Farmingdale State College State University of New York

2016/2017 Campus Annual Assessment Report

Presented to the Assessment Advisory Board

April 17, 2018

Note: This document does not contain the report appendices. The full report containing all appendices was presented to the FSC Assessment Advisory Board and the College Planning and Resource Allocation Committee during the Spring, 2018 semester.

2016/2017 Campus Assessment Report

Executive Summary

Campus assessment activities were carried out during the 2016/2017 academic year as planned. The

College's General Education program was assessed according to schedule with four General Education

Competency areas (Natural Sciences, Western Civilization, Foreign Language and Basic Communication)

assessed during this period. In addition, a pilot study was conducted to assess the General Education

competency of Information Management and some assessment of the General Education competency of Critical Thinking was performed as well. Annual Academic Assessment of student learning objectives was

conducted within academic programs and courses offered that support the College's majors. All

Functional areas of the College including Functional Area 1 - divisions of Academic Affairs and Student

Affairs as well as Functional Area II - Institutional Advancement, Administration and Finance, and

Deveiopment & Alumni Engagement (formerly Corporate Relations) performed annual assessment. Assessment activities were directed and supported by the Assessment Advisory Board subcommittees (General Education, Academic Programs, Functional Area I and Functional Area II). Assessment Advisory

Board Subcommittee liaisons worked with constituents in each area of the College to support the

assessment activities of every academic department and functional area. Each entity of the College responsible for assessment had an Assessment Advisory Board Subcommittee assessment liaison

available to assist them in their assessment planning, data collection and reporting.

The following report summarizes the College's 2016/2017 assessment data for General Education

Assessment, Annual Academic Assessm~nt a~di;_yc,ctio_r_ial Area Assessment. Report appendices contain detailed information regarding specific assessment ou·tcomes. General Education Assessment data are

reported directly to the Associate Provost responsible for assessment and reviewed with the Assessment

Advisory Board Subcommittee for ·General Education_. Annual Academic Assessment is reported to the

Associate Provost responsible for assessment tnrough the Academic Programs subcommittee and is included in each academic department's annual reporting, five year self-study or accreditation reporting. Functional Area Assessment is reported to the Associate Provost responsible for assessment through the two Functional Area Assessment Subcommittees.

Regularly scheduled curriculum reviews (five year self-studies) were conducted as scheduled during the 2016/2017 academic year for Biology, Computer Programming & Information Systems, Criminal Justice -AS Program, Mechanical Engineering Technology- AAS Program, Science Technology & Society, Software Engineering Technology and Sport Management. The 2016/2017 Annual Curriculum Review Executive Summary is contained within this report.

Unchanged from last year, assessment data and reports are managed in a variety of ways. General education assessment forms are downloaded from the Provost's Assessment webpage by academic chairs scheduled for assessment each year. General education reports are submitted to the Associate Provost responsible for assessment vial email. Annual Academic Assessment forms and Annual Functional Area assessment forms are similarly downloaded from the Provost's Assessment webpage and are submitted by users via the campus Blackboard CMS using a special application configured for this purpose by an FSC Instructional Designer. Assessment Advisory Board Subcommittee members then use a variety of methods including FSC shared drives, FSC GoogleDrive and other mechanisms to compile assessment reports. A unified data management system will be implemented at some point in the future .

This report contains the following tabbed sections:

Section 1- Institutional Effectiveness and Student Outcomes Assessment Organization Chart

Section 2 - General Education Assessment Summary report

Section 3 - Functional Area Assessment Report Summary

Section 4 - Curriculum Review Executive Summary

Section 5 - Academic Programs & Departments Annual Assessment Executive Summary

Appendix A-Academic Programs & Departments Annual Assessment Reports Summary

Appendix B -Academic Affairs Annual Assessment Reports Summary

Appendix C - Student Affairs Annual Assessment Reports Summary

Appendix D - Institutional Advancement Annual Assessment Reports Summary

Appendix E. -Administration & Finance Annual Assessment Reports Summary

Appendix F - Development & Alumni Engagement (formerly Corporate relations) Annual Ass~ssment Reports Summary · ·_,.. ·-

· -: .

.

Institutional Effectiveness and Student Outcomes Assessment Organization Chart

President

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

_... an ~ h- rd':'-~

rce''cAI,'.-~~- -~5l.i t

Vice President for · Institutional Advancement

Assessment Advisory Board Co-Chairs Associate Provost & Director Office of Institutional Research

(Serve as ex-official members of subcommittees)

Vice President for ·Admin . /

Finance

Executive Assistant

to President

·Assessment Liaisons:

School of Business

School of Arts & Science

School of Health Science

Vice President for Student Affairs

~ Chief Development ·

Officer

School of Engineering Tech CPRAMember Chair, Subcommittee, Academic Programs CPRA Member Chair, FEC Chair, Subcommittee, Functional Areas I CPRAMember Chair, Subcommittee Gen Ed. Chair, Subcommittee , Functional Areas II

