BBCC Annual Assessment Report 23-24
Introduction
Current Focus and Understanding of Assessment
Wrapped up a seven-year cycle, “catch all” year, no specific IO/PO focus for whole campus; push towards more one-on-one support; want to connect to larger campus data and professional development
Continue to assess for improvement – identify an issue, challenge, equity gap etc. first, then decide on type of intervention, implement intervention, reflect and decide next steps (repeat, adapt, budget, PD, etc.); feedback on each assessment report
Continue to push towards a program-level focus; now know we no longer need to assess every single course, but rather focus on which POs are best assessed in which courses over seven years; this should help continue to simplify the process
Addressing Assessment Committee Plans/Goals from 2022-2023 Report
The previous years’ goals of sharing and discussing the 2022-2023 Assessment Report, assessment work during Week Zero, and preparing for two years of program/departmentallevel assessment plans were addressed in the following ways. During Fall In-Service, feedback from the assessment rubric was given to faculty for the assessment plans they had submitted along with trends and goals for the year. Faculty had time to reflect, look at institutional data, check 7-year plans/wrap up any missing POs from the past seven years, and then develop assessment plan for the year as a program/department. Then the deans or director checked off on these. Like in previous years, the Annual Assessment Report was made public on the website.
The previous year’s goals of training the assessment committee members, defining the purpose of assessment, increasing assessment accountability, and increasing one-on-one conversations between faculty and committee members were addressed in the following ways. Throughout the year, the assessment committee met to discuss purpose of assessment at the program and institutional levels, how to help the faculty better understand this, how to make the process more meaningful to faculty, and what professional development/activities would benefit faculty during the quarterly In-Services. Even though there was a new chair this year, many of the members have served on the committee in the past (including the previous chair). This helped bring needed and beneficial perspective and helped train new members. In the Winter/Spring, committee members met with their respective areas to provide one-on-one support.
Based on this, it was clear that for both committee members and faculty across campus, there is still work to be done to make assessment more meaningful and we will continue to give feedback on assessments and give more time during Week Zero.
Assessments
This was the last year in our seven-year cycle and was a sort of “catch all” year meaning there was not a specific IO the whole campus focused on but rather programs/departments were to make sure if there were any missing POs not assessed in the previous years to assess them this year. Likewise, thinking that every course must also be assessed within the seven-year cycle, there was a push to assess any course that had not yet been assessed in the previous six years. This meant that there was not a clear cohesive focus by design, but some patterns still emerged. Following are some highlights in specific patterns seen in programs/departments. See the Appendix for the full details of all assessment plans submitted.
Follow up from previous assessments/closing the loop
As part of the “catch all” year, some programs/departments used the year to close the loop on assessments from previous years. The Political Science and Chemistry departments both compared data between years, noting effects in both teaching and learning post pandemic with changing modalities, growth in student learning, and continuing to increase more student directed practice.
Based on results from last year, the nursing program continued to revise curriculum to better address the communication needs, connections between theory and practice, and continued use of tools and simulation. These were done at both the course and program level. This included using post-lab quizzes to assessment student skills in IV management, creating care plans for patients based on nursing diagnostics, introducing “pre-work” to better prepare students to focus on concepts and communication for cardiac simulations, and much more.
The computer science program changed the style of assessments and amount of high vs low stakes assessments. In place of exams a project and check-ins were used as well as homework/practice assignments. This provided more regular, direct feedback to students throughout the courses. Specifically in the Java 1 course, the modality of the exams was changed from online Canvas exam to in person on paper. Afterwards, they saw year-over-year improvement and will continue to implement these changes moving forward.
Connections to institutional data, goals, PD
Over 40% of assessment reports focused on either connecting to institutional or program/departmental data, institutional or program/departmental goals, or professional development. The previously mentioned assessments addressed these and following are a couple more program/department highlights.
The aviation program used the course success data dashboards to compare with previous years and noted the impacts of smaller enrollments, weather issues, and aircraft availability contributed to lower completion rates compared to previous years. To help improve program outcomes and address these issues, the college is hiring a director of operations for aviation.
The Basic Education for Adults (BEdA) program looked at institutional data for the program and noticed Latinx males had a greater equity index grade gap than non-Latinx students in spring 2023 possibly due to less peer connection and limited digital literacy skills. Canvas discussion posts were used to help connect the Latinx male students to their peers and invest in their coursework. ESCALA training including the use of sentence starters informed the changes implemented. Even with inconclusive results from an in-class survey on experience level with Canvas discussions, there were year over year improvements in the overall learning gains from 8% to 33%.
