Carteret Community College Title III Grant

July 26, 2011

5 Years of Title III – Keough & Staub at N-L 2011

Five Years of Title III: Successes, Challenges, and Words from the Wise(er)

click on image to download ppt

Presenters:  Patrick Keough & Donald Staub – Carteret Community College

Presented at the Noel-Levitz National Conference on Student Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention in Denver on July 26, 2011.

The purpose of our presentation is to give a brief overview of what we have accomplished – qualitatively and quantitatively – through the course of the grant (which ends in September of this year).  To achieve the overall goal of increasing retention at the College, the grant has three primary objectives: Advising, Distance Learning, and Outcomes Assessment.  This presentation will highlight the retention efforts we have made in each of these three areas, with particular attention to the successes and challenges of implementing each.

The crux of the presentation will be the Learnings section: If you are looking down the barrel of a five-year T3 grant, and you asked me what I thought was important, I’d give you this list.

Getting started

• If you’re planning on proposing, do your best to name names – qualifications, etc…it shows you can hit the ground running.  It may also demonstrate commitment.

You’ve probably heard this already, but it really strengthens your proposal when you can say that you have qualified people ready to go as soon as the grant starts.  If you do have those positions filled, on paper, make sure you emphasize their qualifications and experience.  I can’t say to what degree this strengthened our application, but we already had a director of DL in place as we were writing the application (DL is one of our three objectives).  Again, we were able to highlight his qualifications.  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, it demonstrated institutional commitment.  We were not asking to fund yet another (high dollar) position that would need to be sustained down the road…the funding was already in place.

• BTW…we’re pretty efficient around here, and it still took us about three months to get the three key positions filled: Director, Instructional Technologist, Staff Assistant.  For us, the staff assistant was critical.  I cannot underestimate the importance of this position; do not make it an afterthought.  Key skills and qualities are: Attention to detail, Time management, Ability to work under pressure and short deadlines, Good with numbers, Organized, Courteous, Ability to deal with multiple personalities – our staff assistant deals with everyone from the president to the VPs, to ALL faculty and staff.

Over the course of the grant, our assistant did a lot of great things, but the thing that she was best at was the financials…not budgeting, but record-keeping, reporting (on a monthly basis), purchasing, tracking orders, and nipping at my heels when certain things needed to be taken care of (e.g. Budget revisions).

• Become friends with the Business Office – ours does the draw downs, budget revisions, and purchasing.

I have a colleague, who shall remain nameless, that directed a T3 grant at another community college.  Between IT and the Business Office at her school, it would take 18 months from PO to actual receipt of any computers ordered through the grant.  At our school, it generally takes about one month for turn-around.

This is partly because our Business Office is extremely efficient.  The other reason is that we have a solid relationship with our Business Office, and, by extension, the Administrative Services division.  It should be needless to point this out, but we all know that words and deeds do not always follow each other: Don’t butt heads with the people who control the flow of your resources.

You don’t need to shower them with gifts (although chocolate can go a long way!), however, my advice would be to don’t wait to speak with them until there is an eleventh hour emergency order.  In short: follow their guidelines and policies (even when they may be unwritten);  cultivate relationships – stop by and say hello when you’re in the neighborhood…it doesn’t always have to be work related; look for other ways to work together (In my case, I work with the staff on developing and assessing outcomes.  I also have found myself on committees, coincidentally, with some of the key players, allowing me to develop and strengthen relationships); and, don’t forget, they are people too who like to be appreciated – compliment the staff, praise them, and thank them vociferously – in person, in public, via email, or in a meeting.  There’s no need to be an apple polisher, but they are trying just as hard as you to do their job effectively.

• Become friends with HR – we have written well over 100 contracts in our five years of providing PD.  If we didn’t have a good working relationship with them, the last five years would have been miserable.

Likewise, HR is valuable to you.  They will help you hire key staff, and they will ensure that those paid via contract are processed in a timely manner.  The same philosophy holds true here as with the Business Office: These are folks who are trying their best to perform effectively.  Appreciation and praise (and sometimes, simple acquiescence) go a long way; conversely, conflict and antagonism will set you back…way back.  It’s like the old adage about the pedestrian crosswalk: you may have the right of way versus the oncoming car, but in the end, who really wins? (hint: the larger, more powerful force).