Subcommittee Gen. Ed Chair · Schoolof Business

Schoolof Arts & Sciences School of Health Science Schoolof Engineering Tech

Sulicommittee

Academic Program_s~ Chair Schoolof Business

Schoolof Arts & Sciences Schoolof Health Science Schoolof EngineeringTech

Subcomm ittee

· Functional Areas I Chair Division Academic Affairs Division Student Affairs

Subcommittee

Furictionaf Areas II Chair Institutional Advancement Administrat ion & Finance Development & Corporate ~elations

General Education Campus Assessment

Summary Report 2016 / 2017

Each of the 10 SUNY General Education areas are assessed at FSC on a three year assessment cycle. For the 2016 / 2017 academic year, the assessed areas were Natural Sciences, Western Civilization, Foreign Language, Basic Communication, and Critical Thinking. Departments participating in the 2016 / 2017 General Education assessment include:

General Education Competency Area Academic Department Natural Sciences Chemistry, Physics

Western Civilization History, Modern Language Foreign Language Modern Language

Basic Communication English Critical Thinking English

Information Management English / Library

Each student's General Education assessment scores are separated into four pre-determined criterion ranges relating to the various levels of achievement on the specified learning outcome:

Exceeding Standards - Meeting Standards

- Approaching Standards

- Not Meeting Standards . .

Overall results for ~--~a~pµfindicated that _the percentage of student~ meeting or exceeding standards · , . ranged from 84% to ~$0/i>*across the assessed general education outcomes. The percentage of students

not meeting standa,£~S .ol) gen,erj:11 education learning outcomes ranged from 1% to 9%.

Individual departments h~v~ r~viewed the major findings of their General Education assessment results and, where appropriate, developed action plans to improve student learning based on findings. Assessment driven changes will subsequently be reassessed as part of "closing the assessment loop" during the next General Education assessment cycle for each respective area.

The General Education Assessment Committee liaisons reach out to each area where the percent of students not meeting standards is 20% or greater to facilitate the progression of action plans. In the current cycle, the percent of students not meeting standards was less than 10% in each area assessed.

An Information Management pilot assessment for EGL 101 was conducted during the 2016- 2017 academic year . Professors from five sections of EGL 101 were paired with librarians who facilitated an information literacy instructional session for students enrolled in the course. At the end of the semester, faculty provided librarians with student papers to be evaluated against an Information Management Rubric measuring five -standards derived from the ALA and ACRL Information Literacy Competencies. These standards map to General Education Information Management Student Learning Outcomes 1 and

2. Data were collected from a subset of student papers and results are presented in the table below. Revisions to the instructional sessio_n and assessment process have been proposed and Information Management will be reassessed during the next General Educational assessment cycle.

General Education assessment activities for 2016 / 2017 are report~d to have been conducted in accordance with eai;:h department's pre-established General Education Assessment Plans (GEAP; on file

with the Associate Provost's Office) and were facilitated by the liaisons of the Assessment Advisory Board

* This range does not include results of the Information Management pilot assessment.

Subcommittee for General Education . Only one dep;artment reported a minor deviation from their GEAP -CHM 111, CHM 112, and CHM 140 were not offered in the 2016 / 2017 academic year and thus were not included in the assessment.

Summary assessment results are presented in the table below:

93% •• ,

,; ., 87°/4 · ." ·1%

., • ,, •• , ... >.:-, ~-..-. ,_... ;.:,-,.•-,

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES IN GENERAL EDUCATION

2016 / 2017 CAMPUS REPORT

NA"(l.JRAl.:SCIENCES'· ,_~~-. .: , _t., , .. ·'.. ,,, .- ·c

l)riderstanding-ofthe ,methods scientists use to explore;·,-:'· ;i ; . .' ~('--natt.;Jralphenomena; including observation, hypothe_~is-. ~ ... t .. ''

.r-' d~yelopment; _measurement and data collection, . ,.--;, . · ,. . ,:· :-·experimentation, evaluation of evidence," and employment of

· mathematical anal sis . ·• .. :,• • '·' · ~ ' ~-• .• ' Application of scientific data, concep,ts, an.9 modeJs in one.of CHEM 93%

· the natural sciences. · · '.-· - " .. : , ,: • · .. , -' . . • · .. PHY ,,. 84%

Assessment Driven Changes to t,e Made: · ·· · ' , , , .. · ·-. . · , .~; :•:.. . · ~. , _ . .. <,.,·.;:, .... :., ,.,_ ,~: ~,. PHY -Continue · peer-to-peer mentoring program, upgra.de .physics laboratories, ihcreas/3 computer use across ·courses,,

, inte rate students into research.activities, enhance course offerin sin the' h sics minor.· · · , \• · :- ·

WESTERN CIVILIZATION • Knowledge of the development of the distinctive features of

the history, institutions, econQmy, society, culture, etc., of HIS 308 86% 13% 1% Western civilization MLG 24 88% 8% 4%

• Relate the development of Western civilization to that of' HIS 308 86% 13% 1% other re ions of the world, MLG 24 92% 4% 4%

Assessment Driven Changes to be Made: • HIS - Map, map reading, and geography exercises will be introduced into Western Civilization courses. • MLG - Extend cha ter on contem ora Latin America.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ... .: ,.·, ., •· Basic proficiency in the understanding aridus~ of a foreign .•

· · Ian ua e · ' MLG .. · Knowledge of.the distinctive features of culture(s)' . . 1 '. ,_

· associated with the Ian ua e the are stud in . ' .: :,. ·· 522

Assessment Driven Changes to be Made: . •. 1 ._ •• • -/ - ••

Action to be tal_<en in• tf}e Modem Language Department as. a r~sult of assessment focuses on enhancing: stuqent~' speaking Skl .l''sand··cultural··awarene·ss Spec~,·calt'y· •.,·_ ,,.,;.-'••: ·_ ... ' -'~••.·_,_(4, "··., _. ·,., .• •?·· ·•···::··,,,_,~ .. "-.,.,.,-., ---,,.F- ·t

/, . , • II J • ., :· ...._ _ ..,. ... • • , , •• , •• , It., 1. -~-.. ;- " ·, ~· • 1-, ,._ • ~• i-t ~ ~ · t'•

• GER:. Providii sufficient time for assignments, encourage students to practice speaking skills with. Genn?iri speakers ,{ 1 _o~tside_ofthe classroom,·and to u(ilize technofog(cal tools via the /n(f:!me_t",. ,.. ·-. J .. , :"_. : · • ._~ r~'-;•;· .,/ ·;, . _. #._;•

• ~-ITA ·...lnc{ude more oral dialogues· and drills in Levels. I and JI;enh_ance ct.i{tura/ awarenes$ throu{!fJ, vif}eqs ~nd · ~~· i;y_:,; . - btltl' 1·~ " ···•·.•··· · ··· ... ,. -·· '.r-.-. ,.d1sc_uss1on. a ou a ,an "~- . · - ., ,.<,:'''•.<'"'· , · ,, • . , -, , . · · ··, ._., · ........ :.. · . ,. :} · , ,1"~c,~-.. .'.:i'~l\),''.?·

· •.. CHI - •Incorporate applied_learning ~xperiences,-, mainly, culfural.,ield !rips,. into courses.. . ,1 ,.~ .. :,"i,2::'.",1•,.l\. ::.:··-.,~:. J\ • . FRE - Incorporate materials to erJhance. awareness of French history and cul,ture aQd raise awareness to other f~ _nch~,

..., speaking countries. ,· . - · . . " .. . · ~ . _ . , ; . -· . , ... ·, , ·. -, F . ': :" :, ·., .. - .• ,-,. ,i ; .•: _ ·'. , , ."\ :/'"..,.r; • SPA - ln·SPA 141 and.142, incorporate methods to enhance communication skills including peer tutoring in the Modem .

Languages Ti.Jtonng Center, encouraging students to U$i:fSpanish outside of the classroom· am:No engf;Jge in-cultural.-':.i ..experf.ences.In SPA 145, select a new tf!xtbook with enhanced·cultural readings, In SPA-243, ·incorporate short.verbal,:,;~

dialogs·in.class to enhance oral presentation skills.in 'the target language., In SPA 244,additio(lal writing assign,f,ents "',, will be added earlier in the semester. · . · , . . . . . ~ . ' . . ' . . . .,'; ·, ' , ' . . .. .. .

• · ARA -·Create study groups; engage students in oral activities via technology, and include extracurricularactivities $U'ch.-: · as visitin ethnic. venues. . - · , . · , · · " · ' · ' · ,,_. • :-· · ·

General Education Competency Areas and Student Learning Outcomes "

BASIC COMMUNICATION • Produce coherent texts within common college-level written

forms

Assessment Information ,-

·.. . . .

Department•.,. -_Students Assessed ,· ·. Assessed (n) ·

EGL 146

%". Meeting or· Exceeding·· Standards ·,

86%

Results

% % Approaching ·, Not Meeting

Standards Standards'.

12% 2%

• Demonstrate the abili to revise and im rove such texts EGL 146 90% 8% 2%

• Research a topic, develop an argument , and organize SU ortin details EGL 146 86% 12% 2%

• Evaluate an oral resentation to established criteria EGL 217 92% 7% 1% Assessment Driven Changes to be Made: • EGL - Assessment results will be shared with instructors and an ad hoc committee formed to address areas in which

students are not meetin standards.

'CRITICAL.THINKING ' (REASONING) . ' ,-·- t)· . '.- ~. t , . -~· \· ·• , Identify; ana,lyze, and evaluate arguments as they.occur in . ,; . ,... ,· • :·,. · -·

' their own or other's work EGL 217 90% 7%. , • ' •1 3% ,, · · • Devera · well-reasoned ar uments ·· EGL' 217 88% 10%· : -: • 2%',

Assessment Driyen Changes to be Made: " _. ,. · . . : · .. . • . · ·-. . ,. · ;_, . . • • \ .,-. _ .• ,. . , :.i .. ,-,: .• ,; .-~· • EGL :_Assessment results will be shared with 'instructors arid an· ad hdc committee formed to address-areas in which'-. ,

·;students are not meetin standards. •. ·· ·

INFORMATION .MANAGEMENT • Perform the basic operations of personal computer use • Understand and use basic research techni ues • Locate, evaluate , and synthesize information from a variety

of sources Assessment Driven Changes to be Made:

EGL/ LIB 67 48% 48% ... . : - . 4%

• ELG/LIB - Ensure English paper assignment standards are consistent, clear, and appropriate for assessment using the Information Management Rubric. Modify the information literacy instructional session in two ways: (1) basic content will be delivered via video hosted on the Greenley Library website to allow librarians 'to focus on the research process and assignment during the in-person session and (2) the second review session will focus on "Sources and Citations" to address comparatively low scores on the Information Management Rubric Standard 5 (Ethical Use of Information). Add Standard 5b citation format to the Rubric to s ecifica/1 assess students' in-text citations and works cited a e.

