4. The Academic Program

Description | Appraisal | Projection | Exhibits

Description

Capital Community College’s mission is to prepare students for careers or transfer to baccalaureate-granting institutions. In support of this mission and under the oversight of the faculty and the Academic Dean, the College offers technical and non-technical associate degree programs and related certificates. In addition, the College provides non-credit workforce training and personal enrichment courses, as well as developmental courses for students who are not yet ready for college-level work.

For students interested in transfer, Capital Community College offers an Associate in Arts degree program comprising two tracks: the traditional Liberal Arts and Sciences Degree and the Liberal Arts Degree: Ethnic Studies Course Sequence. Both tracks enable students to participate in the Guaranteed Admissions Program with the University of Connecticut (Exhibit 4.1a) or to transfer to most other area colleges and universities. The College participates in systemwide degree programs offered by the College of Technology (Exhibit 4.1b) for students wishing to transfer to technical programs. (See also Standard 6.) The College’s remaining program options lead to Associate in Science degrees, which function as both transfer and terminal degrees. Each program’s learning outcomes are listed in the College Catalog along with the course requirements. All programs have been approved by the Board of Trustees and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education.

Several degrees administered through the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department perform the dual functions of preparing students for entry level career positions as well as providing the first two years of study leading to a baccalaureate. The Social Services program serves transfer and terminal degree students equally well. The Early Childhood Education, Communication Media, and Criminal Justice programs, while leading to terminal degrees, include many credits that transfer to four-year colleges under specific articulation agreements.

The Business and Technology Department offers degree programs designed to be terminal but structured to permit transfer as well. Architectural Engineering, Business Office Technology, Computer and Information Systems and Computer Support Specialist degrees are the department’s technology offerings. Management and Accounting are the business degrees. In response to the mission’s focus on access, the Business and Technology Department has worked with the Community-Technical College system to develop two online degrees and related certificate options.

Most of the remaining programs and certificates are housed in the Health Careers and the Nursing Departments. These programs are Nursing, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Paramedic, Fire Technology, Radiology Technology, and Medical Assisting. While these programs educate students who seek to work in community medical facilities, they also offer transfer pathways to area universities.

The newest program at the College is General Studies, leading to a degree that is intended to be terminal, although many of the courses are eligible for transfer to four-year colleges. Beyond the general education core, this program offers a wide range of electives to fit students’ interests. The program is of systemwide provenance, and its adoption at Capital Community College enables staff to distinguish between students who have not yet decided on vocational or educational goals and those who have. Each group benefits from the clearer focus.

The College’s curricula serve a diverse urban population and take advantage of the campus’s downtown location. The Liberal Arts Ethnic Studies Course Sequence in particular reflects the interests of Capital’s multicultural student population and creates systematic connections with the many cultural institutions in the downtown Hartford area. Ethnic art, drama, literature and all manner of multicultural expression interlink with college activities through this program option. Resulting collaborations with the Hartford Stage Company, the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, the Charter Oak Cultural Center and many other local institutions have strengthened student awareness of cultural activities and diversity in both academic and social settings.

Connections between the College and the financial institutions of downtown Hartford are fostered in several programs, particularly in the areas of Business and Computer Sciences. For these programs, the College has established advisory boards, internship programs, and a wide variety of partnership arrangements. Recently the College joined major Hartford insurance and financial institutions in submitting a grant application to the Department of Labor to develop an insurance-related associate’s degree that would complement non-credit training currently available through the Continuing Education Division of the College. This initiative provides an example of how the Continuing Education Division can provide pathways from non-credit to credit sequences that serve local industry as well as students.

The College’s strategic planning process guides program development, and the Board of Trustees of Connecticut Community-Technical Colleges regulates the structure and content of degrees. The Board stipulates that associate degree programs must contain no fewer than 60 and no more than 68 credits and must include a general education component comprising one third of the degree credits. Courses in the major and related areas constitute the remainder of the credits. Course sequencing is established by prerequisites; course-level learning outcomes are designed to build on each other and to culminate in the program-level learning outcomes.

Development of courses and programs is the responsibility of the faculty. Each course or curriculum proposal must be approved by a sponsoring department, the Curriculum and Academic Policy Committee, the College Senate, and the Academic Dean (serving as the President’s designee). Degrees, stand-alone certificates, and program modifications must also be approved by the Board of Trustees of the Connecticut Community-Technical College System and the Connecticut State Department of Higher Education. Following approval, programs are administered by program coordinators and department chairs in accordance with College, Board, and Department of Higher Education policies. In the case of a recommendation and decision to terminate a program, the program is continued for two years to allow students to complete their courses of study.

The current body of programs is the result of six years of enhancing, terminating, and creating programs so that each is viable in terms of enrollment and also meets the region’s needs. In the area of technical programs, the change has been most pronounced, with many of the College’s low-enrolled engineering programs discontinued. In their place, The College has added a new computing program with a hardware emphasis, a communication media degree, and is working on a music technology degree.

Academic planning at Capital Community College is integrated with institutional strategic and operational planning. Strategic planning currently underway is using studies from program reviews, student learning outcomes assessment, institutional effectiveness data and internal and external focus groups. The previous strategic plan that covered the 2002-2006 period addressed objectives on program development, improvement, and termination based on data gathered in 2002 (Exhibit 4.2). Resources including new faculty positions, faculty releases, and professional development funds were allocated in order to achieve the objectives. In 2005-06, 62% of the College budget was allocated to faculty and academic support staff salaries, initiatives, equipment and supplies.

The College uses multiple measures to evaluate the academic program, with program review as the central element. A Board of Trustees policy mandates program reviews every five years. In addition, several health-related programs are reviewed by external accreditation organizations. The Board of Trustees program review instrument (Exhibit 4.3) is based on policies and standards set by New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), the Department of Higher Education, and the Board of Trustees. Faculty members conduct the reviews with input from consultants and advisory boards, identifying problems and possible solutions. As part of the annual operational planning process, information from the reviews informs program improvements, resources allocation, and strategic planning.