• Become friends with IR/IE – they have the data, which unlocks they door to successful APRs, and efficient monitoring of progress toward your objectives…and any other time you may need numbers.

• Evaluator – your evaluator, if s/he is good, is worth their weight in gold. And how do you know if you have a good evaluator?  For me,  the most important indicators are: How well does s/he know EDGAR?  (if they don’t know what EDGAR is, run in the opposite direction).  And, how good are they at reviewing your books?  And, the only real way to determine this is to find an evaluator who has deep T3 experience – as an evaluator and/or as a director (our evaluator has both!).  Our evaluator comes twice a year to check  on our progress, to look under the hood of compliance and to pull out the dipstick of our financial record-keeping.

Our evaluator and I made a presentation at the 2011 IDUES (T3 & T5 directors’) conference in D.C. [For full disclosure, I was not able to attend the conference/presentation…I was in Russia on a Fulbright].  Our presentation centered on the qualities of an effective evaluator and an effective relationship, between you and your evaluator.

Click on image to download ppt

In essence, the sooner you get your evaluator on board, the better.  In fact, in an ideal situation, the evaluator should be a key member of the grant writing team.  In addition, as I mentioned above, find someone who has a nose for compliance and good record keeping.

Your evaluator should be able to easily follow the trail of purchasing. If it’s confusing or incomplete, you need an evaluator who will candidly tell you so.  I always say: I’d rather have an ornery evaluator looking over my books than a nice auditor.

• Get the word out.

Quantity does not always equal quality.  In fact, I’d be the first to admit that of our three objectives (advising, assessment, and DL), Advising has been the weak link…and it doesn’t take much looking around on our blogs to figure this out.  Our T3 blog is Assessment-heavy, and DL has their own blog dedicated strictly to issues of DL at the College.  Nevertheless, this has not stopped us from trumpeting our work. And, I firmly believe that the grant and the College have benefitted from this.

How do we benefit from sharing and transparency?  The grant has benefitted through an ongoing, public dialogue that provides us with feedback on our implementation strategies.  Every blog posting, every conference presentation,** every podcast and webinar is an opportunity for us gain constructive input on our objectives. And, to boot, it increases positive exposure (we hope!) for the College.

Other ways of getting the word out include: Twitter (both through an account where I send out tweets, or through our blog – new posts are promoted through an auto tweet); Getting involved in state-wide organizations (I’m on the executive committee of the nascent North Carolina Community College Learning Outcomes Assessment Group); Sign up for the T3 listserv (a great way to answer questions and keep a finger on the pulse of all things T3…I’ve been introduced to a number of other directors via the list).  There are other possibilities as well: I’ve poked around on LinkedIn, but have been unsuccessful in discovering a T3 group – although it’s been about a year since I last looked for one.  Of course, let’s not forget Facebook (full disclosure: I don’t do FB, so I’m not sure of it’s capabilities in this regard).

Finally, and I truly believe this: It is valuable to keep your program officer in the loop.  He gets a CC whenever I send out an email to our advisory committee.  He also receives occasional notifications of new blog posts – just to remind him that we’re still blogging.  I don’t expect him to read and respond, but he has applauded us in person and publicly for our transparency.  My caveat here would be to ensure that your grant is on a solid foundation before attracting too much attention.

** this is our fourth Noel-Levitz presentation…and our second invitation to speak at this annual meeting.  Over the course of the grant, I have made 14 presentations at the national level; 10 at the state level.

Short- Mid-Term

• Sustainability (remember, this is a developmental grant)

Is it sustainable?  With any major investment of time or dollars, this was our guiding question.  It started with online tutoring, carried through to outcomes software, early alert, advising software, and most recently, Blackboard and Moodle.  In any one of the investments, we ran it through the test of: How much is this going to cost the College once the funding is gone? Can the College really afford this without T3?

More often than not (and increasingly so in years 3-5), the answer was No, the College cannot sustain this initiative beyond the life of the grant.  Therefore, the solution was generally: let’s do it ourselves.  This started with online tutoring, continued with outcomes, early alert, and advising software packages, and it has helped drive us from Blackboard to Moodle.  In each of these cases, we could have justified the start-up expense and utilized T3 funds to get us out of the box, but there would have been no way that we could have sustained the likes of SmartThinking or Weave Online.

