Goal Team TWOInitiative Reports
(Reports updated with Team comments from the second and third meetings of the team, in February and March.)
Referenced in this document are the following more detailed reports available with the Supplementary Reports on the Big Meeting 2010 web page.
List of Follow Up Assignments
Note that there is no Initiative #1 due to the way in which the spreadsheet was numbered.
Initiative 2– Curriculum Mapping – Nick Bekas
Initiative 3 - Program outcomes and assessment plans for A.A., A.S., A.A.S, & B. S. – Jared Graber
Initiative 4 - Improve success in math – John Niss
Initiative 5 - Holistic grading of ENC 1101 essays – Randy Gordon
Initiative 6 - Assessing writing in Gordon Rule Humanities – Kurt Ewen
Initiative 7 - General Education Student Learning Outcomes, Assessment and Curricular Alignment – Kurt Ewen
Initiative 8 - Develop data model – Roberta Brown
Initiative 9 - Enrollment Plan – Cheryl Robinson
Initiative 10 - New Student Experience – Kurt Ewen
Initiative 11 - Developmental education initiative – Nick Bekas
Initiative 12 - Course outlines to be produced through a second round of outcomes review – John Niss
The team asks that we define mapping and alignment- Nick Bekas will provide these definitions.
Initiative #2 Report – Curriculum Mapping – Nick Bekas
Team Two comments – February 9–
Curriculum Mapping, Alignment and College Readiness Infusion:
Valencia has committed to aligning and mapping our developmental education courses. As part of the process, faculty will be looking at places where College Readiness Skills, skills that change the learning behaviors of students, can be infused into developmental education course curricula. Our focus will be on five College Readiness Skills: critical thinking, reading, motivation, study skills, and goal setting.
Initiative #3 Report
Initiative Name: Program Outcomes and Assessment Plans for AA, AS, AAS, & B S
Prepared by: Jared Graber
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative: Kurt Ewen, Falecia Williams
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date:
AA, AS, AAS
Significant work has been completed on the development of program learning outcomes for all associate degree and certificate programs including 4 AA pre-majors, 7 articulated pre-majors, 36 AAS/AS degrees and 63 certificate programs. A minor amount of editing remains for two of four AA pre-majors (Art, Studio/Fine Art and Sign Language Interpretation) as well as the AS in Culinary Management with a comprehensive proposal scheduled for the February, 2010 Curriculum Committee meeting.
BS
In December, 2009 letters of intent for two baccalaureate degrees including: (1) a BS in Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology with sub-specializations in Computer Systems, Electrical/Electronic Systems, Laser and Photonics and (2) a BS in Radiologic Science were forwarded to the state.
Information about upcoming work on the initiative:
AA, AS, AAS
The design, content and placement of specific learning assessments for each degree and certificate program continue to evolve as part of the complete institutional effectiveness cycles required by SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1 and the college’s Learning Assured strategic goal.
BS
Pending approval by the state, the development of baccalaureate degrees will continue with completion of a Substantive Change application. Substantive change is a significant modification or expansion of the nature and scope of an accredited institution. Under federal regulations, substantive change includes the addition of courses or programs at a degree or credential level above that which is included in the institution’s current accreditation or reaffirmation. This involves change from Level I to Level II status based on 12 months advance notice, prior approval from the SACS Commission on Colleges and submission of formal application materials.
Any data or results that can be shared that reveal how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative:
The Curriculum Committee’s February 10, 2010 agenda and materials are posted at:
A comprehensive overview on Substantive Change is located at:
Team Two Comments – February 9–
Will we develop outcomes for the AA program (noting that General Education is not the entire program)?
Initiative #4 Report
Improve Success in Math – John Niss
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative:
Mathematics Deans, Michele McArdle
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date:
A college-wide task force has met for over a year and has produced an updated curriculum for MAT0012C, including selection of a common textbook and a set of study-skills activities, and the creation of a student portfolio , two hands-on student activities, a common final exit exam and faculty training materials. All Valencia faculty teaching the course have been through a three hour training session and all sections of the course for Fall 2009 used the new curriculum.
Information about upcoming work on the initiative:
The task force has evaluated the first semester’s data and has plans to implement a second training session to help faculty integrate the new activities and concepts more fully into the curriculum. A subgroup is researching the possibility of locally developing course materials including text and online homework resources.
Any data or results that can be shared that reveal how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative:
The first semester’s results were disappointing but perhaps not surprising. Three campuses saw drops in their success rates of approximately ten percent while one campus had a ten percent increase. The decreases may be partly attributable to the inclusion of the exit exam for the first time on two campuses. Hopefully, continued training of faculty and incremental improvements to the new curriculum will increase its effectiveness. The next major piece of data will be the success rate of the students who passed MAT0012C this semester in their next math class, MAT0024C.