A standardized institutional evaluation measure, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CSSSE), has revealed information of use to the academic program. In 2004, the College administered CCSSE to shed light on how students learn and also to understand multiple factors that impact learning. Key findings related to the academic program include: 1) Extensive use of collaborative and active learning by CCC faculty, with scores above the national mean; 2) low levels of faculty and student interaction outside the classroom; 3) relatively low levels of support for students; and 4) perceived high levels of academic challenge (Exhibit 4.4).

Other sources of institution-wide data that are used in evaluation of the academic program include the graduate survey, Community College benefits project, graduation and transfer rates, student classroom evaluations, faculty performance reviews , and findings from assessment of student learning (Exhibits 4.5 - 4.10). Data from these assessment efforts are available to guide the formation of the next strategic plan and the allocation of institutional resources.

All programs integrate writing instruction and the use of information resources and technology. All degree programs require students to take Composition, which includes a research paper and instruction in finding and using information from multiple sources. Library instruction and use of technology are highlights of the College Success course, in which students develop an
e-portfolio that includes an educational plan and selected work. Introduction to Software Applications is a course requirement for many degrees, and the curricula of most degree programs integrate the use of relevant software.

The College provides sophisticated presentation technology for classroom instruction: all classroom lecterns include computers with internet access, document cameras, projection screens and audio and video equipment. Faculty members are encouraged and trained to make use of these resources and to instruct students in their use as needed for student presentations.

Computer literacy is woven into classroom instruction. This is dominant in the technology-focused programs of Computer and Information Systems, Business and Office Technology, Library Technology, and Accounting, and it is also spread throughout Liberal Arts and General Education courses. Computers are available for student use throughout the campus in labs, in the library, and in the Internet Café. Further fostering computer literacy is the widespread use, since the Fall 2003 semester, of the WebCT online course management system that generates websites for every credit-level course section. WebCT enables faculty to post publisher-provided content, original documents, electronic readings, and audio/video resources for students to access at any time via a password-protected web interface. WebCT also includes class-limited communication tools such as discussion boards, chat rooms, and e-mail.

WebCT (upgraded to WebCT Vista in summer 2005) is hosted systemwide for all twelve community colleges, with each college providing its own support staff. At Capital Community College, the Academic Media Technology department provides administrative, training, technical, creative, and instructional design services to all faculty and students using WebCT Vista for their courses. Academic Media Technology, in concert with the System Office, the System Distance Learning Council, and the Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium, provides ongoing professional development workshops for the faculty throughout the year. These workshops, as well as individual training sessions, focus on technical and pedagogical aspects of the use of online instruction for both distance and on-campus classes. In preparation for the fall 2005 implementation of an upgraded WebCT Vista, 68 individual faculty members attended concentrated workshops held from March to August 2005.

Faculty use of WebCT has grown rapidly since it was first introduced for distance learning courses in 2001 and then for all courses in 2003. By the fall of 2005, 52 faculty members (20 full-time, 32 adjunct) were using WebCT Vista for some or all of their course instruction. These 52 faculty taught a total of 97 course sections (22 distance, 75 on-campus) that enrolled 2,253 students, representing 23% of the College’s total headcount.

Academic support for all students is focused in the Academic Success Center, which occupies most of the fourth floor of the building. The Center includes a Math Center that is dedicated to math support and a Learning Center that houses tutoring and workshops to supplement study in all other fields. Nearby, the Language Laboratory offers online and audio-visual support for ESL students. The Academic Success Center provides resources for a variety of personal and online tutoring and guided study. Activities include tutorial services, make-up testing, accommodations for students with special needs, computer assisted instruction, listening and speaking practice, group study sessions, and academic help across all disciplines. Courses linked in learning communities and developmental math courses are assigned tutor liaisons who work out of the Academic Success Center and receive training there.

Undergraduate Degree Programs / General Education / Major

Capital Community College programs provide students with a broad base of knowledge. The College has identified four learning goals for its general education core, guiding curricula across all programs. These goals emphasize competence in communication, quantitative skills, critical thinking, and global awareness. Courses in the general education core must address one or more of these goals. College general education goals conform with the systemwide stipulation, issued by the Department of Education and the Board of Trustees, that one third of the credits (twenty or more) of each degree must meet a general education requirement (Exhibit 4.11a). The credits must be distributed among the arts and humanities, science and mathematics, and the social and behavioral sciences. Since general education requirements for degree programs must conform with transfer agreements with four-year institutions, the College regularly reviews its requirements in response to shifts occurring at these institutions, particularly at the University of Connecticut and at Central Connecticut State University. Both NEASC and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education have recently modified their required general education outcomes. In t his changing landscape, the College’s Curriculum and Academic Policy Committee is currently reviewing general education learning outcomes, examining the core curriculum that anchors all programs, and realigning general education goals with the required curriculum. Parallel to this, the faculty has begun work on curriculum mapping for general education to identify courses in which each learning outcome is introduced, reinforced, and demonstrated.

Beyond general education requirements, each program focuses on a major area of knowledge and competence. Courses within the major are sequenced, and course level outcomes build on previous courses until program level outcomes are realized. To varying extents, each program includes elective courses (Exhibit 4.12). In many cases, developmental courses prepare students for program course sequences, but developmental courses do not count towards graduation credits. Within programs, the College ensures consistency of course content across sections through standardized course outlines. Most course outlines are available through password on the college website (Exhibit 4.13). Learning outcomes at the program level are clearly listed in the College Catalog, followed by the course requirements (Exhibit 4.1c).

The Office of Institutional Advancement has obtained a small grant from the United Technology Corporation to support some sophomore-level science/math courses that would otherwise be cancelled for lack of sufficient enrollment. In view of current budgetary limitations, grants such as these bolster the College’s ability to enrich students’ programs with upper level course work.

