Quick Facts from the 2012 Assessment

  • 94% of functional GGC units were assessed in 2011.
    • 70% were assessed within the GGC Assessment Framework.
    • 20% were assessed through an alternate method using the Administrative Employee Evaluations.
  • 83% of unit-level outcomes were assessed by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness as "Established" or "Exemplary."
  • 87% of unit-level measures were assessed by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness as "Established" or "Exemplary."
  • 88% of unit-level outcomes were fully or partially met across the College.
  • 31% (21) of units with complete reports had one or more outcomes that were not met or were partially met and 90% of those units developed appropriate action plans as required.
  • 36% (24) of units with complete reports developed enhancement plans in response to assessment findings.
  • 53% (38) of action plans developed articulate needed modifications in program curricula or unit operations.

Assessment Planning

All units of GGC are assessed either through the College’s overall assessment process or through the evaluation of senior administrators in the College’s performance evaluation system. For 2012, GGC has a total of 90 units established in the WEAVEonline assessment tracking system. Of these, 66 (73%) have established assessment plans including a mission statement, outcomes and measure for those outcomes. The twenty-four units that have not established such plans fall into three categories:

  • Senior administrative positions, specifically the five deans, the five vice presidents, the AVP and deans in Student Affairs and the president of the College (N=14). Assessment of these functions continues to be carried out through the annual performance evaluation system in which each administrator articulates an annual set of performance goals that are used as the basis for annual evaluation by his/her supervisor.
  • Units which were not staffed or operational during 2012, but which are represented in WEAVEonline.
  • New academic programs which have not yet developed their assessment plans, outcomes and measures.

Rubrics were again used to evaluate the outcomes and measures used by each unit in their assessment plans. The results for 2012 show continuing improvement in the overall quality of the outcomes and measures over the years as shown in the tables below. These clear patterns of increasing specificity and measurability, particularly within the measures, indicate the use of the findings to improve the assessment plans and overall utility of the data collected to enhance the effectiveness of operations across campus.

Table 1: Evaluation of Outcomes in Assessment Plans

 

Beginning

Emerging

Established

Exemplary

 

Outcome/Objective is stated in terms of constituent experience or unit activities. Connection to unit’s primary function is unclear or tenuous. Links to IEE goals, Strategic Plan or Institutional Goals are missing.

Outcome/Objective is stated in terms of student learning (Knowledge/ Skill/ Attitude) or in terms of the results of unit activities. Connection to unit’s primary function can be inferred. Links to at least one of IEE, SP or IG may be present.

Outcome/Objective is stated in terms of student learning (Knowledge/ Skill/ Attitude) or in terms of the results of unit activities. Connection to unit’s primary function is clear or explicit. Includes links to at least one of IEE, SP and/or IG.

Outcome/Objective is stated in terms of student learning (Knowledge/ Skill/ Attitude) or in terms of the results of unit activities. Connection to unit’s primary function is explicit. Includes links to at least two of IEE, SP and/or IG.

2012

6%

11%

42%

41%

2011

7%

11%

22%

60%

2010

5%

31%

40%

23%

2009

10%

27%

22%

41%

2008

8%

30%

39%

22%

2007

25%

36.1%

27.8%

11.1%

 

Table 2: Evaluation of Measures in Assessment Plans

 

Beginning

Emerging

Established

Exemplary

 

Measures are stated in terms of actions to be accomplished or as productivity counts. Measures do not provide direct or indirect assessment of outcomes.

Measures are described in general terms and lack specificity. Language suggests intended measures will assess outcomes/objectives. Data sources and analysis plans are not clear

Measures are specific descriptions of direct and indirect measures; data sources identified; scoring criteria implied but not detailed

 

Measures are specific descriptions of direct and indirect measures; data sources identified; scoring criteria are detailed

 

2012

1%

12%

53%

34%

2011

10%

 12%

25%

53%

2010

5%

36%

33%

26%

2009

14%

37%

43%

6%

2008

12%

29%

43%

14%

2007

45.7%

22.8%

28.6%

2.8%

 

Assessment Execution and Findings

For 2012, GGC Organization included 59 units required to submit assessment plans/reports. Two were new units in 2012 and are still developing plans. Eight did not report due to staff vacancies (no one in office) or elimination or reorganization of office. This left 51 units to report, of which 45 provided reports and six did not. One hundred percent of operating units had assessment plans in place and 90% of operating units reported findings in accordance with the timeline. Each unit reported results for individual assessment measures for each unit-level outcome. After entering all assessment findings, units reviewed their results for each outcome across measures and made a determination regarding its success in meeting its overall target for each outcome. Each unit made a judgment of "Met," "Partially Met" or "Not Met" for each outcome for which it had usable data. Table 3 shows a distribution of these judgments across Divisions of the College.

