Concordia College New York Ccny Work Values

Daily Duties at Concordia College New York Ccny:

When I was appointed Chair of the Academic Assessment Committee (AAC) 8/ 2010, Concordia College - NY was using the same, generic 30 question, paper and pencil assessment tool to evaluate every course in every program at the end of every semester. Student representatives to the AAC admitted that after evaluating 3 – 4 of their 5-6 courses answering the same questions for each course they began to complete the form randomly making arbitrary designs on the answer sheet. Their instructors gave these assessment forms to students in class and students were not allowed to leave the room without completing the form. It took anywhere between six and eight months for the results of these course evaluations to be returned to the faculty and there was no consistent approach among faculty for how the assessment data would influence curriculum planning. Faculty were pleased that they achieved a 98% response rate for their course evaluations, however, no one could really explain what happened to the information obtained in these assessments which were anything but measurable student learning outcomes. Aware of the Middle States Commission of Higher Education’s standard for Student Assessment, I took the AAC Student Representative’ s comments to a Full Faculty meeting for discussion along with the MSCHE standard suggesting: 1. We need to move to electronic course evaluations for timelier, efficient availability of the assessment data for inclusion in curriculum evaluation, planning and program development, 2. Course Evaluations needed to be individualized and relate to specific student learning outcomes reflected in course objectives and related assignments. The Academic VP authorized the Director of IT to collaborate with me and together explore available, cost effective, electronic software programs to facilitate a more expedient course evaluation process that could improve curriculum and program development. While this was going on faculty engaged in a lengthy, debate over the possible values of giving up a 98% student course assessment return rate for more timely, relevant and informative data that could improve programs. Following months of software presentations, online CoursEval was contracted and IT began the integration of CoursEval software with Concordia’s Blackboard and Banner Systems. I am not sure now, but I think we targeted the Spring Courses of 2011 to launch our first online course evaluation process. CoursEval technicians were clear in telling us that the longer the evaluation in terms of numbers of questions the less likely students would be to go on line and complete them in spite of whatever incentives the college might offer. The AAC was charged with reducing the original 30 questions to 5 or 6 informative generic questions, which would require approval of faculty and then each course instructor would provide 5 - 6 course specific, measurable, student learning outcomes. In order to move forward, I asked available faculty members of the AAC to join me as they had time in reviewing the measurable, SLO’s and together night into day for the weeks before launch, we assured that the SLO’s were measurable. Students were encouraged to complete their online CoursEvals, Wise Owl cut out signs dotted the campus to remind them, blast email flyers went out every 5 -6 days, a cadre of prizes were offered in the final raffle of first students to complete all of their evaluations on line. First go around we had a 45% student response rate that I thought was statistically significant, however, faculty wanted to know if it was a representative sample of the Concordia student’s profiles so IT gathered that data and confirmed that in fact it was a pretty fair representation of students with varying GPAs, commuters vs, residents, men vs. women and so it began. Electronic reports were available to faculty within 24 hours, however, in the interest of students, reports were not made available to faculty until after final grades were posted. CHAIR TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES September, 2012 - December, 2012 Recognizing CCNY's need to have Institutionally Approved and Valued Student Learning Ourcomes, I approached the Academic VP of the college and offerred to Chair a Task Force of select Senior Faculty to identify Institutional Outcomes that could be proposed to Faculty for Approval. Institutional Outcomes are grounding for Middle States approval as they are the ultimate behavioral characteristics an institution guides their students toward achieving as a means of acquiring individual success in life chices and professional goals. Institutional Outcomes serve as the hallmark for the bottom line valued characteristics of the institution. The Academic VP approved the project and collaborated in the selection of 5 senior faculy, the VP for Special Projects who served as secretary and myself as Chair. This Committee met every week. I used research and best practices to promote the integration and coordination of SLO's across multiple programs and disciplines structuring the task by limiting the number of possible outcomes to 5-6 because 4 levels of criterion would have to accompany each outcome from needs improvement - average- above average - excellent. Faculty were eager to complete the task realizing that the MSCHE Warning jeopardized the college's MSCHE accreditation and that government funding to 90% of our students depended on the college maintaining its accreditation status. Reaching the target date in early December, 2013, The Task Force presented 6 proposed institutional outcomes complete with 4 criterion levels modelled on the AAC&U outcomes to the Full Faculty for condieration during the Christmas Break. In February when the college re-convened, Full Faculty Voted and Unanimously approved the 6 Institutional Outcomes, Febuary 2013. Since, the spring of 2011, all course evaluations are completed on line and now students can access them on their cell phones for convenience. The challenge of engaging students in this evaluation process remains, however, student responses range between 53 % - 63% and have never fallen below the initial 45%. How the assessment data, now available to faculty in a very timely manner is incorporated into curriculum planning and program development remains? It is a conversation more frequently engaged in among faculty and often suggested in Faculty Development Programs. And would you believe that some faculty have gotten in there to add less than measurable learning objectives to the mix, but it is all a process and it is getting better, Spring 2013 53% of the students completed course evaluations on line. One other assessment related note, I initiated was bringing all of the assessment data into the AAC committee for review, Graduate Exit Interviews, National Student Engagement and Satisfaction Surveys as well as tracking trends like first year students’ repeating courses multiple times correlated with first year students withdrawing from the school, international students and so on.

What they like about Concordia College New York Ccny:

Working for a company with an emphasis on social values and helping society is a clear and important priority for you - a critical factor in who you choose to work for. In contrast to other factors, you place an organization's reputation for fairness and concern for the community above most other aspects of the company. As you search for a new job opportunity, it is usually possible to find out if the company is involved in the community and/or if it is addressing problems and issues in society. Pay special attention to non-profit organizations and those specifically involved in social action. Moreover, speaking with current and former employees should enlighten you to perceptions of the fairness of the company's leaders and the treatment of employees.

Tags

Innovative Quality Improvement Specialist, Innovative Problem Solver, Team Leader, Administrator, Director, Marketer, Creative Presenter, Analyst, Educator, Expert Clinican, Researcher, Technologically Skilled

Skills

Dynamic and Effective Communicator, Dynamic and Effective Problem Solver, Clear, Organized, Systematic, Goal Directed Achiever, Articulate, Dynamic, Creative Presenter , Critical and Creative Thinker, Analytical, Team Leader, Effectively communicates in writing, verbally, non verbally and technologically

These are some of the questions we asked our climbers about their experiences with Concordia College New York Ccny: