This annual assessment award reflects the College's commitment to continuous improvement as a result of ongoing assessment in student learning and college services. This award is designed to recognize and showcase outstanding efforts in the area of assessment at Penn College. An outstanding assessment process is characterized by the use of assessment results to improve student learning, campus programs, student support services, or the institution as a whole.
Winners become part of the award’s rich heritage of recipients who have been recognized since 2013.
2019-20 Academic Year
The President’s Award for Outstanding Assessment was presented to two faculty members: Linda L. Locher, an assistant professor and counselor, and Terri A. Stone, assistant professor of nursing, whose collaborative effort both increased the number of mental health screenings and assisted nursing students in meeting course objectives for their Community Health Nursing class. This project maximized both campus mental health promotion and students’ practical clinical experience by combining the expertise and resources of two departments.
A comparison of the number of screenings completed by students in the weeks prior to and after the project revealed a sizable increase in the number of completed administrations, most notably in the two areas that were the focus of the intervention, anxiety and depression screening, and in the general distress/health screening. The positive, immediate impact of the promotional campaign reflected in the increased number of completed screenings, both during and after the intervention, was impressive and supports the effectiveness of the project. Materials developed for the project also demonstrated knowledge gained by the participating nursing students regarding anxiety and depression and the prevalence of mental health issues among the college student community.
2018-19 Academic Year
The President’s Award for Outstanding Assessment was presented to the Plastics and Polymer Engineering Technology Department: Adam C. Barilla, Kirk M. Cantor, Jose M. Perez, Joshua J. Rice and Timothy E. Weston.
As both of the College’s plastics degrees are on the short list of those nationally accredited, the team employs a deliberate system of assessment and reassessment to ensure that the courses meet learning goals and satisfy accreditation standards.
The hallmark of the department is the pursuit of continuous improvement. If Required Student Outcomes (RSOs) do not meet the required level, adjustments are made the next time the course is taught, including new hands-on exercises, and increased time dedicated to the outcome. Faculty re-assess to determine if the change lead to improvement in student learning. Even if a course meets the minimums, the activities are reviewed to make improvement or, sometimes, the bar is set higher.
The team’s assessment process is an ongoing and collaborative one in which the entire department meets to discuss areas of concern. In this way, new ideas come out to help correct the issues. As such, student learning is the department’s responsibility, not the faculty member who teaches the course. The process, templates, and strategies used by the Plastics faculty are exemplary.
2015-16 Academic Year
The President’s Award for Outstanding Assessment was presented to Joanna Flynn and Edwin Owens for their work in conducting various assessments in an attempt to determine how to improve student retention by increasing success in gateway math courses. Their most recent project measured what remediation efforts have had the most significant impact on improving student performance on the mathematics placement exam.
The Penn College mathematics placement exam measures the algebraic skills that a student knows and does not know, and provides information about student anxieties and feelings toward math. This information is used for math course placement. To help students enter Penn College with no or fewer developmental classes, the Mathematics Department strongly encourages students to remediate deficiencies that a placement exam reveals and then retake the placement exam following remediation.
Flynn and Owens’ most recent assessment provides direct insight on what type of intervention strategies are most effective and how students can increase the likelihood of improving their mathematics placement level. This is relevant because the assessment provides sound recommendations to help students decrease or eliminate the amount of time necessary for developmental coursework, thus allowing students to begin major courses earlier in their collegiate career.
This assessment provides relevant recommendations that will be immediately implemented through the advising process.
Kathleen Hyatt and Margaret Faust, Assistant Professors of Nursing
Recipient of 2014 President's Assessment Award
This assessment capitalizes on use of a new laboratory serving the Nursing majors, and -in this instance- focuses on the course, NUR 214 Adult Medical/Surgical Nursing II; the laboratory mimics a hospital setting with SimMan 3G, a high fidelity manikin as the patient. A standard simulated patient scenario is presented in five phases. During each phase, half of the group interacts with the manikin in carrying out the nursing process while the other half observes and prepares critical feedback.
The laboratory experience provides students a “safe yet challenging place” in which to learn. For patient safety reasons, in the actual clinical setting, students are extremely limited in their ability to make “real” clinical decisions based on their independent observations and critical thinking skills or perform clinical skills beyond basic level care. In fact most all of their complex nursing skills and decision making is done either under the direct guidance of the clinical instructor, the nursing staff or “on paper." In the simulation lab, the students are given information and then are allowed to gather further data and make their own clinical decisions (good or bad) related to the determined patient needs. This setting allows the students to independently and critically think through the scenario and to apply their knowledge without the continuous direction from the nursing faculty. During the scenario the students are allowed to reflect on their mistakes and identify measures to correct errors in thinking and nursing judgment prior to working with patients. Moreover, observing and critiquing other caregivers and also evaluating their own performance, encourages each student to become more observant as well as self-reflective and much more conscious of the level of nursing knowledge that is necessary to provide appropriate patient care.
