performance funding report 2014 – 2015in preparation for the visit, team members reviewed the...

Performance Funding Report

2014 – 2015

Submitted: July, 2015

Copy of PSCC 2014-15_Performance Funding Template 7_23_2015 Page 1 of 1 9/18/2015

Pellissippi State Community College Maximum Points

Requested Points

Standard 1A: General Education Assessment 15 15

Standard 1B: Major Field Assessment 15 15

Standard 1C: Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation 15 13

Standard 1D: Satisfaction Studies (Comprehensive Report) 10 0

Standard 1E: Job Placement 10 10

Standard 1F: Assessment Implementation 10 0

Standard 2: Student Access and Student Success 25 7

Total Points 100 60

Institutional Comments:

STANDARD TWO - QUALITY OF STUDENT ACCESS AND STUDENT SUCCESS

Tennessee Higher Education Commission 2010-15 Performance Funding

Summary of Points Requested

STANDARD ONE - QUALITY OF STUDENT LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT

Year 5: 2014-15

Standard 1A:

General Education Assessment

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of 1 9/18/2015

1515

CBase

All

1367

964

71%

National Norm Comparison (Maximum 15 points in Years 1-3 and 10 points in Years 4-5)

Mean Score 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Institution 280.0 266.0 265.0 266.0 446.3National 275.0 276.0 277.0 275.0 438.1Diff (I-Nat'l) 5.0 -10.0 -12.0 -9.0 8.2% Institution to National Average 100% 96% 96% 97% 100%

Institutional Trends Comparison (Maximum 5 points in Years 4-5)Mean Score 2013-14 2014-15Institution 266.0 446.33 Yr Average 270.3 325.8Diff (I-Avg) -4.3 120.5

% Institution to 3-Year Average 98% 100%


Total Eligible Graduates:

No. Graduates Tested:

Percent Tested:

Requested Points:

Graduates Tested: All or Sample?

Test Type:

Maximum Points:


Standard 1A: General Education Assessment

Pellissippi State Community College

Year 5: 2014-15

The General Education standard is designed to provide incentives to institutions for improvements in the quality of their undergraduate general education program as measured by the performance of graduates on an approved standardized test of general education.

Please place any comments in this text box.

TO: Betty Dandridge Johnson, THEC FROM: Nancy Ramsey, PSCC DATE: July 22, 2015 SUBJECT: Student Exemptions from Exit Exam (2014-15) Pellissippi State Community College has recognized exemptions for graduating students as regards the completion of the identified exit exam, CBASE/ETS. Out of the 1367 graduates, 403 did not have an exit exam score. In the Spring of 2014, the College ceased using CBASE as the exit exam due to the inability of CBASE to provide a national mean. The ETS Proficiency Exam (abbreviated format) was chosen and began to be administered in Fall 2014. Summer 2014 graduates (239 students) were not required to be tested. The remaining 164 students received waivers based on the College’s waiver policy. The following list denotes the reason for the 164 waivers. 57 Waiver due to having a previous degree 24 Waiver due to designation as English as a Second Language 7 Waiver due to living out of state and completing degree online or working out of state

during the final semester 76 Waiver due to students being Reverse Transfer from the four year institutions and not

being required to complete the exit exam per TBR instructions

Standard 1B:

Major Field Assessment


15

15

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test TypeNo.

GradsNo.

Tested No. Passed % TestedInst.

ScoreComp.Score

% Inst to Comparison Score

1 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3.AAS 2014 NCLEX 76 76 68 100% 89.47 87.44 100%

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test CodeNo.

GradsNo.

Tested % TestedInst.

ScoreComp.Score


1 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3.AST 2010-11 PRAXIS 49 51 100% 176.7 172.0 100%

2 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 2011-12 Local 25 24 96% 83.0 77.0 100%

3 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3.AAS 2011-12 Local 76 83 100% 85.4 87.1 98%

4 32.52.0401.00 ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECH 2.3.AAS 2011-12 OPAC 19 18 95% 83.1 86.3 96%

5 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3.AAS 2013-14 Local 58 58 100% 87.2

6 06.11.0101.00 COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH 2.3.AAS 2013-14 Brainbench 44 44 100% 3.4 3.31 100%

7 30.50.0408.00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 2014-15 Local 5 5 100% 80.3

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree

1 06.11.0801.00 WEB TECHNOLOGY (RODP) 2.3.AAS Low Producing

2 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS Low Producing

3 12.19.0706.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS Low Producing

4 23.32.0111.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS Low Producing

5 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AS, AA Multidisciplinary

6 16.24.0102.02 PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS Multidisciplinary

7 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (RODP) 2.3AAS New program Aug 2012

8 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3AFA New program Aug 2012

9 31.51.9999.01 HEALTH SCIENCES 2.3AAS New program Aug 2012

10 09.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS New program Aug 2015

352 359 100% 86.85 85.52 100%


2013-14 Licensure Results

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test TypeNo.

GradsNo.

Tested No. Passed % TestedInst.

ScoreComp.Score


31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3.AAS 2013 NCLEX 36 36 35 100% 97.22 86.58 100%

Exemption

Licensure Programs Reported Annually (Sorted by CIP Code)

Year 5: 2014-15Maximum Points:

Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle (Sorted by Reporting Year)

Programs Exempt During 5 Year Cycle (Sorted by Exemption)


Standard 1B: Major Field Assessment


Requested Points:

The Major Field standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of academic programs as evaluated by the performance of graduates on approved examinations.

Year 5: 2014-15

Academic Program INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGYTest Code Local

Institutional Previous Average New test

2014-15 Average 80.3% Inst to Comparison Score NA

No. Student Scores 5

Student Scores INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY1 832 693 754 835 90678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940


Standard 1B: Major Field Assessment

Standard 1C:

Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation


1513 10

8

716

100%5

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree LevelAccrediting

Agency Accredited? Begin Date End Date Next Site Visit

1 06.11.0101.00 COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH 2.3.AAS ACBSP Yes 2012 2022 2022

2 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS ABA Yes 2009 2016 2016

3 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3.AAS ACBSP Yes 2012 2022 2022

4 32.52.0401.00ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECH 2.3.AAS ACBSP Yes 2012 2022 2022

5 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3.AAS NLNAC Yes 2013 2018 2018

6 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ATMAE Yes 2013 2017 2017

7 12.19.0706.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS NAEYC

7 09.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS ATMAE

Points Requested:

Accreditation Cycle

Points Requested:

Accreditation

New program effective Aug 2015. Accreditation timeline due Aug 2016

Standard 1C: Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation

Number of Programs Seeking Accreditation

Provide status report and/or affirmation letter by Aug 2015.

Number of Non-Accreditable Programs:

Percent Accredited:


Number of Accreditable Programs:

Number of Accredited Programs:

Undergraduate Programs

Accreditation

Maximum PointsRequested Points

Year 5: 2014-15

The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.



2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Year Reviewed Evaluation Type *Total No. Standards

"NA"Standards # Stand. Met % Met

1 30.50.0408.00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 2010-11 PR 25 0 25 100%

2 06.11.0801.00 WEB TECHNOLOGY (RODP) 2.3.AAS 2011-12 AA 20 0 20 100%

3 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3.AST 2012-13 AA 20 0 20 100%

4 23.32.0111.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 2013-14 AA 23 0 14 61%

5 16.24.0102.02 PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 2013-14 AA 23 0 23 100%

6 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3.AAS 2013-14 AA 20 0 20 100%

7 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AS, AA 2014-15 PR 24 0 24 100%

8 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE (RODP 2.3AAS

9 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3AFA

10 31.51.9999.01 HEALTH SCIENCES 2.3AAS155 0 146 94%


PSCC - 5 Year Review Cycle Program Evaluation: Non-Accreditable Programs

*PR denotes traditional Program Review with checklist of 24 criteria. Criterions include program outcomes, curriculum, teaching/learning environment, faculty and support.

* AA denotes Academic Audit with checklist of 20 criteria or 23 criteria for programs undergoing the Academic Audit a second time or more. Criterions include learning objectives, curriculum/co-curriculum, teaching/learning processes, student learning assessment, quality assurance, overall assessment, and support.

New program effective Jan 2013

New program effective Aug 2012

New program effective Aug 2012


Academic Audit Site Visit Report


University Parallel Program

April 17, 2015

Audit Team:

Debra McCarter, Team Chair, Walters State Community College Jim Kelly, Northeast State Community College Christine Conn, Chattanooga State Community College

1

Introduction

A three-member audit team conducted an on-site visit on April 17, 2015 at Pellissippi State Community College (PSCC), Hardin Valley Campus. The visit was a component of an academic audit of the University Parallel Program. Pellissippi is one of thirteen community colleges in the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) system. The audit team included from members from other TBR institutions: Debra McCarter, Vice President for Planning, Research and Assessment at Walters State Community College; Jim Kelly, Associate Professor of History, Northeast State Community College; Christine Couch Conn, Director, Education Programs, at Chattanooga State Community College.). Prior to the visit, the team conferred via email as well as during a pre-visit meeting on the evening before the site visit.

The University Parallel Program is housed in four academic departments — English, Liberal Arts, Mathematics, and Natural and Behavioral Sciences. Learning support is also integrated into this departments. The courses offered satisfy the majority of requirements for four Associate degrees designed for transfer, and are offered through a variety of modes including traditional face-to-face, hybrid, two-way audio, DVD and online.