We found ourselves developing solutions in- house that we could tweak as needed.  The conclusion has been a much greater ease of institutionalization.  For the instances where we needed software, we either dug a little deeper into our knowledge of existing software.  For instance, the web-based Datatel has the capability to serve as advising software.  It provides the functionality we need for advising, plus the learning curve for faculty and staff has been minimal because of their familiarity with Datatel.

• PD

For our grant, 20% (~$300,000) of our funding has been dedicated to Professional Development.  And, we can proudly say (I believe) that the lion’s share has been spent on giving faculty and staff the skills and expertise to more effectively perform their duties.  In other words, most of these dollars have gone toward sending faculty and staff to trainings, conferences, etc.  These folks, in turn, bring the knowledge or skill back to campus and share it with their colleagues.

What we have not done a lot of is bringing in the hired gun.  Our belief (one part cultural, one part philosophical, and one part fiscal decision-making) has been to develop and strengthen the expertise from within. So, let me break this down.

* One part cultural.

What we learned early on is that the campus culture did not respond favorably to external assistance.  You can’t be a prophet in your own land, but when we brought in a few hired prophets, they stoned him and her. I’ll be honest.  We brought in an excellent consultant from Noel-Levitz to conduct a preliminary analysis of our enrollment management and advising systems.  After he left and we were entertaining the notion of more intensive work with N-L, the push back was so intense that we had to scrap that idea.  We could not move people out of their defensive posture – when it came to someone from the outside analyzing their work.  We tried a different consultant, with the same results.  Our advice- do a cultural map before bringing in external support.

* One part philosophical.

At the same time, what we realized was that you can be a prophet in your own land.  You may not be the best prophet, but if it helps us move forward, let’s do it.  Therefore, we really turned our focus to sending faculty and staff out, and letting them bring the message home.  This has turned out tob quite effective.  Again, it’s not perfect, but after five years, the number of staff, full-time, and part-time faculty who have gained expertise, and who have something to teach, has spread to all corners of the campus.

The implicit message here is that our community is rather tight knit.  There are more than a few that call us a family – in the true sense.  We all know each other, we get along the best we can, but to some degree, like any healthy family, we are a little dysfunctional, plus we’ve got a few eccentric aunts and uncles.

So, for five years, quite a few of us have traveled to a number of state and local conferences together.  At last year’s state DL conference, 12(!) faculty and staff participated.  Two weeks ago, eight faculty and staff traveled together to an Institutional Effectiveness institute.  And, most importantly, it’s not always the usual suspects.

One additional, yet critical piece of our approach is accountability.  If T3 is putting resources into attending PD opportunities, then the faculty or staff member must understand that this is a reciprocal agreement; that the expectation is that the individual will “give back” by sharing knowledge, providing training, etc… This may take the form of actually providing a workshop, a brown bag luncheon discussion, or a post to the blog.  On paper, this looks great.  In reality, it’s been a different story.  If you take this approach, I urge you to set up a formal system of accountability.  Otherwise, you’ll spend a lot of time chasing folks who will give you nothing in the end.

* One part fiscal decision-making.

This is where we come back to the sustainability issue.  By putting faculty and staff in a position where they have to be active participants (i.e. they learn and then they must share), it reinforces the knowledge and skill that they are gaining.  By spreading this wealth, and by reinforcing it as often as possible (by either attending multiple PD opportunities, or by presenting the material back on campus), we are solidifying its place on our campus.  This creates a sustainable, relatively inexpensive source of knowledge, experience, and energy.

In the end, T3 catalyst for changing the attitude toward PD.  Whereas in the past it was viewed more as a receptive activity, the shift is on toward PD being more productive.

• Be a change agent.

Another important lesson. You may be in an enviable position.  You need to learn how to think and act like a faculty member (if you are not one already).  But, we all know that “faculty member” is not a monolithic concept.  There is wide variation in how faculty, and staff, perceive professional development.  I have learned that the more I interact with faculty and staff, particularly in a one-on-one (or very small group) situation, the better I am able to work effectively with them.  This is not say that I have them eating out of my hand (see my comment above about eccentric aunts and uncles), but by developing a rapport, I am able to converse more freely with a greater number.

Likewise, one valuable lesson I have learned about getting support for change is to communicate early and communicate often.  Our faculty (and I’m sure that some of yours too) must be organized…for months in advance.  We are working on the 2013-2014 calendar now.  Textbooks for SP 2012 need to ordered soon.  So, by asking them to “fill out this form and get it back to me by Friday” may be met by compliance, but it will not be met with quality, nor will it be met by joy.  The further out you can communicate an upcoming task, workshop, etc… and the better clarity you provide (give examples on how you want it done), the more smiling faces that will greet you when they see you coming.

But, it should not all be on you.  Administrative buy-in is key also.  Not as a hammer, but as a lever.  Administration is not just the president and relevant VPs…it includes deans and chairs as well.  Everyone has to buy in.  Conversely, the more disciples you create within the faculty, the more leverage you will have as well.  Patrick’s DL initiatives are always successful because they are mostly faculty-driven.

Long-Term

• Keep your eyes on the prize

As all of the stuff above suggests, sometimes it’s easier to focus on the details, and lose sight of the big picture.  Why are we doing this, anyway?  Keep in mind that this is a “Strengthening Institutions” grant.  In your proposal, you pointed out the major challenges at your school, and you said that “we’re going to do this, and this, and this to make us better.”   Ultimately, better at retaining students.  So, it all gets back to – and, along with “can we sustain this?” the other critical question when considering investment of resources is – What will this do for retention?  And, if you do a cost-benefit analysis, sometimes the answer is Yes, sometimes it’s No.

• Learn to be flexible

According to the rules, you must stick to your objectives.  If you want to change them, you need a very compelling reason to do so.  However, this is not say that you cannot change your strategy (one of the beauties of T3 funding and the flexibility provided).

One of our objectives is Advising.  In our proposal, we were going to develop an advising/counseling center (CAPS), directed by a full-time faculty member on release, and staffed with some part-time counselors. The faculty member driving this concept decided to return to full-time teaching shortly after the grant started.  No other faculty member was willing and able to assume this role, and we had not requested funds to hire a full-time staff member to take over the reins.  So, a little juggling of full-time counselors later, we were left with a solution that really did not work because the heart and soul and vision had left.  So, this objective floundered for two years.  Why, you ask?  Because we were consumed by our ten-year accreditation re-affirmation process, and the time and energy were not there to work a new solution.

In the fourth year of the grant (after we had successfully gained re-affirmation), we turned our attention once again to advising.  It was a major piece of our QEP (SACS), which had a different vision, and a different visionary than the original incarnation of our advising/CAPS center.

The moral of this story is that we knew we had to maintain our objective – Strengthen Advising – but we also knew that we desperately need to change how we were going to approach it.  This past year has been fast and furious in terms of re-designing, re-structuring, and re-tooling for a new-look advising.  We are sad at this point that the T3 funds will soon be out of reach, but we have made terrific strides because we were flexible in the way we approached this objective.

Advertisements

October 23, 2010

IUPUI Assessment Institute – 2010

Filed under: Conferences,Notes from the Project Director - Don Staub — Donald Staub @ 10:56 pm


On October 24th – 26th, I’ll be attending (and presenting at) the 2010 IUPUI Assessment Institute – “…the nation´s oldest and largest event focused exclusively on Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education.”  I’ll be reporting here on my interactions with the institute – my comments, questions, and observations.  I hope you’ll follow along.

The first thing I’ll be reporting on will be the pre-conference workshop:  Implementing Student Electronic Portfolios for Assessment

Followed by notes and commentary from these breakout sessions:

  • Panel Discussion (Linda Suskie – moderator): “Rethinking Assessment’s Purposes”
  • Breakout: Non-Cognitive Abilities and the First-Year Student: The Role of Assessment and Intervention (Gore)
  • Breakout: Online & Hybrid Courses: From the Students’ Perspective (Cook & Boldt)
  • Breakout: Assessing Online Courses and Online Evaluation Systems (Fatia & McGovern)
  • Breakout: Three Promising Alternatives for Authentic Assessment of SLOs (Banta, et. al)
  • Breakout: Assessing General Education: Mission Possible (Rose Carr & Stoudermire)

* * *

(more…)

April 20, 2010

the ipad pilot

Title III is going to run a pilot on the use of an ipad.

Here’s the plan.  Title III will purchase an i-pad.  The device will be on loan to a pilot group of faculty and staff for 2-week intervals. For those who participate, the expectation is that during the two-week period, that faculty or staff member will explore ways to help provide better instruction or service. At the end of the full pilot period, the group will convene and discuss the pros and cons of the ipad, and, if the overall consensus is positive, to consider a larger pilot program for staff and faculty.
Participants were required to submit the following to be considered for the pilot:

  • An indication of interest in participating in the project.
  • A brief (~200 word) description of what the faculty/staff member would explore (to improve instruction or service).
  • A promise to blog during the experiential two-week period.
  • A promise to come together and discuss experiences at the end of the pilot period.

Once we get the project up and running (i.e. once we get the ipad), you’ll be able to follow participant reflections/feedback here.

April 8, 2010

Title III Director’s Meeting Presentation

Here is the powerpoint presentation that Don Staub made at the 2010 Title III Directors’ meeting in Washington DC.

click on image to download ppt

By clicking on the image, you can download the powerpoint.  Below, is a list of items that have been developed during the course of the grant’s implementation.  All of these are for your taking.  Your comments and feedback on the presentation and/or the materials will be greatly appreciated.  Feel free to email me at: staubd@carteret.edu

click on image to download

  • Data points for data warehouse

click image to download

    March 15, 2010

    NC3ADL Presentation – Assessing Distance Learning

    click on the image to download the PPT

    On March 15th, I made a presentation on assessing Distance Learning at Carteret CC.  The framework for the presentation is the new set of guidelines that SACS has on their website for assessing DL.

    Artifacts mentioned in the presentation:

    In my presentation, I referred to a number of artifacts – but I only showed snapshots of them.  Here are some of them, more easily accessed:

    • SACS-COC document: Distance Education and the Principles of Accreditation

    • CCC-Distance Learning blog – which includes information on all of the bootcamps for training faculty.
    • The Quality Assessment Plan (QAP) for evaluating and certifying distance learning courses before they go “live”
    • A similar instrument – for assessing online courses – developed at Cal State Chico.

    • Rubrics used for discussion boards in DL courses.  Here are two examples: RCP 114 (Respiratory Therapy) and ART 111.

    May 13, 2009

    DL @ CCC

    Filed under: Notes from the Project Director - Don Staub,Presentations — Donald Staub @ 9:56 am

    Picture 1

    Click here to view powerpoint.

    Today I was asked* to make a presentation to the Carteret Rotary (Lookout Chapter) on CCC’s DL efforts…particularly in light of the support gained through Title III.  Here is my presentation on the the broad overview of DL, along with some interesting, relevant data on the topic.

    *Patrick was originally asked to make the presentation, but seeing as how he is vacationing in Ireland, he asked me stand in for him.

    February 23, 2009

    9th Annual Texas A&M Assessment Conference

    aggie-bonfire-memorialAggie Bonfire Memorial

    (Texas A&M…a marker for each student who lost her/his life, positioned so that they are looking toward that student’s hometown)

    9th Annual Assessment Conference
    Texas A&M University
    Feb 22-24, 2009
    Conference Title:  Using Assessment to Demonstrate Improvement

    I’m off to College Station, Texas to take part in this well-known, well-established conference on assessment in higher education.  I am really looking forward to it because of the array of sessions that have direct relevance to the assessment activities that we are putting in place (through Title III) at Carteret Community College.  I’m going to use this space over the next couple of days to report – both during and after – the sessions I am attending.    With a look at the agenda, here are the sessions that I plan on attending.

    Sunday February 22
    Pre-Conference Workshop (2:00-5:00)
    Program Assessment: What to Know, Do, and Avoid
    Instructor: Dr. Susan Hatfield; Winona State University

    Why I’ve signed up for this workshop –
    The brief description in the conference program promotes the workshop as a review of “best practices and bad ideas in program level assessment,” with an opportunity for participants to “consider what to assess, how to do it, and what it all might mean.”  This description is attractive to me on a number of levels.

    First, I have spent the last two years working on the Program Review process at CCC, and a lot of it has been learn-as-you-go.  This workshop will (I hope), give me an opportunity to explore this process (most likely in part, not in whole) in retrospect in a setting where ideas are shared by people from across the country who are in my shoes.