Integrity in the Award of Academic Credit

• Capital Community College strictly regulates its award of academic credit and is subject to the policies of multiple governing bodies in this regard. The College’s degrees, with 60 to 68 credits, are appropriately named Associate Degrees in Arts and in Science. Award of credit is overseen by the faculty and based on policies approved by the Board of Trustees and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education, and criteria are described in the Catalog and Student Handbook (Exhibits 4.1d & 4.14). Admission, re-admission and graduation require-ments are clearly presented in appropriate publications. Program scheduling, as described in the catalog, allows college-ready full-time students to graduate within two years. Students who need to complete developmental courses or other prerequisites may take longer. College certificate programs comprise, primarily, courses within in a field of study rather than general education courses. All courses within a certificate are part of the related associate degree program.

Administrative oversight of the academic program and the award of credit is the responsibility of Capital Community College faculty and academic administration. The faculty designs all programs, following an approval process that starts in departments and moves through local and systemwide governance processes. (For details, see Standard 3.) The College complies with systemwide guidelines in its recruitment, professional development, and evaluation of faculty. Recruitment and hiring of faculty follow regulations established by state law and by collective bargaining agreements, and the process includes faculty participation on search committees. All faculty members are required to have a Master’s degree in the area in which they teach. Faculty evaluation includes evaluations by students, classroom observations by supervisors, a self-assessment and a professional development plan. (For details, see Standard 5.)

Students admitted to all degree programs are required to meet established academic requirements approved by the Connecticut Community-Technical Colleges Board of Trustees and the Connecticut State Department of Higher Education. The College also complies with Board policies in its evaluation of prior learning, which can be assessed through Credit by Examination or the College Level Examination Program (CLEP). All incoming students take a placement test to assess readiness for collegiate work; those not ready for credit English or mathematics must take developmental course work, for which no credit is awarded. All graduating students undergo a graduation audit with their academic advisors prior to degree certification by the registrar. (For details, see Standard 6.)

Credit is awarded based on achievement of course and program outcomes as determined by faculty members in accordance with the college grading system. Internships include a classroom component and are evaluated in terms of identified course and program learning outcomes. Academic probation, suspension, and re-admission policy are Board approved and published in the Catalog and Student Handbook, as are the policies on plagiarism.

Students may transfer credit from other institutions in accordance with Board of Trustees policy (Exhibit 4.11b). Based on this policy, the College grants academic credit for courses completed at all institutions within the Connecticut system of higher education and at all other regionally accredited collegiate institutions. The policy provides guidelines for such transfer including the requirement that students must complete at least 25 percent of the minimum credits for the degree through course work at Capital Community College, including a significant portion in the major. The College does not award credit toward graduation for work designed exclusively to prepare students for collegiate study or for non-collegiate experiential learning.

• The College offers some accelerated courses, primarily in technology areas, designed for those working in the field. In such courses, the number of minutes of instruction is the same as in fifteen week courses; course content and outcomes are the same. As described in detail in the 2001 Distance Learning Report to NEASC, online courses differ from those on-site only in the method of delivery (Exhibit 4.15). Weekend and evening courses do not differ from day courses in any way. Credit instruction offered by the Continuing Education Division is under the oversight of the Academic Dean and department chairs for academic purposes and is indistinguishable from Academic Division offerings in its design, content, approval process, faculty, and related academic support services and resources .

Assessment of Student Learning

Capital Community Collegehas committed itself to maintaining “ programs and support services that enable students to develop academic and professional skills that equip them for ongoing challenges and opportunities.” This dimension of the College’s mission statement provides context for the entire college community to focus systematically on student learning in both general education core courses and in courses for completion of specific programs.

Over the last six years, the College has developed a framework of questions and methods that guide a variety of assessments of student learning. Led by a team of faculty, the effort focused first on principles, pitfalls, and faculty investment in assessment. Then the team developed a format for specifying student learning outcomes for each course. Members of the team went on to assist program coordinators in developing program-level learning outcomes. These are now available, as noted above, on the college website and in the College Catalog. Between 2001 and 2005, the team led the College in course-embedded assessments of student progress toward competencies included in the four general education goals. These assessments focused on writing, mathematics, critical thinking, and global awareness. Based on the results of the assessments, the team made specific recommendations for change and communicated these to the operational departments that could implement the changes. Through grant funding, support of a consultant, professional development, and faculty released time, these efforts have been nurtured and supported by the college administration.

The four general education assessments were designed by the faculty team with the support of an assessment consultant and based on research into best practices. The team identified the methods and contents of the four general education assessments, organized and administered the projects, and scored the results using team-designed rubrics. The assessments concentrated on anonymous aggregate student cohorts rather than individual students, and were formative rather than summative. This facilitated broad-based participation throughout the College, with no threat of inequitable scrutiny on particular students or teachers. Faculty in all areas were encouraged to include the embedded assignments in their courses and to consider the findings concerning both student learning and the assessment process itself. The data were electronically stored, and final reports outlining the methodology, findings and recommendations were sub-mitted to the Academic Dean. Extensive information regarding events, assessment objectives, methods, and findings can be found on the assessment website (Exhibit 4.10) as well as in the online Institutional Assessment Portfolio (Exhibit 4.16). The portfolio was first developed as part of a NEASC-funded project in which ten New England colleges and universities were asked to pilot electronic portfolios as a means of communicating planning and assessment data to internal and external constituencies. The web format allows users to find materials and to view, via hyperlinks, the linkages between the planning and assessment processes.

Among the salient findings emerging from the assessment of writing was that the completion of English Composition is necessary but not sufficient to foster collegiate level competence in writing. In the light of that finding, the College initiated a series of changes based on the assessment team’s recommendations. These included: 1) requiring key writing classes as prerequisites or corequisites for courses in two departments, thereby assuring that students get started promptly in their writing instruction, 2) pairing writing and content courses in learning communities, and 3) fostering writing across the curriculum with discipline-specific approaches to ensure that students continue to write often throughout their progress toward graduation.

