Achievement Goals and Results

Goal Statements

1. SPC students will complete an associate degree programs in the arts and sciences that successfully prepare students for university transfer into baccalaureate degree programs.

 

Associate Degrees Awarded Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Summer I&II 2014
Associate of Arts	188
Associate of Applied Arts	17
Associate of Applied Science	259
Associate of Art in Teaching	41
Associate of Science	211
Total Associate Degrees Awarded	716

 

 

Graduation Rate of First-time, Full-time, Credential-seeking Students after 3, 4 and 6 Years
	SPC		Peer Group  Average
Cohort & Duration	Cohort	Rate	Cohort	Rate
Fall 2010 3- year	1636	18.3%	1441	14.0%
Fall 2008 4-year	1517	22.6%	1398	20.4%
Fall 2007 6-year	1457	32.9%	1151	32.8%
Data from the THECB website South Plains College online resume

 

Percent of Students Who Transferred to a Four-year institution with Less Than 30 SCH and 30 SCH or More
	Institution		Peer Group Average
Year	Less Than 30 SCH	30 SCH or More	Less Than 30 SCH	30 SCH or More
FY 2008	24.8%	15.0%	14.1%	18.7%
FY 2012	26.7%	20.9%	20.9%	19.3%
FY 2013	7.4%	21.3%	9.3%	19.5%
Data from the THECB website South Plains College online resume

 

Success Points	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013
Annual Success Point Total	14516.5	11937.3	15080.0
Math Readiness	432.0	429.0	389.0
Read Readiness	168.0	205.0	180.0
Write Readiness	157.0	172.5	182.0
Students Who Complete 15 SCH	3665.0	3194.0	3200.0
Students Who Complete 30 SCH	2202.0	2036.0	1974.0
Students who Transfer to a 4-year institution	2376.0	2556.0	2536.0
Students Who Pass First College-Level Math Course	1407.0	550.0	1737.0
Students Who Pass First College-Level Read Course	1180.5	221.0	1256.5
Students Who Pass First College-Level Write Course	894.5	348.5	1326.0
Degrees, Core Curriculum or Certifications (Unduplicated)	1508.0	1692.0	1800.0
Degrees or Certificates in Critical Fields	526.5	533.3	490.5
Data from the THECB accountability system

 

1. SPC students will complete certificate and associate degree programs in career and technical education areas that equip students with skills, attitudes, and aptitudes necessary for gainful employment, for professional certification or for advanced study.

Degrees and Certificates Awarded Fall 2013, Spring 2014 and Summer I&II 2014
Associate of Arts	188
Associate of Applied Arts	17
Associate of Applied Science	259
Associate of Art in Teaching	41
Associate of Science	211
Certificate Level 1	573
Certificate Level 2	81
Total Degrees and Certificates	1370

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduation Rate of First-time, Full-time, Credential-seeking Students after 3, 4 and 6 Years
	SPC		Peer Group  Average
Cohort & Duration	Cohort	Rate	Cohort	Rate
Fall 2010 3- year	1636	18.3%	1441	14.0%
Fall 2008 4-year	1517	22.6%	1398	20.4%
Fall 2007 6-year	1457	32.9%	1151	32.8%
Data from the THECB website South Plains College online resume

 

Success Points	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013
Annual Success Point Total	14516.5	11937.3	15080.0
Math Readiness	432.0	429.0	389.0
Read Readiness	168.0	205.0	180.0
Write Readiness	157.0	172.5	182.0
Students Who Complete 15 SCH	3665.0	3194.0	3200.0
Students Who Complete 30 SCH	2202.0	2036.0	1974.0
Students who Transfer to a 4-year institution	2376.0	2556.0	2536.0
Students Who Pass First College-Level Math Course	1407.0	550.0	1737.0
Students Who Pass First College-Level Read Course	1180.5	221.0	1256.5
Students Who Pass First College-Level Write Course	894.5	348.5	1326.0
Degrees, Core Curriculum or Certifications (Unduplicated)	1508.0	1692.0	1800.0
Degrees or Certificates in Critical Fields	526.5	533.3	490.5
Data from the THECB accountability system

 

             

Retention of First Time in College (FTIC) Students
Fall 2012 to Spring 2013	73.58%
Fall 2012 to Fall 2013	45.00%
Fall 2013 to Spring 2014	72.61%
Fall 2013 to Fall 2014	45.58%

               

 

 

1. SPC students who are underprepared for college will complete developmental, adult literacy, and basic skills programs designed to assist those students.

