prgRprt_Nice.indd

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
1. C: UHCC System Integration
Appendix D

PROGRESS REPORT

to ACCJC

University of Hawai‘i

Leeward Community College

September 9, 2004

PROGRESS REPORT to ACCJC

University of Hawai‘i

Leeward Community College

September 9, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I

Background.....................................................................................................................3

Statement on Report Preparation ....................................................................................

SECTION II

Response to the Requests of the Commission in the Action Letter:

A. Development and Implementation of Program Review Process.............................6

B. Integration of Program Review with Institutional Planning ................................20

C. Technology and Information and Learning Resource Planning ...........................25

D. Administrative Position Vacancies ......................................................................32

APPENDIX .........................................................................................................................................

Progress Report | Page 3

SECTION I

Background

In an action letter dated January 23, 2004, the Accrediting Commission for Community and

Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accepted Leeward

Community College’s Focused Midterm Report, but placed the College on “Warning” with

the requirement of submitting two progress reports. The action letter contained four formal

recommendations on which the College must report.

The action to place the College on “Warning” was taken by the Commission after review of the

College’s October 2003 Focused Midterm Report and the Evaluation Report of the

November 14, 2003 ACCJC team visit (letter and report, Appendix A-1).

The first of the two required progress reports, submitted to the Commission on February 20, 2004,

addressed the College’s actions on the “N” grade (Appendix A-2). The second report, due by

October 15, 2004, addresses the remaining three recommendations detailed in the 2003 Focused

Midterm Visit Team’s Evaluation Report, received on January 26, 2004.

The second progress report needs to address three formal recommendations: two relating to program

reviews and another relating to Technology and Information and Learning Resource Planning.

Although not a formal recommendation, the Commission requested information in the progress

report on the College’s efforts in filling administrative positions and addressing the

Commission’s

concerns with Administrative Instability.

Statement on Report Preparation

Background

Upon receipt of the Commission’s January action letter, Chancellor Mark Silliman informed the

campus community about the Commission’s decision to place the College on “Warning” status.

He articulated the need to fully address and resolve the recommendations and related concerns

contained in the action letter, and the requirement of the two progress reports.

The ACCJC action letter and the November 14, 2003 visiting team’s Focused Midterm Evaluation

Report were distributed in pdf format via e-mail to the campus community on January 27, 2004.

In that e-mail, Chancellor Silliman explained and summarized the action letter (Appendix A-3) and

provided a link to the College’s accreditation webpage on which the Focused Midterm Evaluation

Report had been posted.

section 1: background

Progress Report | Page 4

In early February, the Chancellor conducted an open forum for the campus community on the

various issues relating to the College’s accreditation warning status, the recommendations and

concerns of the visiting team, and the need for all campus constituencies to assist in addressing the

recommendations.

Copies of the ACCJC “Guide to Evaluating Institutions Using the ACCJC 2002 Standards” were

then distributed to all full-time faculty and staff with a cover memo from the Chancellor. In

the memo, the “Guide” was emphasized as critical reading for the entire campus community as

the College prepares for its next Institutional Self Study and as it moves quickly to address the

recommendations and concerns to be addressed in the required Progress Reports. The memo

conveyed that accreditation and the improvement of institutional quality and effectiveness are

college-wide responsibilities.

The process and actions taken by the college are described in detail in “Response to

Recommendations,” Section II (pages 6–33).

Prior to submission to the Commission by October 15, 2004, the Progress Report was drafted and

finalized by September 1, 2004 to facilitate campus review. Feedback from this review process was

incorporated into the final report, which was submitted on September 10, 2004 to the University of

Hawai‘i Acting President for review by the Board of Regents at the October BOR meeting.

Process of report preparation

The preparation of the Progress Report relied on reports, meeting minutes and input from the

Faculty Senate Program Review committee, the College’s administrative team, the Accreditation

Implementation Committee (AIC) for Strategic Planning for Information Technology & Learning

Resources, the Accreditation Liaison Officer, Strategic Plan Coordinator, and members of the AIC

Oversight Committee. Their collective work throughout the spring 2004 semester played a pivotal

role in providing the necessary information and documents required for the preparation and writing

of this report.