Functional Area Assessment

The 2016-17 academic year marked the second year of the new advisory board model of

assessment, which was rolled out among Farmingdale State College functional areas across all

divisions in 2015-16. Over fifty functional areas and departments conducted an assessment in

2016-17, ten more than conducted in 2015-16.

A workshop was conducted during the fall of 2017 to assist functional areas with defining

meaningful goals and effective measures, and to review the assessment process and associated

forms . The workshop was well attended and proved to be helpful in the formulation of

meaningful assessment plans. In addition, the functional areas continued to receive considerable

support from their assessment liaisons. A liaison was added to Functional Area II to

accommodate the increase in assessment plans.

This was the first year that a 'closing the loop' section was incorporated in the functional area

assessment plan and report forms. 'Closing the loop' encompasses analyzing assessment results,

using results to make improvements, and re-assessing to determine the effect of those changes.

Several areas had shortfalls in meeting their prior year {2015-16) expected outcomes, and

therefore , implemented assessment-based changes and re-assessed their goals.

The 'closing the loop' assessment based changes include:

• Educate all divisions on the budget process, including how to use the SPBI spreadsheet . . ~ .

• Change the financial aid coding system to better inform students·· and stop aid from

disbursing until an audit is reviewed

• Payroll policies and procedures will be documented

• All CSTEP students must meet with a counselor three times per semester

• IR realigned staff responsibilities

• Marketing entered into an advertising campaign with CBSradio

Almost all of these areas were successful in 'closing the loop' by meeting their prior year goals

once these assessment-based changes were implemented .

The majority of changes that functional areas are currently implementing based on 2016-17

assessment results, do not require additional funding or resources, but rather are changes in

processes or a shift in current resources. Examples include:

• Focus advertising on. commuters

• Visit strategic feeder high schools

• Promote graduation fair to seniors well in advance

• Provide a survey immediately following the distance learning train ing course

• Increase counseling hours

Of those who did request assessment-based resources, additional' staff was the cited the most .

Based on 2016-17 assessment results, the following resources are requested:

• Mail & Supply requests $50,000 for a computerized delivery program

. • Research & Sponsored Programs requests that an Assistant Director be hired

• Accounts Payable requests a staff member to help with clerical duties

• Communications/Marketing requests $3,000 for software

• The Tutoring Center requests $20,000 for salary compression and additional hours

• Career Services requests an additional career counselor

Functional area goals were tied back to divisional goals. Most divisional goals were assessed by

respective constituent departments in the 2016-17 academic year with the exception of three of

Academic Affair s' nine goals, one of Institutional Advancement's six goals, one of Student Affairs'

four goals, and four of Corporate Development's five goals. All divisional goals, and associated

functional area goals, are assessed at least once within a five-year p~riod. , .

'.. . ' ' . The tables on the following pages are organ_ized by division and list the constituent functional

areas that assessed a goal(s) within e~ch correspbnding divisional° goal. Comments regarding

whether the functional areas reached their goals, and resources the functional areas are

requesting based on assessm~nt outcomes, are also displayed .

Details at the functional area level in regard to what goals were assessed, which specific

outcomes where 11ret, a11d what assess, r rer rt-based-changesare-betngimp-tementecr,can -trefoH1u n~d- ­

i n the appendices organized by division.

Academic Affairs 2016/2017

Division Goal

1. Provide educational offerings that meet the needs of our student s and regional

employers to promote the economic , social

and cultural development of the region .

2. Continuously improve and expand academic

offerings and instruction in accordance with .

best practices, assessment data, and the

evolving needs of the community the College serves.

3. Support stud ent progre ss towards

graduation, employment and other

educational goals through tran sformative

advisement, coordinated support services

and effective information systems

4 . Provide resources and opportunities to

advance the development of faculty and profe ssional staff so they excel in their

performance and contributions to the College

community and their professions .

5. Enhance the imp act of student learning and faculty scholarship beyond the classroom to

the campus community, the region, the

nation and the world .

6. Enrich the learning environment through

availability and-enhancement of a broad

range of information resources, technologies and services.

Depts .. that assessed

goals in-line with

Division goal

Internat ional Programs:

Study Abroad Division

a. Registrar

b. CSTEP

c. International Ed.:

Support Services

d. Writing Center

e. AAIC

f. EOP '

a. CTLT

b. RESC

Office of Distance

Learning

Comments on Department Assessment Outcomes

International program s did not meet its 2 related goals.

