rubric (Appendix I).

Exit Exam

In accordance with the assessment plan for HCC’s Math Department, all learning community students enrolled in a math class will take an internally developed exit exam at the end of the semester. The goal for learning community students will be to demonstrate academic goal achievement by passing both the developmental math class and the exit exam at higher levels than baseline statistics reflect. CIRCLE One LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INDIRECT ASSESSMENTS

Retention, Pass, and Persistence Rates

All learning community students will be coded in the College’s informational software system, Datatel Colleague, so that retention rates, pass rates, and persistence rates may be analyzed and compared to a random control group consisting of a similar number of students registered in the same developmental course combinations but in stand-alone courses rather than linked learning community courses.

General Self-Efficacy Scale

The General Self-Efficacy Scale was developed by Jerusalem & Schwarzer (1992) for the purpose of assessing perceived general self-efficacy. Its aim is to predict an individual’s ability to cope and adapt to environmental stressors. It has high reliability, with coefficients generally in the high .80s, and has been positively correlated with optimism, satisfaction, and positive emotions. Specific questions may be written into the scale directly related to academic


60

self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Fuchs, 1996). This scale will be used to measure self-efficacy pre and post the Steps to Reading and Writing Success Learning Community.

Math Self-Efficacy Scale

The Math Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES) is a 34-item scale that measures an individual’s perceived self-efficacy to perform various math-related tasks (Betz & Hackett, 1983). The authors report high reliability with coefficients in the .90s. It is positively correlated with several other scales rating mathematics attitudes (Betz & Hackett,1993). This scale will be used to measure self-efficacy pre and post the Steps to Math Success Learning Community.

Survey of Students’ Experience of Learning in Learning Communities (SELLC)

The Washington Center and Skagit Valley Community College developed and piloted an online student survey for the purpose of providing benchmark data on students’ learning experiences in learning communities. The survey may be used as a complement to the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CSSE). This scale will be used to indirectly assess students’ perception of self-regulated learning and integrated learning in learning communities as compared to their own experience of stand-alone courses. (Washington Center, 2010).This measurement is tied to Learning Outcome 6, relating self-efficacy with academic goal achievement. CIRCLE Two LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Student Learning Portfolio

Each student participating in CIRCLE Two Learning Communities will be required to bring a 1” 3-ring binder to class in which to keep academic artifacts. CIRCLE faculty will assess student portfolios with internally and externally developed rubrics throughout each semester. End of semester and end of academic year program assessment will be carried out by the CIRCLE Faculty Assessment Team and QEP Director in conjunction with the Director for Institutional Effectiveness.

Test/Assignment Analyses & Graphs

After receiving test or assignment feedback, students will analyze their work for specific types of errors. Analyses will include brief written strategies for improvement. These artifacts will be assessed for problem-solving as it relates to self-regulated learning (Appendix E).

One-Minute Papers

CIRCLE Two Learning Community students will be asked to think through problems and then reflect on their thinking about the problems in a one-minute paper exercise (Appendix J). Instructors will provide feedback on student thinking.


61

Essays

CIRCLE Two Learning Community Students will be assigned essays to practice employing Paul & Elder’s (2005) intellectual standards and elements of thought to develop critical thinking skills, which are necessary for effectively thinking through and solving problems.

Integrated Assignments

CIRCLE Two Learning Communities will use at least one integrated assignment to help students analyze data and solve real-world problems based in current events. A heuristic tool obtained at the Washington Center for integrating learning outcomes and assessing integrated learning will be utilized. The heuristic tool and integrated assignment example may be found in Appendix K.

Rubric Review

Student essays will be assessed for critical thinking skills as applied to problem analysis and solutions with an externally developed rubric based on Paul and Elder’s (2005) elements of thought and intellectual standards (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2009) (Appendix L).

Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER)

In order to assess learning community students’ entry-level reasoning and problem-solving abilities, as well as critical thinking growth at the end of the semester, the Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER) will be administered to a representative sample at the beginning and end of the semester. The TER is part of the family of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test, which is one of the world’s leading sets of tests to assess critical thinking skills. It is specifically targeted to assess community college and high school students, as well as working adults in support positions. This is particular test will allow the College to use an assessment tool to help its students to more successfully solve problems in everyday situations (Insight Assessment, 2009).

Survey of Students’ Experience of Learning in Learning Communities (SELLC)

The Washington Center and Skagit Valley Community College developed and piloted an online student survey for the purpose of providing benchmark data on students’ learning experiences in learning communities. The survey may be used as a complement to the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CSSE). This scale will be used to indirectly assess students’ perception of self-regulated learning and integrated learning in learning communities as compared to their own experience of stand-alone courses. (Washington Center, 2010).This measurement is tied to Learning Outcome 6, relating self-efficacy with academic goal achievement.

HCC CIRCLE Program Assessment Plan QEP

GOALS

QEP INTENDED

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

RELATED

COURSE STUDENT LEARNING

OUTCOMES

DIRECT ASSESSMENT TOOLS →

CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS (INTENDED/ EXPECTED RESULTS)

INDIRECT ASSESSMENT TOOLS →


BUDGETED/ ESTIMATED COSTS

LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT FINDINGS/ OTHER RESULTS

USE OF RESULTS TO CLOSE THE LOOP

Improve

Students’

ability to

achieve

academic

goals by

developing

self-

regulated

learning

and

problem-

solving

skills

As a result of participation

in the College’s Quality

Enhancement Plan,

students will acquire the

knowledge to:

1. Develop an academic goal management

plan that will enhance academic

success.

2. Implement and monitor the effectiveness of an academic

goal management plan.

(ENG 095) Students will be

able to comprehend college texts and to analyze and

evaluate those texts in both oral and written form in

preparation for college writing.

(MAT 060) Students will be able to perform

basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems

using technology where appropriate.

(ACA 085) Students will be able to apply the

techniques learned to improve performance in

college-level classes. Students should also

demonstrate improved self-efficacy resulting

from mastery experiences with self-regulated

learning techniques.

(ENG 095) → Capstone Essay Rubric Portfolio w/ written goal management plan (MAT 060) → Tests, Exit Exam, Group Project & Project Rubric, Portfolio w/ written goal management plan (ACA 085) → HCC SRL Rubric Portfolio w/ written goal management plan Capstone Essay Rubric

90% of CIRCLE

One LC students

will achieve the

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

Goal

Management

Student

Learning

Outcomes as

scored by

Capstone Essay

and Self-

Regulated

Learning Rubrics

Retention rates for learning community students → Pass rates for learning community students → Persistence rates for learning community completers →

80% retention rate for learning community courses 85% pass rate for learning community courses 80% of CIRCLE One LC completers will complete all required developmental courses. 75% of CIRCLE One & CIRCLE Two LC completers will persist to graduation or transfer to 4- yr. institution


63

3. Implement weekly

schedules for goal-oriented tasks














Portfolio w/ weekly schedules and weekly “use of time” calendar. HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric →

90% of CIRCLE

One LC students

will achieve the

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

Student-

Learning

Outcome as

scored by Self-

Regulated

Learning rubric

.