In preparation for the report, Interim Chief Academic Officer, Doug Dykstra

convened a meeting

on April 28 with Bob Asato (Accreditation Liaison Officer), Lani Uyeno, Gail Levy, Leanne Chun

(AIC–SPITLR), Kathy Hill (Faculty Senate Program Review Committee Chair), Andy Rossi

(Institutional Researcher), and the College’s administrators.

These key contributors to the Progress Report were briefed on Commission expectations, and

deadlines were set for reporting on the assessment status of all areas. The Strategic Plan coordinators

agreed to work with the Director of Administrative Services to complete the report on integration

of program reviews, analysis of data, adjustment of program plans to modify the

Strategic Plan

and

inclusion of the modifications into budget planning.

Doug Dykstra served as Interim Chief Academic Officer until July 1, 2004, at which time he returned to his

permanent position as Assistant Dean of Instruction.

section 1: background

Progress Report | Page 5

On May 12, 2004, Chancellor Silliman convened the final meeting of the College’s AIC Oversight

Committee to review and finalize the report from the AIC for Information Technology and Learning

Resources. He requested that all participants compile area information and data by the end of the

2003-04 academic year for the report writers.

Committee reports, data and supporting documentation were gathered in July and August 2004.

Drafts of the report were subjected to an iterative review process, with a final review by the key

contributors for accuracy and oversight.

Finally, the Executive Committees of the Faculty Senate and Campus Council reviewed the status of

interim and acting and unfilled administrative positions by the end of the summer and reported the

findings to the editors.

Report writing

The principal writers of this Report were Douglas Dykstra, Assistant Dean of Instruction, and

Kathleen Cabral, Marketing Officer, with supervision by Peter Quigley, Dean of Instruction and

Chief Academic Officer. Through their reports and consultations, Bob Asato, Lani Uyeno, Irwin

Yamamoto, Kathy Hill and Andy Rossi provided great assistance in the completion of the report.

Review and approval of report

Before the end of Spring 2004, the campus constituencies were notified of the early Fall 2004

deadline for a review of the Progress Report. Both Faculty Senate and the Campus Council

discussed the importance of reviewing the document as soon as the fall term began due to the

internal deadline for Board of Regents’ approval.

The Assistant Dean of Instruction distributed a draft of the report for review via email through the

campus listserv. Feedback was solicited from the College governance groups and the campus at large

from August 26 through September 2.

The Campus Council reviewed and approved the report with

modifications on August 30, 2004 and the Faculty Senate reviewed the report on September 1, 2004.

Revisions were made in response to the feedback from the governance groups and a final draft was

posted on the Accreditation website on September 9, 2004.

Chancellor Mark Silliman certifies this Statement on Report Preparation through his signature on

the Cover Sheet of this Report.

section 1: background

Progress Report | Page 6

SECTION II

Section II A

Response to the Request of the Commission in the Action Letter:

Development and Implementation of Program Review Process

The Recommendation

Recommendation

: Leeward Community College should develop and implement

a program review process that includes appropriate common data elements for each

program, data on student needs, student achievement and student learning outcomes.

(2003 Focused Midterm Visit Team Evaluation Report, page 8)

Concerns of the Visiting Team

In May 2003, the College approved the Policy on Unit/Area Program Reviews; however, at the time

of the team’s visit in October 2003, the process had not yet been fully implemented. The College

had not yet clearly articulated the connection between program review and other institutional

planning efforts. The team voiced concerns about the College’s understanding of and support for

college assessment of effectiveness, institutional planning for improvements, and resource allocation.

Action Taken on the Recommendation to Date

The College’s approved Policy on Unit/Area Program Review (Appendix B-1) provides a formal and

systematic method for conducting ongoing assessment and for the collection of data, enabling the

College to measure mission-driven outcomes.

The College’s initial approach focused on assessment of instructional program SLOs, individual

courses, and support areas.