The nursing professors act as facilitators during debriefing session following each phase of the scenario. The debriefing allows the student group to provide peer feedback, freely express concerns, ask clarifying questions, and examine in more depth the positives and negatives of the learning experience. This is integral in helping the students leave the simulation lab on a positive note while allowing the facilitators to discern students who may be feeling overly discouraged or stressed, so that early faculty interventions can be initiated as necessary.
At the conclusion of the activity/the five phrases, each student writes a personal reflective evaluation reviewing the simulation experience in relation to the NUR 214 clinical competencies. Students identify the process and procedures they followed in achieving each learning competency. Unmet competencies are also identified so they can develop a plan to further work on those competencies. This allows the student to develop professional accountability for their actions and the learning process.
Finally, students evaluate the laboratory experience itself.
Simulation Competencies supporting required outcomes for NUR 214:
When unmet competencies are identified, an appointment with the laboratory coordinator is set so as to determine the most appropriate follow-up activities: e.g., additional laboratory time, practice with different simulations, clarification of terminology and/or review of text materials. The student is then observed in a follow-up activity to evaluate the success of the remediation. The student’s personal journal is also reviewed by the nursing professors so that further personalized feedback can be provided.
Dr. Craig A. Miller, Assistant Professor, History/Political Science
Recipient of 2013 President's Assessment Award
This assessment was completed for four sections of World Civilizations I, HIS 115 which fills a CUL requirement for many majors across campus, but it is an elective course which is taken by both under and upper class students. The course covers World History from the first human societies to roughly 1500 CE. The assessment had two modalities, both administered as pre and post tests to measure improvement over the course of the semester. The modalities were a multiple choice exam, and a written assessment based on an analysis of a primary source document.
As part of the midterm and final exam, students had to answer ten multiple choice questions, based on content from class lectures, discussions and readings. The aim was to measure how students' comprehension of the course content changed over the course of the semester. After the midterm, I devoted an entire class to going over the multiple choice questions and answering questions about best practices for studying (how to organize class notes, how to approach reading the text, and strategies for retention of material). The aim of these tests is not memorization, however. I never ask students questions on names and dates, but rather on processes of historical change. Many of the questions ask students to identify the correct reason for a particular change in a particular society. For example:
Which of the following was NOT responsible for the emergence of Mesopotamian Civilization?
These questions were designed to evaluate not only content knowledge, but critical thinking skills as well. The aim was to assess the following outcomes:
The data suggest that student progress was achieved. One semester of data has been collected thus far, with another round in the Fall 2013 semester.
The second modality was a pre and post testing of document-based questions: questions about primary source documents. Students were given the pre-test the first week of class. I gave the students a selection from Confucius’s Analects, knowing that many students had probably never heard of Confucius, nor been exposed to this kind of source before. This was intentional as I wanted to establish a baseline from which to measure students’ progress. They were to read the document, and complete two tasks. First, they were to make a list of three questions that would need to be asked to fully understand the people who wrote it, the context in which the document was written, and the ideas expressed in the document. Second, they had to explain what reciprocity was, as described in the document, and explain how it differs from treating everyone equally.
To help students develop these skills, they were exposed to other primary source documents with questions provided for each throughout the course. Students worked on these document-based questions in small groups. In these groups, students had to read the documents, and each group had to answer the provided questions in writing. Each group shared its answers with the rest of the class, and had to also evaluate the questions they answered. Students had to explain why these questions were important: what kinds of information were the questions intended to discover? Why is this information important when trying to understand historical documents? Each of these assignments was turned in and graded with feedback from the instructor. To encourage participation, the points from these in-class assignments were used as extra credit points toward midterm and final grades.
As the semester progressed, students began working on documents with no questions attached, and were asked to read documents, in groups, and design and answer their own questions, and explain why they asked the questions they did. The groups shared their responses with the class, and each written assignment was graded with feedback from the instructor, and again the points were to be used as extra credit.
For the post-test, students were given the same document they had read for the pre-test, so that a comparative analysis of their progress could be measured.
Upon successful completion of this course the student will be able to:
Upon successful completion of this course the student will be able to:
My aim in constructing these assessment instruments was to find ways to quantitatively measure strategies I was already using in the course, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. I looked at some of the in-class activities I normally used, and designed assessment instruments around those activities, rather than vice versa. The multiple choice pre and post test was a relatively straightforward assessment, but did not capture the bulk of what I did in class. The document-based questions, which I use to both expose students more directly to the past, and to increase reading comprehension and critical analysis lent themselves well to a pre and post-test format. Instructors in other courses could try this with essay assignments, research papers, class presentations, or any graded activity that is used more than once in the course. the trick is to develop a rubric that measures progress quantitatively as well as qualitatively and to make sure to provide students direct feedback on the activities. I will be teaching another PD course on developing rubrics in between fall and spring semesters, and at the end of the spring 2014.