Table 3: Breakdown of Outcome Status of Units by College Area

 

Met

Partially Met

Not Met

Data Not Available

Academic and Student Affairs: Administrative Offices

19

11

1

8

Academic and Student Affairs: Academic Disciplines

79

27

6

5

Academic and Student Affairs: Educational and Student Support Services

28

1

1

0

Advancement Units

0

3

1

0

Resource Units

2

2

0

0

Educational Technology Units

4

6

1

2

Facilities and Operations

2

2

0

0

Overall

134

52

10

15

 

In cases where no data were available, the primary reasons were (a) the procedure or instrument used to acquire data did not yield reliable results or (b) the personnel needed to acquire the data were not available. Units whose data collection methods failed are developing new assessment methods and measures in response to their assessment findings; units needing personnel have indicated this need in their action plans in response to their findings.

The pattern of findings for each unit and for the institution is shown in the following pages. For units whose primary assessment is of student learning outcomes (i.e. academic units and educational support units) unit level findings for individual outcomes are shown in association with the Integrated Educational Experience outcome goals and their associated General Education outcome goals. For units whose primary assessment is of administrative outcomes (i.e. administrative support units), unit level findings are shown in association with the Institutional Goals. The summary judgments are reflected in Tables 4 and 5 below.

Table 4: Summary of Effectiveness in IEE Student Learning Outcomes: Academic and Educational Support Units

IEE Student Learning Outcomes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Business

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

Biology – Core

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X

Biology – General

X

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

Biology – Biochemistry

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

Biology – Biotechnology

 

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Biology – Teacher Certification

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

Exercise Science

X

X

X

 

X

 

X

 

ITEC – Core

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

ITEC – Enterprise

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

X

ITEC – Security

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

ITEC – Software

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

Mathematics – Core

*

X

X

X

X

 

X

X

Mathematics – Teacher Certification

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

Criminal Justice/Criminology

<

 <

<

<

<

<

<

<

English

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

English – Teacher Certification

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

History

*

 

 

 

*

*

 

 

History – Teacher Certification

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

Political Science

*

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political Science – Teacher Certification

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

Psychology

*

*

*

*

*

X

X

 

Student Success Math

X

*

X

X

 

 

 

 

Student Success English

X

X

*

X

 

 

*

 

Student Success Reading

*

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Success English for Academic Purposes

*

*

 

*

 

 

*

 

Early Childhood Education

 

<

*

<

<

*

 

<

Special Education

 

<

<

<

<

<

 

<

Library

X

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

Career Development and Advising Center

X

X

 

 

X

 

X

 

Counseling

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wellness and Recreation Center

X

*

 

X

 

 

*

 

Health Programs

 

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

Intramural and Club Sports

 

 

 

X

 

X

X

 

Outdoor Adventure

–

–

–

–

 – – –

 

Student Conduct

 

 

 

 

*

*

 

 

Student Involvement

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note: “X” indicates that all associated unit outcomes were Met; “*” that some outcomes were Met and some Partially Met. “<” indicates programs with too few students to report meaningful data. “–“ indicates identified relationships for which no findings were reported.

Table 5: Summary of Effectiveness in Institutional Goals: Administrative Support Units

Institutional Goals

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Advancement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development

 

 

 

 

*

 

*

 

Public Affairs

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

External Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic and Student Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Testing

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

Accreditation and Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Institutional Effectiveness

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

*

Institutional Research

 

 

*

*

*

 

*

*

Enrollment Management

*

 

*

*

 

*

*

 

Financial Aid

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Information Desk

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

 

Minority Outreach

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Recruitment and Admissions

 

 

 

 

*

*

*

 

Registrar

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Enhancement Center

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

Disability Services

X

 

X

 

X

X

 

 

Orientation and New Student Connections

 

 

 

X

 

X

 

 

Educational Technology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Center for Teaching Excellence

*

*

*

 X

 

*

*

X

Media Services

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

Support Services

 

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

Systems and Security

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Technology Development

–

–

 – –

–

–

–

–

Learning Technology Research

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Facilities and Operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facilities

 

 

 

*

 

*

X

 

Public Safety

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accounting

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Payroll

–

–

 –

–

–

–

–

–

Human Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logistical Services

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Student Accounts

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

 

Note: “X” indicates that all associated unit outcomes were Met; “*” that some outcomes were Met and some Partially Met. “-“ indicates identified relationships for which no findings were reported.

Use of Assessment Data

In the 2011 cycle, 59 units provided assessment reports. Of the 59 units, 13 did not meet their targets on one or more specific measures or for one or more outcomes. Of these 13 units, ten articulated action plans in response to their findings, for a total of 33 action plans. Fourteen of those plans involved changes in program curricula or unit operations, 3 requested additional personnel, 5 requested specific materials and 11 required refinement of assessment plans. Two of the 3 units not establishing action plans are continuing implementation of prior plans.