In preparation for the visit, team members reviewed the college’s self-study report, master syllabi, planning reports, various webpages, and General Education assessment reports. The site visit began with a brief plenary session that included administrators and faculty leaders of the audit self-study process. Throughout the day, the team was able to meet with other stakeholders including program faculty, department deans, and key administrators from the areas of institutional effectiveness and advisement. The audit team also met students who had completed the program and transferred courses to the University of Tennessee. The site visit concluded with an exit session in which the audit team presented its commendations, affirmations, and recommendations as well as its assessment of applicable criteria for consideration of Performance Funding.

The candor and culture of collaboration emphasized in the self-study process was also evident during the site visit, as all institutional participants engaged in thoughtful conversations with the audit team members and expressed the desire to improve education quality processes.

Overall Performance

Pellissippi’s self-study of the University Parallel Program is predicated on the underlying principles of the Academic Audit affirming the college’s commitment to defining quality in terms of outcomes.

2

The college has developed and implemented a number of collaborative, comprehensive processes to assist in monitoring overall performance of the University Parallel Program. These processes, which will be discussed in greater detail throughout this report, have created a culture of collaboration across the academic departments that make up the University Parallel program. From the conclusions of the audit self-study and conversations with faculty, students, and administrators on-site, it is clear that PSCC’s University Parallel Program has a strong sense of mission and provides a high quality of instruction. Faculty are clearly committed to student learning, innovative in their approaches to instruction, and respected by students. The audit resulted in several initiatives proposed to enhance faculty professional development and improve management of assessment activities.

Performance in the Focal Areas

Focal Area 1: Learning Objectives

The University Parallel program focuses on the core college competences expected of all graduates, which state that PSCC graduates should be able to 1) write clearly, 2) read proficiently, 3) communicate orally, 4) analyze and use quantitative information, 5) solve problems and 6) use technology effectively. These competencies align with the system-wide General Education requirements established by the TBR. Competencies are taught in general education course that must be approved by the college and the TBR system office to facilitate transfer. For each approved course, a master syllabus is posted to the college curriculum website and includes two categories of student learning outcomes — course goals and expected student learning outcomes.

The PSCC faculty and staff have identified an important improvement initiative related to learning objectives: to establish a regular schedule for review and revision of Master Syllabi. In their self-study they acknowledge that “some departments have also recognized the need to emphasize learning objectives more directly to students and to point out more explicitly how course assignments are tied to learning objectives.” During the site visit, the administrative team clearly stated their commitment to helping faculty improve teaching and learning. Faculty members acknowledged the importance of “clarity of the words they use in their syllabi.” Within the self- study there was an obvious commitment to revise courses as needed to facilitate university transfer and to meet the needs of the community and employers.

Focal Area 2: Curriculum and Co-curriculum

The spirit of collaboration was evident during the site visit in the development of curriculum and co-curriculum. “Revisions to learning outcomes and then, as necessary, to

3

curriculum are determined collaboratively by all full-time faculty who are involved in teaching the course.” One faculty member said that as an instructor at Pellissippi, he felt that he was a part of a “culture that encourages faculty to grow their strengths.” During the site visit the faculty highlighted the importance of learning across the disciplines. Interviews affirmed that faculty collaboration extends beyond faculty who teach in the respective departments. Faculty work with colleagues in other departments at PSCC and the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tennessee to assure that core courses prepare students for coursework in other disciplines as well as for transfer.

The faculty were proud to discuss the success of the Common Academic Experience. The students spoke enthusiastically about the Common Academic Experience as well. One student spoke about the importance of service learning. Her experience working with the food bank at one of the off-site campuses helped her connect with the broader mission of the college.

The students were outspoken about the level of compassion and caring that they experience from the Pellissippi instructors. They said that the support system at the college was marvelous and that the smaller community college setting made for a smooth transition from high school to college.

As stated in the self-study, faculty “investigate and incorporate best practices in course content and delivery; they encourage students to develop the important competencies of communication and critical thinking not only through course materials, but through participation in extra-curricular events at the College and in the community and the world.”

Focal Area 3: Teaching and Learning

The college’s very professional and well-written self-study report raised some questions about the degree of student engagement in the teaching and learning process. While much evidence was presented about faculty involvement in this process, such as statements that “Both full-time and adjunct faculty have many opportunities, within their departments and across the College, to learn about and to develop best practices in teaching and learning” (p. 9), evidence was lacking to explain exactly how students were actively engaged in these processes, especially with the College’s active-learning-focused QEP. After meeting with various focus groups, composed of administrators, faculty, and students, doubts about student engagement were dispelled, as the audit team heard much evidence about student-centered activities and assessments. The faculty, in particular, shared a multitude of activities they used in their classroom to insure student engagement, from “tactile writing” assignments in English classes, to creative projects in art, speech, and science-based classes. One English faculty member made the telling comment that in her classes students were not only encouraged to write well but to also “think about writing” as a process. The audit team was impressed by ongoing efforts to

4

involve adjunct faculty in this process, such as Saturday training sessions and meetings to accommodate adjunct work schedules. The auditors, along with those participating in the interviews, acknowledged that engaging adjunct faculty is a continuous challenge. As is often the case with Academic Audit visits, the student interviews were a highlight of the day. Two students, both in the medical field, were enthusiastic about the levels of student engagement and faculty “compassion and care” they had experienced at the college. One of the students, who is currently enrolled in classes at both Pellissippi and at a regional university, commented that her experience at Pellissippi, in terms of faculty involvement in the teaching and learning process, was superior. When asked to rate the level of faculty-student engagement at Pellissippi on a scale of 1-10, one student placed the level at 8-10, while the other rated it a 10. Both students were extremely satisfied with the ways in which the faculty and staff of the college are preparing them for life and career skills. Two areas for improving the levels of student engagement were discussed in the focus group sessions. All agreed, first of all, that improvements could be made in the collection of student feedback about the teaching and learning process. Second, there seemed to be a willingness to include media other than just books (i.e. film, music, art) in the College’s successful Common Academic Experience (CAE) initiative, as a way of furthering student engagement; the students also suggested this improvement in their interview. Focal Area 4: Student Learning Assessment The faculty, staff, and students at PSCC are dedicated to a continuous assessment process, and this commitment is reflected in the College’s QEP, tutoring programs (including a well-received supplemental instructor initiative), and professional development (reflected, in part, by a New Faculty Academy, which is entering its second year of implementation). All of these programs are aimed at furthering student engagement and success, as well as providing meaningful analytics that can be used to determine where and when improvements and perhaps new programs are needed. One of the most thorough sections of the College’s self-study report is the one on Student Learning Assessment, which eloquently states that “the abilities to write clearly, read proficiently, communicate orally, analyze and use quantitative information, solve problems, and use technology effectively” are essential to the College’s educational mission. This goal provides the benchmark used for measuring the relative successes and shortcomings of the College’s assessment of its General Education program. Although the self-study report is very transparent about revealing some of the problem areas faced with student learning assessment (i.e. the fact that an English 1010

5

assessment reveals that some indicators on a study of final writing assignments fell considerably below the expected standards), there runs throughout this section a willingness to learn from this data and to engage in a collaborative effort to improve those things that need improvement. There is also an evident attempt being made to enlarge the scope of some assessments, such as the expansion of the QEP beyond the originally-targeted disciplines, in an effort to capitalize on the strengths and successes of the process. One area of acknowledged weakness, which was discussed in the focus groups, grew out of a statement made in the self-study that “results of college-wide assessment have not been routinely shared and discussed with the entire college community.” Although correcting this apparent weakness was not included in the audit team’s recommendations, all agreed that these results should be more widely disseminated in the future. All in all, the College seems to be committed to the assessment process and is focused on making this process better, while at the same time learning how to turn weaknesses and data gaps into continuous improvement efforts based on College-wide collaboration. Focal Area 5: Quality Assurance The self-study report cited a number of factors as institutional strengths supporting the assurance of ongoing quality improvement. These factors included course consistency promoted by use of a master course syllabus template, collaboration of the faculty to review and use course assessment data for improvement, and feedback from regional universities about course transfer. All of these measures appear to be deeply embedded in the culture of the college and used by academic administrators in a manner that encourages faculty teamwork and encourages the use of data for improvement.

Conversations with faculty in multiple disciplines provided the audit team with strong evidence of the collaborative spirit in which faculty engage with colleagues within and across disciplines. The Quality Enhancement Plan has been a notable catalysts for professional development. Sharing of teaching techniques and ideas to spur student engagement is an excellent means of encouraging the kind of mutual respect that promotes quality. Particularly appealing aspects of PSCC’s professional development program are the New Faculty Academy and the effort to include adjuncts in all training.

6

.

Support for students is emphasized throughout the departments and discipline areas of the University Parallel program. University Parallel faculty serve as student success coordinators, request and support supplemental instructors, and encourage students to avail themselves of tutoring services. Interviews with students affirmed the positive affinity students have for the faculty.

Conclusions

Commendations:

1. The college is to be commended for the excellent self-study report. The document was comprehensive and well-written and addressed the all aspects of the academic audit process.

2. The college is to be commended for the culture of collaboration that supports student engagement and assists faculty to grow their strengths.

3. The college is to be commended for the emphasis on active learning that is tied to learning outcomes.

4. The college is to be commended for the level of engagement shown by both faculty and students

5. The college is to be commended for establishing professional development activities such as the New Faculty Academy and the inclusion of adjuncts in the professional development activities.