    Second, if it only focuses on Program Outcomes, that’s OK as well.  This is still a critical piece of the Program Review process, and it will play a larger role as we focus more creating a logical connection between program outcomes and funding.

    Finally, I am looking forward to this workshop because, as I mentioned above, I am keen on hearing how other schools are approaching this task – how they are defining Program Outcomes, how they are assessing them, and how they are meeting the challenges inherent in establishing such a systematic program.

    My post-session impressions –
    This was not as much about Program Review as it was about program level learning outcomes (PLLOs). Indeed, she spent a few minutes arguing how PLLOs were not program assessment [I can agree with the not program assessment part, but she did make it sound like never the twain shall meet…which I believe is inaccurate…PLLOs can very easily be a critical component of the review process…but that’s an argument for another day].

    The workshop presenter laid out a coherent description of why PLLOs, how to write PLLOs, and how to assess them.  She talked primarily from the perspective of one who must inspire faculty to action regarding PLLOs, including making persuasive speeches to faculty regarding the connections between, for instance, his/her activities and the program’s need/desire to receive funding for a particular project.

    We also talked a lot during this two-hour period about writing useful/articulate/concise outcomes.  What Susan spent a good deal of time on was curriculum mapping and rubrics.  She stressed the need to ensure that Program student learning outcomes were taught and assessed across the program. In connection to this, she talked about orphan outcomes or orphan courses – in either case, the PLLO is not assessed in a particular course (vertically – when looking at the completed map) or across a program (horizontally).  We are doing this to some extent, vis a vis the Gen Ed outcomes (ILLOs), and under Dr. Emory’s leadership and tutelage.

    For me, there were two important take-aways from this session: 1) the discussion on rubrics.  Susan talked about different types of rubrics (e.g. Analytic & Holistic…summative and developmental), but she also gave us a great resource, which is the link to her office’s website that has a great repository of rubric samples:
    http://www.winona.edu/air/rubrics.htm [While you’re at it, check out their Resources page…a little bit of everything IE, whether you are IE or are a part of the process:
    http://www.winona.edu/air/resources.htm ].

    2) The second take-away was, as it always is at conferences (which is why we go in the first place), the others at the round table.  The 200(?) people in the room sat at round tables, where they had randomly chosen to sit.  There were folks from Virginia, South Carolina, and Texas at our table. Rich discussions around all of the talking points took place. But the real gem for me was meeting the Assessment Specialist from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at the University of Richmond (VA).  Ashley showed me a copy of their Assessment Workbook (and told me how to find download it from their website: http://oir.richmond.edu/Assessment.htm (it’s under “Assessment of Academic Programs”).   Their plan is similar to the one we’ve developed, but I like the extra-added dimension of dissemination of findings.  In other words, let’s not let this sit on a shelf…let’s have a discussion.

    Below is a list of the sessions I intend to attend for the rest of the conference.  I’ll be checking in periodically and filling in the spaces with information about the sessions, along with my thoughts and Take-Aways.

    Monday February 23

    Plenary Speaker (9:00-10:30)
    Mary Allen,

    Prof. Emeritus, California State U.
    Former Director, CSU System Institute for Teaching & Learning

    Topic:  Assessing General Education Programs

    Description: designing and implementing effective General Education assessment programs.

    Powerpoint and handout can be downloaded HERE.

    Dr. Allen provided an engaging, 1.5 hour presentation on developing an effective Gen Ed assessment plan on campus.  She provided many definitions around assessment, talking about Program Assessment, learning outcomes, the curriculum map/matrix, assessment plans, and rubrics.

    Much of Dr. Allen talked about was familiar, and on the surface, not new.  However, for each of the areas she spoken on, she would add an interesting perspective or dimension.  When she talked about assessment (formative vs. summative) of learning outcomes, she framed it as a focus on “deep and lasting learning” versus “shallow and short-term.”  She stressed that assessment plans be: “Meaningful, Manageable, and Sustainable.”  The meaningful  and manageable seemed to be the thread that ran through the conference as most of the sessions addressed the need for buy-in if an assessment plan were to be successful.  Dr. Allen really emphasized these two points in order to make the process sustainable.

