STANDARD 14: ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT
LEARNING
Standard for Accreditation
Assessment of student
learning demonstrates that the institution’s students have knowledge, skills,
and competencies consistent with institutional goals and that
students at graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals.
In order to demonstrate
accountability to its various constituents, a quality educational institution
must be committed to assessing the outcomes of student learning and using the
results of that assessment to improve the educational experiences of its
students. As increasing emphasis is
placed on outcomes assessment, educational institutions are struggling to
identify the most meaningful ways to study student learning, document the
results of their efforts and use this information for continuous
improvement.
The
Methodology
The charge to the Committee studying the Assessment of Student
Learning focused on an analysis of the following four issues: the process of
defining expectations for student learning; the congruence of student learning
outcomes at the course, program and institutional levels; the effectiveness of
methods and/or procedures used for collecting student learning outcomes
information; and the extent to which student learning outcomes influence the
improvement of programs and courses.
A number of documents pertinent to student outcomes including
the College’s Assessment Plan , Statement of Mission,
2000-2004 Strategic Plan
and Institutional Research reports helped inform
the Committee’s study. Several programs
from the College’s array of career and transfer program offerings were studied:
Art, Automotive Technology, Dental Assisting Hygiene, Electronic Engineering
Technology, Music, and Paralegal Studies.
Syllabi, course and program documents as well as recently completed academic
audits were examined and provided useful information. Three disciplines were also selected for
review because large numbers of students from across the institution enroll in
these courses to help meet General Education requirements. Syllabi and course documents from English,
mathematics and psychology were examined.
To understand perspectives beyond the programs and disciplines listed,
the Committee interviewed, individually or in focus groups, academic Department
Heads, Curriculum Coordinators, faculty, administrative personnel and
students. Results of the Faculty/Staff Survey and
2003 Middle States Current Student Survey which were
conducted specifically for the present Middle States Self Study provided
additional data for consideration.
Strengths
Course Level
The
While faculty in the various departments are ultimately
responsible for defining course objectives and design, the curriculum
facilitation process offers a supportive environment for this activity. Currently, the College has two approved
models for course development and revision. The activities-centered model
focuses on the intellectual environment to be developed in a course and the
intellectual processes that characterize it; emphasis is placed on coherence
between the course rationale and its classroom activities. Guiding questions such as “How does [the
activity] encourage students to consider multiple perspectives?” and “How does
the activity help students frame and solve problems?” help faculty define the
expected learning outcomes. A second
model, the objectives-centered model, may be used when faculty prefer to
organize a large body of knowledge and define expected learning outcomes by
stated objectives. Both models provide
significant guidance to course writers and require that they provide detailed
descriptions of the need for the course and its potential placement within a
curriculum – thus pointing out the need for congruence of learning outcomes at
the course and program levels.
While the vast majority of
the College’s course offerings were well substantiated, either through the
process described above or by certification through the Dimensions process described
in the previous section on General Education, formal documentation was needed
for the remainder. Regulations promulgated
by the Commonwealth Board of Education (Chapter 335. Community College Courses, Part XVI. Standards
Title 22. Education, Pennsylvania Code,
As described in the Assessment Plan, course assessment is
built into ongoing processes. Course
development models, either the activities or objectives-centered models, direct
course writers explicitly to discuss how student learning outcomes information
will be used to determine the effectiveness of the course design. Faculty are
encouraged to include strategies for determining the impact of direct measures
of student learning such as tests and assignments. The models suggest a list of possible tools
(besides those to determine grades) that faculty can use to evaluate student
learning. This includes portfolios,
student course evaluation, pass/fail rates, employer feedback and advisory
committee feedback based on review of course materials.
A review of course documents and syllabi in the various programs and disciplines listed above revealed that a variety of assessment methods are used. Interviews with Department Heads, Curriculum Coordinators and faculty also revealed that direct methods of assessing student learning (e.g., grades, examinations, standardized tests, term papers, capstone projects, oral presentations, and portfolios) are used for the purpose of improving student-learning outcomes. It is also clear from these interviews that student learning outcomes assessment to evaluate course effectiveness is ongoing and supported by various formal and informal professional discussions, though largely not documented and not systematic.
Interviews with various faculty also indicated that other
indirect assessment methods of student learning, specifically student surveys,
are helpful tools for improving their courses; the Behavioral Sciences
Department, for example, implements its own student survey and uses the
collected data to improve classroom instruction. The English Department recently developed a pilot
study using a student survey for English 102 (English Composition II).