64

4. Manage environmental,

behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student academic success.














Stress Diary

Social

Readjustment

Rating Scale

(SRRS)

Perceived

Stress Scale

(PSS) →

The

Inventory of

Students’

Recent Life

Experience

(ICSRLE) →

Capstone

Essay & HCC

Capstone

Essay Rubric

Physiological Stress Assessment Table → HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric →

90% of CIRCLE

One LC students

will achieve the

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

Student-

Learning

Outcome as

scored by

assessment

rubric


65

5. Use critical thinking skills

to solve problems by analyzing available information and devising

solutions to problems.


able to critically evaluate written work using criteria

derived from course content.


able to integrate critical thinking skills through

reading and writing.

(MAT 060)

Students will be able to perform basic computations

and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology

where appropriate (MAT 070)

Students will be able to apply algebraic concepts

in problem solving using appropriate technology

Portfolio: student evaluations of student work and instructor feedback → Essay Critical Thinking Rubric → Exit Exam → Grade tracking graph Exit Exam Grade tracking graph

90% of CIRCLE

One ENG

students will

achieve

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

critical

evaluations of

student work.

90% of CIRCLE

Two ENG

students will

achieve

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

critical thinking

skills as scored

by assessment

rubric.

80% of CIRCLE

One and CIRCLE

Two LC students

will pass math

exit exam.

Math retention and pass rates for CIRCLE One and CIRCLE Two learning community students →

80% retention rate for learning community courses 85% pass rate


66

(ACA 085) Students will be

able to analyze and apply the self-regulatory learning

cycle to specific academic tasks

(HUM 115) Students will be able to use critical

thinking skills to analyze a problem and articulate a

method for solving it.

Portfolio Self Regulated Learning Rubric → Self Regulation Reflection Form Grade tracking graph Essay s → Problem-solving rubric Test of

Everyday

Reasoning

→

Students’

Experiences

of Learning in

Learning

Communities

Survey

90% of CIRCLE

One LC students

will achieve

“accomplished”

level of

competency on

Self-Regulated

Learning cycle

application as

scored by Self-

Regulated

Learning Rubric.

90% of CIRCLE

Two LC Students

will achieve

“accomplished

level of

competency on

problem solving

essay as scored

by problem-

solving rubric.

90% of CIRCLE

Two LC Students

will increase

baseline scores

on the Test of

Everyday

Reasoning.

for learning community courses 65% or more of CIRCLE Two Learning Community students will perceive gains made in understanding and abilities; and 65% or more students will perceive gains in higher order thinking skills as compared to stand-alone courses.

$500

$50


67

6. Relate personal academic

self-efficacy to academic goal achievement














Self-Monitoring Reflection Form → Portfolio w/ goal management chart Math Self-Efficacy Scale General Self Efficacy Scale Students’ Experience of Learning in Learning Communities Survey

90% of CIRCLE

One LC students

will achieve

“accomplished”

level of

competency

Self-Monitoring

Reflection as

scored by self-

regulated

learning rubric.

65% or more of Learning Community students will experience self regulated learning “often” or “very often” in CIRCLE One LCs; experience integrated learning “often” or “very often” in CIRCLE One LCs

$350

$50

Resources

Halifax Community College (HCC) is dedicated to the success of its QEP; therefore it has allocated sufficient human, financial, and physical resources for its development and implementation. The QEP budget is supported with funds from several sources. State Funds allotted by the NC General Assembly and approved by the NC State Board of Community Colleges will cover salary expenses for the QEP Director and the following:

A full-time psychology instructor to take over the course load of the QEP coordinator, who will begin directing implementation of the HCC CIRCLE Program Fall 2010

An additional math instructor position so that the College may sustain the CIRCLE Program

An additional English instructor position so that the College may sustain the CIRCLE Program

State Funds will also help to support the purchase of assessment supplies, required books, and travel expenses for the QEP Director. Grants are being sought to assist with the purchase of equipment and to support State Funds in purchasing assessment supplies, software, and books. A Federal Title III Grant will cover expenses associated with professional development workshops to train faculty and staff.

State Funds will be allotted to cover marketing costs involving print ads and brochures. Any “give away” items purchased for the purpose of marketing the QEP will require grant funds to cover the expense. During the past year, a $10,000 grant was received from Upper Coastal Plains to purchase T-Shirts, pens, and book bags.

Development of an annual QEP budget to be included in the College’s Annual Budget will be completed by the QEP Director with assistance from the Business Office. The Business Office has set up a chart of accounts with an identifying unit code that will allow the printing of a departmental budget report monthly and the preparation of an annual report on June 30. All departments of Halifax Community College are required to prepare an Institutional Effectiveness Plan each Spring outlining goals and objectives for achieving these goals along with any needed funding for supplies and equipment.

Fiscal Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 saw the development of Halifax Community College’s QEP with expenses for the QEP Director’s salary, travel, and supplies covered by the College’s State Funds budget. Professional development, such as an all-faculty workshop on facilitating the development of self-regulated learning in college students and attendance by three faculty members and the Dean of Curriculum at the National Summer Institute on Learning Communities was funded by a Title III grant. Additional QEP funding for fiscal years 2010-11 to 2014-15 can be found in the following budget tables.

The QEP Director, in collaboration with the Vice President of Administrative Services, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and the President, have developed a realistic budget that will be supported with a combination of State Funding and Grants. This budget should adequately support the initiation, implementation, and completion of the College’s Quality Enhancement Plan.


69

QEP Development Budget

2008 – Summer 2010

QEP Development: Summer 2008 –

Summer 2010

Budget / Source

Marketing Expenses – Spring/Summer 2010

T/Shirts, pens, book bags, etc.

$ 1,600 State Funds

$ 11,187 CRC Grant from Upper Coastal Plans

Recruiting Math Instructor

Psychology Instructor

$ 2,000 State Funds

Professional Development Workshop Learning Communities – 1/5/10 - $600

Workshop SRL Program -3/18/10 – 3/19/10 - $6,000

CT online course x2 P.O. 5/10 $2,384

Summer National Institute – P.O. 3/10 $7,274

$16,258 Title III Grant

SACS Meetings – QEP Director Summer Institute – 6/2008 $1438

Annual Mtg. – 12/2008 $1462

Orientation Mtg.- 1/2009 $570

Annual Mtg. – 12/2009 $1509

$ 4,979 State Funds

Summer Contract Hours QEP Coordinator Summer 2008 $31.29 x 20 pr. week for 10 weeks $6258

Summer 2009 $5084 x 2 months $10168

Summer 2010 $31.29 x 20 pr week for 10 weeks $6258

$22,684 State Funds

Assessment Math Self Efficacy Scale

$ 350 State Funds

LC

Materials

(Books)

$ 475 State Funds

Total $59, 533


70

QEP Budget 2010-2015

Total 5-year QEP Budget: $915,215

TOTAL QEP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION: $ 974,748

ACTIVITY 2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

2013-

2014

2014-

2015

Source

Marketing Materials $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 $ 300 State Funds/Grants

Recruiting/Advertisement (staff) $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 State Funds

Professional Development

CT online courses

Train-the-Trainer Videos

In-house workshops/supp.

