Docstoc

Plan for Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes

Document Sample
Plan for Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes Powered By Docstoc
					Plan for Assessment of Student Learning
               Outcomes
      2004-2005 Summary Report




      Prepared and Submitted
                 By
The Faculty Curriculum Group (FCG)
                Fall 2005
                                                                                         1


             Plan for Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
                        2004-2005 Summary Report


Introduction

        The 2004-2005 Summary Report, on the Plan for the Assessment of Student
Learning Outcomes, seeks to summarize, interpret, report and create recommendations
and discussions related to the annual assessment reports submitted by programs and
disciplines involved in all phases (Phases I, II and III) of the Plan for Assessment of
Student Learning Outcomes at Mount Royal College (Faculty Curriculum Group 2002,
www.mtroyal.ca/cr).

        A process for integration of learning outcomes into curricula has been in place for
a period of eight years at Mount Royal College. This 2004-2005 summary report
represents a culmination of all phases of assessment of learning outcomes, involving all
programs and disciplines, at Mount Royal College. The report also suggests that we are
at a crossroads about learning outcomes and assessment at the College, due to changing
mandate and an evolving general education model, that will require greater discussion
and direction around learning outcomes and assessment goals in the future.

         The first group of Phase I participants began their assessment work in January
2002 for the 2002-2003 academic year, Phase II began assessment work in January 2003
for the 2003-2004 academic year and, the final Phase III, commenced during the 2004-
2005 academic year. All of these groups are now actively involved in assessment
initiatives within respective programs and disciplines. Each group continues to design,
implement and evaluate assessment activities within their programs and disciplines and
report these through an annual assessment report submitted to the Faculty Curriculum
Group (FCG) which is facilitated by the Curriculum Development Team of the Academic
Development Center. Programs and disciplines also submit a copy of their annual
assessment reports to the Deans or Directors of their Faculties or Schools.

        Over the past three years, members of the FCG (Appendix A) have reviewed all
of the assessment reports and identified important patterns, trends and issues evident in
the reports on an annual basis. In response, to the issues identified, the FCG creates
recommendations for future considerations and discussions around learning outcomes
and assessment. This 2004-2005 Summary Report represents information submitted by
thirty-two programs or disciplines about learning outcomes and assessment activities
undertaken during the 2004-2005 academic year. It also represents recommendations for
discussion around learning outcomes and assessment for the coming academic year.
                                                                                         2


Levels of Assessment

        As a current additional step to previous year’s summary report processes, the
thirty-two reports have been categorized into three levels of placement in the ongoing
assessment process:

       Level One: Those at the beginning stages of the process. These groups
       may be working on course outlines or creating preliminary matrices of
       where course or program learning outcomes occur.
       Level Two: Those that are beginning to assess specific course or program
       learning outcomes. These groups may be creating techniques of
       measurement or assessment or using tools to ask and answer specific
       questions about their courses or programs.
       Level Three: Those that are actively assessing courses or program
       learning outcomes and using the information from the assessments to feed
       back into curriculum changes.

         These levels generally represent time spent as part of the assessment process and,
therefore, reflect the Phases of the Plan for the Assessment of Student Learning
Outcomes. In some instances, this is not the case, with some groups progressing rapidly
and others progressing slowly or not at all (Appendix B). A number of programs or
disciplines did not submit annual assessment reports and, with all reasons given, are
listed in Appendix C.

Patterns and Trends

        Patterns: Patterns have been defined as examples of assessment approaches,
findings, or reporting that appeared throughout the programs and disciplines annual
assessment reports. Please note that it is impossible to mention examples from all areas
since most of the programs and disciplines are incorporating these patterns in some form
or through some activity. The major patterns and selected examples are as follows:

Implementing Appropriate Levels for Course Learning Outcomes.
All programs and disciplines have identified important course and program learning
outcomes. Most are now focusing on clarifying in which courses and at what level the
learning outcomes should be integrated. For example, in many areas, such as the Math
Program, instructors are building on recommendations from previous years and assessing
specific outcomes for specific courses. For some programs and disciplines, this has been
stimulated by external accreditation, such as for the processes of evaluation of learning
outcomes now being undertaken by both the Interior Design Department and the Aviation
Diploma in the Bissett School of Business. Other programs in Arts and Sciences, such as
the departments of Philosophy, Languages, Biology, or Geology, are concerned about
establishing levels of learning outcomes related to curriculum requirements of two-year
transfer to other institutions and programs.
                                                                                        3


Emphasizing Course Sequencing of Program or College-wide Learning Outcomes.
Building upon the clarification of appropriate levels for course learning outcomes is the
integration of these decisions into a course sequence appropriate to the program or
discipline. A majority of both programs and disciplines have reached a stage where
‘how’ the learning outcomes are sequenced throughout courses are being given emphasis.
A part of this process links to the development of new degrees or the possibility of
offering bachelors degrees while a good part of this process is just to create a better
continuity of curriculum needs and offerings. Of note, Justice Studies has discovered
course redundancy through this process and is deleting one course DFS and replacing it
with appropriate curriculum and credits.

