Learning Dimension Report
Pellissippi State Technical Community College

Foundations Institutions deliver curricular and co-curricular learning experiences that engage new students in order to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors consistent with the institutional mission, students' academic and career goals, and workplace expectations.  Both in and out of the classroom, these learning experiences promote critical thinking, ethical decision making, and the lifelong pursuit of knowledge.

Committee Leader:
Annie Gray, Assistant Professor - English
Mary Monroe-Ellis, Professor - Mathematics

Committee Members:
Lisa Bogaty, Associate Professor - Business and Computer Technologies
Ron Bridges, Associate Professor - Natural and Behavioral Sciences
Gay Bryant, Associate Professor - Engineering and Media Technologies
Katherine Byrd, Associate Professor - English
Cathy Clay, Associate Professor - Natural and Behavioral Sciences
Margaret Franzen, Associate Professor - Natural and Behavioral Sciences
Ann Kronk, Instructor
Michael Lusk, Associate Professor - Engineering and Media Technologies
Nina McPherson, Librarian and Professor
Martha Merrill, Assistant Professor - Business and Computer Technology
Yolanda Sankey, Assistant Professor - Natural and Behavioral Sciences
Wanda Scarbro, Assistant Professor - Liberal Arts
Berta Ward, Dean of Academic Advising, Articulation and Curriculum
Sue Yamin, Assistant Professor - English

Current Situation:
3.1 Pellissippi State ranks high in meeting "Learning Goals" for all students, but does not specifically have stated learning goals targeting first year students. We hold New Student Orientation (NSO) sessions and Student Advising services for our first year students. These do not specifically tie into commonly recognized learning goals for first year students.

3.2 In each of the focus courses, standard and innovative instructional methods are utilized to enhance student learning. These methods are described in master syllabi and are supposed to be incorporated in all sections of the courses. All the courses do a good job of documenting student learning.

Assessment of the effectiveness of the instructional methods in engaging students is not done in a formal manner. However, a number of informal assessment methods are utilized. Student perception of faculty and observations of adjunct teaching are conducted each semester; fulltime faculty are observed in the classroom annually, and student perception forms are completed biannually in all courses. Additional methods, though not utilized in all sections of all courses, are employed to determine whether students are engaged. In Biology Turning Point and other 'clicker' response systems are used for rapid feedback on student learning, as well as student input on 'hot topics'. Many faculty members have undergone training and utilize CATS (Classroom Assessment Techniques) to provide feedback on whether instructional methods are engaging. Finally, there are both formal and informal mentoring and collaborating efforts among faculty to share best practices in teaching.

3.3 While the Liberal Arts Department's most recent program review indicates that learning goals are assessed both through the general means of tracking of success rates in the course and on the CBASE exam, the department head says there is "no course specific assessment" for Sociology 1010.

Learning outcomes in English 1010 and DSP Math 0850 have been consistently and carefully documented and evaluated. Both departments chose concrete outcomes to measure using the five-column model and evaluated the results over a period of years.

The Natural and Behavioral Sciences Department has also conducted systematic assessment of learning outcomes in Biology 1110.

For DSP Writing 0800, a specific learning outcome is evaluated consistently through pre/post grammar tests.

3.4 Pellissippi State uses the Assessment and Placement Procedures set forth by the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR); see document: "A-100 Guidelines." In 2002, TBR began using the ACT/SAT as the primary assessment tool for degree-seeking students under 21. Students may try to test out of required courses or the student may opt for a lower DSP course than indicated. All DSP courses may be requested.

Pellissippi State Technical Community College does not presently seem to aim a lot of academically challenging courses at the above average new student. The new General Education Core Curriculum mandated by the Tennessee Board of Regents caused several course alterations recently. Pellissippi is very limited by this governing board as to what it can include within its curriculum since each course must be approved by TBR as fitting into the Gen Ed requirements or it risks being removed.

Pellissippi has raised the number of students per class section in many disciplines in recent years due to a major budget crunch. With smaller numbers, it seems obvious that a professor would have time to add enrichment material and try more enticing techniques that would challenge the above average student in particular.