2-day all-campus workshop SRL-

next level (Dr. Timothy Cleary)

Total

$ 7, 152

$ 80

$ 7,232

$ 4,768

$ 2,495

$ 140

$ 7,403

$ 140

$ 6,000

$ 6, 140

$ 4,768

$ 140

$ 4,908

$ 140

$ 140

TITLE III Grant/

PBI Formula Grant

Assessment

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

Math Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES)

Test of Everyday Reasoning (TER)

Total

$ 0

$ 0

$ 780

$ 780

$ 0

$ 350

$ 0

$ 350

$ 0

$ 0

$ 780

$ 780

$ 0

$ 350

$ 500

$ 850

$ 0

$ 0

$ 100

$ 100

State Funds

LC Materials

(Books, Software, Equipment,

Instructional materials, etc.)

$ 2,000

$ 2,000

$ 2,000

$ 2,000

$ 2,000

State Funds

New Faculty

Math Instructor

Psychology Instructor

English Instructor

Total

$ 55,963

$ 55,963

$111,926

$ 57,362

$ 57,362

$ 55,963

$170,687

$ 58,796

$ 58,796

$ 57,362

$174,954

$ 60,266

$ 60,266

$ 58,796

$179,328

$ 61,773

$ 61,773

$ 60,266

$183,811

State Funds

CIRCLE Program Director

Summer Contract

$ 10,168

$ 10,371

$ 10,681

$ 10,895

$ 11,211

State Funds

TOTAL $132,406 $192,111 $194,855 $198,281 $197,562


71

References

Arenson, K. (1997, August 3). Teaching on the Front Lines. The New York Times. Aug.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/education/teaching-on-the front-lines.html?pagewanted=1 on March 28, 2010.

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., and Levey, T. (2006). New Evidence on College

Remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117 – 148. Retrieved from psychinfo on March 10, 2009.

Beck, A., Rush, J., Shaw, B, Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. New York: Guilford Press.

Belfiore,P. & Hornyak, R. (1998). “Operant Theory and Application to Self-Monitoring in Adolescents.” In Schunk, D. & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice (pp. 184 – 202). New York: The Guilford Press.

Betz, N. & Hackett, G. (1983). “The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 399-410.

Betz, N. & Hackett, G. (1993). “Mathematics self-efficacy scale sampler set: Manual, instrument, and scoring guide.” Mind Garden, Inc.

Brock, T., Jenkins, D., Ellwein, T., Miller, J., Gooden, S., Martin, K., MacGregor, C., Pih, M. (2007). Building a Culture of Evidence for Community College Success: Early Progress in the Achieving the Dream Initiative. MDRC with CCRC. Website: www.achievingtream.org.

Cleary, T., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). “Effectiveness of self-regulation empowerment

program with urban high school students.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 20 (1), 70–107.

Cohen, S., Kamarck,T. ,and Mermelstein, R.(1983). “A global measure of perceived stress.”

Journal of Health and Social Behavior,24, 386-396. Cohen,S. & Williamson,G. (1988) “Perceived Stress in a Probability Sample of the United

States.” In Spacapan, S. and Oskamp, S. (Eds.) Psychology of Health. CA: Sage Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2009). “Critical Thinking Grid.” Retrieved from

http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/assessment/index.cfm on July 13, 2010. GA0. (2009, December). “Recovery Act: Status of States’ and Localities’ Use of Funds and

Efforts to Ensure Accountability (North Carolina).” GA)-10-232SP. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/recovery/pdfs/.../gao-recovery-dec-2009-nc-appendix.pdf on March 21,

2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/education/teaching-on-the%0dfront-lines.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/education/teaching-on-the%0dfront-lines.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.achievingthedream.org/

http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/assessment/index.cfm%20on%20July%2013

http://www.gao.gov/recovery/pdfs/.../gao-recovery-dec-2009-nc-appendix.pdf


72

George, D., Dixon, S., Stansal, E., Lund, S., & Pheri, T. (2008). “Time diary and questionnaire assessment of factors associated with academic and personal success among university graduates.” Journal of American College Health, 56 (6), 706 – 716.

Hofer, B., Yu, S., Pintrich, P. (1998). “Teaching College Students to be Self-Regulated Learners.” In Schunk, D. & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice (pp. 57 – 85). New York: The Guilford Press.

Holmes, T. & Rahe R. (1967). “The social readjustment rating scale.” Journal of Psychosomatic

Research, 11 (2), 213-218, doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4. Insight Assessment. (2009). “Test of Everyday Reasoning – TER.” Retrieved from

http://www.insightassessment.com/9test-ter.html on March 10, 2010. Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). “Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal

processes.” In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Kohn, P., & Macdonald, J. (1992). The Survey of Recent Life Experiences: A decontaminated hassles scale for adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(2), 221-236. doi: 10.1007/BF00848327.

Laufgraben, J. (2005). Learning communities. In Upcraft, M., Gardner, J., & Barefoot, B. (Eds.),

Challenging the first year college student (pp. 371-388). CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Liff, S. (2003). Social and emotional intelligence: Applications for developmental education.

Journal of Developmental Education; 26 (3), 28-34.

MDRC. (2010). Learning Communities Demonstration. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/project_31_76.html on March 21, 2010.

NCCS. (2010, February 18). “NC Community Colleges: North Carolina’s Economic Emergency

Room.” Creating Success. Retrieved from www.ncccs.cc.nc.us/State_Board/.../2010/.../FC%206a%20REVISED.pdf on March 21,

2010. NCDPI. (2009, August 4). “2008-09 Low Performing Schools.” Retrieved from

www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/stateboard/meetings/.../gcs1attach5add.pdf on March 21,

2010. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and life.

Prentice Hall. Perin, D. (2005). “Institutional Decision Making for Increasing Academic Preparedness in Community Colleges.” New Directions for Community Colleges. (129)

pp. 227-37.

http://www.insightassessment.com/9test-ter.html

http://www.mdrc.org/project_31_76.html

http://www.ncccs.cc.nc.us/State_Board/.../2010/.../FC%206a%20REVISED.pdf

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/stateboard/meetings/.../gcs1attach5add.pdf


73

Putwain, D., Connors, L., & Symes, W. (2010). Do cognitive distortions mediate the test anxiety-examination performance relationship?. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 11-26. doi:10.1080/01443410903328866.