At the department level, curricular changes have responded to the assessments of writing and math. The Humanities department has developed a common writing assignment for all English Composition classes (Exhibit 4.17) and initiated a practice of collecting and scoring samples to assess whether results were improving after implementing pedagogical initiatives. The Science and Mathematics department has established the Application of Assessment to Mathematics Group (AAM) to work on ways of responding to assessment findings. The group has revised a key course, established common core question sets for final exams in three courses, and developed an active mentoring program for adjunct teachers (Exhibit 4.18).

Each course’s learning outcomes are included in the course outline. Assessment of student learning at the course level has taken the variety of forms appropriate to grass-roots proliferation of interest. In a CIS class, a software program facilitates assessment of foundation skills. In developmental math classes, course outcomes have clarified course sequencing. In English classes, course outcomes have facilitated examination of the reading and writing course progressions. The development of a common format for learning outcomes has been the foundation for natural incremental growth in outcomes-based syllabus design and teaching.

At the program level, assessment follows a systemwide program review model supplemented, where relevant, by reviews addressed to the requirements of national accrediting bodies. Programs are normally reviewed on a five-year cycle. The following programs have completed their reviews for the current cycle: Nursing, Radiologic Technology, Paramedic Studies, English as a Second Language, Architectural Engineering Technology, Social Services, Medical Assisting, Business Office Technology: Computer Application Specialist, Management, Computer and Information Systems, Accounting and Early Childhood Education. The remaining new programs will be completed during the 2006-2007 academic year.

Program-level learning outcomes guide key aspects of the program review process and provide anchors for the learning outcomes at the course levels. A few examples are highlighted below.

• Within the ESL program, multiple measures determine students’ readiness to exit from the program: the student’s performance on the standardized Michigan Test of Language Proficiency (MTLP), an exit writing sample holistically scored by program staff, and teacher-assigned grades. When aggregate percentage scores on the exit sample showed only 60% of exiting students writing at the target level, ESL faculty modified the capstone writing project and applied learning community structures to better link academic instruction and support services. ESL faculty also streamlined a course, Modes of Communication, designed to assist ESL students in the methods and technology needed for writing research papers (Exhibits 4.19 - 4.21).
• In 2004 The Social Services Program combined assessment and articulation in a project funded by NEASC. Working with faculty from Central Connecticut State University (CCSU), College faculty aligned program level outcomes with those of the CCSU social work faculty. Jointly, faculty from both institutions planned an assessment strategy and set student performance benchmarks. The project resulted in significant curriculum changes in the College’s program, facilitating transfer for program students (Exhibit 4.22).
• The health-related programs have been in the vanguard of assessment at the College, using multiple internal methods in addition to licensure rates. The Paramedic Program holds annual reviews of goals and objectives, assesses student learning by both formative and summative measures, and conducts employer satisfaction surveys. After sharing results with staff and members of the program’s advisory board, the program coordinator modifies aspects of the program to address problems. If, for example, students taking the licensure exam score low on the cardiology section in their first try, the related curriculum content is adjusted to improve student learning. Such modifications have resulted in a 100% pass rate by the second try for Paramedic students in the past three years (Exhibit 4.23).
• The Division of Nursing engages in continuous evaluation of all components of the Nursing Program. The Master Evaluation Plan guides systematic program review including collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data from internal and external sources (Exhibit 4.24), using the results to spur changes. For example, a scheduled evaluation of curriculum relevancy demonstrated a need to address preparation for disaster. Committees collaborated with experts in the field, and an additional thread within the program was adopted in May, 2004. Formative evaluation of student learning outcomes is ongoing. For example, the Arnett Test is administered annually to final semester students as they near program completion. The test simulates computerized national licensing examinations for registered nurses. Results are used to guide immediate efforts to strengthen identified areas of weakness.

These examples illustrate some of the ways in which student learning assessment operates to guide improvements in pedagogy and curriculum at the program level. Further details of student learning outcome assessment at the program level are available in the reports of recent program reviews (Exhibit 4.25).

A major institution-wide assessment effort is ongoing under the auspices of the Achieving the Dream initiative. Capital Community College is one of 32 community colleges in the United States chosen by the Lumina Foundation and American Association of Community Colleges to participate in this effort. One of the objectives of Achieving the Dream is to improve student success through analysis of data on student outcomes and through interventions based on that analysis. A second objective is to eliminate achievement gaps among groups of students, especially gaps involving economically disadvantaged students or students of color. As part of the project, the College is tracking cohorts for six years to identify several rates: 1) the percentage placing into developmental education; 2) the percentage moving from developmental education into credit courses; and 3) the percentage moving through credit courses to transfer or graduation. All data is disaggregated to identify any achievement gaps among groups. These figures provide baselines for future student learning assessment inquiries.

One function of assessment is to lend visibility to ongoing practices, in part to clarify and communicate them, and in part to look for gaps that need filling. To that end, the College has begun a curricular mapping project to reveal pathways toward learning outcomes for students in several programs. ESL, Nursing, Social Services, Paramedic and Radiologic Technology have completed such mapping (Exhibit 4.26), and the project has recently begun focusing on general education and liberal arts. Earlier, during the general education assessment projects, the assessment team raised visibility of general education goals through collegewide events that engaged students and staff in the key questions of each year of inquiry. Further, to lend visibility to the emerging interest in making evidence-based decisions, the College participated in the NEASC-sponsored Institutional Assessment Portfolio consortium from 2001 to 2003. During this period, the College developed an electronic portfolio that reports institutional effectiveness and student learning assessment activities and documents the cycle of assessment and planning (Exhibit 4.27).

Appraisal

Capital Community College is dedicated to open admissions for most of its programs, and the College takes pride in the progress that leads to the graduation of successful students. However, many students come to the College with scant preparation and unrealistic expectations for college work. Therefore, one of the most significant challenges facing the Academic Division arises before students actually enter college-level classes because results of placement testing steer an increasingly large percentage of students into developmental courses. Data on the College’s entering students indicate that 90%, all with high school diplomas, need some developmental courses. Of the 30% placing at the lowest developmental levels, 100% need more than four developmental courses in mathematics, writing and reading. Attrition rates are linked to the lack of readiness for college: 25% of Capital students leave after one semester and a second 25% leave after two. Attrition continues at a high rate as students move into credit courses (Exhibit 4.28).