Inclusion of Employer and External Groups.
Many groups, especially those programs influenced by professional standards and
employee criteria, are seeking to include external groups and employers in their
curriculum and assessment processes. Most notably Interior Design is aligning its
courses to meet FIDER requirements, Aviation is reevaluating curriculum in line with
Canada’s Safety Management System and Early Childhood Care and Education Program
is seeking to meet Alberta Child Care Accreditation Program Standards and recent
licensing changes. Other areas are taking heed of stakeholder and client recommendations
for both curriculum and assessment of learning outcomes. For the Bachelor of Applied
Administration, Accounting, stakeholder recommendations have included the
maintenance of two Directed Field Studies. All of the programs in the Faculty of
Communications have integrated client feedback and recommendations into assessment
considerations while the Information Systems and Business Applied Degree has used
feedback from employer surveys to inform curriculum.

Inclusion of Student Participation and Input.
Those in levels two and three are seeking greater student input than previously. For some
programs, such as the Journalism and Broadcasting Programs in the Faculty of
Communications, employer and student feedback have gone hand in hand. One
influencing the other. Other areas, such as the English Department and the Biology
Department, have directly used student surveys and focus groups to inform the direction
for assessment of learning outcomes (such as for plagiarism in English and for laboratory
exercises in Biology).

Course Assignments Linked to Assessment of Learning Outcomes.
Many course assignments are now directly linked to the assessment of learning outcomes.
This is true for most disciplines and programs that are beyond the initial stage of matrix
creation. Disciplines, such as English, Geography, Geology, Math, and Biology, are
creating assignments that directly assess at least one college-wide learning outcome.
Many programs have identified program learning outcomes and are aligning assignments
with both course and program assessments. Undergraduate Nursing Studies and Bachelor
of Applied Child Studies are clearly linking assessment with the levels and sequencing
of courses. Most disciplines and programs are well on their way to linking course
assignments to the assessment of specific program or college-wide learning outcomes.
                                                                                        4


Reevaluation of Initial Matrices.
Part of the process for attaining feedback of learning outcomes into curriculum has been
the reevaluation of the initial matrices that were created at the beginning of the process
during workshops with the Curriculum Development Team. Many areas have gone back
and revisited some of their early decisions. Faculty have reevaluated both 1) initial
evaluation of learning outcomes in the form of a matrix and 2) allowed their current
knowledge to inform revisions of course outlines. Many faculty are rewriting course
outlines to directly address student feedback and needs around learning outcomes while
some, such as the Child and Youth Care Counselor Program, are presenting new
curriculum submissions and the development of a course template.
.
Awareness of Mandate Change
Most disciplines are cognizant of the College’s changing mandate and are cautious about
committing too much time and energy to programs that will be granting degrees in the
future or changing to meet future commitments. Many areas suggested that while they
are working on learning outcomes and assessment activities they are in the process of
thinking about future bachelor degrees or else are already submitting bachelor proposals.
These areas are restrained about making too many changes until they are sure of program
offerings for the future. It is possible, that some of the areas undergoing program review
or changing curriculum for future degrees are finding it difficult to commit time to
learning outcomes that may change with changing curriculum.

       Trends: Trends have been defined as examples and/or approaches that
periodically showed up in some but not all of the programs or disciplines annual
assessment reports. Please note that it is impossible to mention examples from all areas
although many of the programs and disciplines are incorporating these trends in some
form or through some activity. The major trends and selected examples are as follows:

Alignment of Learning Outcomes to Appropriate Methods of Assessment
Areas are finding appropriate assessment tools and applying these with some extremely
successful results.     Assessment methods include surveys, focus groups, written
assignments, exam questions, web and Blackboard sites, a series of assignments, panel
discussions, projects, to name only a few. A particularly integrated and comprehensive
example is that of the Public Relations Program where there is incorporation of
employer’s roles and performance feedback into the student’s learning experience
through a three-part assessment of student progress.

Greater Technology Introduced to Assess Learning and Outcomes
Many disciplines and programs are reviewing and adopting new technologies and
methods associated with technology into their curriculum. For the Bachelor of Applied
Administration, Accounting, review of computer literacy objectives stimulated review of
use of computer technology in accounting courses. It was determined to introduce
Access software into the curriculum through a new component. In the Maternal Infant
Child Healthcare Program concerns around computer literacy and the use of Black Board
sites and MyMRC accounts stimulated new methods of student and faculty training to be
introduced. An online computer orientation was introduced as an additional assignment
                                                                                        5


which included student self-assessment and all of the faculty attended Black Board
workshops at the Academic Development Center. Athletic Therapy used a practicum
assessment website to capture assessment of student performance in a clinical or field
setting.

Course and Content Review of Curriculum
Many areas are now reviewing the content of their courses and deciding how learning
outcomes can best be integrated into curriculum. This has resulted in curriculum renewal
for some areas through the addition or deletion of courses depending upon program
needs. Justice Studies has made considerable course changes based on a comprehensive
course and content review of the program curriculum. Forensic Studies has approached
their curriculum differently to limit assignments and allow more marking time for
instructors and greater feedback toward student learning.

Consideration of University Accreditation Standards
Many disciplines and programs are cognizant of changing mandate and the need to
consider accreditation standards for university-level delivery of curriculum. For example,
the Bachelor of Physical Education is currently exploring collaboration with the Faculty
of Kinesiology at the University of Calgary since the MRC program offers strengths in
applied components of kinesiology curriculum.