Ralls, S. (2008, May). “Facing Brutal Facts: North Carolina Community Colleges in the New

Economic Landscape.” North Carolina Insight. pp. 2-57. Schloemer, P., Brenan, K. ( November/December, 2006). “From Students to Learners:

Developing Self-Regulated Learning.” Journal of Education for Business. pp. 81 – 87. Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R. (1996). Self-efficacy and health behaviors. In M. Conner & P.

Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. (pp. 163-196) Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Scrivner, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C., Sommo, C. (2008). “A Good Start: Two-Year Effects of a Freshman Learning Community Program at Kingsborough Community College.” MDRC.

Shapiro, N. & Levine, J. (1999). Learning communities: A practical guide to winning support,

organizing for change, and implementing programs. CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smith, B., MacGregor, J, Matthews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities:

Reforming undergraduate education. CA: Jossey Bass. Taylor, K., with Moore, W.S., MacGregor, J., & Lindblad, J. (2003). Learning community

research and assessment: What we know now. National Learning Communities Project Monograph Series. Olympia, WA.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). Retrieved from

http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?state=37&datatype=unemployment&year=2010&period=M01&survey=la&map=county&seasonal=u on March 28, 2010.

Visher, M., Wathington, H, Richburg-Hayes, L., & Schneider, E. (2008). The learning

communities demonstration: Rationale, sites, and research design. A NCPR Working Paper. The National Center for Post-Secondary Research.

Washington Center (2010). 12th annual national summer institute on learning communities. WA:

Washington Center in association with The Historically Black Colleges & Universities Faculty Development Network.

Winne, P. & Stockley, D. (1998). “Computing technologies as sites for developing self-regulated

learning. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. (pp. 106-136). New York: The Guilford Press.

Wong, S. (2008). The Relations of Cognitive Triad, Dysfunctional Attitudes, Automatic

Thoughts, and Irrational Beliefs with Test Anxiety. Current Psychology, 27(3), 177.

Zimmerman, B., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (2008). Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond

achievement to self-efficacy. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?state=37&datatype=unemployment&year=2010&period=M01&survey=la&map=county&seasonal=u

http://data.bls.gov/map/servlet/map.servlet.MapToolServlet?state=37&datatype=unemployment&year=2010&period=M01&survey=la&map=county&seasonal=u


74

Appendix A

STUDENT FOCUS GROUPS The following focus group protocol is based on the “Retention Tool Kit” by Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Focus group protocol:

1. Fill out Student Profile Sheet 2. Introductions 3. Share anticipated outcomes with students 4. Begin Questioning

OUTCOME #1 To understand how students perceive the college’s effectiveness in meeting their needs

1. In your opinion, what are the college’s strengths? 2. In your opinion, what are the college’s weaknesses? 3. How good a job do you think the college is doing in helping you achieve your educational

goals? Excellent? Very good? Good? Fair? Poor? Explain. OUTCOME #2 To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed

1. Describe a time or an experience you have had at the college that has not been favorable.. In your opinion, how could the college have made this experience more positive?

2. What advice would you give the college about one or two things the college could do to help students succeed?

3. In your opinion, what does the college do well that helps you stay in school? 4. What is the single most important factor that keeps you coming back to this college?

OUTCOME #3 To clarify and discuss student survey results

1. According to student surveys, the three most requested QEP initiatives for improving student learning is student interest groups, more intensive advising/mentoring, and a structured first year program. What types of student interest groups would you like to see implemented at HCC?

2. How do you envision the implementation of student interest groups improving student learning? 3. What would it take to engage as many students as possible in student interest groups? 4. What specifically would you like to see in a more intensive advising/mentoring program at HCC? 5. In what ways do you think more intensive advising would help students to be more successful

learners? 6. What would it take to engage as many students as possible in intensive advising? 7. For those of you who are not in the Associate of Arts, Associate of Sciences, or General

Education programs, what are the main strengths of advising, as you see it? a. What are the weaknesses of advising, as you see it?

8. For those of you who are in the Associate of Arts, Associate of Sciences, or General Education programs, what are the main strengths of advising, as you see it?

a. What are the weaknesses of advising, as you see it? 9. What are your suggestions for improving advising at HCC? 10. What are your suggestions for improving registration at HCC? 11. What would the perfect “structured program for first year students” look like to you? 12. Would you rather HCC implement a “structured first year” for new students, which would include

intensive advising, or would you rather see HCC develop a more intensive advising/mentoring program for all students, and no structured program for first year students? Why?

OUTCOME #4 To understand students’ academic experience at the College

1. We’d like to hear about the types of classroom experiences you are having, what experiences you get the most out of and what types of experiences aren’t as helpful to you.


75

a. Think about a class you struggled with. How would you describe it? What made it tough for you? Did you talk with your instructor about the difficulty you were having? What was her/his response?

b. Think about a class where you did really well. How would you describe it? What made it work for you?

c. In general, are most of your classes like the first one you described – the one you struggled with – or like the second class you described – the one in which you did well?

2. Quality of instruction – In general, how would you describe the quality of your instructors? a. Think about an instructor who you would say is one of the best you have had. What are

the qualities or characteristics that individual has that help you learn? Style of teaching? Level of interaction with students? Availability to students outside of class? High expectations? Other?

b. In general, do you have contact with your instructors outside of class? When you contact an instructor, what kind of an issue are you usually contacting him or her about?

3. Online classes – For those who have taken online classes, describe your experience in accessing information presented in those classes and learning the content.

a. What are the qualities or characteristics of the best online instructors you have had?

4. How many are enrolled or have been enrolled in developmental Math or English? a. Does the college offer enough help so that you can pass these courses as quickly as

possible? b. What more do you believe the college should be doing to help students pass these

courses as quickly as possible? c. Have you ever considered not continuing in school because of these classes?

5. How many of you have ever dropped a class?

a. What made you decide to drop the class? b. Is there anything that the instructor and/or college could have done to help you

successfully complete the class?

6. How many of you think that your ACA class helped you to be a more successful student? a. What did you find most beneficial about your ACA class? b. What did you find least beneficial about your ACA class? c. What advice do you have for improving ACA classes?

OUTCOME #3: To understand the significance of relationships in student persistence and success

1. When you think about your experience at this college outside of the time you spend in class, are

there particular relationships you have developed here that come to mind? 2. Who are these relationships with? Other students? Instructors? Counselors? Academic Advisors?

Other staff members? Others? 3. How important would you say these relationships are to your success here?

a. Which ones in particular? b. How are they important to you? c. Describe what impact they have on your success here (positive and negative).

4. If there are times when you have considered whether to continue attending this college, have any of those relationships had any impact on your decision?

a. In what ways?


76

Appendix B

Faculty/Staff Focus Group Questions General Information about Participants

1. Fill out Profile Sheet 2. Introductions 3. Goals

OUTCOME #1 To understand how faculty/staff perceive the college’s effectiveness in meeting student academic needs

1. In your opinion, what are the college’s strengths in terms of helping students achieve their education goals?

2. In your opinion, what are the college’s weaknesses in terms of helping students achieve their academic goals?

OUTCOME #2 To understand what the college needs to improve and build upon to help students succeed

1. What advice would you give about one or two things the college could do to help students succeed in math?

2. What advice would you give about one or two things the college could do to help students improve time management skills, stress management skills, and the ability to set and achieve goals?