Affirmations:

1. The team affirms the four initiatives identified in the matrix of improvement initiatives and encourages the college to implement them according to the proposed schedule. These initiatives include

• Establish regular schedule for review & revision of Master Syllabi • Certification process established for all instructors of online courses • Implement systematic assessment of SLOs within academic

departments • Implement broad dissemination & discussion of college-wide

assessment measures

7

Recommendations:

1. The team recommends that the college expand opportunities for students to

give feedback about their learning experience. Students strongly emphasized the care and concern faculty have for them. However, they reported few opportunities to provide feedback about their learning experiences. Given the focus on students evident in the self-study and throughout the interviews, the team encourages the college to create more opportunities for students to provide input throughout their educational experience at PSCC.

Finally, the audit team members wish to thank all of the participants in the Academic Audit of the University Parallel program at PSCC for a warm welcome and a day of interesting and collegial conversations that exemplify the spirit of the process.

Standard 1D:

Satisfaction Studies (Student Engagement)


Year 5: 2014-15Maximum Points: 10

Requested Points:

Year2010-11 Student Engagement Survey (NSSE and CCSSE)2011-12 Alumni Satisfaction Project2012-13 Employer Satisfaction Project2013-14 Student Engagement Survey (NSSE and CCSSE)2014-15 Comprehensive Satisfaction Studies Report

Satisfaction Study


Standard 1D: Satisfaction Studies (Comprehensive Report)

The Satisfaction Studies standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their undergraduate programs as evaluated by surveys of undergraduate students, recent graduates, and regional and/or national employers of recent graduates.


Scoring Rubric for Comprehensive Satisfaction Studies Report

1) Provide an overview of the design and administration of three surveys (Student, Alumni, and Employer) and a brief introduction to the satisfcation study (0-1 points)

2) Analyyze the results of the surveys, identify area(s) for improvemeent and objectives to be accomplihsed by 2014-15 (0-3 points)

3) Describe the implementation plan to use the survey results to initiate improvements (including action items, timeline, and success indicators. (0-2 points)

4) Describe the patterns of evidence for the extent to which the desired implementation plan outcomes or objectives have been accomplished. (0-3 points)

5) Explain how lessons learned from the Satisfaction Survey Project will be used for continuous improvement (0-1 points)

1


Performance Funding 2014-2015 Standard 1D

Comprehensive Satisfaction Studies Report

Overview As required by the Performance Funding Guidelines for the 2010-2015 cycle, Pellissippi State

has sought to measure satisfaction with the College’s performance on the part of students,

alumni, and employers. In the first and fourth years of the cycle, the College administered the

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) to a random selection of classes as

chosen by the CCSSE organization. In the second year, the office of Institutional Effectiveness,

Assessment, and Planning (IEAP) mailed surveys to all graduates from the previous two years

and followed up with e-mailed surveys to increase the number of participants. In the third year,

the IEAP office telephoned employers of graduates of the career programs in the Business and

Computer Technology (BCT), Engineering and Media Technologies (EMT), and Nursing

departments. The results of all surveys were published on the IEAP website, shared with faculty

and staff groups, including the Strategic Planning Committee and the career program faculty, and

analyzed by the various groups. The resulting analyses have been used in academic audits,

reports to accrediting agencies, and the analysis of the effectiveness of the Quality Enhancement

Plan (QEP) and have contributed to improvements in curriculum, teaching strategies, and

planning across the College.

Design and Administration of Surveys Student Satisfaction (CCSSE): The Community College Survey of Student Engagement was

selected by TBR and THEC as the instrument to be administered to evaluate student satisfaction.

The instrument is the product of the Center for Community College Student Engagement.

During the 2010-15 Performance Funding cycle, CCSSE was administered twice (2011; 2014).

The survey is administered during the spring semester to classes composed primarily of returning

students. The survey questions focus on institutional practices and student behaviors that

2

correlate with student learning and retention. Students are selected through the random

identification of classes from the Course Master Data File submitted by the College. The CMDF

does not include non-credit, dual enrollment, distance education, lowest level-ESL, lab sections,

independent study or self-paced courses. At Pellissippi State, faculty in the identified courses

serve as survey administrators. They are provided with a packet which includes instructions and

surveys. Students who have completed the survey in another course are not required to complete

it a second time. The College establishes a two-week window for administration of the survey.

Alumni Satisfaction: The Pellissippi State Alumni Satisfaction survey was developed in-house

through collaboration among both academic and non-academic departments. The survey

questions focused on alumni engagement with the College following graduation and knowledge

acquired while enrolled at the College. The survey was aligned with the College’s Quality

Enhancement Plan purpose: “to improve student learning outcomes in targeted courses through

increasing student engagement in the core curriculum areas of English, math, and oral

communication.” The survey was designed using evaluation of questions on a Likert scale and

was administered through direct mailing to all degree graduates from 2009-2011, a total of 780

graduates. Of these, 146 responded, producing a response rate of 18.7%. Graduates received a

letter that included a link to the online survey; then a follow-up postcard was sent in an attempt

to increase the response rate.

Employer Satisfaction: The Employer Satisfaction Survey was developed in-house to assess

the perspectives of employers in Pellissippi State’s service area. The survey was designed to

address the following:

• the overall performance level of Pellissippi State graduates;

• graduates’ level of competence to carry out the work that is assigned to them in their

particular field;

• the comparative quality and extent of graduates’ general education background and that

of their colleagues in comparable positions;

• the comparative quality of graduates’ technical skills and those of other employees in

comparable positions;

• the extent to which the graduates possess the characteristics expected of a college

graduate.

3

Employers of AAS graduates were identified in collaboration with the Placement office. The

office of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment and Planning contacted the identified employers

by phone. A total of 69 employers participated in the phone survey.

Analysis of Survey Results CCSSE: The CCSSE results were analyzed by the Strategic Planning committee and executive

administration. Pellissippi State scored well on the survey on all benchmarks. The College was

significantly above the peer college mean in three areas: worked on a paper or project that

required integrating ideas or information from various sources; received prompt feedback from

instructors; and made judgments about the value or soundness of information, arguments, or

methods. The College did not score significantly below the mean in any area; however, the

analysis team identified the following focus areas for improvement: active and collaborative

learning and support for learners.

Alumni Satisfaction Survey: The alumni survey showed that, overall, students are well

satisfied with the education they received at Pellissippi State, with almost 90 percent so

indicating on the survey. A smaller percentage (79) indicated that they were well prepared for

employment in their field. A number of questions on this survey, as on CCSSE, related to

engagement, as the focus of the College’s QEP is to improve student learning outcomes in core

competencies of writing, speaking, and mathematics through increasing engagement with the

subject matter, with faculty, and with peers. A relatively high percentage of alumni participated

in class discussion (79) and in interaction with other students in class (69), but fewer worked on

class material with other students (49) or with faculty members (21) outside of class. Though less

engagement out of class is not unusual for a commuter community college, this information

confirmed the College’s choice of the QEP focus on engagement as an area that needed

improvement. While 81 percent of alumni felt that their ability to analyze ideas or experiences

had developed quite a bit through their experience at Pellissippi State and 82 percent believed

their ability to learn on their own had increased, the College has continued to focus on

development of critical thinking abilities through increased participation in the implementation

of the QEP. Based on this survey, the College identified two focus areas for improvement:

student perception of preparation for employment and student engagement outside the classroom.

4

Employer Satisfaction Survey: The findings of the employer survey were positive throughout.

In the area of general readiness for the workplace, 100 percent believed that the Pellissippi State

alumni they had hired were well-trained for the work and said they would rehire those

employees. Overall, 94 percent considered Pellissippi State alumni extremely well trained for the

technical work they were engaged in and possessing the general knowledge expected of a college

graduate as compared with their colleagues. In regard to “soft skills,” employers awarded high

marks to Pellissippi State students for interpersonal and problem-solving skills, as well as work

ethic, but the marks were somewhat lower for verbal and writing skills, thus indicating that the

College could improve in preparing students for communicating in their professional and

personal lives. These 2013 results paint a more positive picture of employer perceptions of

Pellissippi State graduates than did those of the 2008 survey, but still suggest areas for

improvement. Comparison of the alumni and employer surveys shows a contrast in the

perception of preparation for employment in their field with 94 percent of employers finding

students well-prepared, but only 79 of students perceiving themselves as well prepared. The

College identified two focus areas for improvement: student communication skills and increased

use of active learning strategies in the classroom. It was hoped that improving these skills would

increase student confidence in their preparedness for employment.

Implementation Plan with Objectives Based on analysis of the survey results, Pellissippi State established objectives intended to make

improvements in each of the identified focus areas: increase active and collaborative learning,

including increasing use of active learning strategies in the classroom; increase support for

learners; increase student engagement and interaction outside the classroom; increase student

communication skills; improve student preparation for employment. Table 1 in the Appendix

lists the objectives, action items, timeline, and success indicators.

Evidence of Achievement of Objectives Increased active and collaborative learning (CCSSE & Employer Survey): This objective

was a primary focus of Pellissippi State’s QEP, which was implemented in core courses in 2012

spring and has been expanded into additional general education courses each semester since then.

5

Faculty receive training on the use of active learning strategies, then implement the strategies

into their classroom instruction. In 2014-15, 3,678 students were in sections with QEP

engagement activities. Of these, 80% reported positive results from the experience. Of 131

instructors implementing engagement activities, 92% say they will repeat use of the activities in

upcoming classes. The impact of the implementation of active learning strategies on student

achievement in MATH 1130, ENGL 1010 and SPCH 2100 is measured each year. In MATH

1130 student success in sections with QEP active learning strategies was 3.7% higher than in

sections with no active learning strategies. Students in ENGL 1010 saw a 6% increase in success

metrics. SPCH 2100 students saw an increase in achievement in 2013-14 but experienced a

4.8% decline in 2014-15. In Associate of Applied Science major courses, active, hands-on

learning has always been an important element, but additional active learning opportunities have

been instituted in AAS majors with increased opportunities for student internships in local

businesses and industries. Internships improve student engagement and communication skills,

while providing opportunities for building student self-confidence. The final number of students

participating in internships is not available for 2014-2015; however, in 2013-2014, 200 students

had internships.