Standardization of Course Outlines and Templates
While many disciplines and programs are revisiting course outlines they are also taking
the opportunity to standardize the outline and create course templates. The goal for these
activities is to ensure that all instructors are including the same learning outcomes and
assessing them in a comparative way over multiple sections of courses. This activity
tends to include disciplines offering introductory courses that are taught by multiple
instructors every term. The departments of English and Behavioral Sciences in the
Faculty of Arts are including detailed descriptions of assignments and policy in their
course outlines. The Bachelor of Applied Child Studies developed a course template to
provide uniformity and all course outlines were formally linked to the program learning
outcomes and college-wide learning outcomes.

Incorporating Learning Outcomes into Professional Portfolios
Many programs are career-oriented and these areas are tending to identify and
incorporate learning outcomes for professional portfolios. As mentioned, some of these
are linked to external requirements and professional standards while others are
specifically identified with program requirements. In programs such as Journalism,
Broadcasting and Electronic Publishing, professional requirements are directly
incorporated into assessment techniques that prepare students for work -related activities
such as the presentation of a commercial to a panel of stakeholders.

Identifying Key Outcomes
During the beginning of the Curriculum Renewal Initiative at the College many
disciplines and programs tried to incorporate as many different program and college-wide
learning outcomes into their curriculum as was possible. Currently, the initiative is
                                                                                        6


seeing a simplification of the amount of learning outcomes being implemented. For
example, many areas are targeting key college-wide and program learning outcomes or
selecting three or four main learning outcomes throughout the sequencing of courses. For
example, the Department of Languages-Romance Studies, chose three main outcomes
while the Bachelor of Business and Entrepreneurship-Sports and Recreation,
concentrated on four learning outcomes. Some areas, such as the Humanities Program,
focused on the one key learning outcome such as ethical reasoning.

More Work to Do
Most programs and disciplines stated that they had much more work to do. Most areas
see the incorporation of learning outcomes and their assessment as an ongoing process
that will continually feedback into and renew curriculum. Very few areas do not have
continuing plans for the next academic year that are not directly dependent on work that
has been completed during the 2004-2005 academic year. Also of note, twenty-two
programs accessed Curriculum Renewal Professional Development funds to aid them in
their activities. The funds that were accessed totaled $10,100 (Appendix D).

Issues
        The Faculty Curriculum Group (Appendix A) has identified a number of issues
that they believe are important for implementation of the Plan for Assessment of Student
Learning Outcomes at Mount Royal College which is an outcome of the 1997 curriculum
renewal strategy (Appendix E). These issues are listed below:
     There is a continuing challenge for some disciplines and programs to determine if
        the learning outcomes have been adequately assessed and at what levels the
        learning outcomes have been achieved at different stages of the program.
     The PLAR program is unique and, therefore, the considerations surrounding this
        international stream are different regarding the identification and implementation
        of learning outcomes. This may be true for other unique programs in the future.
     There are some major concerns around faculty involvement and equity within the
        learning outcomes initiative. Should the College be creating greater recognition
        around work done and time spent?
     A number of disciplines or programs did not complete an Annual Assessment
        Report (Appendix C). If this is a college-wide initiative then all programs and
        faculties should be involved in the process. Those areas undergoing a program
        review should still be working on learning outcomes which is part of the policy
        commitment for a program review and associated changes.
     A changing mandate and concern for offering programs from a university
        platform is creating some confusion and possible inertia for the Curriculum
        Renewal process. Many areas are concerned about currently changing their
        program before they understand the requirements for their program in the future.
        There are also a number of initiatives, such as the General Education Model, that
        are being created or implemented creating confusion for some faculty who are not
        sure where learning outcomes now fit in. Requirements around Directed Field
        Studies and experiential learning initiatives are a general future concern for
        programs and possible changing degrees.
                                                                                        7


    An identified need is for greater graduate feedback into the Curriculum Renewal
       Initiative. Graduates need to talk about the benefits of learning outcomes to their
       lives and their careers.

Recommendations
The Faculty Curriculum Group (Appendix A) has created a number of recommendations
for the Curriculum Renewal process. Most of these recommendations are a result of
discussion about issues raised and identified in the previous section. Action-oriented
recommendations are:
     Build learning outcomes and assessment into more new faculty orientation and in
       more department orientations (for both full-time and part-time faculty).
     Graduate profiles and skills from learning outcomes need to be better marketed,
       especially to prospective and incoming student recruits.
     Learning outcomes and assessment should be built into course design from the
       outset. Both identification of learning outcomes and evaluation of learning
       outcomes become more difficult to inject into the curriculum once the course has
       been designed and implemented.
     Conduct a course outline audit and content analysis to better understand learning
       outcomes and assessment at the institutional level.
     Find ways to increase student participation. Students need to be more actively
       engaged in the learning outcomes process.
     There is a need to phase in the direct reporting of assessment methods of learning
       outcomes with data and the storage of artifacts as a resource base.
     As more programs and disciplines move toward Level Three and the active
       assessment of curriculum through feedback of learning outcomes activities, the
       FCG need to continue to refine how to monitor and record the changes.
     Continue to clarify guidelines for writing the Annual Assessment Report
       (Appendix F).
                                                                           8



                          Appendices

Appendix A.   Faculty Curriculum Group (FCG) 2004-2005

Appendix B.   Annual Assessment Reporting Activities: Focus of 2004-2005
              Participants