OUTCOME #3 To clarify and discuss student and faculty survey results 1. According to faculty surveys, the three most requested QEP initiatives for improving student

learning is improved developmental education, more intensive advising/mentoring, and a structured first year program. Which of these three would you most like to be chosen for a QEP topic? Why?

2. Would you like to see math chosen as a topic for the QEP? If so, what types of math initiatives would you like to see implemented in a QEP?

3. New students chose developmental education as one of the programs they’d least like to see implemented; why do you think that is? What influence should student perception of learning needs have on our choice for a QEP topic?

4. What advice do you have for improving Developmental Education? 5. What advice do you have for improving advising at HCC? 6. What advice do you have for improving registration at HCC? 7. In what ways do you think more intensive advising would help students to be more successful

learners? 8. What would it take to engage as many students as possible in intensive advising? 9. What are the strengths of advising in your particular program? 10. What are the weaknesses of advising in your particular program? 11. What would the perfect “structured first year program” look like to you? 12. Which of the following do you think would have the greatest positive impact on student learning?

a. A “structured first year” for new students, which would include structured and intensive

advising for all first year students b. A structured and intensive advising program for all students, which may include

improvements in the registration process, c. An improved Developmental Education Program d. Initiative focused on improving Math Skills


77

13. What potential obstacles/challenges do you perceive in terms of developing and implementing

a. A structured first year for new students (including intensive advising) b. A structured and intensive advising program for all students (including improvements in

registration process) c. An improved Developmental Education Program d. Initiatives on improving Math Skills

OUTCOME #4 To understand what the college needs to do to achieve “faculty buy-in” for a quality enhancement plan.

14. What will it take to achieve “faculty buy-in” to a quality enhancement plan?


78

Appendix C

Study Time Self-Monitoring Form

Date Assignment Time Started Time Spent Study Context Where? With Whom? Distractions?

Self Efficacy

Appendix D

QEP GOALS QEP INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

RELATED COURSE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

DIRECT ASSESSMENT TOOLS →


INDIRECT ASSESSMENT TOOLS →


BUDGETED/ ESTIMATED COSTS

LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT FINDINGS/ OTHER RESULTS

USE OF RESULTS TO CLOSE THE LOOP

Improve

Students’ ability

to achieve

academic goals

by developing

self-regulated

learning and

problem-solving

skills

As a result of participation in the College’s Quality Enhancement Plan, students will acquire the knowledge to:

3. Develop an

academic goal management plan that will enhance academic success.

4. Implement and monitor the effectiveness of an academic goal management plan.

(ENG 095) Students will be able to comprehend college texts and to analyze and evaluate those texts in both oral and written form in preparation for college writing. (MAT 060) Students will be able to perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology where appropriate. (ACA 085) Students will be able to apply the techniques learned to improve performance in college-level classes. Students should also demonstrate improved self-efficacy resulting from mastery experiences with self-regulated learning techniques.

(ENG 095) → Capstone Essay Rubric Portfolio w/ with written goal management plan (MAT 060) → Tests Exit Exam Portfolio w/ with written goal management plan (ACA 085) → HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric Portfolio Capstone Essay Rubric

90% of CIRCLE One LC students will achieve the “accomplished” level of competency on Goal Management Student Learning Outcomes as scored by Capstone Essay, and Self-Regulated Learning Rubrics

Retention rates for learning community students → Pass rates for learning community students → Persistence rates for learning community completers →

80% retention rate for learning community courses 85% pass rate for learning community courses 80% of CIRCLE One LC completers will complete all required developmental courses.

SLO 1: 80% Proficient Direct Assessment SLO 2: 33% Proficient Direct Assessment (Implementation and Monitoring Goal Management Plan) GROUP PROJECT/ Direct Assessment 100% Proficient 67% Pass rate for MAT 060 87% Pass rate for ACA 085

Spend less time learning how to graph with software. Begin Semester by having students list assignment due dates on a printed calendar for portfolio/journal. Students will list long-term goal for LC courses. Students will list short term goals and strategies for specific assignments. Plan will be reviewed during one- on one conference with LC instructors, during which feedback will be given and plan “checked-off-on”.


80

3. Implement weekly schedules for goal-oriented tasks

(ENG 095) Students able to comprehend college texts and to analyze and evaluate those texts in both oral and written form in preparation for college writing. (MAT 060) Students will be able to perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology where appropriate. (ACA 085) Students will be able to apply the techniques learned to improve performance in college-level classes. Students should also demonstrate improved self-efficacy resulting from mastery experiences with self-regulated learning techniques.

Portfolio w/ weekly schedules and weekly “use of time” calendar. HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric →

90% of CIRCLE One LC students will achieve the “accomplished” level of competency on Student-Learning Outcome as scored by Self-Regulated Learning rubric

. SLO 3: 54% Proficiency on Direct Assessment

Spend less time in class re-writing weekly schedules each week. Students will develop one basic weekly schedule template. Each week they will schedule time for LC course goal oriented tasks as they relate to “due date calendar.” Each week they will complete pre-printed form monitoring their actual use of time. These forms will be part of short-term goal setting and monitoring.

4. Manage environmental, behavioral, and cognitive stressors that impact student academic success.

(ENG 095) Students will be able to comprehend college texts and to analyze and evaluate those texts in both oral and written form in preparation for college writing.

-Stress Diary ----Social -------------Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS)

-Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) →

90% of CIRCLE One LC students will achieve “accomplished” competency on Student-Learning Outcome as scored by assessment rubric

SLO 4: 80% Proficiency on direct assessment

Discuss cognitive errors prior to mid-term. Identify class time at least every other week to discuss cognitive errors as identified in stress diaries. Give 5 minutes of class


81

(MAT 060) Students will be able to perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology where appropriate. (ACA 085) Students will be able to apply the techniques learned to improve performance in college-level classes. Students should also demonstrate improved self-efficacy resulting from mastery experiences with self-regulated learning techniques

The Inventory of Students’ Recent Life Experience (ICSRLE) →

Capstone Essay & HCC Capstone Essay Rubric

Physiological Stress Assessment Table → HCC Self-Regulated Learning Rubric →

time each week for students to review and update stress diaries.

5. Solve problems by analyzing available information and devising solutions to problems.

(ENG 095) Critically evaluate written work using criteria derived from course content. (ENG 111) Integrate critical thinking skills through reading and writing.

Portfolio: student evaluations of student work and instructor feedback → Essay Critical Thinking Rubric →

90% of CIRCLE One ENG students will achieve “accomplished” competency on critical evaluations of student work.