The Faculty/Staff Survey indicates that most
faculty are constantly reexamining their classroom
strategies. Furthermore, the Survey
indicated that the dominant reason why faculty make
changes to their courses is the assessment of unsatisfactory outcomes. In
addition to the course-level assessment that is initiated by
faculty in their classrooms, faculty collaborate
with the Office of Institutional Research to explore course-based issues. For example, English faculty
have requested that the Office of
Institutional Research help determine whether
students performed adequately in English 102 following the completion of
English 101. Mathematics faculty have looked at the sequence of math courses and the
adequacy of placement test methods. The Director of Developmental Education
(DE) has tracked developmental students to look at success in subsequent developmental
courses and college-level courses
(see IR Reports #84, 93, 95, 98, and 103
). Additionally, comparisons of student
performance have been made between 10-week and 14-week courses and student preferences for alternative
course delivery options have been explored (see IR Report #116).
An ongoing assessment strategy for
distance education courses has been in place for the last several years as this
type of course offering has increased (see Effectiveness
Indicators #40 – 43 in IR Report #129).
In compliance with State regulations
described earlier, every course must include a plan for evaluation and it must
be evaluated at least every five years. Department
Heads utilize data from individual instructor evaluations of the course to
compile a five-year summary evaluation.
This evaluation asks questions such as:
· Is the course consistent with the College Mission?
· Are assigned credits based on nationally or regionally accepted practices or guidelines?
· Are the course’s stated learning outcomes necessary to enable students to attain the essential knowledge and skills embodied in the program’s educational objectives?
· Do the course materials reflect knowledge in the program’s field of study?
· Is the course comparable to similar courses which are generally accepted for transfer to accredited baccalaureate institutions (if designed for transfer)?
Each of the evaluations must be reviewed by the appropriate
Dean and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Coordinator of Curriculum Development
also reviews completion of evaluations and documents. To date, evaluation of more than 80 percent
of the courses requiring five-year summaries has been completed and progress in
this area continues. Existing courses
that are specifically part of a program are also evaluated in the program
auditing process (see below for additional details.)
Program Level
At the programmatic level, approved models for development and
revision guide faculty writers to provide a strong rationale for proposed programs. To do so, writers analyze changes in academic
disciplines, requirements of accrediting agencies where appropriate, and developments
along the educational continuum – at secondary schools or baccalaureate
institutions. The models also direct
writers to explain how the program is internally congruent: how students grow
academically, how advanced courses build on foundational courses, and how
courses deal with issues of depth and comprehensiveness. The model further directs writers to consider
institutional congruence – how the program fits with the College’s
Faculty members and Curriculum Coordinators indicated
during interviews that they consider articulation agreements with transfer
institutions, the standards of external accrediting agencies, and current
developments within their discipline when defining expectations for student
learning, thus confirming that practice conforms to the defined expectations. For example, the Art and Education curricula
work closely with transfer institutions to design programs that will allow
students seamless transfer.
Currently, ninety-one articulation agreements with 35 different
institutions of higher education are in place.
The Allied Health and Nursing Programs as well as the
Paralegal Studies and Automotive Technology Programs are currently accredited or approved by the
appropriate external accrediting body.
To achieve this status, peer reviewers validate that the curriculum
allows students to achieve standards of the relevant discipline. Career programs not specifically accountable
to external agencies also identify goals for student learning to be congruent
with expectations for professional practice.
For example, the Behavioral Health/Human Services curriculum considered
the requirements necessary to become a Certified Addictions Counselor when
recently revising courses. Career
curricula advisory committees often provide important guidance in the areas of
curriculum and needs of the work force. As
an expression of the College’s confidence in student achievement, it recently instituted
a Career Program Guarantee that will allow a graduate the opportunity to enroll
for up to fifteen additional credits of course work tuition free if an employer
verifies the individual is lacking in job-related competencies and skills
specific to the career program.
Many departments
and curricula use capstone projects and/or collaborative research projects to
assess program outcomes following the completion of course requirements,
although their use is sporadic and discipline specific. In the Art, Design Technologies and
Photographic Imaging curricula, for example, each student’s work is displayed
and presented to the entire faculty for critique. Faculty have the
opportunity to evaluate the students’ performance and the assignment itself.