 

Success Points	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013
Math Readiness	432.0	429.0	389.0
Read Readiness	168.0	205.0	180.0
Write Readiness	157.0	172.5	182.0
Data from the THECB accountability system

 

 

Percent of Students completing Developmental Education Courses
	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014
ENGL 0301	81.85%	80.84%	85.88%	85.34%
ENGL 0302	83.78%	79.33%	90.88%	86.47%
MATH 0310	82.99%	76.43%	74.45%	75.45%
MATH 0315	75.47%	75.00%	74.51%	67.12%
MATH 0320	76.62%	74.66%	71.90%	70.36%
READ 0301				87.10%
READ 0310	90.20%	89.62%
READ 0320	85.19%	86.51%	88.61%
READ 0420				92.31%

 

Percent of Students Successfully (Grade a, B, c) completing course
	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014
ENGL 0301	45.21%	53.89%	58.31%	58.65%
ENGL 0302	56.61%	54.71%	66.62%	64.45%
MATH 0310	46.67%	44.14%	44.95%	44.35%
MATH 0315	38.26%	37.72%	43.24%	37.81%
MATH 0320	41.31%	41.25%	37.52%	34.53%
READ 0301				61.72%
READ 0310	60.29%	64.15%
READ 0320	58.16%	59.27%	55.76%
READ 0420				69.23%

 

General Education Core Curriculum Competencies (2013-2014)

• Communicate and collaborate effectively
• Apply critical thinking and problem-solving skills to the real world
• Demonstrate an understanding of visual and performing aesthetics and the creative process
• Understand civic and personal responsibility in our global society
• Use technology in personal endeavors
  

 

Communication Competency Assessment

 Assessment and analysis of attainment of the college-level communication competency has been conducted twice in the past four years, once in 2009 and again in 2011. The 2009 assessment identified five college-level learning objectives for examination and evaluation.

1. Standard English
1. Students display that they have working knowledge of grammatically correct sentences, proper, concrete, and specific word choice.
2. Accurate punctuation and spelling.
2. Clear Organization and Development of Ideas
1. Students will write a clear introduction, conclusion, and thesis statement.
2. These statements should contain a statement of main idea, multiple paragraphs, thoughts with topic sentences and effective details where appropriate.
3. Reading with Comprehension
1. Students will display an understanding of written material for textbook assignments, written instructions or test questions.
4. Active Listening
1. Students will show an understanding of oral instructions, appropriate focus on and in response to the speaker and message.
5. Appropriate Verbal and Nonverbal Attitude
1. This would include appropriate facial expressions, gestures, behavior and demeanor, and general appearance. (The fifth objective was omitted from the study due to the sample set submitted.)

To assess student achievement for this competency, faculty submitted student writing samples from class assignments. The primary requirement for the artifacts that were collected was that they be an assignment used in determining a student’s final grade in the course. Samples were collected from all modalities of instruction: traditional face-to-face lecture, interactive two-way video, and courses offered through online instruction. Of the artifacts submitted, 42 samples were randomly selected for assessment.

Applying the rubric for assessing the writing samples faculty conduced a blind scoring of the samples. Mean averages were computed for each learning objectives on a scale of 1.0 to 4.0, with 1.0 indicating Weak competency attainment and 4.0 indicating Proficient attainment. Table A provides the data results of the assessment for the 2009 Communication assessment.