3.5 The subcommittee reviewed tutoring services offered by the Learning and Testing Center and TRIO, programs sponsored by Student Life and Recreation and the Counseling Departments, and program reviews and master syllabi for the five identified high enrollment courses.

After interviews of appropriate staff and review of documentation, it was determined that new student learning outcomes resulting from participation in initiatives sponsored by student services are not identified.

Areas of Concern:
3.1 Even though there are learning goals as defined by TBR (General Education Goals) that address all students, the goals do not explicitly focus on first year students and their unique experiences to transitioning to college.

3.2 In our task force discussion, we reached the conclusion that it is important that students be ENGAGED in the learning process. We defined this engagement to mean NOT that the students were actually participating in 'doing the work' assigned but that they are so involved in the learning process that they are surprised when the teacher announces that class is over. Although this is not the ONLY measure, it serves as an illustration of how students are engaged. Students who are engaged will look forward to learning more on their own. They ask questions, they THINK about what is being taught and aren't satisfied with 'just what is in the notes'.

When reviewing program, departmental and college goals, we discovered that the majority of goals are focused on the development of skills pertaining to the workforce or knowledge relating to course/department/general education outcomes. What we found lacking were goals focusing on helping students to discover the love of learning, as well as the tools necessary for them to discover the modes in which they learn best. So many of our students arrive at Pellissippi State lacking good study skills. Without focusing on how they can develop these skills, we are not equipping them to become engaged in the learning process but are merely expecting them to somehow cope with the course content. In addition perhaps the most qualitative measure of student engagement involves the degree to which a student connects personally with the joy of the learning experience. Such an engagement often depends upon the relationship the student has with the instructor and the rest of the classroom community.

The task force recommends that we consider developing a plan in which all faculty emphasize appropriate study habits for various learning preferences (visual, auditory, read/write and kinesthetic) as elucidated in the VARK website. If faculty in each program area were to develop a list of methods for studying using each learning preference and all students were required to complete the VARK test (a 5 min proposition), students could be empowered to learn in a manner which is best suited to their needs.

3.3 Of these five courses, documentation and evaluation of student learning outcomes appear to be weakest in Sociology 1010. The committee recommends, therefore, that an evaluation take place, perhaps focusing on a comparison of the success rates of the developmental and non-developmental students in the course.

Learning outcomes in English 1010 and DSP Math 0850: The only concern here is assuring that results are monitored on a regular basis even after specific assessment goals have been reached.

Natural and Behavioral Sciences: This department has not done an intensive evaluation in the past two years, so perhaps the emphasis on documenting the evidence of assessment should be revived.

DSP Writing 0800: This program has found no successful way to turn around the rather dismal results of the pre/post grammar assessment.

3.4 According to interviews with the various department heads, the DSP Committee, and several faculty members, the assessment and placement procedures for developmental students are deemed to be basically effective although some needs/concerns were visited. Procedures should be modified to meet these concerns which include: 1) adjusting the ACT scores to better reflect grade levels; 2) replacing the COMPASS test with the ASSET test; and 3) giving the ASSET test to students who's ACT score indicates Developmental Math.

In addition, the Business and Computer Technology (BCT) department states that forcing career students to take the assessment tests for placement is negatively affecting the enrollment in the AAS degree programs. Pellissippi State's major competitors for Career Tech students do not use placement tests. Consequently, many prospective students do not come to PSTCC because they must complete Developmental coursework. BCT suggests the following: 1) using Reading scores for placement, 2) optional testing for Career Tech students, and 3) requiring Developmental classes at the 0700 level. Placement testing is not required for the certificate programs and assessment may be waived after the successful completion of a certificate program. If a Career Tech student declares a major before the completion of a certificate program, then that student must be assessed and placed according to the scores.

It appears that Pellissippi does not make any concerted attempt to place new students in appropriate courses to provide sufficient challenge for above average students other than perhaps advising them to take a full credit load of classes with some emphasis on content heavy courses that may encourage higher level thinking. Since honors courses do not exist at the present time, the above average students have no special offerings aimed at their level.