'

a. Registrar met its goals.

b. CSTEP met its goals & closed the loop by meeting its

goal from last year.

c. · International Education met its goal.

d. Writing Center met its goal. .

e. : · AAIC Met 1 of 4 of its goals. ·-f . EOP partially met its goals.

a. CTLT met 1 of 2 goals.

b. RESC met its goal.

Office of Distance Learning did not meet any of its 3 goals.

-

Resources Required

Based on

Assessment Results

'

7. Support the acquisition and development of

research and sponsored programs that

advance knowledge and benefit College

initiatives .

8. Create opportunities for and encourage

students to apply knowledge and skills gained

from traditional classroom settings to real

world environments such as internships,

practicums, research, creative proj_e':s,

service learning and community engagement.

9. Support educational opportunity and

academic success for all students including

tho se who may be from traditionally

disadvantaged backgrounds .

Inst tutional Research

a. CSTEP

b. International

Programs: Study

Abroad ' '

C. SSRI . , ..,

' . . '

IR met its goal, and reassessed its prior year's goal as part of

closing the loop, but fell short of achieving that goal.

a.

b.

c.

CSTEP met it s goal.

International Programs: Study Abroad met its goal.

SSRI met its goal.

' :

.

Student Affairs 2016/2017 I ~

Division Goal

1. Develop and enhance learnin g

programs outside th e classroom

2. Promote student development

through co-curricular activities

3. Expand campu s-wide collaboration

4. Promote an environment that

enhances retention

Depts. that assessed

goals in-line w ith

Division goal

I

a. Disability Services

b . Residence Life

a. Campus Mental

Health

b. Campus Recreation

c. Health & Wellne ss

d. Student Activitie s

e. Career Services

f. Veterans Services

g. Tutoring Center

h. Dean of Student s

Comm ents on Department Assessment Outcomes

1·

'

' a·. Disability Services part ially met its goal.

b. Residence Life met its goal.

. ,

a. Campus Mental Health partially met it s goal.

b. Campus Recreation partially met its goal.

C. Health & Wellness did not meet it s goal.

d . Student Activities met its goal.

e. Career Services did not meet its goal.

f . V~terans Services did not meet its goal.

g. Tutoring <::enter partially met its goal.

h. ·Dean of Students did not meet its goal.

Resources

Required Based on

Assessment

Results

The Tutoring

Center request ed

$20,000 for

salaries

compression and

increased summer

hours .

Career Services

requested t hat the

PT counselor be

made full -time

(update : ~as '• approved and•

" •

. ➔ implemented) and' -

' - requests an

additional ·1

counselor.

'

,·, ., '

'

Institutional Advancement 2016/2017

Division Goal

1. Enhance marketing efforts to

meet enrollment objectives and

attract highly qualified students

2. Implement new responsive website to serve as primary

marketing vehicle

3. Meet enrollment targets

4. Develop methods to measure

effectiveness of advertising

Depts. that assessed

goals in-line with

Division goal

Communications/Marke

ting '

' ~

Web a. Web programming/marketing met its goal.

programming/marketing

.. a. Transfer Services a. Transfer Services met its goal.

b. Admissions b. Admissions met 2 of its 5 goals.

Comments on Department Assessment Outcomes

..

. · Communications/marketing did not meet its goal, and closed

· the loop by meeting their prior year's goal.

-

' ..

Resources

Required Based on

Assessment

Results -

$3,000 for

software

5. Enhance branding efforts to

ensure consistency in image and

perception

6. Develop new techniques to

appeal to potential alumni donors

I

Social Media Marketing met its goal. Social fvledia

Markepng

Alumni met 2 goals and partially met a third. 'Alumni

. ' ..

. '\· ,,\:' ' ·.

' .

'·~

'

.

.. Administration & Finance 2016/2017

Division Goal

1. Ensure that th e College's strong

financial position continues into the future and provide transpa rency

related to the preparation and

administration of the College's

budget .

2. Provide effective and efficient

financial student services that foster a

collaborative relationship with the

stud ents .

3. Maintain and enhance the physical

environment of the College in order to

support the academic mission of the

College.

4. Provide all of th e general support

services necessary to ensure the

College is able to fulfill it s mission .

Depts. that assessed

goals in-line with

Division goal

a. Budget

b. Physical Plant

c. Human

Resources/Payroll

a. Financial Aid

b. Student Accounts

Mail & Supply

a. Athletics

b. Environmental ;

Health & Safety .• ' C. Internal Control

d. University Police

e. Employee

Assistance Program

(EAP) f . Instructional

Technology Support

.. . ,.

. Comments on Department Assessment Outcom es

a. Budget met its goals & closed the loop by achieving last year' s

goal.

b. Physical Plant met its goal.

c. Human Resources/Payroll partially met it s goal.

a. Financial Aid met its goal & closed the loop by achieving last

year's goal.

b. Student Accounts met its goal s.

Mail & Supply met its g·oal.

., . . .

· a.. , Athletics did not meet its goal.

b. Environmental Health & Safety partially met it s goal.