 

 

Table A

Assessment Results for Communication Competency

Communication Competency	Measures	2009 N=42	2011 N=142
Standard English	Mean	3.22	2.89
	Standard Deviation	0.45	0.75
	Sample Variance	0.20	0.56
	Skewness	-0.91	-0.28
Clear Organization and Development of Ideas	Mean	3.26	2.85
	Standard Deviation	0.45	0.68
	Sample Variance	0.20	0.47
	Skewness	-0.94	-0.08
Reading with Comprehension	Mean	3.50	3.10
	Standard Deviation	0.44	0.72
	Sample Variance	0.19	0.51
	Skewness	-1.52	-0.52
Active Listening (2009) Style (2011)	Mean	3.69	3.07
	Standard Deviation	0.54	0.71
	Sample Variance	0.29	0.50
	Skewness	-3.30	-0.41
Source: Arts and Sciences Division Assessment Reports

 

All four objectives met the Acceptable attainment benchmark of 3.0. Values of the standard deviation, variance, skewness/kurtosis were calculated to ensure reliability and validity of the data. For all four objectives, the standard deviation was less than 1.0 indicating a small spread to the data. The variance ranges from 0.20 to 0.29, which indicates the results are close together. Skewness/kurtosis values indicate that the scores with the highest results will lie to the right of the Mean. The majority of the scores are higher, therefore would be directed to the right. A complete statistical analysis of the study was prepared by the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences and distributed to departmental chairperson.

The second assessment of college-level Communication competency followed in the Spring 2011 semester. The same method of collecting artifacts was employed, and the criteria for submission remained the same as in the first study. The Assessment Team approved modifications to the rubric, and four objectives for examination and evaluation were identified:

1. Standard English
1. Students will demonstrate that their vocabulary is varied and carefully chosen.
2. In addition, sentence structure, mechanics and punctuation are accurate.
2. Organization and Development:
1. Students will demonstrate that the thesis and purpose are logically, coherently and explicitly stated.
2. The central idea is clearly focused and effective. All supporting details are specific and clearly contribute to the central idea.
3. Paragraph structure is logical. Transitions consistently and effectively support the central idea.
3. Reading with Comprehension:
1. Students will show that content demonstrates that all written instructions, questions, or other directives were understood and/or followed.
   

4. Style:
1. Students will show that style is appropriate, effective, and engages intended audience.

Changes were made in selecting and distributing the artifacts for assessment. These changes included:

• A course-based stratified sampling of artifacts was conducted.
• Students who had less than 15 semester hours of general education course work were omitted from the random sampling; samples that did not meet the criteria of the study were also omitted.
• Once the samples were selected and set, they were once again randomized so that the evaluator would not get all of one subject area and be able to interject bias in the assessment.

The sample included 142 artifacts and descriptive statistics were calculated for each learning objective as presented in Table A.  Means for the four areas ranged from 2.84 to 3.10 on the attainment scale of 1.0 Weak to 4.0 Proficient. Organization and development for writing had the lowest Mean score (2.85), with reading comprehension exhibiting the highest (3.10). The standard deviations for all four objectives were closer to one than zero, indicating a larger spread of variability. The variance of the data set ranged from .47 to .56 and indicated that data values were more dispersed than the first study. Kurtosis/Skewness analysis also indicated that data for the categories was negatively skewed.

With two sets of assessment data, the Assessment Team was able to conduct a comparative analysis of the results, which is reported as follows. This analysis confirmed the validity of the methodology and also statistically verified the observed differences between the two data sets in order to determine potential areas for improvement.

Mean: The Means for both years range from a low of 2.84 (Yr. 3/Org. Dev) to a high of 3.7 (Yr. 1/Active Listening) on a 1.0 to 4.0 scale. The 2.84 was below the mean average (3.0), while the 3.7 was above. Year 1 has the higher mean consistently over the results of Year 3 in all four areas that were to be assessed. This indicates that faculty scored the student samples at a higher level in the first year.