3.5 The college should track student success in classes for which they used tutoring services in the Learning and Testing Center and TRIO. Information about these tutoring services should be included in the master syllabi for these courses.

Anecdotal student and faculty evidence suggests tutoring can contribute to student success in the four courses for which it is offered (DSPM0850; DSPW0800; ENGL1010; BIOL1110). However, low participation rates, ranging from 1.3-6.3%, in all areas except DSPM0850 (40.5%), indicate few students benefit from the program.

The disjuncture between how students learned of tutoring (word-of-mouth (WOM)) and how it is promoted (emails to student & faculty lists) appears to be an issue.

It does not seem feasible at this time to identify expected student learning outcomes and find a method to measure the student success of those outcomes for other initiatives sponsored by student services.

Summary of Evidence:
3.1 The task force included evidence of how learning goals (as pertaining to all students) reflect these four areas: 1) Consistency with institution's mission 2) Correspondence with student career goals 3) Correspondence to workplace expectations 4) Alignment with expectations of senior institutions (transfers).

The evidence for the task force's judgment is summarized in the tables included with each learning goal category. This information is included in Evidence Documentation because the table format could not be transferred into this summary section.

3.2 The task force examined the master syllabi for each of these courses to identify the instructional processes used in each course. They are as follows:
* participating in peer review
* collaborating on group projects
* participating in class discussion
* developing word processing skills
* writing
* developing research skills
* developing oral presentation skills (individual and group)
* drawing conclusions from data (tables, graphs, charts)
* cultivating individual professional responsibility for learning
* reading and critiquing materials relevant to course content
* using graphing calculators/computer software
* developing multiple approaches to problem solving
* participating in interactive discovery exercises
* engaging in quadratic modeling project
* discussing information pertaining to course content
* collecting and analyzing data
* developing vocabulary pertaining to course content
* volunteering with agencies for community service and/or career opportunities
* documenting source materials
* identifying good communication skills in various media

For each course, the task force contacted the lead teacher(s). They were provided the list of instructional methods for their particular course and asked for input as to how students were assessed to determine whether they were engaged in learning. Lead teachers responded by email or were interviewed. Their responses are provided in the documentation. Almost without fail, the lead teachers responded with how students were assessed to determine if they had mastered the assignment, rather than if they had become engaged in the learning process.

3.3 English 1010: The task force's rating is based on the department's use of the five-column model to conduct consistent evaluation and documentation of learning outcomes, as reported in the 2003 Program Review. The department also used the results to make changes in the course.

DSP Math 0850: The Math Department also makes use of the five-column model to assess a specific learning outcome and continues to document and evaluate the results on a regular basis. According to the department's SACS self-evaluation and a NADE report, the results from the assessment have led to adjustments in the course.

DSP Writing 0800: The high rating for this course is based on the department's consistent use of pre- and post grammar tests to evaluate and document a specific learning outcome, as is evidenced in both the last Program Review and in the NADE report. The data have not led to new approaches, however.

Sociology 1010: Because the department conducts no specific assessment of learning outcomes in this course, the task force gave the lowest rating.

Biology 1110: The department uses a combination of methods to document and evaluate student learning outcomes, including success rates, scores on a departmental comprehensive exam, and performance on the C-BASE. The task force based its rating on this three-pronged approach, the results of which are contained in the department's program review and were discussed with department members.

3.4 The evidence used in assessing this performance indicator included an extensive survey of past course offerings over the last several years and an investigation of the college's special rules concerning testing for advanced courses and acceptance of advanced placement high school courses. Recent changes in course offerings due to new rules instituted by thee Tennessee Board of Regents and an increase in the number of students per class section also were considered.

TBR A-100 Guidelines (http://www.pstcc.edu/misc/ppm/03-13-00.htm); DSP Committee agendas and meeting notes; interviews with department heads, DSP Committee, and various faculty; Pellissippi State Assessment and Placement Procedure guidelines
(http://www.pstcc.edu/departments/curriculum_and_instruction/advising-info/interpretation-guides.html)

3.5
1. Learning and Testing Center
The chart below indicates how many students used the Learning Center's Tutoring services from June 04- June 05.