Appendix C.   Programs and Disciplines Not Submitting 2004-2005 Annual
              Assessment Report and Reasons Given

Appendix D.   Programs/Disciplines Accessing Curriculum Renewal Professional
              Development Funds During the 2004-2005 Academic Year

Appendix E.   Learning Outcomes at Mount Royal College

Appendix F.   Annual Assessment Report of Student Learning Outcomes
              Programs and Disciplines
                                                                        9



Appendix A: FCG Representatives 2004-2005


Faculty/Centre/School        Representative(s)                  Local
Arts                         Irene Naested                      6428
                             Aubrey McPhail                     5925
Bissett School of Business   Shiraz Kurji                       5063
Communication Studies        Janice Robertson                   6118
Deans Council                Lorna Smith                        5532
Conservatory                 JP Fournier                        7242
Health & Community Studies   Genevieve Currie                   6904
                             Marlene Kingsmith                  6214
Science & Technology         Roberta LaHaye                     6083
                             Barb McNicol                       6175
Student Affairs & Campus     Colleen Bradley                    6232
Life
Student’s Association        Krista Murray                      6402
Curriculum Development       Don Watts                          6494
Coordinator
Curriculum Development       Barb McNicol (Fall)                6175
Consultant(s)                Maureen Mitchell (Winter/Spring)   6073
Secretary                    Anne Johnson (ADC)                 6042
Director ADC                 Jim Zimmer                         7204
                                                                                                                                                    10




Appendix B: Annual Assessment Reporting Activities: Focus of 2004-2005 Participants
Faculty/Centre/School   Program/Discipline     Phase and Level                       Focus of Assessment Activities: 2004-2005
Faculty of Arts         Bachelor of Applied       Phase Two:           Major program review for FIDER Accreditation with accreditation rewarded
                        Interior Design            Submitting            for six years. Visiting team identified key areas of program strengths and
                         Janice Smith             second report.        areas needing addressing.
                                                  Level Three:         Faculty is evaluating learning outcomes within the FIDER context:
                                                   Actively              evaluating LO of current program offerings; reevaluating the existing
                                                   assessing with        curriculum matrix; seeking solutions to issues raised by FIDER and;
                                                   curriculum            discussing proposed curriculum changes (with part-time faculty and the
                                                   feedback.             Program Advisory Committee).
                        Bachelor of Applied       Phase Three:         The Department has identified a set of skills deemed necessary for
                        Policy Studies             Submitting            graduation in APST. These were collapsed into six program learning
                         David Sabiston           first report.         outcomes.
                                                  Level One:           For each of these program learning outcomes a series of specific skill sets
                                                   Beginning the         were identified which will now be matched to curriculum needs.
                                                   process.
                        Department of             Phase Three:         Instructors formed a triad to compare teaching styles and cultural content of
                        Languages                  Submitting            lectures.
                         Romance Studies:         first report.        Three learning outcomes were targeted: Thinking Skills, Ethical Reasoning
                        Antoine Sassine,          Level One:            and Communication Skills.
                        Marianne Beauvilain,       Beginning the        Actions related to LO’s will be highlighted for the course such as a library
                        Maria-Jesus Plaza.         process.              visit, research requirements and section exams redrawn, the final exam will
                                                                         be rewritten and a Black Board site developed.
                        Humanities:               Phase Three:         Focus was on assessing student progress with respect to ethical reasoning
                        Philosophy                 Submitting            which targeted a broad sample of introductory ethics courses.
                         Sinc MacRae              first report.        Expected competencies were reviewed through written work (essays and
                                                  Specific course       examinations).
                                                   questions and        One out of five of the competencies now requires further assessment and
                                                   assessment            assessment of all competencies will be ongoing.
                                                   tools.
                        Department of             Phase Three:         Focus on plagiarism and improving student’s abilities to document sources.
                        English                    Submitting           Created and tested a Standard of Documentation which brought about
                         Sabrina Reed and         first report.         student involvement in responsibility for mistakes and errors.
                           Bill Bunn              Level Two:           Instructors noted a decrease in plagiarism when the policy was in place.
                                                                                                                                                        11



                                                       Specific course
                                                       questions and
                                                       assessment
                                                       tools.
                             Department of            Phase Three:         Focus on the learning outcome of communication and an examination of
                             Behavioral Sciences       Submitting            course outlines to ascertain the writing component in each course.
                              Lee Wertzler            first report.        Five sections of each course (except PSYC 2205) were assessed with
                                                      Level Two:            recommendations to instructors to detail description of major written
                                                       Specific course       assignments in the outlines.
                                                       questions and
                                                       assessment
                                                       tools.
Bissett School of Business   Bachelor of Applied      Phase One:           Evaluating the continuation of two Directed Field Studies. Discussion with
                             Administration –          Submitting            stakeholders suggested maintenance of the two DFS’s.
                             Accounting                third report.        Also, review of computer literacy objectives stimulated review of use of
                              Wayne Irvine           Level Three:          computer technology in accounting courses. It was determined to introduce
                                                       Actively              Access software into the curriculum through a component in ADMIN 1265.
                                                       assessing with
                                                       curriculum
                                                       feedback.
                             Aviation Diploma         Phase Three:         Development of an outcomes matrix.
                              Marc Jerry              Submitting           External body that will be influencing outcomes for the future is Transport
                                                       first report.         Canada’s Safety Management System (SMS) and assessment processes must
                                                      Level One:            be reexamined and reframed due to these regulatory changes.
                                                       Beginning the
                                                       process
Centre for                   Broadcasting             Phase Two:           Use of an integrated assignment to evaluate critical thinking,
Communication Studies        Program                   Submitting            communication, team effectiveness and computer literacy. This was a
                              Irv Ratushniak          second report.        comprehensive assignment that included the production of a commercial and
                              Gail Montgomery        Level Two:            presentation to a panel of employers, instructors and peers.
                                                       Specific course      This process will seek to include the client in the future assessment process.
                                                       questions and
                                                       assessment
                                                       tools.
                             Journalism               Phase One:           Development of student self-assessments and peer assessments over the
                              Robert Bragg            Submitting            course of two semesters.
                                                                                                                                                   12