After the August visit from assessment consultant Julie Slark, Assistant Vice Chancellor of

Educational Services, Rancho Santiago Community College District, the College expanded its

understanding of Program Review, placing assessment activities into a larger vision that integrates

SLOs, data, reviews, budgeting and planning. This revised Program Review Model (narrative

in Appendix B-2) places the College’s degree programs at the center of all assessment activities,

incorporating SLO assessment with a variety of data on student achievement, resources, curriculum,

and external factors. In this new approach, as graphically exhibited in

Chart B

on page 15, the

findings of the College’s Program Review drives all other supporting area reviews.

section II: program review

action taken

Progress Report | Page 7

Spring 2004 Implementation

To promote a thorough understanding of the assessment process and to begin the collection of data,

the College engaged in the following activities:

1. Chancellor Silliman met with his Administrative Team in January 2004 and set a

May 30, 2004 deadline for the initial assessment phase of all levels of the College

described within the Policy on Unit/Area Program Review. He charged the

Administrative Team with implementing reviews in their respective areas.

2. The Chancellor offered a presentation on assessment implementation at the campus-

wide Convocation on January 9, 2004. The presentation included an overview of the

organizational structure and the connection between assessment, strategic planning and

the budget process. Accreditation Liaison Officer, Robert Asato, assisted by Lani Uyeno

and Gail Levy, also spoke to the faculty and staff, reviewing the process and promoting

dialogue and discussion in assessment design. After the presentation, faculty and staff

participated in breakout sessions and discussed strategies for implementation.

3. The Accreditation Liaison Officer facilitated Five “Dialog Sessions” held between

February 19 and April 8 (Appendix B-3) to assist faculty with course assessment.

4. Campus leadership participated in two major UHCC system sessions on assessment.

In January 2004, two all day workshops were held at Windward CC, with a follow-

up session held via interactive TV in May. These sessions provided clarification of the

scope of ACCJC’s intent and expectations, resources and ideas, and networking for all

community college campuses.

5. At the time of the ACCJC Team Visit, instructional program assessment activities had

begun, under the Faculty Senate Program Review Committee (FSPRC), a committee of

the Faculty Senate. On September 3, 2003, the Faculty Senate appointed Kathy Hill,

Associate Professor CC in Accounting, as chair of the FSPRC.

6. Areas and units such as Student Services, Staff Development, and FSPRC members held

individual meetings with the Institutional Researcher.

7. The Assistant Deans developed an assessment template for individual course assessment.

The Division Chairs created a timeline for implementation, in which all courses would be

reviewed on a six-year cycle (Appendix B-4).

8. In August, the College engaged Julie Slark, assessment consultant, to examine and

evaluate our progress (report in Appendix B-5). After her visit, the College expanded its

understanding of program review and the integration of reports, reviews, budgeting and

planning, resulting in the design of the revised Program Review Model.

section II: program review

action taken

Progress Report | Page 8

Spring 2004 Instructional Assessment

Program SLO Assessment

As established in the Unit/Area Program Review Policy, a committee of the Faculty Senate

implemented the review process for program SLO assessments. Instructional program assessment

activities were organized within degree programs. A detailed overview of the FSPRC procedures and

meeting minutes are included in Appendix B-6.

The Associate of Arts (AA) degree used the six AA Degree General Education Outcomes listed on

pages 58-59 in the

2003-2004 Catalog

. The AA program subcommittee of the FSPRC discussed,

prioritized, and selected 1-3 program student learning outcomes (SLOs) for each of the General

Education Outcomes on which to base their assessment.

With guidance from the Institutional Researcher and Banner Reports (Student Information System),

courses that represented those most likely to be taken by AA degree students were selected. The

reports, based on six semesters (F00, S01, F01, S02, F02, and S03), served as a basis to identify and

substantiate which courses would be appropriate for data sample/population in the AA assessment.

To address both depth and breadth of SLO assessment for the AA degree, selected General

Education SLOs for Critical Thinking, Quantitative Reasoning, Abstract Thinking and Written

Communication were measured across a range of disciplines. This activity is represented in

Chart A

below.

CHART A

AA Degree Gen Ed SLOs

Although assessment of Oral Communication and Information Retrieval & Technology focused on

one course each, plans include expansion over the disciplines in the future.

section II: program review

action taken–spring 2004 instructional

Progress Report | Page 9

For the Associate of Science (AS) and Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees, as well as

certificates constituent to them, the FSPRC subcommittees selected 1-3 program SLOs that related

to degree competency #8 (

2003-2004 Catalog

, page 64): “demonstrate competence in a selected

program/plan of study.”