90% of CIRCLE Two ENG students will achieve “accomplished” competency on critical thinking skills as scored by assessment rubric. 80% of CIRCLE One & Two LC students will pass


82

(MAT 060) Students will be able to perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology where appropriate (MAT 070) Students will be able to apply algebraic concepts in problem solving using appropriate technology (ACA 085) Analyze and apply the self-regulatory learning cycle to specific academic tasks (HUM 115) Use critical thinking skills to analyze a problem and articulate a method for solving it

Exit Exam → Grade tracking graph Exit Exam Grade tracking graph Portfolio, Self Regulated Learning Rubric → Self Regulation Reflection Form Grade tracking graph Essay → Problem-solving rubric Self Regulation Reflection Form Grade tracking graph Test of Everyday Reasoning →

math exit exam.

90% of CIRCLE One LC students will achieve “accomplished” level of competency on Self-Regulated Learning cycle application as scored by Capstone Essay/Rubric and Portfolio documents.

90% of CIRCLE Two LC Students will achieve “accomplished level of competency on problem solving essay as scored by problem-solving rubric.

90% of CIRCLE Two LC Students will increase baseline scores on the Test of Everyday Reasoning.

Math retention and pass rates for CIRCLE One and CIRCLE Two learning community students →

80% retention rate for learning community courses 85% pass rate for learning community courses

$780

75% LC Students Passed Math Exit Exam 79% LC Students Retained 87% pass rate for ACA 085 67% pass rate for MAT 060 66% Proficient / Direct Assessment

Implement strategies for “Math Improvement Plan” requiring students to participate in tutoring if they do not pass first math quiz. Identify students who do not pass first quiz and have one-on-one consultations with Math Instructor for learning strategy development. Use dated pre-printed reflection forms for students to analyze the SRL cycle. Use pre-printed grade tracking graph for strategy monitoring. Discontinue use of computer software for graphing. Begin Capstone Essay no less than three weeks before the end of the semester. One revision must be made for each essay.


83

6. Relate personal academic self-efficacy to academic goal achievement

(ENG 095) Students will be able to comprehend college texts and to analyze and evaluate those texts in both oral and written form in preparation for college writing. (MAT 060) Students will be able to perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step problems using technology where appropriate. (ACA 085) Students will be able to apply the techniques learned to improve performance in college-level classes. Students should also demonstrate improved self-efficacy resulting from mastery experiences with self-regulated learning techniques.

Self-Monitoring Reflection Form → Portfolio w/ goal management chart Math Self-Efficacy Scale General Self Efficacy Scale

90% of CIRCLE One LC students will achieve “accomplished” level of competency Self-Monitoring Reflection as scored by self-regulated learning rubric.

80% of CIRCLE One Students will show improvement in Self-Efficacy per Math Self Efficacy Scale or General Self-Efficacy Scale

$350

SLO 6: 60% Proficient/ Direct Assessment MSES Assessment: 10/15 students assessed. Increased scores for 50% of students. 20% scores showed no change. 30% showed decreased score.

Write goals for all assignments at the beginning of the semester. Place greater emphasis on the difference between self-efficacy and goals. When students derive self-efficacy scores prior to quiz dates and assignment due dates, they will use SRL reflection forms to compare them to actual goals set at the beginning of the semester.


84

Appendix E

_______________’s Progress in Class

List learning strategies utilized beneath each grade

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Test G

rade

Appendix F

One way to help improve your test scores is to analyze the mistakes you make on them. If you

know what types of mistakes you made before, that will assist you in preparing for future tests.

Spending quality time going over old tests will not only point out the types of mistakes you

make, but will also review the math concepts again. Since math concepts often build upon one

another, this will firm up your foundation for what is coming next.

Errors fall into four basic categories:

Not knowing the material thoroughly. You just didn’t put enough time into it. You don’t

have a complete grasp of the concept; you know how to solve the problem but got lost along the

way. Forgetting the formula or procedure indicates that you tried to memorize the material, not

understand it.

Misunderstanding the concept. You practiced but just got the wrong impression of what was

to be done to solve the problem. You put incorrect information into your notes.

Losing something in the translation. You misread the problem or didn’t read it all the way

through. Reading comprehension is a major factor in successfully answering a math problem.

Reread the problem, if necessary, to fully understand what it says. After you have found an

answer, read the problem again to make certain that you answered the question.

Making a careless mistake. You knew what to do and how to do it but made a simple,

obvious error. We all do this. If you realize that you are prone to this type of error, you can

more easily guard against it.

During the semester, each time you have a test, follow Steps 1 through 4 below. Look at the

types of errors you are making. Decide if there is a pattern and devise a plan to cut down on the

number of errors you make. You must put your plan into action in order to make this process

work.

Step 1. To aid you in your test analysis, for each test fill in one row of the following chart.

Estimate the number of points you lost under each category. The number in the “Total”

column should be the same as 100 minus the grade you received.

Test No. Didn’t

Know

Misunderstood Misread Was

Careless

Total

Lost/Test

1

2

3

4

Total

Lost/Category


86

Step 2. Examine the numbers you entered in each of the four categories. Rank the categories

from the highest number of points lost to the lowest and write the ranked categories

below.

Step 3. a. Under which category did you lose the most points?_____________________

b. What strategy or strategies do you plan to use in preparing for the next test in order

to reduce the number of points lost in that category? (Be specific.)

Step 4. a. Under which category did you lose the second most points? ______________

b. What strategy or strategies do you plan to use in preparing for the next test in order

to reduce the number of points lost in that category? (Be specific.)

[If you need suggestions on test preparation strategies, ask your instructor.]

At the end of the semester, total the number of points under each category for all the tests and run the analysis again.

What does this analysis tell you?

Taking control of how you learn can increase your confidence and, thus, reduce your anxiety level. Remember, it is

your responsibility as a student to master the material. The instructor’s job is to give you every opportunity to be

successful; it is your job to seize that opportunity and turn it into success.

Used with permission by Chuckie Hairston, former Halifax Community College Math Instructor


87

Appendix G

Date of last assignment/test: ___________

DIRECTIONS: Write in your answers to the 3 questions in the blank space.

1) What was the grade you received on this assignment/test?

Put grade here: ________

2) What was your self-efficacy score? Put score here: _________

3) How long did you study to prepare for this assignment/test?

Put minutes/ hours here:_______

DIRECTIONS: For the following four questions, I would like you to write out your answers. Tell me as many reasons or things that you can think of.

4) What is the main reason why you got this grade? Any other reasons?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 5) What do you think you need to do to improve your grade? Anything else?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ 6) What strategies will you put in to place this week to improve your grade? Be specific.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

7) What is your self-efficacy score for next week? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Adapted and used with permission from Dr. Timothy Cleary, University Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Appendix F

STRESS DIARY Adapted from Stress Diary by www.MindTools.com

Date and Time

Most recent stressful event experienced

How happy do you feel right now? -10 to +10

Your current mood

How effectively are you functioning now? 0-10

Fundamental cause of the event?