Standard Error of the Mean: Whereas the SD estimates the variability in the study sample, the SEM estimates the precision and uncertainty of how the study sample represents the underlying population. Standard error should decrease with larger sample sizes, as the estimate of the population mean improves. Standard deviation will be unaffected by sample size. The range of the SEM for both years for this study is 1. As true for both years, as the value of the mean increased, so did the SEM, which showed a direct relationship. Overall, Year 3 had a larger sample set (142); therefore the SEM was consistently lower than in Year 1, with a smaller sample set (42) in all areas. This data supports the observation that as the sample size increases, the SEM will decrease, showing an inverse relationship.

Standard Deviation: The average mean for both years is 2.84 (Yr. 3/Org. Dev) to a high of 3.7 (Yr. 1/Active Listening) on a 1.0 to 4.0 scale. The standard deviation is closer to zero than one in Year 1 and shows a smaller variability. In Year 3, a larger variability was present because the results were closer to one than zero.

Variance: This number indicates how far a set of numbers is spread out and how far it lies from the mean. The Mean in all eight areas is 3.0. The variance ranges from .203 to .291 for Year 1, but .465 to .560 for Year 3. This indicates that there was a wider spread of scores for Year 3 than Year 1.

Skewness: Both years show to be a negative number, which demonstrates that the majority of the values lie to the right of the Mean. This can also be verified by examination of the histograms. Year 1 has larger values than Year 3, which would be logical due to the Mean being higher for that year. This supports the observation that students scored higher on their evaluations in Year 1 than in Year 3.

However, due to the irregularities in Year 1, this may not be a true indicator. The lack of the weighted average would have an effect on the overall samples. If one particular sample assignment was selected multiple times, and not correctly weighted in alignment with the overall percentage, then that will alter the Mean and make it higher than it should be. Another consideration is the difficulty or ease of the assignments. If there were easier assignments from a particular curriculum area that were sent to multiple reviewers, then that would have an effect on the outcome. This reinforces the importance of using the weighted average in the sample set.

Kurtosis: (Degree of Peakedness in the Histogram) In both years, and in all eight histograms, they show a peak to the right indicating a negatively skewed distribution. This supports the finding for the degree of skewedness.

These results were compiled into a comprehensive report that was produced by the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences and distributed to the Assessment Team and to department chairpersons

 

Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, Technical Literacy Competency Assessment

The Arts and Science Division conducted the assessment of college-level critical thinking, problem solving, and technical literacy skills at the end of the 2010 spring semester. The objectives of the study for each area included the following:

1. Critical Thinking
1. Comprehends and synthesizes information and reaches a logical conclusion
2. Evaluates various resources and extracts pertinent information
2. Problem Solving:
1. Comprehends and defines the problem
2. Reviews problem and develops possible solutions
3. Evaluates results and presents findings
3. Technical Literacy:
1. Demonstrates ability to use computer hardware
2. Uses programs appropriate to the course (Word, Excel, etc)
3. Demonstrates ability to conduct basic research, including the use of the library resources and appropriate search engines
4. Uses e-mail appropriately

Collection of artifacts and sampling techniques employed were similar to those employed during the first college-level Communication assessment. Faculty submitted student writing samples from class assignments that were scored against an established rubric. The primary requirement for artifacts that were collected was that the artifact should be an assignment that was used in determining a student’s final grade in the course. Samples were collected from all modalities of instruction: traditional face-to-face lecture, interactive two-way video, and courses offered through online instruction.

As with the Communication assessment, the Assessment Team established a benchmark score of 3.0 for each learning objective to indicate that students had attained an Acceptable level of proficiency. Table B presents the assessment data that was tabulated. The Mean for each learning objective met the 3.0 Acceptable benchmark for competency attainment.

                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                           

Table B

Assessment Results for Critical Thinking, Problem Solving and Technical Literacy Competencies

Statistics	Critical Thinking	Problem Solving	Technical Literacy
Mean	3.07	3.03	3.02
Standard Deviation	0.73	0.77	0.81
Sample Variance	0.54	0.59	0.66
Skewness	-0.57	-0.74	-0.75
Source: Arts and Sciences Division Assessment Reports

Values of the standard deviation, variance and skewness/kurtosis were calculated to ensure reliability and validity of the data. The standard deviation was observed to be closer to one than zero, indicating a wider spread of variability. The variance ranged from 0.54 to 0.66 and indicated a wider spread of the data. Results of the assessment were compiled into an analysis report.