The College has also increased opportunities for student participation in tutoring and other

collaborative learning activities. The Academic Support Center, which provides professional

tutoring (both on ground and online), peer tutoring, and supplemental instruction, has

experienced continuous growth over the past five years. In 2014-15, 2284 students participated

in on-ground tutoring and 6067 participated in online tutoring. Supplemental instruction

(whereby a student who has been successful in a certain course leads study sessions for students

enrolled in the course) is provided for high-enrollment, high DWF courses; 665 students

benefited from 5500 hours of supplemental instruction in 2014-15.

Another active and collaborative learning strategy the College has emphasized is Service

Learning. Service Learning is an experiential teaching and learning strategy used by some

professors to integrate meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich

the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities. In 2014-15, the

College had 1402 class sections that included a service learning component. Since 2012, students

6

have completed an average of 10,500 hours each year, yielding an economic impact of $800,000

per year.

Increased Support for Learners (CCSSE): In terms of support, the College focused on

advising, career counseling, and help for students in coping with non-academic issues and

responsibilities. The Advising office has moved toward more intentional advising. Advisors help

students clarify academic goals, assist students in the development of an academic plan, and refer

students to appropriate campus resources. To increase student understanding and use of advising

services, the professional advisors attend all New Student Orientation sessions in order to meet

with students and parents and share information on the benefits of taking advantage of the

advising services offered by the College. In 2014-2015, the Advising Center logged in excess of

18,500 advising appointments. The Advising office also expanded and enhanced the advising

website by reorganizing it and providing additional resources. The efforts of the Advising

Center have resulted in a positive increase on CCSSE from 1.75 in 2010-11 to 1.90 in 2013-14.

Counseling Services helps students manage obstacles that threaten their academic, career and life

goals. Counselors provide individual counseling, as well as hosting workshops and presenting

information in classes. The counselors also provide career counseling, which helps to equip

students with the tools, strategies, skills and knowledge to develop lifelong career development

and job search skills. Career resources include interest and skill assessments, computerized

career planning assistance, individual career counseling, and the online resource Career Coach,

which students may access themselves. As a result of the efforts by Counseling Services, the

College saw an increase in the frequency of use of counseling reported by students on CCSSE

from 1.31 to 1.43. While CCSSE scores are trending positively, the College will continue to

focus efforts on increasing the impact of career counseling on students. Another objective

identified in the area of support for learners is the increased emphasis on support for students in

coping with non-academic responsibilities. In spring 2015, the College opened the Center for

Student and Community Engagement at the Magnolia Campus. This is a pilot to determine the

impact of a one-stop center approach to meeting students’ needs. The College plans to provide

community resources in the Center to assist students with non-academic needs, such as child

care, housing, and transportation.

7

Increased Student Engagement outside the Classroom (Alumni Survey): Several of the

activities mentioned above serve to increase student engagement with the College outside the

classroom, including Service Learning, opportunities for study groups and other collaborative

learning activities, and career counseling services. Another college initiative that is intended to

encourage broader involvement on the part of students is the Common Academic Experience,

initiated in 2007 but expanded each year. The intent was to establish a common reading and

discussion experience that would span the entire college community and engage students more

fully with their peers and instructors, as well as with the College as a whole. All students in

ENGL 1010 read a common text and have opportunities to attend various events on and off

campus related to the subject of the text. They are encouraged to discuss the subject and write

about it in other classes and with audiences not limited to their classmates. In an annual survey

regarding the effect of the experience in their courses and lives, about half of all students

surveyed report having discussed the book with others outside of class. In addition, the College’s

Student Life office plans numerous events on all campuses that offer opportunities for students to

engage with their peers, faculty members, and members of the community, as well as supporting

many clubs catering to diverse student interests. The Student Life office conducted 47 events in

2014-15 with 3700 students participating.

Improved Preparation for Entry into the Workplace (Alumni Survey): In addition to greater

emphasis on career counseling by Counseling Services, as described above, career program

faculty have increased efforts to improve preparation and student confidence within their

programs. Over the past five years, the Engineering Technology department has secured several

grants which feature the position of a career coach. The career coach is responsible for

providing support outside of the classroom and beyond faculty advisors to assure career

preparation by supporting and encouraging students to complete a degree. Career coaches also

provide information on soft skills needed in the workplace. As students in the AAS programs

approach graduation, the Placement office works with them to prepare resumes and develop

interviewing skills. In 2014-15 the Placement office sent over 1000 resumes to employers,

assisted 651 students with resume development and conducted 10 mock interview sessions.

Placement also conducted career fairs at the Hardin Valley and Blount County campuses.

During 2014-15, over 200 students participated in 18 different workshops on job-seeking skills.

8

Improved Student Communication Skills (Employer Survey): Throughout the AAS programs

in both the Engineering and Media Technologies and Business and Computer Technology

departments, there are many required opportunities for students to work in teams to prepare and

make presentations related to the subject they are studying. Students in Engineering Technology

programs are required to complete ENGT 1010 specifically for the purpose of improving verbal

and written communication skills. More broadly, ENGL1010 Composition I and SPCH 2100

Public Speaking are required for most Pellissippi State graduates. These are two of the core

courses on which the QEP has focused and in which results are measured and analyzed each

year. QEP active learning strategies are now implemented in each section of ENGL 1010 and

SPCH 2100, and the English and Speech faculty review results of assessment each year and

continue to make changes intended to improve student success.

Lessons Learned from the Satisfaction Survey Project The concept of conducting surveys as a way of measuring achievement is not new to higher

education. However, there has been a tendency to review the survey results without sharing and

analyzing those results or making an actual plan for improving them. In order to make a lasting

impact, any efforts to improve must be widely disseminated and discussed and not just

implemented in small, quiet pockets of excellence. This Survey Satisfaction Project forced

Pellissippi State to take identified steps toward improvement. The Project came at a time when

the College was developing a 10-year strategic plan and beginning to move toward a more data-

informed decision-making process. In conjunction with information gained from other initiatives

the College was investigating—notably QEP and Complete College—the information gleaned

from the surveys was used to identify objectives for accomplishment. One particular lesson

learned relates to prioritizing action objectives. There are always many areas for improvement.

However, when a college can identify an area for action from multiple sources, that action item

rises to the top of the list. For Pellissippi State, the areas of student engagement and support for

learners became important focus areas for the strategic plan, and the College has made

significant progress in these areas.

APPENDIX

Table 1: Areas for Improvement and Objectives

Areas for

Improvement

Objectives

Actions

Timeline

Successful Indicators

Active and Collaborative Learning (CCSSE, Employer Survey)

1. Increase active &

collaborative learning.

2. Increase opportunities for student participation in tutoring

3. Increase opportunities for student participation in service learning

1. Expand QEP

active learning strategies into general education and other courses.

2. Increase internship opportunities.

3. Provide additional tutors and SI-enhanced class sections.

4. Increase number of class sections offering service learning.

Begin spring 2012

1. Increased student

engagement as reported on the QEP analysis.

2. Increased number of student internships.

3. Increased number of students participating in tutoring and SI.

4. Increased number of service learning classroom opportunities.

5. Increased number of students participating in service learning.

Support for Learners (CCSSE)

1. Increase use of

academic advising. 2. Increase emphasis on

support for students in coping with non-academic. responsibilities

3. Increase use of career counseling.

1. Advising will

improve communication with students and parents on the importance of advising through attendance at all New Student Orientations and enhancement & expansion of advising website.

2. Career counseling will expand offerings to include class presentations and additional workshops and presentations.

Begin fall 2012

1. Increased number

of student advising sessions.

2. Improvement on CCSSE scores.

3. Establishment of Center for Student and Community Engagement.

Areas for

Improvement

Objectives

Actions

Timeline

Successful Indicators

Student Engagement outside the Classroom (Alumni Survey)

1. Increase student

engagement in college activities.

1. Add more Service

Learning, tutoring & SI opportunities, and career counseling services.

2. Encourage student participation in CAE opportunities.

Begin fall 2012

1. Increased numbers

of students participating in SL, tutoring, SI, & career counseling.

2. Increased participation in CAE experiences.

Preparation for Employment (Alumni Survey)

1. Improve preparation

for entry into employment

1. Provide more

career counseling within AAS departments.

2. Emphasize employment skills through Placement office.

Begin fall 2011

1. Number of students

meeting with career coaches.

2. Increased number of students using Placement office resources.

Communication Skills (Employer Survey)

1. Improve student

communication skills

1. Increase

opportunities for students to present in classroom.

Begin fall 2012

1. All engineering

technology students required to take ENGT 1010.