    Other important points she made (for me, at least) were:
    • Assessment plans should be multi-year and reasonable (again, the notion of creating buy-in).
    • Assessment plans should be perceived as “a series of incremental improvements to the program.”  This is critical because often people want to large gains, quick.  Slow and steady wins the race was her message here.
    • And the take away message for me was: When asking faculty to help read and score papers (for ILLOs, for instance), keep the numbers of papers low, get them in a room for an afternoon, train them, have them score the papers, discuss results (and use of) and let them go.  Get it done in the shortest time possible, and make sure they feel that they have done something meaningful.
    Session 1 (10:45-11:45)
    Ending the Paper Chase: Moving from Paper to Electronic Assessment Reporting

    SACS Roundtable
    12:00-1:30
    General Education Competencies: Reviewer Expectations

    Session 2 (1:30-2:30)
    Building a Technology-Supported Culture of Assessment: Software Readiness Considerations

    Session 3 (2:45-3:45)
    Vertical Assessment: From Assent/Ascent to Descent/Dissent

    Session 4 (4:00 – 5:00)
    Achieving Institutional Effectiveness with a Multi-Layer Strategic Planning Process

    Alternative:  Assessment to Promote and Sustain Online Programs

    Communities of Practice Dinner
    Classroom & Program Assessment

    Session 5 (8:00-9:00)
    QEP

    David Carter of SACS, spoke on the QEP.
    He talked primarily about the pitfalls that schools experience with their QEP plans.  I thought this one-hour presentation was both useful and interesting.  Particulary from the perspective of a school who is submitting it’s QEP plans within the next week (we hope!).

    You can simply check out his powerpoint slides at his website.  Or, if you want the full multi-media experience, I did record his talk.  You can listen to it at the CCC iTunes site (or download it to your ipod and listen to it during your next jog).

    To get the audio, go to:  The CCC iTunes Site
    Scroll down to the Title III repository (under CCC Community).  Click on the Title III Grant icon.  Then, click on the Title III Grant icon again and it will take you to a list of audio files.  The last one, the “QAP”  is the one you want.  Click on it to listen, or click on “get” to download it to your computer.

    p.s. if you go Dr. Carter’s website, you can download his lunch time plenary that he delivered on the day before on Gen Ed Competencies.  I don’t have the audio for this one.

    Plenary (9:15-10:30)
    Gloria Rogers
    Using Assessment to Drive Improvement without Driving Faculty Crazy!

    November 8, 2007

    Symposium on T3 – Denver, Colorado

    Filed under: Notes from the Project Director - Don Staub,T3 Presentations — Don Staub @ 11:13 am

    dondenver.jpgCCC Title III Project Director Don Staub and Patrick Keough, Distance Learning gave a a 90 minute presentation at the Symposium on Title III and Title V in Denver, Colorado. Don and Patrick essentially shared their first year journey and experiences with Title III and discussed how being awarded this grant has impacted outcomes assessment, distance learning and advising at Carteret Community College.
    patdon2.jpg
    Don and Patrick prepare for their talk

    Don Staub addressed the establishment of an infrastructure for the grant and how his T3 team implemented activities to successfully achieve its stated objectives for improving institutional assessment, distance learning and advising. They also discussed the importance of changing the culture at the college in order to get everyone on board and behind the various T3 initiatives. There was a great deal of interest from workshop participants about distance learning, especially our Blackboard Boot Camps and various professional development initiatives so we directed them to this blog and our DL training blog for more information.

    medenver.jpg

    It was great to hear positive comments and feedback about the presentation. Click here for Audio Podcast for their presentation is linked here.

    Click here to view the powerpoint presentation they made. Click here to view the various documents created during the Outcomes Assessment process.

    Our Blackboard Boot Camp training modules can be found at our DL Advisory Blog

    Don’s Debriefing
    This is the 2nd Noel-Levitz conference I have attended. Both times, N-L has provided an excellent professional development opportunity for those working on the challenge of retention. The organizers did a great job in offering a selection of presentations and workshops that range from the technical aspects of Title III administration (e.g. project evaluation, the annual review process; compliance; etc…), to case studies (e.g. first-year grant experiences), to activity-specific workshops (e.g. podcasting, establishing an advising center, etc…). Overall, it’s been a very insightful and practical conference.