Similar to the frequency of course evaluation, State
regulations dictate that each career program be audited every five years. The Assessment Plan describes an approach to
evaluating the effectiveness of programs. A
core set of Performance Measures has been developed and maintained in support
of the academic audit process. These data include: 1) enrollment trends and
the diversity of the student population; 2) persistence and retention rates; 3)
graduation, transfer and employment rates; and 4) student academic performance. These
core performance indicators, which are available for all of the 80 academic
programs at the College, are provided over a five year time frame thereby
enabling each program the ability to compare program performance over time or
against the performance of a peer program or College-wide figures.
The audit process ensures a consistent collection of data and uses three kinds of tools to assess program effectiveness. These are graduate surveys, surveys of former students and surveys of current students. These surveys provide feedback on student satisfaction with their program, their perceptions of its strengths and weaknesses, and the preparation they received for the job market and/or transfer. The audit process relies on quantifiable assessment tools- transfer rates, student attrition/persistence, certifying exams and employment data. Furthermore, the audit model for programs with and without external accreditation guides audit writers to summarize current program evaluation efforts and to use external sources (e.g., advisory committee and employer feedback) to validate curriculum.
All audits
reviewed have a section where areas of concern are addressed and a specific
plan for improvement is included. Findings and recommendations presented in the audit serve
as a foundation for program revision, including modification of learning goals
and objectives on the program (and course) level, when appropriate.
Interviews with Department
Heads and Curriculum Coordinators revealed that audit data was used to guide
planning and revise courses. In the
Early Childhood Education (ECE) Curriculum, for example, audit data was used to
determine if an appropriate balance existed between academic content and
hands-on experience. Faculty involved in
the audit found that since the ECE field has changed in ten years, it was time
to update courses. This included adding
more hands-on activities and developing community advocacy projects such as
work in shelters. Questionnaires sent to
students as part of the audit process confirmed the need to incorporate these
projects into the curriculum. The music
industry also experienced significant changes that led to the development of
new courses and the creation of a computerized music studio in the Music
Department. Additionally, the Music
Curriculum, as a result of the audit process, was revised and a new non-performance
option was developed. Other Curriculum
Coordinators have used audit data to develop retention strategies for their
programs. The current audit procedures provide
a vehicle for systematic assessment of student learning outcomes, although they
are used inconsistently for planning by faculty.
Timeliness of
program audits has been a concern in the past and recent changes in procedure
have been initiated. Currently, academic
audits are completed by the Assistant to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs in conjunction with Department Heads and faculty. Academic Deans
participate in the process to ensure that institutional as well as programmatic
perspectives are maintained and that the final product reflects a realistic
assessment of strengths and needs. Programs
with external accrediting agencies may accelerate the process by drawing
substantial data from recent self studies to incorporate into the academic
audits. Eight programs have been
scheduled for audit during the 2003-2004 academic year;
two have been completed and approved by the Board of Trustees.
Institutional Level
A major focus of ongoing Institutional
Research is directed toward assessing and providing outcomes data for planning
purposes to faculty and staff. An extensive description of the theoretical framework and
principles of institutional assessment may be found in the Assessment Plan. Key institutional
documents, such as the Strategic Plan,
Mission Statement, and President’s Vision
Statement, shape the research
agenda for the Office of Institutional Research. The
expectations and needs of external constituents, such as Middle States, State
and national Departments of Education, specialized accreditors and funding
sources, also provide direction concerning research priorities for the Office.
In order to efficiently respond to assessment
requests, the Office of Institutional Research maintains a generalized
assessment database. The file structure,
which is longitudinal, contains records that track students through their
enrollment at the College. These student
records are supplemented with additional assessment information from internal
and external databases to create a student record that can track a student from
entry to the College to one year after departure. In addition to enabling institution-wide
assessments, the file has been adapted to meet the information needs for
program assessments, such as the academic audits. The extensive historical information that is
available on this longitudinal database provides reference points for assessing
student change over time.
Surveys of both graduates and former students
(students who leave the College prior to graduation) elicit information
concerning students’ short-term transfer and career experiences, their
assessments of the efficacy of their educational experiences at the College in
helping them to achieve their educational goals, and their development of a
core set of learning outcomes related to General Education and affective
attributes.
In order to be able to assess change over time, similar methods have
been used to gather survey information and a core set of questions have been
asked consistently. The survey process
is flexible and has been adapted to address newly emerging critical issues.