C• Internal Control partially met its goal.

d. University Police met its goal.

e. Employ.eeAssistance Program (EAP)met its goal.

f. Instructional Technology Support met its goal.

g. Auxiliary Serv!ces Corp . met it s goals.

h. Purchasing met its goals.

i. ACC()UntsPayable met its goal.

Resources

Required Based on

Assessment

Results

$50,000 for a

computerized

delivery program.

Accounts Payabl e

requests a per son

to help with

clerical task s.

5. To support and expand upon the

college goal to support and efficiently

manage research funding and its

administrative components .

g. Auxilia rvServices

Corp.

h. Purch.;sing

i. Accou1 ts Payable

j. Humar

Resoui ces/Payroll

k. Inform ation

Techn< logy

I. Legal

m. Use of Facilities

n. Small I usiness

Develc [pment

Center

j . Human Resources/Payroll did not meet its goals, and did not

meet its goal that was re-assessed based on last year's results

as part of closing the loop.

k. Information Technology partially met its goal. -I. Legal did not meet its goal.

m. Use of Facilities did not meet its goal.

n. Small Business Development Center met two of its goals and

partially met its third goal.

a. Resear h Research Foundation did not meet its goal. Research & .Found, tion Sponsored

Research_& Sponsored Programs partially met its goals. b. Resear h& Programs requests - . . .

.Spense red Programs that an Assistant

Director be hired .

..

DM sion Goal

1. Increase number of Executive

Awarene ss/corporate leadership visits

from 30 current to 40 annually

2. Provide 10% additional scholarships

over the average past 5 years through enhanced fundraising that will

enhance opportunities for admission, progression, retention, and graduation

3 . To fully incorporate technology and software to:

• Track donors

• Provide students complete access to all scholarships available

4 . Increase Board membership from 31

to 35 active corporate board member s.

5. Increase revenue as a result of the Long Island Business hall of Fame Gala and the Tech Island Golf Outing using a baseline of the last 3 year average.

Development & Corporate Relat ions 2016/2017

Depts. that assessed

goals in-line with

Division goal

Development &

Corporate Relations

'

;

.,

Comment s on Department Assessment Outcomes

.

.. ' .

" I '

c;_Jevelapment& Corporate Relations partially met its goal.

Resources

Required Based on

Assessment

Results

'

FSC 2016/2017 Curriculum Review Executive Summary (November 2017)

During the .2016/2017 academic year, there were seven curriculum reviews (Biology, Computer

Programming & Information Systems, Criminal Justice -AS Program, Mechanical Engineering Technology

-AAS Program, Science Technology & Society, Software Engineering Technology and Sport Management). As of this writing, all curriculum review reports and departmental initial responses are complete.

Biology (BIO)

The Biology external review team members (Drs. Chakraborty and Lee) each provided their own evaluation report . Both reports were fairly consistent in terms of departmental/programmatic strengths and opportunities for improvement though one·reviewer was significantly more strident in tone regarding areas for development than the other. This was particularly focused on the issu.e of increasing faculty resources.

External reviewer recommendations that require follow-up include:

1. Hire additional full-time faculty and rely less on adjuncts (stated that over 74% of students are taught by adjunct instructors). This is primarily a recommendation to Administration.

2. Perform regular course evaluations and course coordinators to ensure quality control across

instructors. This includes syllabi, learning objective and evaluation metric recommendations that were reported as not followed up on from prior-self-study.

3. Increase the diversity .of the faculty.

4. Ephance · the comr,ensation fo.r faculty to supervise research (Administration ;ec~~~eridation). -

With regard to item ·2 above, the Biology Department did not fully agree with the reviewers' conclusions. The Department indicated that it -has made progress on these items and engages in a variety of course evaluation/quality control activities that the reviewers missed.

Computer Systems (CPIS/BCS)

The Computer Systems external review team (Drs. Sprenkle and Hill) submitted a single joint report including FSCs structured evaluation form and a detailed supplemental narrative. The reviewers described the College and the Computer Systems Department as "a wonderfully warm environment for a group of diver~e and non-traditional students to grow and thrive in their learning". The reviewers identified five primary challenges in the department:

1. High teaching load, with most classes at capacity

2. A curriculum that has evolved into an unsustainable state and needs to be refactored to better reflect the students', industry's, and faculty's interests, and an assessment plan to drive future sustainable changes

3. Role of the department chair because of the increased demands on that position as the department has grown

4. Insufficient lab space and computer hardware

5. Position wit~in the College to facilitate natural collaborations

Recommendations included:

1. At least four additional tenure-track lines.

2. Restructure curricula with national standard Information Systems (IS), Information Technology

(IT), and Computer Science (CS) programs. Use ACM and IEEE published standard curricula

recommendations for CS, IS, and IT: http://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations

to begin thinking about how to more closely align the current curriculum with national _standards .

3. Curtail the certificate programs (14 students) to allow the department to focus on the BS degree

program (over 400 students). Rethink under enrolled tracks, and consider broadening the

programming track to teach software engineering concepts. 4. Courses should focus on problem solving areas, rather than technologies, where the technologies

are a means to concretely understand the problems .