                           Shauna Snow-            third report.        These collected information about communication, group effectiveness, and
                            Capparelli             Level Three:          a combination of communication and group effectiveness.
                                                    Actively             Refinement of a course focused on production of a newspaper and journalist
                                                    assessing with        self-reliance.
                                                    curriculum
                                                    feedback.
                        Public Relations           Phase One:           Incorporation of employer’s roles and performance feedback into the
                         Janice Robertson          Submitting            student’s learning experience.
                                                    third report.        Focus on specific courses and directed field studies.
                                                   Level Three:         Three-part assessment of student progress.
                                                    Actively
                                                    assessing with
                                                    curriculum
                                                    feedback.
                        Electronic Publishing      Phase Two:           Identification of strengths and weaknesses of curriculum.
                        and Technical               Submitting           Actions were created around writing and design skills, placing arts and
                        Communication               second report.        science options at the end of the program, fostering an understanding of
                         Glenn Ruhl               Level Two:            usability and audience needs, following a field-dependent model at the onset
                                                    Specific course       and moving to a field-independent model by program’s end and continuing
                                                    questions and         to develop future on-line opportunities.
                                                    assessment
                                                    tools.
Faculty of Health and   Athletic Therapy           Phase Two:           Revised the way of assessing student performance of students in the Field
Community Studies        Mark Lafave               Submitting            Practicum class
                                                    second report.       Used a practicum assessment website to capture assessment of student
                                                   Level Two:            performance in a clinical or field setting.
                                                    Specific course      Three studies are assessing student performance 1) Taping Validation Study
                                                    questions and         2) Student Orthopedic Assessment Tool Validation and 3) Non-urgent and
                                                    assessment            Side-line Return to Play Field Presentation Model of Care.
                                                    tools.
                        Bachelor of Applied        Phase Two:           The program was reviewed and assessment data collected.
                        Child Studies               Submitting           Indicators were reviewed and edited.
                         Scott McLean              second report.       A course template was designed to provide uniformity.
                                                   Level Two:           All course outlines were formally linked to the program learning outcomes
                                                    Specific course       and college-wide learning outcomes.
                                                    questions and        Assignments were reviewed for content and evaluated for what was being
                                                                                                                                13



                            assessment            assessed.
                            tools.
Child and Youth Care       Phase Two:           Use of a matrix examined all courses to determine how assessment strategies
Counsellor Program          Submitting            link to college-wide learning outcomes.
 Marlene Kingsmith         second report.       Cross-referencing of courses for language and content currency.
                           Level Two:           All assessment strategies linked but inconsistent language between course
                            Specific course       and program descriptions.
                            questions and        New curriculum submissions with consistent language were developed and
                            assessment            the development of a course template.
                            tools.
Early Childhood Care       Phase Two:           The program was reviewed in two ways: 1) review of outcomes with
and Education               Submitting            students in various stages of the program and in the fourth semester and 2)
Program                     second report.        faculty review of program outcomes in light of Alberta Child Care
 Joanne Baxter            Level Two:            Accreditation Program Standards and recent licensing changes.
 Cathy Smey                Specific course      The program incorporates accreditation standards but recommends an
    Carston                 questions and         additional emphasis on coaching and mentoring into the Professional
                            assessment            Practices course.
                            tools.
Maternal Infant Child      Phase Three:         Matrix was developed to evaluate learning outcomes for MICH program.
Healthcare Program          Submitting           Main concerns are around computer literacy, the use of Black Board sites
 Barbara Metcalf           first report.         and MyMRC accounts.
                           Level Two:           An online computer orientation was introduced as an additional assignment
                            Specific course       which included student self-assessment.
                            questions and        All of the faculty attended Black Board workshops.
                            assessment
                            tools.
Bachelor of Applied        Phase Three:         All courses were assessed for the four program outcomes and six college-
Business and                Submitting            wide outcomes. They all appear in logical sequence within the program.
Entrepreneurship            first report.        Other curriculum changes will be evaluated when the first cohort graduates.
 David Legg, Mark         Level One:           Degree awarded through the Bissett School of Business which requires
    Lafave, Vance           Beginning the         cooperation with all of their mandate changes.
    Gough, Denny            process
    Neider, Chad
    London and Scott
    Baird.
Bachelor of Physical       Phase Three:         This program is currently exploring collaboration with the Faculty of
                                                                                                                                             14