Assessing for improvement
Over half of the programs/departments assessed for improvement in either a specific course or as a program/department as a whole. This followed the trend that the institution has been moving toward over the past few years both in terms of assessing for improvement rather than achievement as well as looking at assessment beyond individual courses. Most of the previously mentioned assessments addressed these and following are a couple more program/department highlights.
In the BAS-AM program, the use of teacher-made videos as a feedback tool. Students greatly improved in subsequent assignments and needed less continued or repeated feedback. It was noted that this type of feedback would be good for all fully online courses, especially with assignments that could be revised or when students will turn in the same type of assignment multiple times in a course. Moreover, a lack of skills relating to library resources and Excel were noted. The program plans to connect with the BBCC Library in the future and encourage the use of Excel in the pre-requisite mathematics and business courses.
Within the World Languages department, students have consistently struggled with using correct Spanish pronunciations, specifically regarding vowels. Throughout the quarter in Spanish 121, daily pronunciation practice words and sentences was incorporated. A pre-and post-assessment of a basic pronunciation quiz was given in the first and last weeks. Students showed improvement from an average of 67% to 85%. Based on these results, the change will be continued going forward and made to the whole Spanish language series.
Reflection and Response to Faculty Assessment Reports
BBCC continues to push towards program/departmental level reflection, analysis, and response. Part of campus are doing this more readily or naturally than others. Now that not every course must be assessed it will be easier to maintain this focus. Furthermore, since not every course that has a certain IO/PO must be assessed for that IO/PO but rather only those that best address the outcome are needed to be assessed over the next seven years, it should streamline and simplify assessment for programs/departments. This should allow them to better focus on assessing at the program/departmental level rather than course level.
This move to focus on program/departmental level assessment instead of course level still falls in line with pushing for assessing for improvement rather than achievement or competency. After this year’s assessment plans were submitted, a small group of faculty and administrators provided feedback encouraging these changes, as well as incorporating more program/departmental or campus level data. Feedback from the one-one-one conversations the assessment committee had with their respective areas and the lack of widespread use of the data dashboards inform the need for continued professional development time for faculty in these areas.
Also, some logistical changes to the assessment database for submitting reports need to be made. This includes changing the course field to be typed in rather than dropdown menu to more easily account for new courses, changing the wording to help focus on program improvement, and adding a reference to equity gaps.
A few other ideas were noted after reflecting on the assessment plans as a whole. There is potential for multiple programs/departments to connect with the BBCC Library and make better use of its resources. There is concern with AI and how to best address it, especially in online and hybrid courses. Overall, the ability of students to communicate well and professionally (in person, hybrid, or online) was raised multiple times and how this was addressed by the BIM program might be applicable and useful across campus. Likewise, the findings from the Botany assessment regarding lab equipment procedure and care might be beneficial for other areas on campus with labs or equipment.
Goals and Direction for the Future
Assessment focus for 2024-2025 school year: Switch up assessment cycle to have open year to redesign/refocus first, then two years for each of the three IOs. Basically, move our seventh year to be the first year in our seven-year cycle. The purpose of this is to give faculty time to adapt to both assessment cycle and focus on program instead of course. During this year, feedback will also be collected from faculty on issues related to IO 1 to help guide the assessment focus for the following year.
Goals for Faculty: Update seven-year plans to match focus on program rather than courses, reflect on assessment feedback, and continue to assess for improvement. Make use of campus data in designing assessment plans for the program/department by identifying an equity gap to focus on and try to intentionally synthesize work with Program Audit to make it more meaningful. Improve connecting assessment to closing the loop year to year, addressing budgetary needs, professional development, or other ways admin can help.
Goals for the Assessment Committee: Continue providing one-on-one support with the faculty in their respective areas and spreading the purpose of assessment to the campus. Collect feedback from faculty on IO 1 issues to address the following year and develop a pre-packaged plan.
Ideas for Professional Development: Use time during In-Services and Week Zero to address the specific to needs of faculty and institution such as providing continued time for programs/departments to analyze data, reflect on feedback from previous assessments and Program Audits, and have time to work with support from the assessment committee, Deans, Director, and VP.