 

Technical Skills Assessment

Uncertain of its results indicating attainment of technical literacy skills, the Arts and Sciences Assessment Team conducted a second assessment of Technical Literacy skills in the 2012 spring semester. Following a review of the literature, the Assessment Team chose to conduct an indirect assessment in order to triangulate data and validate the assumptions of the prior assessment. Rather than selecting a sample set for a limited number of faculty to assess, faculty satisfaction with student knowledge and use of technology in completing class assignments was surveyed. This differed from the studies conducted during the previous three years of assessment in that more faculty had the opportunity to participate. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 93 faculty members participated in the survey.

For purposes of the assessment, the following modalities of instruction were defined:

• Traditional (F2F) – Instruction is delivered in the traditional classroom setting with scheduled meeting time.
• Online – Instruction is delivered entirely through the online format using the learning management system Blackboard or other course specific software.
• Hybrid – Instruction is delivered using both traditional and online formats.

The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate (from the instructor’s viewpoint) the student’s ability to demonstrate the following tasks within the above listed combinations of instructional delivery:

• Demonstrate the ability of the student to use the computer in conjunction with an academic course through Internet access.
• Demonstrate the ability of the student to use the appropriate programming skills (MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Blackboard, Internet, E-Mail, File Attachments and Instant Messaging).
• Evaluate the amount of time per week faculty spend on assisting students with technology issues not related to their course.
• Evaluate the amount of time per week that faculty assist students with issues that directly relate to their course.
• The amount of technology required by faculty in their courses (MyMathLab, SAM, Maple, etc.).
• Overall satisfaction of faculty with student performance in all areas of technology.

To make the survey results manageable, three delivery areas were selected to evaluate the results more specifically. Those areas were: Traditional/F2F, Traditional/Online, Traditional/Hybrid.

Within these delivery areas, the following areas were evaluated:

• If the particular course required technology.
• If the course required Blackboard or a specific software.
• If the student had the needed skills or not.
• The amount of time spent assisting the student with course and non-course related technology issues both outside and during class time.
• Instructor satisfaction with student performance managing MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Blackboard, the Internet, instant messaging and the use of clickers.
• Overall satisfaction with the technology skills of students.

The results were tallied and percentages derived from the outcomes. Table C provides an overview of the primary assessment results.

Table C

Assessment Results of Technical Literacy Competency, Spring 2012

Survey Element	Face to Face (F2F)	F2F Hybrid	F2F Online
Course requires use of technology	80%	100%	95%
Course requires use of Blackboard resources	40%	80%	90%
Course requires use of textbook software package	15%	60%	20%
76-100% of students have technical skills required for course	50%	70%	15%
51-75% of students have technical skills required for course	20%	30%	50%
Instructor spends class time teaching required technology	60%	90%	75%
Overall satisfaction with student’s technology skills (Satisfied to moderately satisfied)	90%	100%	80%
Source: Arts and Sciences Division Assessment Reports

 

An analysis of the results that have been compiled for review by the Assessment Team noted the following observations and conclusions:

• The survey revealed that the majority of instructors use technology in their courses. The lowest percentage (80%) was in the area of F2F.
• Students taking hybrid class (combination of F2F and online) are expected to use technology in the course. 100% of faculty respondents make this requirement for students.
• Of the instructors teaching only F2F classes, only 40% of those instructors are using Blackboard as a supplemental form of instruction. This increases with Hybrid (80%) and online classes (90%). The expectation is that both online and hybrid courses would show a usage of 100%. There can be two explanations for this difference. Either instructors are using some format of instruction other than Blackboard, or there was a mistake made in understanding and answering the question by the participants.
• One of the main objectives of this survey was to evaluate the working knowledge of technological skills that students bring to their courses. The first question addressing this assessment was general and rated by percentage, with no specific skills listed. The F2F and F2F/Hybrid response was rated the highest, with 50% and 70% of students respectively, having 76-100% of the skills needed for their courses. These areas have a lower level of technological skills needed because of the stronger F2F factor present in both groups. The F2F/Online showed a satisfaction rate (50%) in the 51-75% area, showing a 25% reduction from the other two delivery methods. These results seem to be logical because the F2F/Online course would require more online skills.
• Within the F2F classes, 60% of the instructors stated they spend time in class teaching technology required for the course, as compared to the F2F/Hybrid (90%) and online students (75%), receiving on average 1-2 hours of instruction weekly. This same amount of time (1-2 hrs.) is consistent with the number of hours that instructors spent teaching technology to students that is course-related in all three delivery areas.
• The skill level evaluated in specific areas such as MS Word, Excel and PowerPoint shows little consistency between the F2F, Hybrid and Online courses. The highest satisfaction score for MS Word is in the F2F/Hybrid course, with a 70% satisfaction rate. However, that same level of satisfaction decreases to 30% for both the F2F and F2F/Online classes. There is a split on the assessment results for the satisfaction rating on PowerPoint, with the highest ranking going to “Does Not Apply” (DNA) for F2F and Online classes, but at a 50% satisfaction rate for F2F/Hybrid. Online classes that require meeting dates (one way of making them Hybrid) are usually for the purpose of F2F presentations in such subject areas as music, speech, and education, where student presentations requiring PowerPoint would be used. This would account for the increased satisfaction and usage of PowerPoint in the F2F/Hybrid area.
• All three areas rated the student knowledge and skill level of Internet usage as satisfactory. The highest score for both instant messaging and for the use of clickers in the classroom was the DNA category. Both of these areas are quick feedback indicators, and the high DNA and Did Not Answer status indicates that instructors are not using these means of communication.
• The overall satisfaction of faculty with the student’s technology knowledge is only at the satisfactory level (80%) for the F2F/Hybrid classes. Both F2F and F2F/Online classes showed a satisfied level of 40% and 15%, respectively, with student technology skills.

The Arts and Science Assessment Team is scheduled to review the assessment analysis report for Technical Literacy during the 2013 spring semester and to offer recommendations for improvement.

 

Creative Process Competency Assessment

The Assessment Team conducted an assessment of the Creative Process Competency in Spring 2011. The learning objectives for the competency were defined as follows:

1. Understanding of the Creative Process
1. Demonstrates awareness of the scope and variety of works in arts and humanities
2. Demonstrates awareness of the influence of arts and humanities on human values
3. Demonstrates knowledge of the influence of literature, philosophy and/or the arts on intellectual experiences.
2. Critical evaluation:
1. Responds critically to works in the arts and humanities
2. Articulates an informed personal reaction to works in the arts and humanities

Following the same assessment methodology, student writing samples were requested from all instructors at all instructional locations and through all modalities of instruction. A scoring rubric  was developed so the student artifacts could be scored by faculty evaluators. A Mean score of 3.0 Acceptable was established to indicate attainment of the competency. After all samples were collected, it was determined that too few met the criteria for assessment. Faculty submitted student work which was artistic in nature but did not address the learning outcomes identified on the rubric. As a result, the assessment of the competency was rescheduled for Spring 2013. To produce a measurable sample, a select group of classes will be identified and asked to participate in providing writing samples to which students will respond to a prompt that will better address the outcomes for the competency.

During Spring 2013, the Assessment Team identified a small student group for a pilot study. The study focused on students in sophomore English and government courses from all SPC locations and all modalities of instruction. In addition, instructors were given materials that provided background on creative thinking, instructions that directed instructors to discuss creative thinking with their students, and sample prompts for writing assignments that would address the learning outcomes.