Initiative #5 Report
Holistic grading of ENC 1101 essays – Randy Gordon
Consulted: Kurt Ewen
The Comp I Assessment Project, initially designed to assess college writing skills for Comp I students, is now serving as a valuable pilot project for other Gen Ed courses (ex. HUM 2220, HUM 2250, and MAC 1105).The Comp I Project is now a part of Initiative 7 (General Education Student Learning Outcomes, Assessment and Curricular Alignment).
The criteria used for ENC 1101 holistic grading is below:
Score of 4: The paper presents or implies a thesis that is developed with noticeable coherence. The writer’s ideas are substantive, sophisticated, and carefully elaborated with specific and accurate support. The writer’s choice of language is precise and purposeful to the point of being polished. Control of sentence structure, of grammatical usage, and of standard mechanical conventions contributes to the writer’s ability to communicate.
Score of 3: The paper presents or implies a thesis and provides enough supporting detail to accomplish the writer’s purpose. The paper is focused and organized so that it presents a clear progression of ideas. The writer demonstrates competent use of language and sometimes varies sentence structure. The paper may have occasional errors in sentence structure, grammar, or mechanics, but the errors do not interfere with communication.
Score of 2: The paper may present a thesis, but it is too vaguely worded or weakly asserted to be viable. The writer provides support that tends toward general statements or lists and is neither sufficient nor clear enough to be convincing. Sentence structure tends to be pedestrian and often repetitious. Errors in sentence structure, usage and mechanics may interfere with the writer’s ability to communicate the purpose.
Score of 1: The paper either has no discernible thesis or presents a thesis statement that is not supported. The details are too insufficient and/or inappropriate to provide any real development of the topic. The writing displays frequent and fundamental errors in word choice. Errors in sentence structure, grammar, and mechanics are pervasive and frequently interfere with communication.
Initiative #6 Report
Assessing Writing in Gordon Rule Humanities – Kurt Ewen
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative:
David Sutton, Dean of Humanities on East Campus and the Division Action Plans posted at
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date:
This initiative developed an assessment process for “Communicate” in all the Gordon Rule courses that can be used to both strengthen the writing outcome for humanities general education courses and to create a college wide rubric for writing assignments and assessments.
Information about upcoming work on the initiative:
Work on this initiative has now ended and has contributed to the assessment of the General Education Student Learning Outcomes reported on in Initiative 7
Any data or results that can be shared that reveal how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative:
Results / conclusions from this process include the following:
-While humanities faculty have a good working consensus of how we grade and evaluate student writing, it is clear that the assumption that our graduates will be at least "competent" at the end of a single Gordon Rule humanities class is flawed. Also, a free-ranging discussion revealed a considerable problem in terms of curriculum continuity. Students exiting ENC 1101 have not learned the skills that many or most humanities faculty expect them to have. For example, they do not have much or any experience with research design and the use of MLA (or any other style of) citation. Our discussion also revealed a considerable range of what kind of assignments faculty expect of their students
-Faculty are anxious to explore the possibility of making ENC 1102 a co-requisite of any Gordon Rule humanities class to try and make sure that students will have the skills they need to write papers in the humanities. They are also interested in meeting to discuss and define what the expectations of faculty should be via a vis their students. For example, should research papers be required or at least some evidence of research activity be required in major papers? They are also interested in creating a kind of clearing house of instructor-generated rubrics that all humanities faculty can access.
-Lastly, faculty are interested in the work of the English faculty as they work to refine the LET rubric.
Initiative #7 Report
General Education Student Learning Outcomes, Assessment and Curricular Alignment – Kurt Ewen
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative:
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date:
-The General Education Student Learning Outcomes were developed during 2007 and approved by faculty in December of 2007 and by the College Curriculum Committee and College Learning Council in early 2008. The General Education Student Learning Outcomes include the following:
- Cultural and Historical Understanding: Demonstrate understanding of the diverse traditions of the world, and the individual's place in it.
- Quantitative and Scientific Reasoning: Use processes, procedures, data, or evidence to solve problems and make effective decisions.
- Communication Skills: Engage in effective interpersonal, oral and written communication.
- Ethical Responsibility: Demonstrate awareness of personal responsibility in one's civic, social, and academic life.
- Information Literacy: Locate, evaluate, and effectively use information from diverse sources.
- Critical Thinking: Effectively analyze, evaluate, synthesize and apply information and ideas from diverse sources and disciplines
-Work is now underway to map the introduction, reinforcement and assessment of the outcomes within the 5 General Education discipline areas (Communications, Humanities, Math, Science, and Social Science) and within co-curricular student experience.