A Program Assessment Reporting Form template was used to provide consistency in collection of

data. Program Assessment Reporting Form Template:

LCC Strategic Plan

Goal/Objective:

Unit/Area Review:

Mission/Purpose:

Goal/Objective:

Outcome

Measure

Definition of

Data

Sample

Population

Method of Data

Collection &

Source

Expected

Level

of Results/

Performance

Actual

Level of

Results/

Performance

Plan of Action

Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

The FSPRC reviewed each Assessment Reporting Form when the first four columns were completed

with the following information:

1. Outcome Measure(s)

2. Definition of Data Sample/Population

3. Method of Data Collection & Source

4. Expected Level of Performance

Completion of these columns was necessary for approval by the FSPRC. Assessment Forms that

were not approved were sent back for revision. Throughout the process, FSPRC members engaged in

discussion of the accuracy of describing outcome measures, selection of the data/sample population,

and the method of collection

FSPRC subcommittees submitted data results in May 2004 by completing column #5 (Actual Level

of Results/Performance). By the end of Spring 2004, 22 forms were submitted, with 17 approved.

All forms were uploaded onto the Assessment Website [http://campus.leeward.hawaii.edu/group.

asp?itemid=1000243] and are in Appendix B-7.

During the summer, the Institutional Researcher compiled the FSPRC assessment results into

Program Review Fact Book

. During Fall 2004, FSPRC subcommittees will analyze the data on

program SLOs and prepare action plans to be incorporated into the College’s

Strategic Plan

Data sets will be kept for 5-6 years.

section II: program review

action taken–spring 2004 instructional

Progress Report | Page 10

Sample of AA Degree SLO Assessment

Assessment of general education component of written communication

A total of 119 papers from Writing Intensive or other sophomore-level courses in varied

disciplines were collected during the second half of the Spring 2004 semester. These were

assessed by a cross-disciplinary group of faculty members using a faculty-designed rubric.

The following student learning outcomes were assessed (note: expected levels of performance/

actual level of performance follow each SLO):

1. Demonstrate overall competence in written communication at the college level

(70% /65%).

2. Express a main idea as a thesis, hypothesis, or other appropriate statement

(70% /70%).

3. Develop a main idea clearly and concisely with appropriate content (70% /64%).

4. Demonstrate mastery of the conventions of writing, including grammar, spelling,

and mechanics (70% /71%).

In Fall 2004, faculty members involved in the initial assessment activity will meet to discuss

how results of the study can be shared with the campus community as a way of stimulating

cross-campus discussions on bettering student writing and learning. Faculty members

will also consider changes that need to be implemented in writing instruction across the

disciplines to improve SLOs.

Sample of AS Degree SLO Assessment:

Accounting A.S.Assessment

Demonstrate competence in a selected program/plan of study (# 8)

Definition of Data Population:Accounting 124, 155, 132, 201

Program faculty members examined the work of all students in three accounting courses:

basic introductory courses (ACC 124, 201), a mid-stream course in the discipline (ACC

132) and the capstone accounting course (ACC 155) to gauge progress toward achieving

competence in the discipline. Student work was submitted to a faculty examining committee

consisting of the accounting full-time faculty. This committee employed a faculty-designed

rubric to review the work of students taking care that no faculty member reviewed the

work of their own students. The following student learning outcomes were assessed (note:

expected levels of performance/actual level of performance follow each SLO):

1. Analyze and compare financial statements (70% / 59%).

2. Solve accounting problems using an electronic spreadsheet (70% / 47%).

3. Demonstrate understanding of accounting terminology (70% / 72%).

4. Complete the payroll accounting process and prepare Hawaii General Excise

tax returns (70% / 81%).

section II: program review

action taken–spring 2004 instructional

Progress Report | Page 11

Outcome measures # 1 & 2 are drawn from the capstone course (ACC 155) taken by all

Accounting majors and these results will clearly provide discipline faculty with a challenging

opportunity for analysis of the rubric used and the results attained from their initial efforts

at assessment. Outcome measure # 3 is drawn from ACC 124 and ACC 201; Outcome

measure # 4 from ACC 132.