For underprepared students, the College has recently been offering two mathematics courses, two writing courses, and one reading course, supplemented by tutoring in the Academic Success Center. This is insufficient to meet developmental needs, especially in the area of reading. The literature on developmental education suggests that to make access to collegiate-level instruction a reality for entering developmental students, a different structure is needed. Because the College’s developmental classes straddle departments, issues of administration and restructuring of developmental education are continuously on the table. The result is lack of coordination of the many good initiatives at the developmental level, and instability for faculty and students. With diffuse responsibility for oversight, there has been no treatment of these courses as a program, no program review process with systematic assessment of student learning, and thus no cycle of continuous improvement.

In addition to improving its own developmental programs, if the College is to provide effective open access, it needs to collaborate more fully with the institutions from which the students come. The fact that many entering students have high school degrees but are not prepared for college work suggests the need for better discussions with high schools, adult basic education, and GED providers to align curricula and expectations.

For selective admissions programs, the attempt to provide broad access may sacrifice retention rates in some cases. The nursing program is currently examining admissions requirements to ensure that those admitted have a reasonable chance of success. The College is committed to developing alternative strategies to help students meet more stringent entrance requirements that ensure continuing access to nursing and other selective programs.

While the institution has focused much attention on the assessment of student learning, the College has only episodically assessed barriers to academic success. Because of this year’s convergence of the self-study, the reinvigorated strategic planning process, and the Achieving the Dream initiative, several focus groups and surveys have brought such barriers to light. Students and faculty have independently identified problems with information technology (IT) as barriers to effective instruction and academic success. Since the move to the new campus, faculty and staff have been eagerly using the technology available in the classrooms, labs, and faculty offices. Along with widespread computer usage comes an increased demand on technology administration. As the surveys indicated, faculty have been unhappy with the IT Department’s inability to meet the needs of teachers working with the computers. Technical support has been available for some problems, but a wide range of issues confront teachers every day. Confusing password systems, shut down times, random and sudden changes in the overall network systems, extended down time for copy machines, breakdowns of computer equipment or software, insufficiency of IT personnel qualified to deal with complaints, lack of authorization to download and troubleshoot education software – such issues arise routinely. For all student focus groups conducted as part of strategic planning in the fall of 2005, 100% reported that deteriorating IT support was a significant barrier to academic success.

From the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), the most satisfying finding was that students who had participated in either the College Success course or in a learning community showed significantly higher levels of engagement than those who had not (Exhibit 4.29). This finding supports the continuation and expansion of these two interventions that were designed to produce exactly this result. However, the related faculty survey, CCFSSE, intended to examine differing perceptions of faculty and students, rendered less happy findings concerning the delivery of academic support services. While 85% of the faculty reported referring students for tutoring, only 25% of students reported taking advantage of tutoring support. Only 8% of students reported using services for students with disabilities. Although 85% of instructors reported discussing career plans with students, only 60% of students reported the same. Student focus groups also reported low satisfaction with a variety of student and academic support services that impact academic success. The data indicate the need to strengthen the delivery of tutoring services, counseling, customer service, programs for the learning disabled, and faculty advising.

The Institutional Assessment Portfolio has provided a convenient vehicle for communicating assessment results and, via hyperlinks, illustrating their connection to planning. It offers a base for linking the NEASC self-study to the new strategic plan and assessment data, permitting the community to easily view and respond to both documents (Exhibit 4.27).

Resources are allocated to components of the academic program based on routine strategic and operational planning. While the current allocation for faculty and academic support staff salaries, initiatives, equipment and supplies comes to 62% of the College budget, it is questionable whether this is sufficient. Since the last accreditation, the number of full time faculty has remained the same (63) over the ten year period (with significant drops prior to 2003 followed by recent recovery), while student enrollment in credit courses increased by 28% from 1998 to 2006. Retiring faculty were not replaced, even in years when the College held a significant surplus. At present, over one third of the College’s classes are taught by adjuncts. Most faculty and all department chairs are supported by a single secretary. Oversight of the academic program is also minimally funded. In 1994, the College replaced full-time administrators in academic departments (except for Nursing) with half-time department chairs, impeding curricular planning, departmental initiatives, and evaluation of large cadres of adjuncts. In addition, many individual programs have no coordinators. Capital Community College’s percentage of budget allocated to the academic program is the smallest in the statewide system.

Undergraduate Degree Programs / General Education / Major

All College programs offer courses of study that are both broad and deep, and their learning outcomes and curricula are clearly defined. Program and course evaluation are key responsibilities for Capital Community College faculty and staff. Over the last ten years, assessment efforts have grown in scope and have found their way into the program review cycle. However, the program review instrument currently in use at Capital does not emphasize assessment of student learning and was designed to respond to the previous version of the NEASC Standards. A revision of the review instrument is needed at the systemwide level in order for program review to coordinate assessment information efficiently.

Assessment of degree programsindicates that students who persist to graduation demonstrate the identified outcomes both within the major and in the general education areas. Licensure rates are high for graduates of relevant programs (Exhibit 4.30). Programs throughout the College are employing their various assessments and program reviews as catalysts for significant changes. A few examples follow:

• Surveys with area local employers conducted during the 2004 Business Office Technology Program review led to curriculum adjustments because of industry trends showing increases in employment projections for some fields and decreases in others.
• The Medical Assisting Program review resulted in a resequencing of courses within the program; this and others changes prompted by the review led to a 400% increase in the graduation rate.
• Review of the Social Services Program resulted in the hiring of additional full-time faculty.