               Education                    Submitting            Kinesiology at the University of Calgary.
                David Legg, Mark           first report.        Learning outcomes will link to this collaboration when both institutions
                  Lafave and Chad          Level One:            combine resources.
                  London.                   Beginning the
                                            process
               Justice Studies             Phase One:           Targeted three areas for assessment: The amount of experiential learning
                Doug King                  Submitting            with the degree; the Research and Statistics stream and; the existing COMP
                                            third report.         1209 and ENTR 1232 requirements.
                                           Level Three:         Major finding was that experiential learning exceeds the required 25% with a
                                            Actively              curriculum submission needed to remove one DFS and replace with a 7-
                                            assessing with        credit practicum and an 8-credit capstone course.
                                            curriculum           Other course changes will occur with COMP 12-9 and ENTRE 1232 having
                                            feedback.             little justification for inclusion in the program.
               Undergraduate               Phase One:           Challenge about whether learning outcomes are linked to assessment
               Nursing Studies              Submitting            strategies and at what levels outcomes are being achieved across the
                Marg Montgomery            third report.         program.
                                           Level Three:         A workshop was used to align outcomes with levels of achievement and
                                            Actively              assessment methods.
                                            assessing with       Curriculum Committee has been reviewing each course to identify gaps,
                                            curriculum            weaknesses, overlap or redundancy with respect to program outcomes,
                                            feedback.             concepts and assessment strategies across the entire program
               ACCN ICU and ER             Phase Three:         Review of matrix for college-wide learning outcomes with relation to the
               Programs                     Submitting            specific streams of Neuroscience or Emergency.
                Barbara Metcalf,           first report.        The outcome of thinking skills was identified as important for PLAR
                   Cathy Carter-Snell      Level One:            students and their clinical course. It was decided that an additional
                   and Lorna                Beginning the         component needed to be added.
                   Eastabrooks.             process              As a result, the PLAR packages were revised for both streams.
               Forensic Program            Phase Three:         A matrix was developed and key course outcomes identified.
                Barbara Metcalf            Submitting           For computer literacy, information in the course memos was updated and
                Cathy Carter-Snell         first report.         websites were revised and made easier to navigate. Assessment of these
                                           Level Two:            involved a FAST survey.
                                            Specific course      For information retrieval, assignments became limited and faculty marking
                                            questions and         was modified. This will be assessed using a FAST survey.
                                            assessment
                                            tools.
Conservatory   Diploma Program in          Phase One:           Curriculum was refreshed in the Jazz Stream of the program.
                                                                                                                                                     15



                         Music Performance          Submitting           College-wide learning outcomes have been introduced into a number of
                          Sheldon Nadler           third report.         courses.
                                                   Level Two:           Program consideration of the Theory classes will be targeted for the future as
                                                    Specific course       to where they occur in the different streams.
                                                    questions and
                                                    assessment
                                                    tools.
                         Theatre Arts and          Phase One:           Work is being done to redevelop curriculum for Theatre 1105 which is the
                         Speech Programs            Submitting            section for first year actors.
                          Doug Rathbun             third report.        Learning outcomes were put in place and a new course outline was
                                                   Level Two:            developed for the Theatre Diploma.
                                                    Specific course
                                                    questions and
                                                    assessment
                                                    tools.
Faculty of Science and   Earth Sciences:           Phase One:           Created assessment components to support the previous year’s review of
Technology               Geology Program            Submitting            courses for the presence or absence of college-wide learning outcomes.
                          John Cox                 third report.        Evaluation quizzes were designed to assess levels of student knowledge for
                                                   Level Two:            the start of each course.
                                                    Specific course      Goal is to give greater course coverage of ethical reasoning skills and
                                                    questions and         computer skills.
                                                    assessment
                                                    tools.
                         Earth Sciences:           Phase Three:         All courses were reviewed for presence or absence of college-wide learning
                         Geography Program          Submitting            outcomes.
                          Barbara McNicol,         first report.        Four core courses were chosen for more in-depth evaluation and sequencing
                             Pam MacQuarrie,       Level Two:            of specific learning outcomes.
                             Cameron Owens          Specific course      Questions are targeting specific course learning outcomes on final exams and
                             and Susan Hunt         questions and         a marking matrix is being designed to evaluate group effectiveness for one
                                                    assessment            core course.
                                                    tools.
                         Chemical, Biological      Phase Three:         Courses were assessed to see how each course integrated within the syllabus
                         and Environmental          Submitting            to ensure that students were ready for the next course. Course sequencing of
                         Sciences: Chemistry        first report.         successive courses was targeted.
                         Program                   Level Two:           Is the required material meeting the needs of internal and external
                          Susan Morante            Specific course       stakeholders?
                                                                                                                            16