In addition, 16 units proposed enhancement plans related to their assessment findings, but not connected to Not Met judgments for Measures or Outcomes. These 13 units articulated a total of 38 action plans of which 22 proposed changes in curriculum or operations, 1 requested new personnel, 5 requested new materials or equipment, and 10 proposed modifications to assessment plans.

Across all 24 units, 8 provided estimated budgetary costs for their proposed action plans.

Table 7: Summary of New Action Plans Generated in the 2011 Assessment Reporting Period

 

Action Plan Status: Need

Action Plan Status: Have

Action Plan Status: Budget

Action Plan Focus: Curriculum or Operations

Action Plan Focus: Person

Action Plan Focus: Materials

Action Plan Focus: Modify Plan

 
Academic and Student Affairs                

Business

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early Childhood Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Special Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biology – Core

 

X

 

1

 

 

1

2

Biology – General

 

 X

 

1

 

1

 

2

Biology – Biochemistry

 

X

5,000

3

 

 

 

3

Biology – Cell and Biotechnology

 

X

 

2

 

 

 

2

Biology – Teacher Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exercise Science

 

X

120,000

1

 

 

 

1

ITEC – Core

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEC – Business

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEC – Security

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEC – Software Development

 

X

 

 

 

1

 

1

Math – Core and Pure

X

X

 

2

 

 

 

2

Math – Teacher Certification

 

X

 

3

 

 

 

3

Criminal Justice/Criminology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

English – Teacher Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

History

X

X

 

 

 

 

2

2

History – Teacher Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political Science

X

X

 

2

 

 

1

3

Political Science – Teacher Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Psychology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Success Math

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Success English

X

X

 

 

 

 

3

3

Student Success Reading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Success English for Academic Purposes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banner Data Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Academic Enhancement Center

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Library

 

X

 

 

 

 

1

 

Career Development and Advising Center

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Counseling

X

X

 

3

 

1

 

4

Disability Services

X

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Fitness Center

X

X

24,000

2

1

 

 

3

Intramural and Club Sports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orientation

X

X

 

1

 

 

 

1

Outdoor Adventures and Recreation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Conduct

 

X

0

3

 

 

 

3

Student Involvement

 

X

 

 

 

 

1

1

Accreditation and Certification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institutional Effectiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institutional Research

X

X

None

2

 

 

 

2

Enrollment Management

X

X

 

 

 

 

1

1

Banner Data Management

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Aid

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Desk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minority Outreach

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recruitment and Admissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Registrar

X

X

60,000

 

 

3

 

3

Testing

 

X

 

 

1

 

 

1
Facilities and Operations                

Facilities

X

X

 

 

1

 

 

1

Logistical Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Safety

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Advancement                

Development

X

X

 

2

1

 

 

3

Public Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Resources                

Human Resources

 

X

 

1

 

 

 

1

Accounting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Accounts

X

X

0

4

1

3

 

8
Educational Technology                

Center for Teaching Excellence

X

X

0

3

 

 

2

5

Learning Technology Research

 

X

 

 

 

 

1

1

Media Services

X

X

 

1

1

 

 

2

Support Services

X

X

0

1

 

1

1

3

Systems and Security

 

X

3,000

 

 

 

1

1

Technology Development

 

X

 

 

 

 

1

1

 

Of the 59 total action plans proposed based on 2012 assessment data, 45 (80%) are currently planned for execution, 10 (17%) are already in progress and 2 (3%) have been completed.

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness devoted additional effort in 2012 to informing units of the importance of updating the status of action plans each year. While the current records are more accurate than in previous years, additional work is needed.

Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

Georgia Gwinnett College has established a strong and well-entrenched culture of assessment. All academic disciplines, co-curricular units and administrative offices have actively participated in assessment planning and data collection. All units and offices have sought and accepted the assistance of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness in developing their assessment plans, in gathering essential data and in responding to their findings.

However, the need to “close the loop” by using assessment findings to improve student learning and administrative effectiveness remains an area of concern. While units and offices are taking their assessment activity seriously and identifying needed actions in response to assessment findings, the College as a whole has not established reliable mechanisms for those actions to be reported to, reviewed by or acted on by deans or vice presidents. Further, individual units rarely receive specific feedback on their proposed action plans, leaving many in an ambiguous state for some time. 

To fully document that assessment activities are being used to develop institutional actions leading to improvement, GGC needs to put the following into place:

  • A process by which senior management (deans and vice presidents) review the assessment findings and action plans of the units in their areas.
  • A specific timeline and process for documented feedback regarding its action plans to be sent to each unit at the close of the assessment reporting cycle (mid-March of each year).
  • A mechanism for documenting budget requests that are related to specific assessment results and action plans.
  • Consistent action at the unit level to update information and status on action plans on a semi-annual basis, including information about the observed impact of the action plans.