The College’s adoption of the General Studies program provides an opportunity to strengthen the transfer function of the two liberal arts pathways and also to clarify curriculum and advising for the large group of students who have not declared a major. Previously, students with undeclared majors were included, by default, in the liberal arts category, forcing liberal arts courses to try to respond to a wide range of student purposes and needs. This hampered full development of the liberal arts pathways as coordinated programs, subject to review and assessment. At the same time, it blurred the progress of students without a declared major. The new General Studies program will serve both as a feeder into other programs for students as they clarify their goals, and also as a track for students who are interested in maximum choice of courses towards a terminal associate degree. However, the structures for overseeing these distinct programs are not yet in place. The programs need coordinators, program review procedures, and academic advising plans.

In enrollment decisions, students choose from a varied mix of technical and non-technical programs, terminal and transfer degrees. Students who are fully enrolled in programs are guided by clearly outlined learning outcomes and program requirements. For students who plan to continue their education beyond the Associate Degree, Capital Community College and the Connecticut Community College System have worked long and intensively to facilitate transfer tracks. As a result, the Community College System now has transfer agreements with the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Connecticut State University (Exhibit 4.1e). However, students in focus groups conducted in the fall of 2005 reported difficulty understanding the agreements. Obstacles included the following: the transfer agreements don’t apply to all majors, the UConn agreements may not be in force at UConn branch campuses, and transfer agreements may accept some credits only as electives. Concentrated advising is required for students to navigate among the opportunities. While the College attempts to provide knowledgeable transfer counseling, the failure of the state of Connecticut to simplify the movement of students through its higher education units adversely affects community college students statewide.

Integrity in the Award of Academic Credit

Since award of academic credit is based on clearly stated policies approved by the Board of Trustees and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education, and since it is overseen by faculty, few controversies arise. However, one misunderstanding has arisen concerning the assignment of grades to students who stop attending class but fail to complete a withdrawal form. Until recently, the instructor could assign an AW, signifying “administrative withdrawal,” instead of an F. The distinction between AW and F had consequences throughout many areas of the College including student services, registrar’s office, financial aid, and the business office. The AW has recently been terminated by the systemwide Central Office, limiting instructors’ options to the N (“no grade”) or F for students in the situation described above. This avoids some of the problems attending the AW, but questions remain about the applicability and justification of the N, and lack of guidelines has allowed variant interpretations of its function.

Like many schools in the electronic age, Capital Community College struggles with the issue of plagiarism. The plagiarism policy published in the Student Handbook and College Catalog (Exhibit 4.1f) relies on individual faculty judgment and potentially complex disciplinary procedures. These lead to inconsistencies in application of the policy. Complicating the picture is the diversity of student views on the notion of intellectual property, making it hard for many students to understand that, in college, sampling and downloading without attribution constitute cheating. The College has devoted professional days to the topic and purchased software that tracks sources of online plagiarism. Departments have tried additional methods, such as intense classroom instruction related to appropriate citation of sources or the design of assignments that make plagiarism difficult. These department and course-based methods reduce instances of plagiarism, at least in the short run.

Student Learning Assessment

The learning outcomes for Capital Community College’s programs, as well as the methods of assessing them, are consistent with the College Mission, the expectation of the larger academic community, and the standards of the Connecticut Department of Higher Education. Many were designed with input from advisory boards representing both the workplace and transfer institutions. Within some programs, assessment has been done in cooperation with transfer institutions, assuring that Capital’s identified learning outcomes are parallel to theirs. Assessment rubrics are consistent with those used nationwide and, in the case of general education assessment, Capital Community College has been cited by the Association of American Colleges and Universities as a model (Exhibit 4.31).

During the five years in which the College received Title III grant funds to support student learning assessment, the Student Learning Assessment Team, working with a nationally respected consultant, collaborated on shaping assessment theory and practice to the needs of the College. The members of the team mentored program coordinators in articulating program goals and helped department chairs to define course outcomes. Further, they shared information on methods and practices with interested members of the college community. However, they focused their most innovative attentions on the difficult area of general education assessment, where their rubric designs stimulated clarification of cross-curricular shared values. Members of the team made presentations at major regional and national conferences. The activities of the team are chronicled on its website (Exhibit 4.10).

Of the four general education assessments that the team led, two were able to complete the full assessment cycle, using results for curricular improvement. These were the assessments of writing and math, fields of focused concern to particular departments. Because members of the English and math departments felt accountable for and engaged by the challenges of implementing improvements, the assessment process led to curricular changes. For the assessments of critical thinking and global awareness, where departmental accountability is diffuse, changes have been harder to envision.

Capital Community College has attempted to understand, in a variety of ways, what and how its students learn. Student learning assessment on the course, program and institutional level are ongoing. However, a permanent administrative structure supporting student learning assessment is not yet in place. After the last round of general assessment activities ended in spring of 2005 and the Title III grant ended, the Student Learning Assessment team was discontinued. Its recommendations for a sustainable institutional structure for the assessment of student learning have not been enacted.

With an established routine of effective program review, a strong foundation in student learning assessment, and vigorous inquiry underway about barriers to student success, the College is well prepared to nurture a growing culture of evidence. In order to undertake regular and exploratory assessments of student success, the College needs leadership in the collection and analysis of data. A two-year vacancy in the position of Director of Institutional Research has limited the vision and focus needed for effective assessment design, implementation and interpretation.

Projection

Several initiatives loom over the academic division at Capital. In its strategic planning for 2006-2011, the College is focusing on improved transfer opportunities, more effective academic advising, continuing development of technical and other new programs to serve emerging community needs and continued use of program review to spur improvements.

Over the past year, the College has been using a preparation grant from the Achieving the Dream project to support a year of inquiry into the strengths and weaknesses of college policies and services for students from groups that have been underserved in higher education. Core team members, working with consultants, are developing priorities and action plans that may lead to an implementation grant for 2006-2007. If the College receives the grant, it will implement several initiatives that focus upon coordinating developmental education and assessing competencies in mathematics, reading, and writing. A central goal of the Achieving a Dream initiative is the sponsorship of a culture of evidence. In its work on this initiative, the College will track entering student cohorts for six years, assessing graduation and transfer rates and student success in developmental and gateway credit courses. Along with surveys and focus groups, this tracking will help the College assess the institutional climate with the objective of identifying and eliminating institutional barriers to the success of any group of students.