    Susan Varkey           questions and       Recommendation for a common lab report format to be followed in all of the
                           assessment           courses.
                           tools.
Chemical, Biological      Phase Three:        Learning outcomes of critical thinking and communications were evaluated
and Environmental          Submitting           using the Calibrated Peer Review process in conjunction with an inquiry
Sciences: Biology          first report.        based model of laboratory experiences.
Program                   Level Three:        This process allowed students self assessment of deficiencies in writing and
 Tom MacAlister           Actively             thinking about science and instructors to recognize the need to reinforce
    Todd Nickle            assessing with       scientific process skills and terminology.
                           curriculum          Student feedback was sought through questionnaires and focus groups.
                           feedback.
Computer Science and      Phase Three:        An outcomes workshop and a small survey of current and potential
Information Systems:       Submitting           employers were implemented toward a draft profile of the graduate.
Computer                   first report.       Eleven themes or broad outcomes were identified with specific abilities
Information Systems       Level One:           identified for each category.
and Business Applied       Beginning the
Degree                     process
 Judith Gartaganis
Computer Science and      Phase Three:        Identified potential weaknesses in the university transfer program and seek
Information Systems:       Submitting           to address these.
Computer Science           first report.       Guiding principles of the program have been identified, a notation and
Program                   Level One:           classification strategy for consistent specifications of learning outcomes has
 Judith Gartaganis        Beginning the        been developed and detailed course outcomes articulated.
                           process
Math, Physics and         Phase One:          Curriculum changes were initiated associated with previous work and
Engineering:               Submitting           recommendations for Math 2249 and 2251.
Mathematics Program        third report.       A focus was placed on problem-solving and students were given more time
 Roberta Lahaye          Level Three:         to write the exam and complete the problem-solving questions.
 Pamini                   Actively            Improvement was assessed comparing this year’s success to previous year’s.
   Thangarajah             assessing with       The final exam average increased 5%.
                           curriculum
                           feedback.
                                                                                    17


Appendix C: Programs and Disciplines Not Submitting 2004-2005
Annual Assessment Reports


Phase I Programs and Disciplines: Submitting their third annual assessment
report.
Applied Degree Small Business

Phase II Programs and Disciplines: Submitting their second annual assessment
report.
Bachelor of Applied Nonprofit Studies
Gerontology (Other initiatives this year)

Phase III Programs and Disciplines: Submitting their first annual assessment
report.
Economics Program (Undergoing Program Review)
Bachelor of Applied Financial Services
Bachelor of International Business and Supply Chain Management
Business Diplomas: Business Administration, Human Resources, Marketing, Insurance
Business Certificates
Bachelor of Commerce: University Transfer
Bachelor of Applied Ecotourism and Outdoor Leadership
Social Work Program
Disability Studies Program
Gerontology: Business and Entrepreneurship (Other initiatives this year)
Advanced Studies in Mental Health (Undergoing Program Review)
Applied Degree in Industrial Ecology (Dealing with program and enrollment issues)
Engineering Program (Not sure of what they are expected to do)
Physics Program
                                                                  18


Appendix D: Disbursement of Curriculum Renewal Professional
Development Funds During the 2004-2005 Academic Year


Department/Program/Discipline                           Amount
Policy Studies – APST                                    350.
Interior Design                                          500.
Child Studies – Degree                                   500.
Child Studies – Degree                                   500.
Child & Youth Care Counselor                             500.
ECCE                                                     500.
Undergrad Nursing                                        500.
Health & Community - CHST                                500.
Athletic Therapy – Ecotourism & Outdoor Leader           500.
ETOL Program                                             500.
CYCC                                                     500.
Broadcasting Program                                     350.
Communications – e-Publishing/Tech Communications        350.
Bissett School – ADMN 1170                               500.
Bissett School – Management App Degree & Diploma         500.
Bissett School – Accounting                              500.
Bissett School – Gen Business & Management               350.
Entrepreneurship                                         500.
Bissett School – Applied Small Business & Entre          500.
Quantitative Methods                                     350.
Bissett School - Aviation Diploma                        500.
Bissett School – Business Communications                 350.
Total                                                   $10,100
                                                                                             19


Appendix E: Learning Outcomes at Mount Royal College

Background / Context

In 1997, Mount Royal College adopted an outcomes-based curriculum as a part of its
curriculum renewal strategy. The Faculty Curriculum Group (FCG), comprised of faculty
members from across the College, was established to spearhead the learning outcomes
initiative. The six Mount Royal College learning outcomes were identified through a
process of collaboration with College stakeholders. These outcomes are understood to be
abilities that are important in preparing students to meet the requirements involved in
current and future work, learning, and citizenship contexts.
Since 1998, six Learning Outcome Teams composed of volunteer faculty members have been
instrumental in describing the outcomes and their various components and in providing resources
related to the learning outcomes to colleagues across the College.

Intent

The intent of this aspect of curriculum renewal at Mount Royal College is too
deliberately, and in a sustained manner, put curricula in place that incorporates the
College-wide Learning Outcomes (CWOs). By incorporating these outcomes into courses
and by attending to relevant teaching/learning and assessment activities associated with
them and those of the courses and programs, we believe that students will develop
significantly in these ability areas.

Incorporating College-wide Outcomes

The approach to incorporating CWOs is intended to respect the diversity of curricula at
Mount Royal College.

The intent is that...

   Each course taught at the College should focus on at least one College-wide Learning
    Outcome (Curriculum Renewal Strategic Plan, 2000). Focusing on one or more
    CWO in a course includes identifying the CWO(s), the teaching/learning activities,
    and the assessment approaches (e.g. assignments, exams) designed to support
    achievement of the outcome(s). Therefore, incorporating one or more outcomes into a
    course simply means that the course is making a contribution towards student
    development in that outcome area or areas.

   The course outline and instructor-student discussions are two key ways to help
    students understand how outcomes will be incorporated into courses.