The learning objectives for the Creative Process competency were defined as follows:

1. Understanding of the Creative Process
1. Demonstrates awareness of the scope and variety of works in arts and humanities and demonstrates awareness of the influence of arts and humanities on human values
2. Demonstrates knowledge of the influence of literature, philosophy and/or the arts on intellectual experiences.
2. Critical evaluation:
1. Responds critically to works in the arts and humanities
2. Articulates an informed personal reaction to works in the arts and humanities

Instructors submitted student artifacts from which a random and stratified sample of artifacts was selected for assessment. An assessment team used the Creative Process scoring rubric with a Likert scale of 1 to 4, where 1 indicated Weak: little or no evidence and 4 indicated Proficient competency. The benchmark mean score identified was 3.0, Acceptable: detailed and consistent evidence, for each of the learning outcomes. Table D Assessment Results for the Creative Process and Table E Percentage of Students Meeting Benchmark of 3.0 or Greater present the results of the assessment.

Means were calculated for each of the learning objectives based on the rubric scores of the student artifacts. The student cohort as a whole failed to meet the 3.0 benchmark for the objectives. Values of the standard deviation, variance, and skewness/kurtosis were calculated to ensure reliability and validity of the data. The standard deviation was observed to be closer to one than zero, indicating a wider spread of variability. The variance ranged from 0.78 to 0.81 and indicated a wider spread of the data.

 

Assessment confirmed that a majority of students were unable to demonstrate an Acceptable rating on any of the outcomes for the Creative Process. Moreover, in three of the four outcomes, the percentage of students meeting an acceptable rating was less than 30%.

Assessment of Personal Responsibility

Assessment of the Personal Responsibility Competency was based on two areas of Self-Efficacy Theory. The assessment set out to measure a student’s ability to gain and acquire knowledge independently and measure a student’s motivation to address issues on his or her own behalf.

An 11-statement survey was designed to measure the agreement of South Plains College staff in Admissions and Records, Financial Aid, and Counseling Center offices. There were five statements for each area, independence and motivation, which included keywords to guide the responses. The last statement was intended to gauge the staff’s overall agreement with the student’s ability to demonstrate personal responsibility. Each statement solicited a response ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Prior to administering the survey, the Assessment Team decided that the acceptable benchmark would be that 70% of the respondents would 4) Agree or 5) Strongly Agree with three key statements which include:

  5. Overall, students demonstrate understanding and comprehension of matters that involve my work area.
10. Overall, students demonstrate the motivation to address matters involving my work area.
11. Students regularly demonstrate personal responsibility with regard to my work area.

The survey was administered to the following Student Services Offices: Admissions and Records, Business Office, Counseling Center, Financial Aid, and Instructional Technology. The results of the survey were compiled and are presented in Table F Assessment Results for Personal Responsibility.

 

Results of the survey show that students do not overwhelming demonstrate competency in the three key areas according to the staff in Student Service areas. Statement 5, understanding and comprehension managed to garner only 69.5% agreement followed by 66.1% agreement with regard to overall motivation of the students. Agreement of the final key question, with regard to an overall demonstration of Personal Responsibility, was 55.9%.

The statement that received the highest agreement was statement 6: Students choose to come to me for help to solve problems and address issues that involves my work area, which totaled 86.4%. The statements that showed the least amount of agreement were 7: Students present a possible solution to solve a problem concerning my work area; and 8: Students present viable solutions to problems regarding my work area, which was only 25.4% and 23.7%, respectively. When examining the results of the three questions, it would appear that while students do seek out help for solving problems, they present little motivation to present real solutions on their own with issues outside of the classroom.

Finally, while the results of the assessment failed to meet the benchmarks set by the Assessment Team, it is evident that students are demonstrating some degree of independent learning and are able to follow through on instructions that are given to them.

Use of Assessment Results

The findings of the two assessments will be presented to the Arts and Science Assessment Team and to Instructional Department Chairpersons early during the 2013 Fall semester. It is quite evident that action will need to be taken in order to ensure that students are able to capture and retain those elements that are necessary to demonstrate their understanding of the role that the creative arts plays on the world around them. While there is some evidence of self-efficacy on the part of the students, steps will need to be taken to ensure that students are aware that the skills they acquire in the classroom can be extrapolated to other areas of their lives.