    At a different level — and this, we all know, is the real value of attending a conference — it is the connections and networking that really make the conference. We were very fortunate to meet T3 administrators from two other NC colleges: Forsyth Tech (check out their T3 project) and Rockingham CC. I was able to spend considerable time with administrators from both of these projects – both of which are in their 3rd+ years. The foundation has been laid and we’ll be making visits to both — especially to Forsyth where their project is an advising center.

    Overall, I am returning to Carteret County with feelings of excitement and accomplishment. After our presentation, and hearing those of other schools, I am confident that our project is well on its way, particularly given that it is only our first year. I also learned a lot about compliance and management that I did not know before, so I’m looking forward to adding a few pages to the administration play book.

    Thanks very much to Patrick for all his energy and enthusiasm in making our presentation a success, and for spreading the word of CCC’s accomplishments.

    March 3, 2007

    Institutional Learning Outcomes

    We’ve spent the last two weeks focusing on Institutional Learning Outcomes, and I’m extremely proud to report that college-wide participation has been fantastic. We started by holding three “forums” to discuss the importance of ILOs, outline the process of choosing ILOs for CCC, and then explore examples of ILOs that other schools had implemented. All three forums were standing room only!

    We then emailed out a list of 16 potential ILOs for CCC, and asked everyone to pick their top five. We had a tremendous response rate…over 80(!!) faculty and staff responded to our call to action by 5pm Friday. Click here for a complete list of potential ILOs, along with brief descriptors of each.

    Here are the final numbers (with no hanging chads):

    The Top-Five ILOs for CCC:
    3. Communication (76) (many thought that #16-Writing should be included in this category)
    4. Critical Thinking (70)
    5. Computer Literacy (59)
    11. Personal Growth & Responsibility (50)
    10. Information Literacy (38)

    The full run down:
    1. Act (17) (one respondent wanted this to include “ethically”)
    2. Apply (11)
    3. Communication (76)
    4. Critical Thinking (70)
    5. Computer Literacy (59)
    6. Cultural & Social Understanding (17)
    7. Environmental Stewardship (17)
    8. Explore the Fine Arts & Humanities (6)
    9. Globalization (7)
    10. Information Literacy (38)
    11. Personal Growth & Responsibility (50)
    12. Quantitative Reasoning (16)
    13. Research (9)
    14. Scientific Reasoning (5)
    15. Value (27)
    16. Writing (28)
    17. Write- ins (2)
    * CCC graduates will have basic 21st Century job skills including adaptability, flexibility, resiliency, and the ability to accept ambiguity;
    * Compassion: students will leave this institution with compassion for their fellow man, which will motivate them to think of the needs of many; before and as often as they think of their needs.

    Next up? We will identify a committee that will work on defining and refining the top-five ILOs. From these definitions, rubrics and assessment plans will be developed to take this process to the next level. Stay tuned!

    February 21, 2007

    NC3ADL

    Filed under: Notes from the Project Director - Don Staub — Don Staub @ 7:54 am

    Just back from the North Carolina Community College Association of Distance Learning conference in Durham. I was able to attend with Patrick Keough (Distance Learning Director), Laurie Freshwater (Allied Health Division Director), and Mary Walton (Business Technologies area coordinator).

    I thought it was a great conference to attend because it allowed us to see what other NC community colleges are doing in the way of DL, and how we stack up. And, my estimation, based on the presentations I saw: we are very near the head of the pack. And if you take into account the size of our school, we are definitely leaders in DL for NC community colleges.

    I was able to attend sessions that discussed everything from SACS and DL to internal review of DL courses to inspiring more podcasting by faculty. Without a doubt, Patrick’s presentation with Roberto Mufelleto (ASU) entitled Surviving (and Excelling) in the digital Terrain was the hit of the party. Standing room only with a lively discussion. Patrick did CCC proud!

    A very interesting session was Melissa Vrana’s (CPCC) Creating a Quality Review Process and eLearning Community for Faculty. Melissa talked about CPCC’s elearning Quality Initiative. A voluntary activity through which faculty can have their online courses reviewed by peers and instructional technologists for online-related factors (i.e. not for content). They use a pretty extensive rubric to evaluate their courses. I am working with Patrick on developing a similar model at CCC.

    All in all, a great conference…we even had fun when we were rushed out of the hotel at 5:00 a.m. for a fire alarm!

    Next Page »

    Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.