Course Number Students Using Total Student Percentage
Tutoring Services Enrollment
Using
ENGL 1010 185 2922 6.3%
DSPM 0850 685 1692 40.5%
DSPW 0800 69 1262 5.5%
BIOL 1110 13 988 1.3%

No one tracks performance of students who participate in tutoring, nor is any comparison done to ascertain whether tutoring improves performance. Presumption is that it does, based on comments by faculty who teach the courses targeted.

Surveys of student perceptions are done periodically (every 3 years or so) by the Learning Center. Latest is for DSPM 8050 (attached). An attempt was made by Mike North to get First Time Freshman perceptions of services offered (attached). In both cases, response rates were so low that the results are exploratory at best. Thirty (30) responses were received for the Math survey, 125 for the North survey.

Tutoring services are promoted via student email accounts (monthly) and by email to faculty requesting class announcements. Time schedules are posted on bulletin boards throughout the college and on the TV monitors.

First Time Freshman Survey conducted by Mike North Fall 2004. Approximately 125 responses were tabulated. While low response rate makes this data exploratory at best, there are some interesting insights:

• 48.5% of the 125 respondents indicated they used tutoring services
• 78.4% of tutoring users satisfied
• 5.7% indicated they used TRIO services.
• 84.6% of TRIO users satisfied
• 13.9% used Counseling services
• 84.6% satisfied
• Only 7% indicated they learned of tutoring services via email
  Primary information source for tutoring was word-of-mouth

Most faculty surveyed by email believe tutoring helps students, though some suggested improvement methods (using TRIO scheduling model) and were unaware of whether or not students even went, let alone benefited.

2. Student Life and Recreation and Counseling Department
Email from Linda Pinkard,, Assoc. VP of Student Affairs and Satellite Campuses, indicated that there is no linkage between student learning outcomes and events sponsored by these departments.

3. Student Support Services (TRIO)
Interview with Brian Todd, Director of Student Support Services, indicated that TRIO does not track student success in specific courses. In the grant, Objective 2 (Outcome-Academic Performance) only tracks overall GPA.

Telephone interview with Dr. Sharon Yarbrough, Director of IERP, indicated that tracking of TRIO student success in specifically identified courses is possible.

4. Program Reviews
Telephone interview with Linda Randolph, Director of Educational Improvement, indicated that program reviews do not identify these types of expected student learning outcomes, that they only provide some anecdotal evidence of student satisfaction with tutoring. She also indicated that it would be difficult to identify, track, and measure new student learning outcomes resulting from participation in student services initiatives.

5. Master Syllabi
Review of the master syllabi did not indicate any student learning outcomes resulting from participation in initiatives sponsored by student services.

The student and faculty surveys reveal that, overall, Pellissippi State effectively meets the learning needs of first year students, with the exception of how out-of-class activities are being tied into in-class learning. However, the positive survey results regarding faculty/staff/student understanding of clear learning goals for first year students reveal that there are two different worldviews at work. Although the survey takers responded positively about understanding first-year student goals, we on the FOE Learning Dimension Committee know that none exist in the first place. Survey results are clearly based on a hypothetical awareness of what constitutes first-year student learning goals. Our conclusion is that although the surveys are interesting and somewhat useful tools for capturing general views about the first year experience, survey takers are not operating under the same definition of "first-year student" as those on the committee. We suggest that a follow-up survey be completed after faculty and students are fully and mutually apprised of what we construe as the first-year experience. Finally, the positive survey results beg the question that if survey takers have such a positive view of how first-year learning needs are being met, then are we creating solutions for problems that may not even exist in the first place?