Spring 2004 Course Assessment

Division Chairs are responsible for the coordination of individual course assessment. The Assistant

Deans developed a separate template for course assessment. The Division Chairs created an

implementation timeline (Appendix B-4) that provides for assessment over a six-year cycle, enabling

assessment of 17% of the courses in their area per year.

Spring 2004 Support Area Assessment

Implementation of Support Area assessment began with each area:

1. Developing a mission statement for its operational area;

2. Establishing goals and objectives;

3. Selecting outcome measures;

4. Collecting data;

5. Analyzing and reporting on the results;

6. Developing action plans for the coming year.

Student Services

In the Fall 2003 semester, the Acting Dean of Student Services charged each Unit Head to develop

a mission statement that reflects the services offered by their respective units and ties in with the

Division’s Mission Statement. The process involved meetings between the Acting Dean and the Unit

Heads as a group and individual unit meetings to guide the process of assessing services beginning

with developing goal statements, student learning outcomes, deciding which goals should be

measured, and finally, developing an instrument to measure “expected” levels of performance against

“actual” level of performance.

Each Unit Head was given a copy of relevant material from the

Book of Professional Standards in

Higher Education

, published by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education

as reference material in developing their assessment activities. The Institutional Researcher (IR)

addressed a meeting of the Unit Heads to describe the assessment process. Unit Heads then met

individually with the IR for feedback with their mission statements, goals and objectives, and

outcome measures. These efforts resulted in completion of the Student Services Support Unit/Area

Reviews.

Reviews were completed for the following units: Admissions and Records, Financial Aid, Counseling

and Advising, Student Activities, and the Health Center. (See sample on page 13 and complete

assessment report in Appendix B-8.)

section II: program review

action taken: support areas

Progress Report | Page 12

Office of the Chancellor

Te units under the Chancellor include marketing, institutional research and fund development. Te

Marketing Officer developed a mission statement and objectives to conduct assessment of the unit’s

effectiveness, concentrating on efficiency of services provided to the campus. Additionally, informal

focus groups were convened to assess the qualitative aspects of marketing and publications

(Appendix B-9). Te Institutional Researcher worked with the Marketing Officer to design

and implement a survey of Summer Session students to determine the most effective means of

publicizing this income-generating segment of the College (Appendix B-9).

Academic Support

Te Assistant Dean of Academic Support, working with the seven Unit Heads of the area, has

established an Academic Support Budget Cycle (see page 28) consisting of distinct stages to

the process beginning with input from users and proceeding through planning, budgeting and

assessment stages. Although the services provided by the seven units may be distinctly different from

one another, the budget cycle follows uniform procedures that are keyed to the campus planning,

budgeting and assessment cycle. (Assessments data, Appendix D-4)

Administrative Services

Te Administrative Services area initiated assessments for: Operations and Maintenance, Human

Resources and Business Office. Administrative Services offered workshops and open forums for

the staff,

followed by meetings with unit heads to discuss unit functions. Each unit was asked to

determine whether they were performing those functions efficiently and effectively through analysis

of evidence. Each of the three units identified activities that were central to their mission and have

started to capture data.

Te specific areas of assessment are:

•

Hiring Process: how well are we doing with respect to hiring civil service support staff?

•

Financial Information: how effective and efficient are we in providing accurate and timely

financial information to program managers for decision making?

•

Facilities Maintenance: how can we improve the ongoing problem of water leaking into the

buildings from roof leaks and damaged drainpipes?

Te results of the Administrative Services unit reviews will be studied over a two-year cycle.

section II: program review

action taken: support areas

Progress Report | Page 13

Sample of Support Area Assessment:

Student Services: Counseling and Advising Unit Assessment

Between February 18 through April 30, 2004, Counseling and Advising administered a

two-page survey to students with scheduled appointments. The first page of the survey

had a list of options from which the student could choose questions they wanted answers to

and a second page that served as an evaluation of the session. Page one was completed prior

to the student’s counseling session. At the conclusion of the counseling session, students

returned to the waiting area and completed the second page of the assessment instrument,

which was an evaluation of the session. Page two of the survey also included a section that

allowed students to evaluate the counselor that they met with. Students could indicate their

perception of the counselor’s listening, understanding, and responding skills, and the general

rapport that was established during the session.