5. Create an assessment mechanism to survey students and pinpoint the disparity between female

faculty (who are well represented) and female students (who are under-represented). 6. More closely align course titles and descriptions to problem-solving concepts, student learning,

and understandability to an outside perspective by using more industry-accepted names.

7. Add a software engineering course, distinct from the Systems Analysis and Design course.

8. Perform summative qualitative content analysis of the open -ended responses from graduating

seniors and alumni. Both the Curriculum Advisory Committee and the Assessment committees

should be making use of this data. We recognize that the department will need more faculty to

be able to act on these changes. 9. Avoid grade-based assessments and instead focus on rubric-based assessments.

10. Develop a new approach to evaluate alumni success. 11. Redefine the role of the chair to match the department's evolving trajectory as well as make the

Chair a more attractive position for the right person . 12. To address the lack of dedicated computer labs for the number of concurrently scheduled courses,

consider purchasing and furnishing a laptop cart or instituting a laptop policy, which will a!low a~y .

classroom to become a computer lab. 13. Revisit the process of purchasing new hardware and consider what would create a productive

dialogue. _14. Consider the positio n of Computer Systems within the College and whether it fits better within

the School of Business (where it is currently) or within the School of Engineering Technology. . Revtew-the-sataries-of current -faettlty-and-itteomiflg-faettl-ty---tfl--tomJ:11:tteF-Sy,tems-an d-s imUa+------­

_de pa rt me ~ts and increase salaries accord1ng to experience, rank, credentials, and skills.

16. Hire a technical- or STEM-specific person in the Nexus Center who can advise students in relevant

fields better and who can coordinate efforts between the Nexus Center and the department ' s

internship coordinator. 17. The administration should continue to invest in the professional development of its talented and

dedicated faculty.

Recommendations were also made for how to enhance future reviews .

Note that recommendation numbers are extracted from the report and do not correspond to the

reviewers' numbers.

The Department Chair has indicated that the report will form the basis of the first department meeting

for the Fall '17 semester.

Criminal Justice (CRJ - A.S. Program)

The Criminal Justice external review team members (Ors. McCrie and Ortiz) submitted a single joint evaluation report. The report was positive in most areas reviewed with the following exceptions:

1. The department was cited as not collecting and monitoring critical student data for both current

students and alumni. Current student surveys of satisfaction and success as well as alumni surveys of satisfaction and job/graduate school achievement must be administered and analyzed over ·

tJme. 2. Resolve the source of confusion between the Arts & Sciences based CRJ AS program and the

School of Engineering Technology based Security Systems/Law Enforcement Technology BS

programs prior to adding additional degree programs in this area. 3. Hire additional full-time faculty with expertise complimentary to existing faculty. 4. Improve support for facurty research.

5. Improve instructional technologies in all classrooms.

The Criminal Justice Department did not submit any documents indicating disagreement with any of the conclusions of the external reviewers' report.

Mechanical Engineering Technology AAS Program (MET)

The MET external review team (Ors. Scire and Wright) provided a single, joint evaluation ·report. The report was highly favorable with the authors summarizing strengths as "The program provides a complete

two-year introduction to Mechanical Engineering Technology with considerable hands-on experience built

into its.courses. " The authors further state that the program is an "ideal lead-in to the MET BS program at l'armingdale or an introduction to manufacturing work in industry. The program is supported by well

. qualified faculty who show dedication to their students and their fields." In terms of weaknesses, the reviewers wrote "Overall, the program is strong. The main weakness will be lack of reserve capacity as an influx of new students from the PTECH program enrolls."

In terms of specific recommendations, the reviewers stated that the College needs to support the program with new faculty lines and equipment purchases, the MET department should manage growth carefully

with consideration of availability of upper-level classes, consider moving MET 109 from an EXCEL basis to

MATLAB or Python and consider addition of high level science and math courses.

There was no response from the Department indicating factual errors of areas of significant disagreement with the external reviewers' report.

Science Technology & Society (STS)

The STS external review team (Ors. Besen-Cassino and Aubin) submitted a single, joint evaluation report that was highly complementary to the program describing it as "a wonderful program, offering truly

interdisciplinary training to the students." In both numerical ratings and qualitative comments , the

reviewers praised the course offerings, high quality of curriculum, flexibility of the program, student

reaction, faculty engagement, advisement and growth of the program.

The reviewers described the biggest challenge of the program as "not having its own full-time faculty ."

Consistency of program administration, staff and advisors was mentioned as critical given the "volunteer''

nature of the program's faculty but beyond this, the reviewers called for additional advisement support.

Strengthening the support provided to the program by the AAIC was listed as necessary and providing a

dedicated AAIC advisor for the STS program was one suggestion in this category. An additional suggestion

was made to provide new students with as much information about the program as possible immediately

upon their admission. The reviewers described the commonly encountered problem of STS students who consider the major a temporary "placeholder" while they are waiting to transfer to other programs. It

was recommended that students are provided accurate information when they enter STS about the

content and opportunities of the STS major and realistic estimates of likelihood of successful transfer to programs they may have originally applied to. Full-time STS advisors were recommended as was creation

of an STS students' club.