The following is a recent sample of research
documents/reports that focus on learning outcomes :
·
Career Outcomes (IR Reports #107, 111, 115, 117,
121, 126, 133, and 135)
·
Transfer Outcomes (IR Reports #106, 112, 118,
127, 132, 134 and In-Briefs #90 and 91)
·
Attrition and Persistence (IR Reports #105, 108,
and 120)
·
Surveys of Graduates (1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002)
·
Surveys of Former Students (1997 and 2002)
·
The
Progress of 2001 Graduates of Community College of Philadelphia in Development
of General Education Skills and Affective Attributes (IR Report #128).
The annual report,
Institutional Effectiveness: A College Report Card, describes indicators
that represent areas of institutional effectiveness and include three that are
related to student learning outcomes: 1) workforce development; 2) transfer
preparation; and 3) student persistence, goal attainment, and assessment of
collegiate experiences. These data serve
as a reference point for assessing changes in the College’s student outcomes
over time. Available to all faculty and
staff on the Institutional Research Home Page, these data provide student
performance information on a College-wide scale. In addition, they correlate strongly with
goals explicit in the Mission Statement. A review
of the most recent College Report Card (2002)
shows that:
·
Two-thirds of career
program graduates secured employment related to their academic program and
overall 81% were employed.
· Between 1996 and 2001, the average salary earned by graduates increased by 37.7%. This increase outpaced the increase in the Consumer Price Index during this time period.
·
Most graduates of the
College remain in the City as active contributing members of the local
economy. Three-quarters of the 2001
graduates were working in
·
The overall satisfaction level for 2001
graduates improved significantly. Nearly
86% of 2001 working graduates reported their preparation for employment was
either excellent or good.
·
The pass rates for College
graduates on certification exams in the health care professions have
consistently been higher than the national average. For example, 92% of Respiratory Care
Technology graduates in 2000 and 100% in 2001 passed compared to a national
average of 53% and 69% respectively. One
hundred percent of the Diagnostic Medical Imaging graduates passed in both 2000
and 2001 as compared to a national average of 86% and 76% in the same time frame.
·
The outcomes of transfer students at the
transfer institution are improving. Most
CCP transfer students at State System of Higher Education universities in recent
semesters have earned GPA’s of 2.0 or higher.
·
Sixty-eight percent of transfer program
graduates in 2001 were taking courses elsewhere shortly after graduating from the
College.
Concerns
The College engages in
many on-going processes that, either directly or indirectly, use student
learning outcomes assessment to track, evaluate, and review aspects of the College’s
educational offerings. Various
dimensions of students learning outcomes are measured and assessed within the
classroom and at the program and institutional levels. The lack of consistency in the conception and
implementation of a core set of General Education requirements across the
College has impeded the development of an overarching assessment model that
connects these various processes. At
present, General Education seems to be defined within programs, not across the
College. This has limited effective
assessment of these learning outcomes to the course and program level.
Because of a lack of the development and implementation of a core
set of institution-wide learning outcomes, faculty teaching in
disciplines may have to create their own mechanisms for determining congruence
between learning goals and objectives at the course and program levels. Group grading, done routinely in the English
Department, for example, is one such way consistency is fostered.
Additionally, there is no specific outcomes assessment model for General Education and no assessment structure comparable to the program audit for disciplines at the College. Consequently, there is no mechanism for systematic self-assessment to evaluate congruence of learning goals and outcome measures within these disciplines at this time. While many faculty engage in effective ongoing assessment of student learning outcomes to improve their courses, outside of the career programs these improvements go largely undocumented and individual faculty successes do not necessarily spill over and spread to other sections within the disciplines. This is not to say, however, that there is not a rich exchange of ideas occurring in many parts of the College, an exchange motivated by a desire to improve students’ educational experience. Faculty efforts and innovations are often shared with colleagues in forums such as Teaching Circles (a pilot program recently established in the English Department, for example), and presentations such as those that routinely occur in the Teaching Center. In such forums, a variety of classroom practices from across the disciplines are discussed, leading, one assumes, to improved instruction.
There are few obvious methods to ensure that
certain aspects of the
The College has used a
wide range of benchmarking strategies to develop and understand institutional
effectiveness relative to peer institutions. Examples of these can be found in The College Report Card, IR Report #112,
titled A Comparison of Community College of Philadelphia Student Outcomes
with Those of Other Pennsylvania Community College Students;
and IR Report #110 titled Student Satisfaction with Student Services,
Academic Services and Campus Climate 1996 - 1999 (January 2000). Additionally, the use of well-designed
longitudinal studies has allowed the College to assess the impact of
programmatic and service-delivery changes over time and to easily monitor
evolving patterns in institutional effectiveness with respect to the many
different subpopulations served by the College.