-Assessment plans connected to the General education Student learning Outcomes were developed during Destination 2009 and will be implemented in Spring 2010. General Education assessment plans were developed were developed in the following areas:
- ENC1101 – Comp1
- SPC1608 – Speech
- Gordon Rule Humanities
- POS2041 – Political Science
- MAC1105 – College Algebra
- New Student Orientation
Information about upcoming work on the initiative:
-Destination 2010 will bring General Education faculty together again to fine their plans from 2009 and to identify a second General Education outcome that they contribute to – all General Education disciplines will need to measurably contribute to at least 2 General Education Student Learning Outcomes.
Any data or results that can be shared that reveal how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative:
Initiative #8 Report
Develop Data Model – Roberta Brown
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative:
Roberta Brown, Kurt Ewen, Jeff Cornett
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date:
A core team has been convened to discuss the development of a model for collecting and processing data related to learning and learning assessment. This team has met to have initial conversation around what information or ideas have already been discussed in our history and what information we need to move forward. We will continue to meet to clarify and solidify a solid foundation for an expanded dialogue with other members of the College that will need to be involved in this conversation.
Information about upcoming work on the initiative:
The team will continue to meet, and are working on a visual representation of where collectible artifacts of student learning exist in our current framework. This will be used to further conversation around next steps.
Any data or results that can be shared that reveal how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative:
No data are available at this time.
Team Two comments – February 9 –We are in the beginning stages of this conversation, and a core team is exploring it. Need to clarify what we mean by a data model for learning. Need to identify where we have artifacts of student learning.
Initiative #9 Report
Enrollment Management
Cheryl Robinson
Initiative Report
Person(s) consulted in obtaining information about the status of this initiative: Joyce Romano (and indirectly Susan Kelley and Lucy Boudet from College Learning Council conversations)
Summary of progress made on the initiative to date: We have planned increased section capacity for each term by 6-8% and built a stronger schedule of high enrollment courses to maximize student registrations in scheduled sections. Overall capacity utilization has increased from 88% in Fall 2008 to 92% in Fall 2009, and according to the 2/2/10 mirror report, Spring 2010 capacity utilization increased to 89.1% compared to 88% in Spring 2009 and registration is ongoing. We anticipate not being able to meet the educational marketplace demand, but recognize the importance of maintaining our profile in the community and are making baseline investments accordingly. Spring 2010 registration saw an increase in returning student registration compared to new student enrollments. Thus, marketing messages supported brand reinforcement but did not focus on new student recruitment as we try to serve our current students.
Information about upcoming work on the initiative: A detailed analysis of registration processes was conducted after the Fall 2009 registration and a plan for improving specific registration processes has been developed and will be implemented over the next year. We will hold the next Bookstore textbook sale in the Summer term when there is less financial aid available to students thus creating a more meaningful sale. We are continuing to send the message to students that they need to register early and pay by the deadlines or they may not be able to make (or re-make) a schedule. Marketing is working with the Provosts and Deans on the “Programs that need marketing” list prepared in October 2009 and are developing new strategies to specifically target messages as well as exploring new internet and social networking strategies to reach students.
Any data or results that can be shared that reveals how those involved with this initiative are gauging the success of the initiative: Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 enrollments and capacity utilizations have both increased. Student persistence has remained at 80%+. The percentage of students deleted for non-payment has remained consistent in both Fall and Spring terms compared to previous years.
The Goal Team noted that it would be good to have more information about proprietary institutions in our market, how they are changing, and the extent to which they impact access issues. Also, the team noted that we provide on-campus access to the internet via Atlas outposts and the libraries for students who do not have computer access.
Copies of the Enrollment Plan, 2/2/10 mirror registration report, and the Student Affairs Fall 2009 registration action plan are attached. The re-launch of LifeMap will have data that should be added here when available.
Enrollment Planning
2009-2010
Adopted April 14, 2009; Revised June 17, 2009; Revised October 6, 2009
As we implement the Enrollment Plan in 2009-10, we have discussed the challenge of balancing priorities in light of the budget reductions from the State of Florida and the increase in demand for enrollment in our community. We recognize the importance of being clear about the choices we are making so that all stakeholders can support our intended direction and we can work together in an integrated manner to achieve our enrollment goals.
The following describe our priorities and their implementation.
- Our target is to increase enrollment by 5% FTE in Summer 2009 and by 3% FTE in Fall 2009, Spring and Summer 2010 (each term compared to the previous year) without adding to sections or other expenses.
Revised June 2009: The new target is 6% FTE growth in Fall 2009, Spring and Summer 2010 (each term compared to the previous year) with modest additions of adjunct faculty to create more capacity in front door courses.
The Summer 2009 schedule has increased section capacity of 8% compared to Summer 2008. This should easily allow for the 5% FTE growth but will add some additional instructional costs. The Summer 2009 schedule was finalized by the Deans and Provosts in October, 2008, prior to the direction of not adding to instructional expenses.