A total of 1378 students signed in for appointments during this time frame. Of this

number, 573 or 41.6 percent of the students completed the survey. (note: expected levels of

performance/actual level of performance follow measure.)

1. Students surveyed will indicate either “yes” or “I think so” response to receiving the

information for which they came (80% / 96%)

2. Students surveyed will indicate that they were satisfied with the counseling they

received (80% / 100%)

Student Services plans to continue administering the survey and use the results to determine

the types of professional development activities to conduct during the upcoming academic

year. They will also look at the comments for improvement from students and initiate

discussions during counseling meetings on ways to improve services to students.

section II: program review

action taken: support areas

Progress Report | Page 14

Fall 2004 Implementation:

In the process of applying the Policy on Unit/Area Program Review, College leadership realized that

expanding the approved assessment process into a meaningful program review would require some

changes.

In August, the College engaged Julie Slark, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Educational Services,

Rancho Santiago Community College District, as an assessment consultant to examine and evaluate

our progress (report in Appendix B-5). After her visit, the College has re-thought its understanding

of program review and the integration of reports, reviews, budgeting and planning.

The College needed to first determine its definition of “program,” and then to integrate instructional

and support area assessment with student needs and achievement data. College Leadership developed

a Program Review Model (Appendix B-2) to provide this integration and to guide decision-making

at all levels of the campus.

In defining “program,” the College was most interested in how efforts culminated and influenced

the whole student. Therefore, we defined “program” as our degrees. Initial energy focused on the

Associate in Arts Degree (AA), Associate in Science Degree (AS) and Associate in Applied Science

Degree (AAS). Another program defined is Continuing Education and Workforce Development,

which as we continue to improve and refine the Program Review Model and process, will develop is

own model for Program Review.

The components of revised program reviews are as follows:

•

Program Overview: General Description and Mission

•

Student Learning and Achievement: SLOs Assessment; Demographics; Student Needs;

Enrollment Data; Transfer Numbers and Efficiency; GPA, Course & Program Completion;

Retention & Persistence Rates

•

Faculty and Staff: Response to Mission, Professional Development

•

Curriculum: Innovations, Challenges, Issues, Trends

•

Support: Technology, Library & Learning Resources, Facilities, Marketing, Equipment,

Other Resources (Academic Support, Administrative Services, Student Services,

Chancellor’s Office)

•

External: Advisory Boards, Community Input, Job Outlooks, National Standards,

Specialized Accreditation

•

Summary

•

Action Plan

A schematic of this revised Program Review Model,

Chart B

, is found on the following page,

indicating that requests and initiatives from Program Review drives all Support Area reviews.

section II: program review

action taken: fall implementation

Progress Report | Page 15

CHART B

Revised Program Review Model

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Progress Report | Page 16

Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date

At the close of academic year 2003–04, 77% of all instructional program assessments (as defined by

the FSPRC) had completed approved assessment activities and 89% of support units had completed

area/unit reviews. The results were combined with student achievement data for the College’s

evolving Program Review.

Support Areas

# of

Units

Forms

Created

Forms

Approved

% approved

Data

Collected

Chancellor Office

33%

Academic Support

100%

Student Services

100%

Administrative Services

100%

Totals

89%

Instruction Program SLO Assessments

Degree & Certificate programs

Forms

Created

Forms

Approved

% approved

Data

Collected

Accounting (AS, CA)

Auto Tech (AAS, CA, CC)

Business Foundations (CCp)

Business Technology (AS, CA, CC)

Digital Art (ASC)

Digital Media (AS, CC, CCp)

E-Commerce (CCp)

Food Service (AAS, CA)

Hawaiian Studies (ASC)

Human Srvc-Subs.Abuse Counseling (CC)

Info & Computer Science (AS, CC)

Music (ASC)

Philippine Studies (ASC)

Pre-Business ((ASC)

Supervisory Management (AAS)

TV Pro (AS, CA, CC)

AA Degree: Gen Ed SLOs

Abstract Thinking

Critical Thinking

Information Retrieval and Technology