Improved IT support throughout the College will alleviate problems in the academic program. The Dean of Administration and the IT Department have developed an operational plan with specific benchmarks for continuously responsive service. At the level of strategic planning, the Information Resources Management Committee (IRMC) has been charged to develop a strategic technology plan. These measures will facilitate function of the academic program, and provide structures for direct faculty and staff involvement in decision making, assessment and improvement of crucial IT services. The College Senate, to which the IRMC reports, will encourage collaboration between faculty and IT personnel in order to remedy technological glitches in classrooms, offices and laboratories, especially those directly interfering with scholarship and pedagogy. In the case of online learning, the efficient organizational systems in place through WebCT Vista and the Academic Media Technology Department will continue to receive College support. (See also Standard 7.)

The Achieving the Dream initiative has clarified the percentage of students needing developmental education at the College, as well as best practices in developmental pedagogy. In response, the College has recognized a need for a coherent developmental program with administrative oversight, faculty with special focus on developmental education, dedicated academic support services, and specialized counseling. Restructuring accordingly, the College is currently hiring a division director for developmental and general education who will be responsible for redesigning curricula and coordinating services. The redesign will also respond to student focus group data on support services. To be initiated in the fall of 2006, faculty members have introduced an additional course, Academic Reading, as a prerequisite for Composition. Wherever possible, the course will be taught in a learning community paired with a writing class. This will prepare students more fully for the reading and writing demands of credit-level courses.

Support of developmental education will be one of the functions of the College’s new academic advising system. Designed in the fall of 2005, the academic advising model will help faculty and staff work with students as they move into and through program curricula and explore degree options (Exhibit 4.32). Policies and practices will give particular attention to the progression of students through developmental classes. The project's purpose is to improve the delivery of intake, academic support and advising services to the College’s 3,500 students, more than 70% of whom fit the profile of first generation college students. Since research indicates that students whose parents did not attend college have difficulty in navigating higher education, the proposed model will redesign and humanize the enrollment/advising process. The model will operate on two levels, one “high touch” with extensive personal contact for students at early stages of progression through the College, and the other “high tech” with online resources for students already matriculated into particular programs. The model has been extensively discussed at collegewide meetings and in small groups, assuring broad understanding of its goals and structure. The project will be implemented over a three year period. Phase 1, piloted in the summer of 2006, includes a series of group advising workshops for new students and a prototype academic advising web portal, which will be built by December of 2006. To support Phase 1, the College has received a $25,000 grant from St. Paul Travelers and has included enhanced advising in the Achieving the Dream initiative. The new advising project will also involve faculty advising students in the First Year Success course. This course will provide extended advising for general studies degree students.

In addition to improving its own developmental program, the College is working with Hartford adult basic education providers to align their curricula with Capital’s. The Nellie Mae Foundation has provided financial support for this pilot.

CCC has also received Department of Labor funds to provide improved advising and academic support for students preparing to enter allied health programs. This will allow the College maintain access to programs while raising entrance requirements to ensure student success.

Improved IT support throughout the College will alleviate problems in the academic program. The Dean of Administration and the IT Department have developed an operational plan with specific benchmarks for continuously responsive service. At the level of strategic planning, the Information Resources Management Committee (IRMC) has been charged to develop a strategic technology plan. These measures will facilitate function of the academic program, and provide structures for direct faculty and staff involvement in decision making, assessment and improvement of crucial IT services. The College Senate, to which the IRMC reports, will encourage collaboration between faculty and IT personnel in order to remedy technological glitches in classrooms, offices and laboratories, especially those directly interfering with scholarship and pedagogy. In the case of online learning, the efficient organizational systems in place through WebCT Vista and the Academic Media Technology Department will continue to receive College support. (See also Standard 7)

The problem of underfunding of the academic program may be alleviated by a new approach to strategic planning at the College. The President has asked that the Strategic Planning Committee be incorporated permanently into the college governance system by the fall of 2006 in order to assure overall balance and cohesion of academic initiatives, resource allocation and collaboration between faculty, staff and administration in fulfilling the College’s mission.

As in the past, the Institutional Assessment Portfolio will enable the community to view planning and assessment for the academic program. It is currently being updated to include materials on the completion of academic objectives in the current strategic plan, newly completed program reviews, CCSSE and CCFSSE results, and results of the ongoing curriculum mapping project.

Undergraduate Degree Programs / General Education / Major

Along with developmental education, transfer education will be a new focus in 2006/07. With the new distinction between General Studies and Liberal Arts Programs, clearer standards can be set for Liberal Arts outcomes, particularly in writing. Writing across the curriculum will be a centerpiece of both liberal arts degree paths, which will include an interdisciplinary capstone course designed by faculty. This interdisciplinary course that requires application of all the General Education outcomes (Exhibit 4.33), has been approved by the Senate, and corresponding curricular adjustments are being proposed for approval in the fall of 2006. The course, which is being designed to transfer as a writing-intensive course for the University of Connecticut, will also be used for assessment of student writing upon graduation. The newly-clarified Liberal Arts program will combine with the new Academic Advising model to support faculty members and counselors in guiding students toward successful transfer to programs of higher education. A program coordinator has also been assigned to the Liberal Arts Program to further assist students.

With the efficacy of learning communities well established at the College, they can be offered in different areas and academic levels, particularly in the Social Science and Humanities fields. From 2001-2005, grant-funded stipends for participating faculty produced an experienced group of faculty and staff dedicated to collaborative learning environments. The CCSSE report (Exhibit 4.29) demonstrated that learning community participants outperformed other students on multiple CCSSE benchmarks. Based on this data, additional learning communities will be a principal intervention funded by the Achieving the Dream grant. As with previous learning communities, embedded tutoring and supplemental instruction will be prominent features of the learning communities.