2. Increased success rates in ENGL 1010 & SPCH 2100 (QEP).

Standard 1E:

Job Placement


201350

388 10366 10

94%

Educ Medical Family Military Volunteer

1 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3.AAS 86 10 76 8 4 1 63 54 86%

2 05.10.0201.00 VIDEOGRAPHY 2.1 C1 7 2 5 1 1 3 3 100%

3 05.10.0203.00 SOUND PRODUCTION 2.1 C1 4 1 3 1 2 2 100%

4 06.11.0101.00 UNIV COMPUTER SCIENCE PREP 2.1C2 1 1 1 1 100%

5 06.11.0101.00 COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH 2.3.AAS 46 46 5 2 39 36 92%

6 06.11.0103.00 INFO SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS 2.1C1 1 1 1 0 n/a

7 06.11.0801.00 WEB TECHNOLOGY (RODP) 2.3.AAS 0 0 n/a

8 06.11.0801.00 WEB PAGE AUTHORING (RODP) 2.2C1 1 1 1 1 100%

9 06.11.0901.00 A+/NETWORK+CERTIF PREP 2.1C1 2 2 2 2 100%

10 09.15.1102.00 SURVEYING 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

11 12.19.0706.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS 17 17 2 2 2 11 10 91%

12 12.19.0706.01 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

13 13.21.0101.01 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 12 12 3 9 8 89%

14 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 34 34 6 2 1 25 23 92%

15 30.50.0401.00 GAME & SIMULATION DESIGN 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

16 30.50.0408.00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 5 5 3 2 2 100%

17 30.50.0602.00 VIDEO EDITING 2.1C1 6 1 5 1 4 4 100%

18 31.51.0708.00 MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

19 31.51.0713.00MEDICAL INSUR CODING & REIMBURSEMENT 2.1C1 10 10 1 9 9 100%

20 31.51.1601.00 NURSING 2.3.AAS 37 37 1 3 33 32 97%

21 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3.AAS 87 87 9 8 70 69 99%

22 32.52.0401.00 ADMINISTRATIVE PROF TECH 2.3.AAS 20 20 1 19 19 100%

23 05.10.0304.00 DIGITAL IMAGING FOR PHOTOGRAPHY 2.1C1 5 3 2 1 1 0 n/a

24 0510.0105.00 PRODUCING FOR VIDEO & MEDIA ARTS 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

25 06.11.0801.00 WEB PAGE AUTHORING 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

26 06.11.0801.01 E-COMMERCE WEB DESIGN 2.1C1 4 2 2 2 2 100%

27 06.11.0801.02 MOBILE WEB DESIGN 2.1C1 2 2 1 1 1 100%

28 06.11.0801.03ACCESSIBLE WEB DESIGN & COMPLIANCE 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

29 06.11.0801.04 WEB DESIGN TOOLS 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

30 06.11.0801.05 INTERACTIVE WEB DESIGN 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

31 07.12.0500.00 GENERAL CULINARY ARTS 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

32 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS 66 3 63 8 2 53 50 94%

33 09.15.0000.00 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

34 09.15.0000.01ALTERNATE ENERGY & PROCESS CONTROL 2.1C1 2 2 1 1 1 100%

Total Placed Percent Placed


Standard 1E: Job Placement


Total Placeable Maximum Points:Year 5: 2014-15

The Job Placement standard is designed to provide incentives for community colleges to continue to improve job placement of their career program graduates.

Total Number Programs:Indicate Year of Graduates Surveyed

Total PlacedPlacement Rate

EXEMPTIONS2010 CIP Academic Program Degree

Requested Points:

Grads Non-Respondents Grads Adjustment

Total Placeable


Educ Medical Family Military Volunteer

Total Placed Percent Placed

EXEMPTIONS2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Grads Non-Respondents Grads Adjustment

Total Placeable

35 09.15.0000.02COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

36 09.15.0000.03 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE TECH 2.1C1 2 2 2 2 100%

37 09.15.0000.04 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECH 2.1C1 2 2 2 2 100%

38 09.15.0000.05 CONSTRUCTION BUS PRINCIPLES 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

39 09.15.0303.01 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 7 7 7 7 100%

40 09.15.0612.00 INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION 2.1C1 6 6 6 6 100%

41 09.15.0805.00 3D PARAMETIC MODELING 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

42 09.15.1303.00 ARCH AUTOCAD APPLICATIONS 2.1C1 0 0 n/a

43 30.50.0409.00 VISUAL COMM FOR GRAPHIC DESIGN 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

44 30.50.0605.00 BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

45 31.51.0707.01ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SPECIALIST 2.1C1 1 1 1 0 n/a

46 32.52.0201.01 PROMOTION METHODS 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

47 32.52.0205.00 SUPERVISION 2.1C1 11 11 1 10 9 90%

48 32.52.0302.00 ACCOOUNTING SPECIALIST 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

49 32.52.0401.00 DOCUMENT SPECIALIST 2.1C1 2 2 2 2 100%

50 32.52.0904.00 GENERAL HOSPITALITY 2.1C1 1 1 1 1 100%

51 09.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 0 0 n/a

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree

1 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3.AST

2 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AS, AA

3 16.24.0101.01 PRE-BUSINESS TRANSFER 2.1C2

4 16.24.0101.01 GENERAL EDUCATION CORE 2.2C2

5 16.24.0101.01 GENERAL EDUCATION CORE 2.1C2

6 16.24.0102.02 PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS

7 31.51.0000.00 PRE-ALLIED HEALTH 2.1C2

8 32.52.0101.01 PRE-BUSINESS TRANSFER 2.1C2

495 22 473 53 6 24 2 0 388 366 94%4%

Institutional Comments (Optional):

New program

Note: Please report all non-respondents by program. Graduate data will be adjusted to reflect the removal of non-respondents. Maximum of non-respondents is limited to 5% for all programs.

TotalPercentage of Non-Respondents

Programs Exempt from Job Placement Standard

Standard 1F:

Assessment Implementation


10

Year QEP or SLI Stage Title and Description

2010-11 QEP Development

Strong to the Core (Goal is to improve student learning outcomes in targeted courses and overall student success measures through increasing interaction among faculty and learners in core curriculum areas.)

2011-12 QEP Development Strong to the Core2012-13 QEP Sustaining Strong to the Core

2013-14 QEP Sustaining Strong to the Core

2014-15 QEP Sustaining Strong to the Core

Institutional Comments (Optional):

Maximum Points:Requested Points:

Year 5: 2014-15


Standard 1F: Assessment Implementation


The Assessment Implementation standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to develop and sustain a mature and sophisticated assessment process while implementing a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) or Student Learning Initiative (SLI).


Scoring Rubric for Assessment Implementation: Sustaining QEP/SLI

1. Present a short review of the QEP/SLI activity (Why it was undertaken including goals and

objectives?) AND describe the actions for the year that were taken to accomplish goals and

objectives. [0-2 points]

2. Describe the assessment taken during the year and present the results of those assessments with the

addition of previous results, as they are available. [0 – 3 points]

3. Discuss how the institution is improving the QEP/SLI based on the assessment results. [0-3 points]

4. Evaluate the QEP/SLI itself (what is working, what is not working) AND outline steps for next year

(program implementation and assessment related). [0-2 points]


Performance Funding 2014-2015 Standard

1F Assessment of Quality Enhancement Plan

Review of the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)

Pellissippi State’s QEP, Strong to the Core, incorporates active learning strategies in the core

competencies of writing, mathematics, and oral communication to increase student engagement and

thereby improve student performance. The QEP, developed with input from faculty, administration,

staff, and students, was approved with the College’s reaffirmation of accreditation by the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) in 2012.

As conceived and described in the original QEP Report for SACSCOC and subsequent

Addendum, improvement in student performance in the competencies is measured by improvements in

three student learning outcomes:

• Improve the ability of students in ENGL 1010 Composition I to write clear, well organized,

sufficiently developed analyses with a minimum of 70% competency.

• Improve the ability of students in MATH 1130 College Algebra to develop mathematical

problem- solving skills by modeling real world behavior in mathematics and other disciplines by

applying mathematical concepts to real-life problems with a minimum of 70% competency.

• Improve the ability of students in SPCH 2100 to plan, research, and present an effective

persuasive speech with a minimum of 74% competency.

The choice of these courses was guided by evidence of lower than desired success rates in two of

the three courses selected, weaknesses in student critical thinking based on the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), and the expressed desire by employers that graduates be

proficient in communication and problem solving. In establishing the benchmarks, the QEP

Implementation Team realized a student’s abilities to think critically and to communicate are essential

to improvement in the three core areas. To guide assessment of the acquisition of these skills, the team

developed these questions:

• To what extent do active learning strategies improve student learning in the outcomes of

critical thinking and communication competence in the core courses?

• To what extent do active learning strategies increase student engagement?

• To what extent do active learning strategies impact retention, success rates, completion rates and

aggregate GPA?

• To what extent can active learning strategies be applied to student support functions, such as

orientation, advising, and tutoring?

A QEP director was appointed in fall 2011 to direct QEP implementation and assessment as well

as faculty development opportunities, a Teaching and Learning Center was created as a space to hold

QEP meetings and house faculty resource materials, and a QEP web page was created to make resources

readily available to faculty. Since 2013-2014, professional development opportunities have been offered

to address relevant QEP topics. Members of the QEP Implementation Team have continued to share

information and provide opportunities for conversations within their own departments. Interested faculty

and adjuncts piloted strategies and gathered baseline data through spring 2013. Faculty continue to

initiate strategies within their individual classrooms as they implement the QEP more fully.