Recommended Grade: B-

Recommended Action Items:

• 3.2 Engaging Students Action Plan (High priority)

1. The task force recommends that we consider developing a plan in which all faculty emphasize appropriate study habits for various learning preferences (visual, auditory, read/write and kinesthetic) as elucidated in the VARK website. If faculty in each program area were to develop a list of study methods using each learning preference and all students were required to complete the VARK test (a 5 min proposition), students could be empowered to learn in a manner which is best suited to their needs.
To address the more elusive, qualitative aspects of the first-year student's experience-those which are more relational and dynamic-we suggest several other important actions. These ideas see the task of engaging students as more than establishing static learning goals-they are part of an overall teaching and learning experience involving students and committed professors willing to address how they themselves are engaged in the teaching and learning experience at this college. If we are adopting the attitude of "Get 'em in here; we'll teach them and make them engaged," we are fooling ourselves. Engaged students require engaged professors working in collaboration toward a common goal-the joy of the teaching and learning experience. This attitude stands in stark contrast to focusing solely on spoon-feeding students curriculum content. It reintroduces a more humanistic element to our practices.

2. Those professors committed to the first-year experience might take professional workshops or seminars on building classroom community, collaborative learning, and human relations enrichment.

3. Only certain advisors committed to providing quality first-year experiences should be working with first-year students.

4. Developmental Studies program professors (adjunct and full-time), as well as other non-DSP professors committed to a quality first-year experience, could meet regularly with DSP program heads to engage in an ongoing dialogue about the qualitative aspects of the first-year experience. These events could consist of general meetings in the PAC auditorium followed by break-out, small group discussions on various aspects of the first-year experience. More professional enrichment opportunities sponsored by the DSP could be offered addressing community-building, collaborative learning, and other qualitative aspects of the teaching and learning experience.

• 3.4 Placement Action Plan (High priority)

1. Adjust the ACT scores to reflect grade levels better.
2. Reinstate the honors sections in several disciplines.
3. Lower the number of students permitted in each class section.
4. Work with the Tennessee Board of Regents to broaden the Gen Ed requirements to permit a wider array of course offerings. If that situation occurred, professors would be free to offer a course in a particular area of interest to them and one that would encourage critical thinking for the above average student.
5. Define what the above average student really is through a distinct cutoff score of some sort. Then, the students could be flagged in a standard way so advisors are cognizant of which students are above average to aid in proper placement.

• 3.1 Learning Goals Action Plan: (High priority)

We have General Education guidelines that address all students, but we do not have a generally understood first-year focus.

1. We should create a task force to develop a widely recognizable list of learning goals for first-year students at this college. These goals can be posted around campus so that they are easily recognized by faculty and students alike. The list could address the four areas targeted in the FOE report: 1) Goals consistent with the college's mission 2) Goals addressing student career plans 3) Goals that respond to workplace expectations 4) Goals that align with senior institution transfer

2. A new student pamphlet should be developed to address the first-year experience. The pamphlet would identify the College's who, where, what, and how information for first-year students. The document, unlike other information sheets that are distributed to students, will explicitly address new students in a fresh, innovative way from the student's point of view. The pamphlet would be a concise, one-step reference guide for first-year students in acclimating to college-life-academic demands and extracurricular opportunities-and in navigating through the organizational structure of the college. An alternative plan is to provide first year students who attend New Student Orientation a student planner that contains materials relevant to the first-year experience.

• 3.5 Out-of-Class Learning Action Plan (Medium priority)

The disjuncture between how students learned of tutoring (word-of-mouth [WOM]) and how it is promoted (emails to student & faculty lists) appears to be an issue. The following possible solutions are suggested:
1. Add a sentence to master syllabi indicating tutoring help is available and where.
2. Create a poster campaign designed to creating WOM among students and execute it
3. Ask the math department faculty what they are doing and duplicate it.
4. Utilize the current Learning Center data base to track the performance of students who participate in tutoring and use the results to promote the program among non-users.

• 3.3 Course Outcomes Action Plan (Medium priority)

1. The committee recommends that an evaluation of SOC 1010 be implemented to assess the learning outcomes. One suggestion is to focus on the success rates of the developmental and non-developmental students in the course.
2. The committee also recommends continuing the evaluations of BIOL 1110, DSPM 0800, and DSPM 0850. These results should be monitored on a regular basis and the results used to improve student learning outcomes. ENGL 1010 will be reevaluated periodically as part of ongoing course evaluations in the English Department.