1. Implementing an Ability Based Education System Colleen Keyes Dean of Academic Affairs Dr. David England Director of Institutional Effectiveness

2. Ability Based Education  Mandates from: New England Association of Colleges and Schools Connecticut Department of Higher Education

3. Ability Based Education  Faculty concerns about use of the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Progress (CAAP)  Choice to develop and use a faculty designed assessment system

4. Ability Based Education

5. Alverno Model Institution wide commitment to collaboratively identified Abilities (general education outcomes), and Developmental Levels of mastery of each Ability, needed for effectiveness in the worlds of work, family, and civic community

6. Alverno Model Explicit and direct connections are made between Developmental Levels of Abilities and course syllabi, assignments, and assessments as well as program requirements so that students understand the interrelated and progressive nature of the curriculum and that they are responsible for their own ongoing learning

7. Alverno Model The formal requirement that students develop specific Abilities in one course context and then apply them to the subject matter of other courses encourages every student in the college to transfer learning independently because the explicit expectation makes every student aware of the possibility

8. Alverno Model Assessment is viewed as developmental rather than high stakes and as a public activity with results shared openly and used for continuous improvement of the curriculum and student outcomes

9. Ability Based Education  Five Year Project Determine General Education Abilities and Levels Develop rubrics for assessing each ability and level Distribute the abilities throughout the curriculum Design standardized assessments within each department Determine a method for collecting assessment results electronically Review results and calibrate/revise assessments and/or curriculum as appropriate

10. Ability Based Education  General Education Abilities and Levels Abilities vs. Outcomes Drafted by a representative group of respected faculty Distributed to departments for comment Finalized Approved by the college’s governance process

11. Ability Based Education  Information Literacy Effectively uses, accesses, and evaluates information. Level 1: Determines the nature and extent of the information needed. Level 2: Accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. Level 3: Evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into student’s own knowledge base and value system.

12. Ability Based Education  Develop rubrics for assessing each ability and level Appoint an “Ability Group” for each Ability Ability Assessment Team consists of the chairs of each group Limited but substantive feedback from all faculty

13. Ability Based Education  Distribute the abilities throughout the curriculum Three disciplines/programs begin the process each year Two coaches with reassigned time for each discipline/program Which abilities attached to which courses (sequential)? Also revise course and program abilities One year for design; one year for implementation

14. Ability Based Education  Distribute the abilities throughout the curriculum Ability Assessment Team (AAT) reviews the matrix that evolves as abilities are attached to courses For each Associate Degree, students should be assessed in every ability through Level Two AAT works with each department to add and/or rearrange ability assessments as necessary

15. Ability Based Education  Design standardized assessments within each department E-Portfolios Capstone Projects Embedded Assignments Simulations Internships and service projects Performance on a case study Locally developed tests Video taping

16. Ability Based Education How do we know the instruments we’re designing are valid?

17. Alverno Model To validate means that learning outcomes being assessed and the assessments must be:  Carefully thought out  Systematically designed  Subjected to rigorous reasoning  Constantly evaluated  Contextually credible  Revised re student performance outcomes  Reviewed for consequences

18. Ability Based Education  Determine a method for collecting assessment results electronically eLumen Software Designed to maintain and organize outcomes assessment data Available on campus network for faculty to enter assessments

19. Ability Based Education eLumen Software

20. Ability Based Education eLumen Software

21. Ability Based Education eLumen Software

22. Ability Based Education eLumen Software

23. Ability Based Education  Review results and calibrate/revise assessments and/or curriculum as appropriate What can be done to better develop the abilities with which students are struggling? Is there consistency in the assessments across departments and courses? What % of graduates meet standards on all abilities?

24. Ability Based Education  Creates productive interaction between faculty about LEARNING  Consistent expectations of students  Helps students understand the practical application of learning  Helps students understand the need to demonstrate abilities throughout the curriculum (preparation for advanced courses)

25. Data Driven Planning External Environmental Scan Internal Environmental Scan Review of Mission & Vision Statements Review of Gen. Ed., Institutional & Student Success Outcomes Every Three Years Strategic and Operational Planning System Review of General Education, Institutional and Student Success Outcomes and Work Group and Task Force Results report Identify Strategic Initiatives based on needs identified in outcomes review (multiple steps) Work Groups Propose Action Plans President appoints Task Forces if needed Budget Requests & Strategic Initiative Project Funding Proposals based on Action Plans. Implement Plans Work Groups & Task Forces Assess Results Academic Assessment Planner and Director of Institutional Research prepare report on General Education, Institutional and Student Success Outcomes and Work Group and Task Force Results. 13456 7 2 Every Year Operational Planning Steps Strategic Planning Steps

26. Data Driven Planning Institutional Effectiveness Outcomes and Data  Retention, course completion, transfer, graduation, and enrollment data by student characteristics and program  PACE and SACE surveys  Service Satisfaction Survey  Labor Market data

27. Data Driven Planning Percent under 20 years of age: Fall 2001- 51% Fall 2002- 60% Fall 2003- 65% Fall 2004- 68% Fall 2005- 73%

28. Data Driven Planning Fall to Spring Retention Rate by Skill Deficiency: F04 F05 One▲71% - 79% Two▲71% - 85% Three▲69% - 81% Total▲71% - 82%

29. Data Driven Planning First Year Mean GPA by Skill Deficiency: F04 F05 None▼2.80 – 2.52 One▼2.45 – 2.30 Two▲2.26 – 2.64 Three▲2.06 – 2.31

30. Data Driven Planning  At-Risk Student Characteristics: Age < 25 Male Hispanic/Black One Skill Deficiency Two Skill Deficiencies Three Skill Deficiencies GPA < 2.0

31. Strategic Initiative Funding Projects that:  Increase the enrollment and/or retention of Hispanics, part-time students 25-45, economically disadvantaged students, potential students from affluent towns  Improve course completion rates in developmental and first year math and English courses  Improve student absenteeism and responsibility  Meet the special needs of developmental students

32. Strategic Initiative Funding Projects that:  Improve graduation and transfer rates  Improve fall to fall retention  Support and/or advance the assessment of General Education Abilities  Improve collaboration and cooperation between two or more departments