   MRC faculty members have developed a variety of ways to incorporate CWOs into
    their courses. For example, some have highlighted course outcomes and then
    indicated where CWOs are addressed in those course outcomes (including relevant
    teaching/learning and assessment activities). Others have highlighted College-wide
                                                                                            20


   Learning Outcomes and indicated how those outcomes relate to the course subject
   matter. In addition, CWOs have been used as a framework for indicating broad areas
   of focus for teaching/learning and assessment in some multi-section courses or
   courses within the same level.
The intent is that...

   Applied degree and diploma programs would focus on each of the six outcomes in
    such a way that graduates have reasonable opportunities to become effective in each
    CWO, although not necessarily in all of the components identified for each outcome.

   Certificate programs (one-year curricula) would select CWOs that are most suitable
    for the goals of their program.

   Arts and Science areas (i.e., disciplines, university transfer) would select those
    outcomes that are most relevant to them by considering factors such as the
    expectations of the institutions receiving their learners, the needs of the College
    programs they serve, and the particular knowledge, skills, and abilities important to
    that discipline.

   Academic areas may identify or emphasize components of the six College-wide
    learning outcomes that are different from those listed in the description of the CWOs.
    The components in this description have been identified as ones that are important for
    that particular outcome; however, the goal is to incorporate CWOs as they "make
    sense" within the different academic areas.


NOTE: The MRC learning outcomes initiative includes an assessment component. For
information about the assessment of student learning outcomes, see the Plan for
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes at Mount Royal College.
                                                                                                  21


Appendix F: Annual Assessment Report of Student Learning Outcomes
                     Programs and Disciplines

What is the purpose of the annual report?
The annual assessment report 1) provides a summary of assessment activities that have occurred
in a program or discipline in the preceding year, 2) describes the response to assessment findings,
and 3) identifies areas of interest in terms of future assessment activities.

What is reported?
The program or discipline annual assessment report should report on the learning outcomes
focused on in the assessment cycle, and/or what curriculum questions were investigated. The
report should address the four questions noted below and outlined on the attached form:
     What was assessed and what information was collected?
     What conclusions were drawn?
     What actions were taken and planned?
     What are some potential areas of focus?

The assessment framework for programs/disciplines can act as a guideline when preparing the
report. It is provided in the Plan for Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes and is noted
below:
     Articulation of intended program or discipline learning outcomes,
     Identification of the learning outcomes focused on in the assessment cycle, and/or
         curriculum questions that were investigated,
     Description of the assessment strategies applied and how assessment data was collected,
     Summary of results gathered in the assessment cycle,
     Interpretation of assessment results,
     Description of plans and timelines for responding to the assessment results,
     Identification of potential areas of investigation in future assessment cycles.

Program and discipline annual assessment reports may include information that supplements the
four questions identified above, including appendices as needed.

In the case of assessment activities that span more than one year, the annual assessment report
can serve as a report on progress to date.

Who Reports?
Faculty within each of the College’s programs and disciplines prepare an annual assessment
report for each program and discipline.

What format does the annual assessment report take?
Faculty members in the program or discipline can choose to answer the four questions above in a
format appropriate to their discipline for example, essay, narrative, table, or statistical data.
                                                                                                 22


Who receives the annual assessment report?
The program/discipline annual assessment report is submitted simultaneously to the FCG
(Faculty Curriculum Group), program or department chair, and the Dean or Director. It is also
circulated to faculty colleagues within the program or discipline, and may be circulated to other
relevant stakeholders as appropriate. The FCG will review and summarize assessment reports
provided by the programs/disciplines in order to reflect assessment activities occurring across the
College.

The faculty members in the program or discipline, in collaboration with the program or
Department chair, and the Dean or Director determine a process for sharing the annual
assessment report and addressing the assessment findings with the relevant stakeholders.
The Dean or Director prepares a summary report of assessment activities of the
Faculty/School/Centre for submission to the Provost and Vice-President Academic.

When is the annual assessment report submitted by the program or discipline?
The annual assessment report is submitted to the appropriate Dean or Director and the Curriculum
Development Coordinator in the ADC by Friday September 30, 2005. The reports from the
Deans and Directors are submitted to the Vice-President Academic. The Curriculum
Development Coordinator delivers the reports to the FCG who prepare a summary College-wide
assessment report for distribution to College constituents.

What resources are available to support programs/disciplines in preparing an
annual assessment report?
The following resources are available to assist programs and disciplines in writing the annual
assessment report:

       The Curriculum Development Coordinator, ADC,
       Faculty representatives on the Faculty Curriculum Group (FCG),
       The assessment frameworks provided in the Plan for Assessment of Student Learning
        Outcomes,
       Sample tools and reports available from the Curriculum Development Coordinator, ADC.
       The Curriculum Renewal website: http://www.mtroyal.ca/cr

Using the assessment frameworks as guidelines, faculty complete the following four questions to
report on the learning outcomes and/or what curriculum questions were investigated in the
program discipline in the assessment cycle.

1. What was assessed and what information was collected?
2. What conclusions were drawn?
3. As a result of the conclusions drawn, what curriculum and/or assessment issues would the
   program/discipline highlight for action?
4. What specific curriculum question or assessment activity will the program/discipline focus
   and report on over the next academic year?

                       Submission Date: Friday September 30, 2005

				
DOCUMENT INFO