The external reviewers also provided an addendum regarding a new STS curriculum that was being considered but that proposal has now undergone significant alteration so the addendum is not described

here.

There was no response from the Department indicating factual errors of areas of significant disagreement

with the external reviewers' report .

Software Engineering Technology (SET)

The SET external review team (Drs. Ku and Zhang) provided a single, joint evaluation report. Program

strengths were listed as:

1. dedicated faculty 2. adequate space and facilities

3. Relevance of the program

- Program weaknesses were listed as:

1. lack of documented assessment results 2. Conflicting interests and lack of support with CPIS Department 3. lack of SET presence in Gen Ed offerings

4. Extremely low student enrollment

The external reviewers generally provided favorable quantitative ratings of the program though

descriptive comments were not always commensurate with the favorable ratings. Recommended departmental actions include:

1. Specification of a departmental mission and relation to College mission 2. Significant improvement in almost all aspects of assessment 3. Multiple course sequencing modification suggestions

4. Better specification of applied learning experiences 5. Improved marketing, departmental website and related recruitment activities

6. Develop at least one SET Gen Ed course

There was no response from the Department indicating factual errors or areas of significant disagreement

with the external reviewers' report.

Sport Management (SMT) ·

Each Sport Management external reviewer · (Ors. Hite and I.van) submitted her own Program Review Evaluation Report. Although each report emphasized unique strengths and weaknesses there was overall

agreement that major ·program strengths included dedic~ted, student-centered faculty and staff, faculty connections to industry, laboratory and computer labs and the Sport Management Club.

There was agreement between both reports that necessary action items for the program include:

1. Need to develop more internships/applied learning/service learning experiences 2. Add full -time, academically qualified faculty 3. Greatly enhance assessment activities

4. Develop curriculum map linking objectives/goals to course outcomes

5. Enhance support for faculty scholarly activity 6. Add a technological component in line with COSMA guidelines

There was no response from the Department indicating factual errors of areas of significant disagreement with the external reviewers' report.

Assessment of Academic Program~ and Departments

2016/2017 Executive Summary

Annual assessment of student learning outcomes was conducted within the academic programs

and courses offered by departments that support the College's majors. Highlights from the 2016/2017

reporting cycle include an overall increase in academic- related assessment activities that were

completed in accordance with the College's assessment guidelines, an increase in the number of

programs and departments that conducted reassessment activities based on initial assessment findings,

and improvements in reporting on the effectiveness of assessment driven changes.

The College is committed to engaging in meaningful assessment practices to improve student

learning . For this academic year, the-Assessment Advisory'Board implemented changes to emphasize

reporting on reassessment activities in response to the recommendations of the evaluators of the

College's Middle States Periodic Review Report {PRR). The Academic Programs Assessment

Subcommittee assisted with implementing specific enhancements to the reporting process that includ ed

revisions to the documents used by program _and department chairs to better emphasize "closing the

loop" on academic assessment activities. Likewise, summary documents that were prepared by the

subcommittee and incorporated into the campus-w,ide assessment report were modified so the

designated columns clearly state the use of assessment results (recommended actions) and the effects

of the implementation of those re~ommendatlors (reassessment/asse~sment driven changes) for the

student learning outcomes that were assessed. Throughqut t~e year, subcommittee liaisons in each

school worked collaboratively with program and departme!'lt chairs to_facilitate the reporting process

· and maintain the direct line of communication between the Assessment ,\dvisory Board and the faculty.

Additional improvements in academic assessment among all four schools included better

alignment of student learning outcomes with program-level and College goals, more inclusion of data

and measurable learning outcomes, the use of the blackboard system for the submission and

management of assessment plans and reports and the separation of reporting on functional outcomes

for those programs that may do so based on the requirements of outside accrediting agencies.

Reflecting on the process itself and looking ahead to the c·oming year, the Academic Programs

Assessment Subcommittee makes the following recommendations to continue to enhance the process

for the assessment of student learning at the College:

• Provide expedited feedback on assessment plans and reports so that programs and

departments can incorporate suggestions for improvement in a timely manner.

• Make additional modifications to the r.eporting format so that instructions are clear and

create more consistency for reporting on assessment activities.

• Plan additional training workshops for full-time and adjunct faculty to continue to

enhance practices for the assessment of student learning at the College.

• Plan a campus-wide event whereby accomplishments related to the assessment of

student learning and assessment driven changes can be showcased.

• Research attainable assessment data management systems so that assessment data

can be compiled, summarized, evaluated and stored on an automated platform .

The chart in Appendix A is organized by school and lists the student learning outcomes that

were assessed within each program or department. Each student learning outcome is linked to

both a program and College goal, followed by the assessment results that were obtained for the

student learning outcome. Plans for reassessment are listed in the action plan section, and

results of reassessment activities from the previous reporting year are included in t he section on

reassessed outcomes.

Academic Division Pages

School of Health Sciences 1-11

School of Arts and Sciences 12-26

School of Business 27-47

School of Engineering Technology 48-61