One dimension of benchmarking that has not been used extensively at the
College is internally driven standards that define appropriate institutional
performance levels. For example, during
a recent Professional Development activity, staff were
asked to define an acceptable five-year graduation rate for full-time,
first-time CCP students. Acceptable
graduation rates that were proposed by the College community ranged from 5% to
85%.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The College should develop a comprehensive student outcomes assessment plan, building on current successful practices such as the audits and the current course development models, to systematically use data and outcomes to affect change on the institutional, programmatic, and course levels. The plan should be designed to assist administrators, Department Heads, Curriculum Coordinators, and faculty to use assessment data consistently. It should encourage creativity in the classroom, foster improvement in student learning outcomes, and be flexible enough to encourage the full involvement of a traditionally independent faculty. This overarching plan will be accomplished by the following recommendations:
·
Implement a core set of General Education
requirements across the College.
· Connect student learning goals with the College’s Mission Statement more explicitly at the institutional, programmatic, and course levels.
· Encourage wider use of indirect assessment methods such as written student surveys and self-reflective questions in order to evaluate congruence between student outcomes and the Mission Statement. Additionally, rubrics and portfolios may be used to increase parity of outcome measures for assignments between course sections, in programs, and across disciplines.
·
Assure routine collection of data on student
learning outcomes, including data from employers, and use findings as the basis
for course and program revision.
·
Develop internal benchmarks at the
institutional, programmatic, and course levels to measure effectiveness and
improvement in student learning outcomes.
Resource
LIST
A.
Institutional
Research Reports Related to Standard 14:
·
IR Report #69 – Middle States Self Study Survey Results – A
Summary of Reponses (5/93)
·
IR Report #77 – A Review of the Higher Education Literature
Related to Models of Student Outcomes (6/94)
·
IR Report #84 - The ACT NOW
Program - A Description and Evaluation (6/95)
·
IR Report #93 – Beating the Odds: Reasons for At-Risk Student Success at
·
IR Report #95 – An Evaluation of the Achievement of the
Developmental Education
·
IR Report #98 – An Evaluation of
the Achievement of the Developmental Education
·
IR Report #103 – Developmental Education Outcomes – Three
Years After the Developmental Education Task Force Report (4/99)
·
IR Report #105 – Barriers to the Persistence of Students
with Freshman and Sophomore Status (7/99)
·
IR Report #106 – Transfer Outcomes of 1997 Graduates and
Former Students (9/99)
·
IR Report #107 – Career Outcomes of 1997 Graduates and Former
Students (9/99)
·
IR Report #108 – Why Do Students Drop Out of
·
IR Report #110 – Student Satisfaction with Student
Services, Academic and Campus Climate 1996-1999 (1/00)
·
IR Report #111 – The Economic Impact of
·
IR Report #112 - A Comparison of
·
IR Report #113 – Profiles of Students Who Enroll at Single
and
·
IR Report #115 – Career Outcomes for 1999 Career Program
Graduates (11/00)
·
IR Report #116 – Student Preferences for Alternative
Course Delivery Options (11/00)
·
IR Report #117 – Impact of
·
IR Report #118 –
·
IR Report #119 – Institutional Effectiveness 2000: A College
Report Card (1/01)
·
IR Report #120 – Student Attrition at CCP – When Students
Leave, Why They Leave, and Their Academic Success at Departure (6/01)
·
IR Report #121 –
Career Outcomes for 2000 Career Program Graduates (11/01)
·
IR Report #122 – Short-Term Transfer and Career Outcomes
of
·
IR Report #123 – Distance Education at the
·
IR Report #124 – Transfer Outcomes of Graduates in 1999
and 2000 (1/02)
·
IR Report #125 – Institutional Effectiveness 2001 – A
College Report Card (3/02)
·
IR Report #126 – Career Outcomes for 2001: Career Program
Graduates (10/02)
·
IR Report #127 – Transfer
Outcomes of Graduates in 2001 (11/02)
·
IR Report #128 - The Progress of 2001 Graduates of
·
IR Report #129 – Institutional Effectiveness 2002 - A College Report Card (1/03)
·
IR Report
#130A - Responses to Middle
States Self Study Current Student Questionnaire (4/03)
·
IR Report #130B - Responses to Middle States Self Study
Faculty/Staff Questionnaire (4/03)
·
IR Report #132 - Transfer Outcomes of Graduates in 2002 (10/03)
·
IR Report #133 - Career Outcomes for 2002 Career Program Graduates (10/03)
·
IR Report #134 - Transfer
Outcomes of 2002 Graduate and Non-Graduate Former Students (12/03)
·
IR Report #135 - Career Outcomes of 2002 Graduate and Non-Graduate
Former Students (12/03)
B.