Description of QEP Assessment Activities and Results for 2014–2015

Amid administrative changes, a new QEP director was appointed in spring 2014 to oversee and

facilitate the initiatives and various assessments and to promote the QEP. Internal assessments include

Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) General Education Assessment conducted annually in the three core

courses; instructor post-activity reports, which include instructor reflection and possible revision of the

process for the activity; the semantic differential survey, which assesses student engagement after in-

class activities, and the newly created survey of faculty perception. The TBR General Education

assessment is directly relevant to QEP effectiveness as it requires common rubrics to evaluate these

assignments in the three core courses:

• a final argumentative essay in ENGL 1010 scored on the basis of five TBR learning outcomes,

two of which specifically target critical thinking and communication;

• embedded questions in the MATH 1130 common final exam that assess student learning

outcomes three and five from the TBR math rubric, which are indicators of proficiency in critical

thinking and communication; and

• a persuasive speech in SPCH 2100, with concentration on PSCC criteria 6 and 7 that have been

added to the TBR rubric to measure problem-solving and oral communication specifically.

Table 1 shows results from the assessment rubrics and the semantic differential.

Table 1: Internal Assessment Results TBR GEA*

ASSESSMENT MEASURES

BASELINE 2011-2012

ANNUAL 2012-2013

ANNUAL 2013-2014

ANNUAL 2014-2015

English All %, QEP %

Satisfactory In-class Argumentative

Essay

All n = 175 QEP n = 30 Unity 78.9%,

73.3% Development 70.3%, 70% Organization 76.6%, 76.7% Style 58.3%,

40% Documentation 49.7%, 36.7%

All n = 124 QEP n = 11

Unity 77.4%, 72.7% Development 52.4%, 36.4% Organization 65.3%, 54.5%

Style 58.1%, 45.5% Documentation 51.6%, 45.5%

All QEP n = 100

Unity, 79%

Development, 60% Organization, 70%

Style, 57% Documentation, 51%

All QEP n=82

Unity, 73%

Development, 66% Organization, 67%

Style, 54% Documentation, 48%

Math Objective

3 Critical Thinking

% Successful

Spring 2012 n = 327 210/327

64.2%

Spring 2013 n = 252 163/252 64.6%

Spring 2014 n = 313 228/313 72.9%

Spring 2015 n = 209 160/209 76.6%

Math Objective

5 Communication

% Successful

Spring 2012 n = 327

229/327

70.0%

Spring 2013 n = 252 179/252 71.0%

Spring 2014 n=313

242/313 77.3%

Spring 2015 n = 209 151/209 75.1%

Persuasive Speech General Education

Goals 6 and 7 Meets or exceeds

expectations

n = 112 Problem Solving 73.2% Oral

Communication 76.8%

n = 108 Problem Solving

74.8% Oral Communication

75.5%

n=116 Problem Solving


75.8%

n=82 Problem Solving


70.7%

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

Created and Posted Spring 2012

Student Responses IM = 4.88/7

n= 3,746 82% of students reported positive engagement from

QEP learning activities

n= 3,667 80% of students reported positive engagement from

QEP learning activities

* GEA: TBR General Education Assessment

English--By fall 2014 all sections of English 1010 had implemented QEP strategies. A sample

of 82 essays was selected to evaluate the impact of QEP in the course. A comparison of the overall

results from fall 2012 to fall 2014 shows substantial improvement in development (critical thinking)

and a slight decrease in style and mechanics (communication). While competency in both QEP

designated areas remains below the target of 70%, there is improvement in some areas. Additionally,

the 2014 scores fall within the ranges evidenced in the prior three years. In 2013 the English faculty

determined that they needed to develop a specific plan within their classes for the incorporation of in-

class engagement activities throughout the semester. This determination was endorsed by the dean, and

a discussion of individual QEP efforts has become a part of each faculty member's year-end evaluation.

These discussions indicate that faculty have found it beneficial to make both the process and the

activities transparent and to conduct class discussions designed to help students become aware of the

importance of developing a sense of responsibility for engagement and improvement.

Furthermore, emphasis upon the students' role in engagement will, in fall of 2015, become part of the

departmental syllabus as the department and the College move toward co-requisite remediation as

required by TBR. Nevertheless, the learning outcomes of "style and mechanics" and "documentation"

remain consistently low despite efforts to provide classroom intervention in order to improve students'

skill in these areas. These weaknesses will once again be discussed during the department's initial

meetings in fall 2015, and renewed efforts will be made to design student engagement strategies to

facilitate improvement.

The Math faculty included final exam problems for objectives 3 and 5 to assess students’

competency in communicating in an algebraic language. Objective 3 measures whether students are

able to make meaningful connections between mathematics and other disciplines. The results for

objective 3 are up to 77% from 73% in 2014. The results for objective 5, applying mathematical

concepts and/or basic statistical reasoning to analyze data and graphs, dropped slightly, but not

significantly from 77% to 75%.

The speech faculty continued to focus on active learning strategies for criteria 6 and 7 from the

speech performance evaluation rubric, which assess competencies in critical thinking and oral

communication. The most recent results for problem-solving exceed the 74% target; however, there

was a decrease from the previous year from 85% to 81%. The results for oral communication fell

below the target range to 70.7%. The drop in percentages in this cycle of evaluation will inform and

focus conversation and efforts across the program in the coming year. This anomaly in four years of

data is not a cause for concern unless it persists.

The semantic differential measures the level and intensity of students’ attitudes and opinions

regarding engagement immediately after a learning activity in the classroom, as well as allowing for

almost instant feedback for students and faculty. This year, approximately 80% of students from all

disciplines reported positive engagement results on the semantic differential, indicating they were

mostly engaged and challenged by the various activities.

Faculty submit post-activity QEP reports to document active learning strategies employed in the

classroom, as well as student reactions as indicated by the semantic differential. The differences in

methods of reporting among faculty led to the need for a standardized format to increase consistency.

Once accomplished, this standardization created more timely, consistent reporting. This year’s report

reflects growth in both expansion of the initiative and employment of active learning strategies. Faculty

participation in reporting assessment outcomes increased from approximately 127 faculty members in

2013-2014 to approximately 131 faculty members in 2014-2015. The active learning strategies

employed by the faculty reached roughly 3,667 students. Of the faculty who participated, 92% indicated

that they would repeat the activity, or some modification of it, and 91% indicated that they had achieved

the learning outcome. As we sustain the QEP initiative, we expect to continue to see increased faculty

participation and reporting consistency.

The following assessments are elements of the overall college assessment plan and provide

comparison with national results:

• College Basic Academic Subjects Examination (CBASE), formerly mandated exit exam for

graduating students, yielded a large sample of data across a wide range of disciplines and was

administered every semester. No longer administered, this exam has been replaced with the

Education Testing Services Proficiency Profile (ETS).

• Education Testing Services Proficiency Profile (ETS), mandated exit exam for graduating

students, yields a large sample of data across a wide range of academic skills and is

administered every semester.

• Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE), administered in the fourth and fifth weeks

of the fall academic term to entering students, provides information on students’ earliest

experiences and why some students persist and succeed while others do not. This formative

assessment complements the more comprehensive CCSSE.

• Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), administered biannually to

sophomore–level students, provides limited baseline and summative information on

engagement.

• Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT), pilot conducted in spring/fall 2013 and 2014, is no

longer administered as data collection became too cumbersome and yielded limited results.

Table 2 shows results of these assessments.

Table 2: Comparative Assessment Results

ASSESSMENT MEASURES

2009 - 2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

CBASE PSCC mean (IM)

National norm (NN)

n = 721 S.D. = 53.9 IM = 277 NN = 273

n = 877 S.D. = 57.5

IM=280 NN=275

n = 1041 S.D. = 55.6

IM=266 NN=276

n = 1186 S.D. = 52.446

IM=265 NN=277

n=1180 S.D.=60 IM=266 NN=269

No longer administered

ETS PSCC Mean (IM)

National Mean (NM)

N=987 IM=446 NM=411

CCSSE Means Report (Biannual)

Selected items: 5a-5f

2011 Results

2013 Results

SENSE Means Report

2010-2011 Results

2011-2012 Results

2012-2013 Results

2014-2015 Results

CAT results PSCC mean (IM)

National Mean (NM)

Train the Trainers

n = 43

S D = 5.27 IM = 12.00 NM = 13.48

n = 111

SD = 4.99 IM = 12.39 NM = 13.48

n = 133

SD = 4.75 IM = 12.31 NM = 13.66

Note: *n = Total number of students taking the test; **(N, National; I, Institution) S D = Standard deviation

ETS--Pellissippi scores well above the national mean on ETS, and scores indicate consistency of

instruction across the College. The critical thinking scores align with expectations based on classroom

observations. Students are good literal thinkers; synthesis of deeper meaning, however, is not as easily

applied. This is the first year ETS has been administered, so this year’s data serve as baseline data.

Therefore, comparisons to the previous CBASE scores cannot be drawn.

SENSE--Pellissippi scores have fallen slightly when comparing this year’s data to previous year

data; however, the College has improved in the student perceptions of engagement when compared to the

overall cohort of colleges. This improvement in student perceptions of engagement is a positive indication

that the QEP engagement efforts in the classroom are reaching students.

CAT--The Critical Thinking Assessment Test was administered to assess critical thinking in the

following four areas: evaluation and interpretation of information, problem-solving, creative thinking, and

effective communication. We hoped to identify learning outcomes for improvement to foster critical

thinking and effective communication. However, we experienced problems interpreting the data, as our

sample population was both small and unequal (Pre N = 133; Post = 54). Analyzing the scores across

various dimensions over three years, we are unable to determine any usable data or draw any meaningful

conclusions. Therefore, continuing to administer this test, which is high investment-low yield, would

unlikely add any value to our QEP.