Advisory boards offer the College an opportunity for external perspectives on curriculum development. Feedback from newly created advisory boards as well as surveys sent to instructional staff, students, and Hartford area businesses help the College assess whether programs such as Communication Media, Management, Criminal Justice and CIS areas are targeting current needs and taking maximum advantage of internship opportunities. Through the College Senate and its standing committees, the existing departments will continue to review, revise and restructure academic programs (particularly in matters of necessary course requirements) in an effort to focus on academic issues and the quality of course instruction. In addition, the System Council of Deans has completed a revision of the program review process, emphasizing assessment and continuous improvement.

The College will continue its ongoing development of transfer articulation agreements with four-year institutions, particularly with the Connecticut State Universities and the University of Connecticut. One step in this progress is the Nursing Division’s two-year initiative with a systemwide curriculum consultant to standardize the nursing curriculum across the state’s community colleges. Program standardization will facilitate transfer and permit the system to undergo a single accreditation visit from the National League for Nursing and the State Board of Nursing. The College is currently pursuing another articulation agreement for students entering the Education program at Central Connecticut State University. Since the variety of articulation agreements sometimes causes confusion, the College is restructuring the counseling department to clarify transfer advising.

Integrity in the Award of Academic Credit

The systemwide mandate to eliminate AW came in the middle of the spring 2006 semester, and faculty had to shift quickly to the new grading notation of N (no grade). Many questions arose about the notation itself and about inconsistencies in its use. These questions are being referred to the Curriculum and Academic Policies committee for study, and that committee will make a recommendation to the Senate in the fall of 2006.

Student Learning Assessment

Assessment of student proficiency in meeting the four general education goals has provided the College with valuable information about what students need in order to succeed in college. This information provides a strong base on which curricular, pedagogical, and further assessment efforts can be built. Some of the interventions that began with assessment data have settled into routine procedures, such as meetings of the AAM through which math teachers continue to work, and use of the common research-based assignment in Composition, which has become a key marker of student writing progress over the span of enrollment in the College. These structures will continue, providing a core of inquiries about student learning.

In May of 2005 the Student Learning Assessment Team proposed to the President a design for restructuring the College’s student learning assessment efforts. The team endorsed the faculty-driven committee structure of the 2001-2005 initiative that had led to the successful development of course-embedded general education assessment. However, in order for student learning assessment to be institutionalized in a long-term sustainable pattern, the assessment team proposed a hybrid organizational structure in which the Director of Institutional Research would work closely with faculty to design measurements of student learning, lead the implementation of the assessments, and analyze the results, sharing them with the academic departments. This is the design that the College will pursue.

Assessment within programs will be managed by departments under the Academic Dean. For example, a major undertaking that will start in the 2006-2007 academic year will be the implementation of a formal assessment of learning outcomes for students in Capital Community College’s accounting and management programs. The College will join a select group of two- year colleges in piloting the Educational Testing Service’s (ETS) two-year major field test in business. The testing program, which will be implemented in the 2006-2007 academic year and continue for each year thereafter, will require each of Capital’s students majoring in accounting or management to take, before graduation, an objective exit exam that is currently in the final stages of development at ETS. The test will provide statistics that will allow Capital to identify areas of weakness and to measure the outcomes of its accounting majors against objective standards, including the performance of students at other two year colleges across the country. In the future, it is possible that a minimum score on the exam will be required for students to graduate with an accounting or management degree.

Each degree and certificate program exercises some autonomy in the setting of objectives and the implementation of efforts to achieve those objectives. Within the framework of the program review process, programs remain engaged in self-assessment and responsiveness to changing needs. Under the oversight of the Academic Dean, program coordinators clarify their programs’ direction (Exhibit 4.34) and collaborate toward the steady improvement of the College’s ability to fulfill its mission, the mission of preparing students for transfer education and careers and enabling them “ to develop academic and professional skills that equip them for ongoing challenges and opportunities.”

Exhibits

• 4.1 College Catalog 2005-06
  a. Guaranteed Admission Program, pp 25
  b. College of Technology, pp 71-72
  c. Program learning outcomes and course sequences, pp 50-90
  d. Criteria for credit, pp 27-31
  e. Transfer agreements, pp 24-25
  f. Plagiarism policy, p 29
• 4.2 Strategic Plan 2002-2006
• 4.3 BOT Program Review form
• 4.4 CCSSE report (Available in the Document Room)
• 4.5 Graduate survey
• 4.6 Community College Benefits Project
• 4.7 Graduation and transfer rates
• 4.8 Student Classroom Evaluation form
• 4.9 Faculty performance review form
• 4.10 Student Learning Assessment Team website
• 4.11 BOT Policies Manual
  a. General Education requirements, Sec. 3.3.4
  b. Transfer credit guidelines, Sec. 3.17
  
• 4.12 Electives Chart
• 4.13 Standardized outlines
• 4.14 Student Handbook 2005-06, criteria for credit, pp 71-81
• 4.15 2001 Distance Learning Report to NEASC
• 4.16 Institutional Assessment Portfolio
• 4.17 Research-based assignment for English 101
• 4.18 AAM minutes
• 4.19 ESL Capstone Rubric
• 4.20 Sample Learning Community Organizer
• 4.21 Modes of Communication outline
• 4.22 NEASC Curriculum and Articulation Project For Social Work Programs
• 4.23 Paramedic Program Success Rates on National Registry Exam
• 4.24 Master Evaluation Plan for Nursing
• 4.25 Samples of recent program review reports (Available in the Document Room)
• 4.26 Samples of curricular mapping, program level
• 4.27 Institutional Assessment Portfolio
• 4.28 ATD data report
• 4.29 CCSSE Benchmark Comparisons
• 4.30 Summary of licensure rates
• 4.31 A. Leskes and B. Wright. The Art and Science of Assessing General Education Outcomes: A Practical Guide, AACU 2005, pp 36-7 (Available in the Document Room)
• 4.32 Academic Advising Model
• 4.33 IDS Liberal Arts Capstone outline
• 4.34 Program-specific Plans