How stressed do you feel now? 0-10

Cognitive Error

Physical symptoms felt during stressful event.

How well did you handle the event?

Appendix G

Physiological Stress-Management Chart Your Instructor will ask you to find your pulse in your neck or wrist. If you use your wrist, do not feel for your pulse with your thumb. S/he will tell you when 30 seconds has elapsed. Write down the number of heart beats in the 30 second time period. Then multiply that number by 2. Write the number in the first box. Your instructor will take through a progressive-relaxation procedure. Time your heart rate again. Note the difference, if there is one, in the last column.

If you choose not to participate, please remain courteous of your classmates and remain quiet throughout the exercise.

Date Resting Heart-Rate Before Relaxation

Resting Heart-Rate After Relaxation

Resting Heart-rate Difference


90

Appendix H

10 (Not Accomplished) 15 (Developing) 20 (Accomplished) 25 (Mastery)

Developed an academic goal

management plan and has monitored

its effectiveness

Student has identified short-term and long-term

academic goals

Student has identified goals and developed a

plan for achieving academic goals

Student has identified short-term and long-term goals, and has

demonstrated an ability to meet at least 75% of academic goals

Student has identified short-term and long-

term goals; has demonstrated an

ability to meet at least 75% of academic goals, has analyzed the plan’s

effectiveness

____

Implemented weekly schedules for goal-

oriented tasks

Student has designed weekly schedules for goal

oriented tasks

Student has developed weekly schedules, and a written plan/calendar for assignment submission

Student has developed a weekly schedule, a

written plan/calendar for assignment

submission, and has met at least 80% of

assignment deadlines

Student has developed weekly schedule, a

written plan/calendar for assignment

submission, has met at least 80% of

assignment deadlines, and has reported the

value of maintaining a weekly schedule

____

Managed environmental, behavioral, and

cognitive stressors that impact student

academic success

Student has used rating scales to identify stressors

Student has identified stressors and

participated in facilitated stress

management activities

Student has identified stressors, participated

in facilitated stress management

activities, and has identified a

relationship between stress management and goal attainment

Student has identified stressors, participated

in facilitated stress management activities, has

identified a relationship between stress management

and goal attainment, and has demonstrated an ability to regulate physiological stress

response and identify cognitive errors

____

Relate personal academic self-

efficacy to academic goal achievement

Student has assessed perception of his/her

academic self-efficacy

Student has assessed self-efficacy, and has discussed how self-efficacy relates to

personal attainment of academic goals

Student has assessed self-efficacy and has conducted a causal

analysis of the relationship

of self-efficacy to goal achievement

Student has assessed self-efficacy,

conducted a causal analysis of the

relationship of self-efficacy to goal achievement, and has

demonstrated an ability to accurately assess self-efficacy

scores

____

Total----> ____

Learning Outcomes Criteria Points

HCC Self Regulated Learning Rubric

Instructor Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Powered by TeAch-nology.com- The Web Portal For Educators! (www.teach-nology.com)


91

Appendix I

CIRCLE One: “Steps to Math Success” Capstone Essay Rubric

1(Not Accomplished) 2 (Developing) 3 (Accomplished) 4 (Mastery)

Self Evaluation of Goal Management

Skills

Student identifies the number of goals met or set,

only.

Student identifies the number of goals set,

versus met.

Student identifies the number of goals set,

versus met, and correctly calculates a percentage of goals

achieved.

Student identifies the number of goals set, versus met, correctly calculates a

percentage of goals achieved, and evaluates

how goal setting has impacted grades

____

Learning Strategy Development and

Monitoring

Student provides little to no evidence of learning strategy

development

Student demonstrates evidence of learning

strategy development

Student demonstrates evidence of learning

strategy development, as well as evidence of having monitored the use of those strategies

Student demonstrates evidence of learning strategy development, and evidence of having monitored the use of those strategies. Student

also analyzes the effectiveness of learning

strategies monitored.

____

Develops and utilizes a time management

plan

Student provides little to no evidence of the use of a time

management plan

Student provides evidence of the use of a time management plan

Student provides evidence of the use of a time management

plan and discusses how the plan was used

Student provides evidence of the use of a time

management plan and discusses how the plan was

used. Student also evaluates the value of using a time

management plan to assist him/her in reaching

academic goals.

____

Develops stress management skills to

facilitate goal achievement

Student shows no evidence of having participated in

stress management activities.

Student shows evidence of having participated in

stress management activities

Student shows evidence of having

participated in stress management activities

and discusses techniques s/he has

found useful

Student shows evidence of having participated in stress

management activities, discusses techniques s/he

has found useful, as well as the relationship between personal stress and goal

achievement

____

Understands self-efficacy and its relationship to

academic achievement

Student does not provide evidence of having calculated

self-efficacy scores

Student shows evidence of calculating self-

efficacy scores and an understanding of its

definition

Student shows evidence of calculating self-efficacy scores, an

understanding of its definition, as well as

self-efficacy's relationship to

academic success

Student shows evidence of calculating self-efficacy

scores, an understanding of its definition, as well as self-

efficacy's relationship to academic success and an ability to transfer self-

regulation to other courses

____

Total----> ____

Objectives Criteria Points

Instructor Comments: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Powered by TeAch-nology.com- The Web Portal For Educators! (www.teach-nology.com)


92

Appendix J


93

Appendix K

1-Minute Paper Worksheet

A Thinking-Centered Self-Assessment Tool

Name: ___________________

Date: ___________________

Topic or Lesson:___________________

Directions:

Take a moment to think about the thinking you just did. Then, answer the following questions.

1. What new ideas, questions, insights, puzzles, or connections do you have?

2. What was good about the thinking you did? Explain.

3. What could have been better? Explain. What will you do next time to improve your thinking?

@ http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/ways.cfm

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/ways.cfm


94

Appendix L

Integrative Assignment “Thinking about Algebra”

How do we apply the elements of thought, standards of thinking, and quantitative data to a relevant social problem to make predictions, draw conclusions, make interpretations, and understand implications?

Assignment: 1. The HCC Board of Trustees recently passed a controversial smoking ban on the College campus. Consider your position on the issue. Do you defend the decision to ban smoking? Or would you like to see the decision reversed? 2. After conducting the following research, write a documented essay in APA style supporting your position. Include the peer-reviewed research and quantitative data to support your essay: HCC Smoke Free Survey: results from the office of Institutional Effectiveness.

Peer-reviewed research (at least 4 sources) describing the effects of second-hand smoke and/or research on smoke-free laws/buildings/environments. Search for multiple points of view.

Develop an algebraic equation using data points. Develop a Linear Model using data on the health effects of second-hand smoke. 4. Use the 7 elements of thought to structure your essay. Use the peer-reviewed research and quantitative data

to support your position.

Students will be provided an assessment rubric.