SURVEY--With the expansion of our QEP and new faculty being added each year, the

Implementation Team paused to take a comprehensive look at faculty’s perceptions relative to their

experiences and knowledge-level of QEP. Moreover, we wanted to ensure we were progressing with our

task and fill any gaps we might find. To accomplish this endeavor, we created and administered a survey to

all faculty. The results were quite positive. We learned that faculty (1) wanted opportunities to share

experiences, (2) wanted more examples of activities, and (3) needed a regular “gentle reminder” of what

we are doing. To address these needs we set up QEP Activity Highlight Sessions and publicized sharing

opportunities at each campus. Additionally, we created a publication called “QEParticles” that we sent out

regularly with news items and information. We found the survey’s results valuable as they reinforced from

the faculty’s perspective that we are accomplishing our QEP and that it is a dynamic process.

The QEP Implementation Team is tracking the effect of QEP active learning strategies in

student retention rates, success rates, and GPAs within core courses. When the 2014-2015 results

in Table 3 are compared to the baseline, we see an overall positive shift in retention and success

rates across the core courses.

Table 3: Retention, Success Rates and Aggregate GPA

ASSESSMENT MEASURES

BASELINE 2011-2012

ANNUAL 2012-2013

ANNUAL 2013-2014

ANNUAL 2014-2015

Course Retention rates

% of total Fall

ENGL 1010 92%

MATH 1130 87.8%

SPCH 2100 87.6%

ENGL 1010 92.5%

MATH 1130 89.3%

SPCH 2100 91.3%

ENGL 1010 93.9%

MATH 1130 92.1%

SPCH 2100 90.7%

ENGL 1010 96%

MATH 1130 89.5%

SPCH 2100 91.7%

Course Retention rates

% of total Spring

ENGL 1010 90%

MATH 1130 86%

SPCH 2100 88.2%

ENGL 1010 88.4%

MATH 1130 84.9%

SPCH 2100 90.4%

ENGL 1010 92%

MATH 1130 87.3%

SPCH 2100 91.4%

ENGL 1010 93.6%

MATH 1130 89%

SPCH 2100 92.6%

Course Success

rates % of total Fall

ENGL 1010 66.7%

MATH 1130 56.5%

SPH 2100 70.9%

ENGL 1010 64.3%

MATH 1130 72.6%

SPCH 2100 75.1%

ENGL 1010 68.6%

MATH 1130 68.7%

SPCH 2100 75.8%

ENGL 1010 70.6%

MATH 1130 66.2%

SPCH 2100 86.5%

Success rates % of total

Spring

ENGL 1010 57.8%

MATH 1130 56.6%

SPCH 2100 72.8%

ENGL 1010 56%

MATH 1130 54.7%

SPCH 2100 75.8%

ENGL 1010 57.2%

MATH 1130 64.9%

SPCH 2100 74.2%

ENGL 1010 60.5%

MATH 1130 58.5%

SPCH 2100 83.4%

Core Course GPAs Fall

ENGL 1010 2.3

MATH 1130 2.0

SPH 2100 2.7

ENGL 1010 2.2

MATH 1130 2.7

SPCH 2100 2.8

ENGL 1010 2.2

MATH 1130 2.2

SPCH 2100 2.6

ENGL 1010 2.2

MATH 1130 2.4

SPCH 2100 2.7

Core Course GPAs Spring

ENGL 1010 2.0

MATH 1130 2.1

SPCH 2100 2.8

ENGL 1010 2.0

MATH 1130 2.1

SPCH 2100 2.8

ENGL 1010 2.0

MATH 1130 2.1

SPCH 2100 2.9

ENGL 1010 2.4

MATH 1130 2.4

SPCH 2100 2.5

Improvement of the QEP Based on Assessment Results

Since the inception of the QEP initiative, the Implementation Team has maintained its

drive toward sustained improvement in the identified learning outcomes. In addition to

professional development opportunities, a compendium of successful practices continues to be

compiled to share throughout the disciplines in line with the vision of the QEP. The current data

results support the following actions toward improvement:

QEP Survey of Faculty Perception: The survey of faculty perception revealed several

action items in addition to those previously reported: 1) to improve ease of access to online data

reporting, 2) to clarify use of semantic differential, and 3) to continue to increase stakeholder

awareness. The improved online data reporting system eased faculty submission of reports and

yielded consistency in meeting deadlines. Additionally, the QEP Team learned that faculty were

struggling to fully comprehend the semantic differential. Reports submitted in fall 2014 confirmed

this fact; 41 reports were submitted with semantic differential survey results that could not be used

in final reporting. To address this concern, the “QEParticles” newsletter, aimed solely at this topic,

was drafted and emailed out to all faculty. Following the newsletter, only two reports in spring

2015 came back with unusable data. Moreover, the “QEParticles” newsletter has been an effective

means of keeping QEP at the forefront of faculty and college awareness.

University Parallel Academic Audit: In Spring 2015, an external academic audit team

visited Pellissippi to assess the quality of the College’s University Parallel program. Although not

the purpose for the visit, much of the audit focused on the College’s QEP and student engagement.

An initial primary concern for the auditors was limited student awareness of the QEP; however,

when asked about student engagement, students noted familiarity with engagement activities being

used in their classrooms. As a result of this information, the Implementation Team is making a

concerted effort to make the QEP process more transparent for students. The audit further

highlighted that there is a shifting culture of assessment at the College and this shift is in part due to

the integration of QEP into the culture.

CAT Assessment: Based upon thoughtful analysis of the CAT results, the Implementation

Team determined that the CAT instrument is highly labor intensive and not well suited to the QEP

assessment goals. While the test provided opportunities for faculty conversation concerning

expectations of critical thinking as well as increased awareness of QEP assessment efforts, it was

not substantial enough to warrant the continued use of the assessment.

English: The English Department continues its efforts to incorporate QEP activities into all

sections of ENGL 1010 with specific emphasis on the communication and critical thinking learning

outcomes. Approximately 32 faculty members and 1225 students took part in an English QEP activity

during the 2013-2014 academic year. In keeping with the previous year’s report, an increase in student

success in critical thinking was realized in fall 2014. Based on these observations, the English department

will work to sustain this growth trend and to refine the data collection process and analysis.

Mathematics: During 2014-2015, the Math Department expanded QEP into MATH 1030,

MATH 1530, and MATH 1710. The expansion of the QEP initiative has increased student

engagement and led to innovations in course structure. The participation of 14 faculty members

and 533 students in Math shows an incremental but significant increase in the incorporation of QEP

classroom activities. The department plans to continue to support and encourage faculty to create

innovative classroom activities that engage students in mathematical content.

Liberal Arts: The expansion of the QEP initiative has been successful in involving all

disciplines within the liberal arts department. The conversation about how to assess the impact of our

dynamic teaching continues to evolve through the efforts of both adjunct and full-time faculty across all

areas. The increased participation of 84 LART faculty and 1873 students in the QEP initiative

demonstrates that we are well on our way to achieving the goal of having all LART faculty participate in

at least one assessment protocol per section taught by the conclusion of the 2015-2016 academic year.

Analysis of the QEP and Anticipated Activities for Next Year

Relying upon the strong leadership provided by the Implementation Team and experienced core

faculty, the QEP initiative has expanded in 2014–2015 to additional disciplines not included in the

original core. These disciplines include business management, psychology, biology, and nursing. We

will continue to expand into these academic areas as we expand the QEP initiative across the College.

The three core disciplines will take the following steps to improve their results.

The English Department will continue to move toward more well-defined strategies and specific

classroom activities through the following:

• continue to promote the goals and objectives of quality enhancement by providing faculty

workshops to both adjunct and full time faculty;

• make assessment techniques and information available to faculty through departmental

meetings, the online café in D2L, and individual discussions with faculty, thus creating a culture

of assessment within the department;

• encourage faculty to share this information with their students in an effort to make the QEP

more transparent and meaningful;

• refine active learning activities for sentence structure and critical thinking—the

target criteria—and share them at the fall 2015 in-service department meeting;

• develop a suggested course syllabus with embedded “successful” QEP practices;

• enhance faculty perception that active learning strategies are functions of a two-part process

wherein students and faculty learn to think critically about what they have created and become

reflective practitioners.

The Mathematics Department will continue to support the QEP through these activities:

• challenge students with more difficult applications related to real life and applicable to

the lives of the students;

• develop more applications related to nursing and business;

• design activities for students that focus on improving their ability to analyze their solutions to

problems;

• provide additional faculty development on active learning strategies;

• continue to implement and share successful practices of instructors involved in QEP.

The speech faculty will continue the following efforts:

• continue to augment successful strategies to accurately measure the impact of teaching

practice on student learning outcomes;

• share practices and strategies with colleagues across the program, department, and

College through faculty development sessions;

• collaborate with and mentor other LART faculty as QEP implementation increases

in department disciplines with particular attention to adjunct inclusion;

• enhance faculty perception that active learning strategies are essential to the teaching/learning

process.

In addition to activities of the specific departments, college-wide faculty development will

continue to be expanded. The New Faculty Academy, which establishes the foundation for the

integration of new faculty into the QEP experience, was successfully launched in 2013-2014 and is

ongoing. The year-long Academy allows time for instruction, active practice, and reflection on QEP

techniques that encourage student growth in critical thinking and promote students’ abilities to self-

assess and to give feedback to instructors.

Additionally, the Faculty Development Committee continues to expand professional development

opportunities to all faculty, including sessions on curriculum and learning outcome development,

effective formative and summative classroom assessment techniques, and the more efficient,

streamlined QEP reporting process. A growing culture of focused professional development is emerging

throughout the College.