Institutional
Research In-Briefs Related to Standard 14:
·
IR In-Brief #90 – West Chester Acceptance Achievement and
Persistence Outcomes Associated with Former CCP Students Who Enrolled at West
Chester University in 1991 and 2001(12/01)
·
IR In-Brief #91 – Acceptance Outcomes of Former CCP
Students Who Applied to
C.
Office of
Institutional Research:
·
Performance
Measure Definitions (5/03)
·
Performance
Measures (5/03)
·
Surveys of Graduates
(1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002)
·
Surveys of Former
Students (1997 and 2002)
D.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs. See the following Curriculum Revision
Proposals:
·
Associate in Arts: Art Curriculum - Minor Revision (
·
Automotive Technology Curriculum Revision Proposal (
·
Program Revision Proposal: Electronics Engineering
Technology Associate in Applied Science Degree Program (11/95)
·
Proposal for Minor Program Revision for Electronics
Engineering Technology (
·
Proposal for Program Revision: Music Curriculum (
·
Proposal for Revision of Paralegal Studies Curriculum (
E.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs. See the following Dimensional Course
Approvals:
·
MATH 171-Calculus I (4/95)
·
PSYC 101-Introduction to Psychology (
·
PSYC 115-Introduction to Parenting
·
PSYC 215-Developmental Psychology (3/97)
F.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs. See the following Course Documents:
·
ART 110-Ceramics II (
·
ART 125-Design I (
·
ART 290-Portfolio Preparation (
·
AT 111-Automotive Suspension and Steering Systems (9/98)
·
AT 121-Principles of Automotive Electricity and
Electronics (12/96)
·
AT 181-Automotive Engine Mechanical Repair (9/92)
·
AT 261-Engine Performance and Diagnosis (4/97)
·
AT 271-Air Conditioning and Heating Systems (10/97)
·
DAH 101-Basic Dental Sciences (
·
DAH 105-Practice Administration (
·
DAH 135 – Course Radiology (5/01)
·
DAH 221-Oral Histology and Embryology (
·
DAH 291-Dental Hygiene Clinic I (4/98)
·
ELEC 106-Introduction to Electricity (12/01)
·
ELEC 126-Principles of Electronics (2/02)
·
ELEC 227-Electronic Circuits I (1/02)
·
ENGL 098-Fundamentals of Writing (
·
ENGL 101-General Studies
·
ENGL 208-Introduction to Literature: Prose (
·
ENGL 210-Advanced Creative Writing (9/98)
·
MATH 017-Elementary Algebra (6/94)
·
MATH 118-Intermediate Algebra (9/91)
·
MUS 101-Piano I (
·
MUS 103-Music Appreciation (4/92)
·
MUS 214-Chromatic Harmony (
·
PLS 101-Introduction to Paralegal Studies (
·
PLS 295-Legal Internship (
G.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Curriculum
Development Services: Format for Program Revision (2001)
H.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Curriculum Facilitating Team, Guidelines for Course Development and
Revision at Community College of Philadelphia (11/6/02)
I.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Career
Degree Guarantee: Statement of Philosophy
J.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs. See the following Program Audits:
·
Art Curriculum Audit (10/98)
·
Automotive Technology Program Audit (
·
Dental Assisting Hygiene Program Audit (
·
Electronics Engineering Technology Audit (
·
Management Degree and Certificate Program Audit – DRAFT (
·
Music Curriculum Audit (SP 95)
·
Paralegal Studies Curriculum Audit (1/01)
K.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Community College of
·
Major Issues -Where Significant Progress Has Been Made
·
Document I – Chapter XI: Conclusion Chapter from 1993
MSA Self Study Report
·
Document II-Summary of Major Recommendations Made By
MSA Evaluation team
·
Document III-Extract
from Periodic Review Report dated
L.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic
Programs Audit Schedule (10/02)
M.
Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, Curriculum
Development Services: Format for Program Development (12/01)
N.
Office of the
Vice President for Planning and Finance, Statistical
Compendiums (1999-2000 and 2000-2001)
O.
Office of the
Vice President for Planning and Finance, Assessment
Plan: An Overview of Efforts to Understand Institutional Effectiveness at the