MAT 070 Outcomes

1. Apply linear relationships/models to real-world problems.

2. Use data to develop an equation.

3. Solve problems using a linear model.

4. Make predictions based on an algebraic model

HUM 115 Outcomes

1. Apply the elements of thought to solve problems

2. Write a research paper in MLA or APA style.

Integrative assignment goal: Create an assignment that requires students to integrate at least one significant

outcome from each course in order to address a relevant topic in a way that demonstrates

understanding.Questions to consider:

1. As students move forward in their educational and career pathways, what are the most critical outcomes from your course?

2. Of those outcomes, which resonate with the outcomes identified by your partner? 3. What is the overarching questions or public issue that provides a relevant context for this assignment?

Co-curricular connections

1. Guest speakers 2. Smoking Cessation

Workshops 3. Campus Events 4. Student Forums

Appendix M

Critical Thinking Worksheet

Overall Score ________

If applicable, score the element (1-4)

Element of Reasoning

Comments

Purpose: Does the student demonstrate a clear understanding of the assignment’s purpose?

Key Question, Problem, or Issue: Does the student clearly define the issue or problem, accurately identify the core issues, and appreciate their depth and breadth?

Point of View: Does the student identify and evaluate relevant significant points of view? Does the student demonstrate fair-mindedness toward the problem?

Information: Does the student gather sufficient, credible, relevant information (statements, logic, data, facts, questions, graphs, assertions, observations, etc.)? Does the student include information that opposes as well as supports the argued position? Does the student distinguish between information and inferences drawn from that information?

Concepts: Does the student identify and accurately explain/use the relevant key concepts?

Assumptions: Does the student accurately identify assumptions (things taken for granted)? Does the student make assumptions that are consistent, reasonable, valid?

Interpretations, Inferences: Does the student follow where evidence and reason lead in order to obtain defensible, thoughtful, logical conclusions or solutions? Does the student make deep (rather than superficial) inferences? Are the inferences consistent?

Implications, Consequences: Does the student identify the most significant implications and consequences? Does the student distinguish probable from improbable implications?

4 = Thinking is exemplary, skilled, marked by excellence in clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicality, and fairness 3 = Thinking is competent, effective, accurate and clear, but lacks the exemplary depth, precision, and insight of a 4 2 = Thinking is inconsistent, ineffective; shows a lack of consistent competence: is often unclear, imprecise, inaccurate, and superficial

1 = Thinking is unskilled and insufficient, marked by imprecision, lack of clarity, superficiality, illogicality, and inaccuracy, and unfairness

@Foundation for Critical Thinking, www.criticalthinking.org

http://www.criticalthinking.org/


96

4 = Thinking is exemplary, skilled, marked by excellence in clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logicali ty, and fairness 3 = Thinking is competent, effective, accurate and clear, but lacks the exemplary depth, precision, and insight of a 4 2 = Thinking is inconsistent, ineffective; shows a lack of consistent competence: is often unclear, imprecise, inaccurate, and superficial 1 = Thinking is unskilled and insufficient, marked by imprecision, lack of clarity, superficiality, illog icality, and inaccuracy, and unfairness

@Foundation for Critical Thinking, www.criticalthinking.org

4 - Exemplary If applicable, consistently does all or almost all of

the following

3 - Satisfactory If applicable, consistently does most or

many of the following

2- Below Satisfactory If applicable, consistently does most or

many of the following

1 - Unsatisfactory If applicable, consistently does all or almost all

of the following

Purpose

--Demonstrates a clear understanding of the assignment’s purpose

--Demonstrates an understanding of the assignment’s purpose

--Is not completely clear about the purpose of the assignment

--Does not clearly understand the purpose of the assignment

Key Question, Problem, or Issue

--Clearly defines the issue or problem; accurately identifies the core issues --Appreciates depth and breadth of problem --Demonstrates fair-mindedness toward problem

--Defines the issue; identifies the core issues, but may not fully explore their depth and breadth --Demonstrates fair-mindedness

--Defines the issue, but poorly (superficially, narrowly); may overlook some core issues --Has trouble maintaining a fair-minded approach toward the problem

--Fails to clearly define the issue or problem; does not recognize the core issues --Fails to maintain a fair-minded approach toward the problem

Point of View --Identifies and evaluates relevant significant points of view --Is empathetic, fair in examining all relevant points of view

--Identifies and evaluates relevant points of view --Is fair in examining those views

--May identify other points of view but struggles with maintaining fairmindedness; may focus on irrelevant or insignificant points of view

--Ignores or superficially evaluates alternate points of view --Cannot separate own vested interests and feelings when evaluating other points of view

Information

--Gathers sufficient, credible, relevant information: observations, statements, logic, data, facts, questions, graphs, themes, assertions, descriptions, etc. --Includes information that opposes as well as supports the argued position --Distinguishes between information and inferences drawn from that information

--Gathers sufficient, credible, and relevant information --Includes some information from opposing views --Distinguishes between information and inferences drawn from it

--Gathers some credible information, but not enough; some information may be irrelevant --Omits significant information, including some strong counter-arguments --Sometimes confuses information and the inferences drawn from it

--Relies on insufficient, irrelevant, or unreliable information --Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments --Confuses information and inferences drawn from that information

Concepts --Identifies and accurately explains/uses the relevant key concepts

--Identifies and accurately explains and uses the key concepts, but not with the depth and precision of a “4”

--Identifies some (not all) key concepts, but use of concepts is superficial and inaccurate at times

--Misunderstands key concepts or ignores relevant key concepts altogether

Assumptions

--Accurately identifies assumptions (things taken for granted) --Makes assumptions that are consistent, reasonable, valid

--Identifies assumptions --Makes valid assumptions

--Fails to identify assumptions, or fails to explain them, or the assumptions identified are irrelevant, not clearly stated, and/or invalid

--Fails to identify assumptions --Makes invalid assumptions

Interpretations, Inferences

--Follows where evidence and reason lead in order to obtain defensible, thoughtful, logical conclusions or solutions --Makes deep rather than superficial inferences --Makes inferences that are consistent with one another

--Follows where evidence and reason lead to obtain justifiable, logical conclusions --Makes valid inferences, but not with the same depth and as a “4”

--Does follow some evidence to conclusions, but inferences are more often than not unclear, illogical, inconsistent, and/or superficial

--Uses superficial, simplistic, or irrelevant reasons and unjustifiable claims --Makes illogical, inconsistent inferences --Exhibits closed-mindedness or hostility to reason; regardless of the evidence, maintains or defends views based on self-interest

Implications, Consequences

--Identifies the most significant implications and consequences of the reasoning (whether positive and/or negative) --Distinguishes probable from improbable implications

--Identifies significant implications and consequences and distinguishes probable from improbable implications, but not with the same insight and precision as a “4”

--Has trouble identifying significant implications and consequences; identifies improbable implications

--Ignores significant implications and consequences of reasoning

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

classroom innovations result in creative learning environments

Documents