An in-depth look at the 2014-2015 QEP data and process analysis has revealed the College’s

QEP continues to move in a positive direction. The expansion of the QEP across the College has

allowed us to make adjustments to the procedural logistics of the QEP process. A clearly structured Pre-

and Post-activity form and clearly published deadlines have proved effective in increasing faculty

understanding, participation, and enthusiasm. The immediacy of reporting allows the QEP director and

Team the opportunity for instant review. These changes facilitate consistency in faculty reporting and

increase the availability of team feedback for faculty and administration during the ongoing assessment

period.

The overall concept of improving student engagement with active learning strategies has been well-

received, creating a more dynamic culture at Pellissippi State. With three full years of implementation,

the QEP continues to reinforce awareness in faculty that students who are cognitively engaged have the

ability to think more clearly and convey those thoughts more effectively both orally and in writing.

New active learning strategies continue to be developed, implemented, improved, and shared. Faculty

training is expanding regarding development of student competency in critical thinking and

communication. The participating faculty’s active learning strategies and data collection processes are

building a more accurate assessment of the College’s strengths, encouraging vibrant, lively, ongoing

conversation and experimentation among faculty and staff. A sustainable culture of assessment is

developing both inside and outside the classroom and continues to invigorate faculty practice and

student learning.

Bibliography

Performance Funding 2014-2015, Standard 1F: Assessment of QEP

2009, 2011 CCSSE Means Reports. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance Funding/Performance

Funding 2013/pdfs for 2013 Doc Links.

2011, 2013 CCSSE Means Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:)> Performance Funding 2014.

2014 QEP Survey of Faculty Perceptions-Questions. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) >Implementation

Team Agenda-Minutes>2014F-2015S

2014-2015 Faculty Activity Reports, Retrieved from Retrieved from [email protected]>QEP> Faculty

Participation>2014F-Pre- and Post- and 2015S Pre- and Post-.

2014-2015 New Faculty Academy Sessions. Retrieved from http://www.pstcc.edu/qep/new_faculty.php

2014-2015 QEP Year-End Semantic Differentials Summary. qep(||pstcc3) (P:) > Performance

Funding>Performance Funding 2015

2014-2015 Survey of Faculty Perceptions and Suggested Action Items Based on Survey Results. Retrieved

from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) >Implementation Team Agenda-Minutes>2014F-2015S

About CAT. Retrieved from http://www.tntech.edu/cat/skills/

About CBASE. Retrieved from http://arc.missouri.edu/Content/CBASE/CBOUTSIDEMO_students.aspx

About CCSSE. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/aboutsurvey/aboutsurvey.cfm

About ETS. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/highered/products/community_colleges

About SENSE. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/sense/aboutsurvey/

Academic Audit Site Visit Report Pellissippi State Community College University Parallel Program.

Retrieved from www.pstcc.edu/ieap/_files/pdf/AA_CKLST/AA_UNPAR_2014-15.pdf

Addendum to the Quality Enhancement Plan. (2011). Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved from

P:\Completed Reports\addendum

Addendum to the Quality Enhancement Plan. (2011). Pellissippi State Community College. Retrieved from

P:\Completed Reports\addendum \page7

CAT Institutional Profile. Pellissippi State CAT Data from Tennessee Technological University.

https://ttusftp01.tntech.edu/ (This is a password protected site.)

CBASE Summary Report June 2013-May 2014.

http://www.pstcc.edu/ieap/cbase.php#U9fOc(Ig9zM>2014-2015

ENGL 1010 Argumentative Essay Scoring Rubric TBR. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Strong to the

Core QEP Report for SACSCOC On-Site Review Team (2011), 77.

English QEP 2014-2015 Sustaining Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance Funding

2015> Sustaining QEP 14-15 English Department.

ETS Report 2014-2015. Retrieved from Pellissippi State email> [email protected] from L. G. Reynolds>

file:///P:/Performance%20Funding/Performance%20Funding%202015/ETS_Report_2014_2015.htm

MATH 1130 Final Exam Questions. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance Funding 2013.

MATH 2013-14 Sustaining Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance Funding 2015> QEP

MATH Performance Funding 2015.

Pellissippi State CAT Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) >Assessment Testing>CAT>2015 CAT

PSCC Gen Ed Matrix 2013. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance Funding > Performance

Funding 2013.

QEP Library Resources. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > QEP Library>Updated Library Resources

Workbook.

QEP Post-Activity Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Implementation.

QEP Pre-Activity Report. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Implementation.

QEP Semantic Differential. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Assessment.

QEP Webpage. Retrieved from http:// http://www.pstcc.edu/qep/#.VbEebbU0ERv

QEP Year-End Semantic Differentials. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:) > Performance

Funding>Performance Funding 2014.

Raising the Bar – Employer Survey 2009. (January 20, 2010). Hart Associates. Retrieved from

http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2009_EmployerSurvey.pdf

Reaffirmation Letter. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (S:) > ONSITE Response.

Salter, Marty and Kellie Toon. (2015) QEParticles. Retrieved from Faculty List <FACULTY-

[email protected]> on behalf of Toon, Kellie L-January 30 April 7, 2015

Salter, Marty and Kellie Toon. (2015) QEParticles. Retrieved from Faculty List <FACULTY-

[email protected]> on behalf of Toon, Kellie L-January 30 April 7, 2015

Semantic Differential Information Website. Retrieved from http://www.semanticdifferential.com/index.html

SENSE Results-2010-2013 Academic Years. Retrieved from

http://www.pstcc.edu/ieap/sense.php#.Va01mLU0ERs

SENSE-2014-2015 Survey Results Summary. Retrieved from

http://www.pstcc.edu/ieap/sense.php#.Va01mLU0ERs

SPCH 2100 Evaluation Rubric. Retrieved from P:\Performance Funding\Performance Funding 2015

Strong to the Core QEP Report for SACSCOC On-Site Review Team. (2011). Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3)

(P:)>

Success Rates Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Spring 2010. Retrieved from qep (\\pstcc3) (P:)> Strong to the Core

QEP Report for SACSCOC On-Site Review Team (2011), 11

Standard 2:

Student Access and Student Success


257

No. Sub-Population 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 3 Yr Avg Benchmark 2013-14 Percent

AttainedPts

Recommended

1 Adults 785 2,002 1,082 1,290 969 75% 0

2 Low Income 666 2,741 1,287 1,565 1,220 78% 0

3 Males 793 2,134 1,080 1,336 924 69% 0

4 STEM 307 364 343 338 296 88% 2

Sub-Population (Outcomes: Fall Enrollment) Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 3 Yr Avg Benchmark Fall 2014 Percent

AttainedPts

Recommended

5 Community College Graduates Enrolled at Public Universities 296 282 337 305 361 100% 5


The Student Access and Success standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to increase the number of graduates from select subpopulations. Each institution selected five subpopulations particularly important to their mission and this standard measures the quality of its services dedicated to those subpopulations. The measure of the institution’s commitment will be student subpopulation success – greater number enrolled, retained, and graduated.

Year 5: 2014-15


Standard 2: Student Access and Student Success


Maximum Points:Recommended Points:



Community College Graduates Enrolled at Public Universities

2010 CIP Program/Concentrations Degree Level 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-1406.11.0101.00 UNIVERSITY COMPUTER SCIENCE PREPARATION 2.3AAS 30 29 45 4306.11.0101.00 COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH 2.1C1 3 8 8 1106.11.0103.00 A+/NETWORK+CERTIFICATION PREPARATION 2.1C1 32 58 53 2706.11.0801.00 WEB PAGE AUTHORING 2.3AAS 1 206.11.0801.00 WEB TECHNOLOGY (ROCC) 2.1C1 21 29 20 1506.11.0801.01 E-COMMERCE WEB DESIGN 2.1C1 4 7 6 106.11.0801.02 MOBILE WEB DESIGN 2.1C1 2 3 106.11.0801.03 ACCESSIBLE WEB DESIGN AND COMPLIANCE 2.1C1 1 206.11.0801.04 WEB DESIGN TOOLS 2.1C1 2 206.11.0901.00 INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS 2.1C1 23 31 36 5409.15.0000.00 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION 2.3AAS 62 79 65 6609.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 19 16 26 2609.15.0000.01 ALTERNATE ENERGY AND PROCESS CONTROL 2.1C1 20 34 36 909.15.0000.02 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY 2.1C1 31 40 509.15.0000.03 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 25 17 6 309.15.0000.04 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 3 809.15.0000.05 CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PRINCIPLES 2.1C1 12 609.15.0201.00 CIVIL ENG TECH 2.3AAS 209.15.0303.01 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 8 7 11 1109.15.0303.01 ELECTRICAL ENG TECH 2.3AAS 1 109.15.0612.00 INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION 2.1C1 3 609.15.0805.00 3D PARAMETRIC MODELING 2.1C1 1 109.15.1102.00 SURVEYING 2.1C1 1 109.15.1301.00 CAD TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 5 109.15.1303.00 ARCHITECTURAL AUTOCAD APPLICATIONS 2.1C1 16 5 1 4

307 364 343 296

Terminated ProgramLow Producing ProgramNew Program

Total STEM Programs

CC Graduates Enrolled at Public Univs. Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Austin Peay State University 1 0 4 2 1East Tennessee State University 17 17 59 22 29Middle Tennessee State University 6 11 28 14 15Tennessee State University 1 1 0 0Tennessee Technological University 43 68 74 51 50University of Memphis 0 1 3 1 2University of Tennessee, Chattanooga 5 4 16 5 9University of Tennessee, Knoxvil le 145 194 421 255 254University of Tennessee, Martin 2 0 1 0 1

Total 220 296 606 350 361

performance funding report 2014 – 2015in preparation for the visit, team members reviewed the...

Documents