pellissippi state community college · the quality assurance funding program seeks to incentivize...

Quality Assurance Funding

2016-2017

Submitted: August 1, 2017

Year 2: 2016-17

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

I. Student Learning and Engagement 75 73 #DIV/0!

General Education Assessment 15 15 15

Major Field Assessment 15 15 #DIV/0!

Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation 15 13 12

Institutional Satisfaction Study 10 10 10

Adult Learner Success 10 10 6

Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement 10 10 #DIV/0!

II. Student Access and Success 25 20 22

Total Points 100 93 #DIV/0!

* Point recommendations are considered unofficial until Final Recommendations are distributed by THEC staff.

Quality Assurance Funding StandardsMaximum

Points

Recommended Points

Tennessee Higher Education Commission2015-20 Quality Assurance Funding

Summary of Points Recommended

The Quality Assurance Funding program seeks to incentivize meritorious performance, provide a means for assisting the process of student learning

and encourage continuous improvement at public community colleges and universities. The 2015-20 Quality Assurance Funding cycle standards

reflect current state priorities outlined in the 2015-25 Master Plan, guided by the Drive to 55, and continue to challenge institutions to promote the

highest standards and strive for excellence.

Pellissippi State Community College

Tennessee Higher Education Commission

Quality Assurance Funding

Summary of Points Recommendedd

15

15

Year 2: 2016-17

Assessment: ETS Proficiency Profile 1,455

Sampling Plan: All Graduates Tested 1,198

82%

1,170

Mean Score

Institution

National*

Difference

(Institution - Natl.)

% Institution to Natl.

Average

Mean Score

Institution

3 Yr Average

Diff (Inst - Avg)

% Inst to 3 Yr. Avg

Institutional Comments:

If the total eligible graduates and the total graduates tested are not equal, please explain.

*ETS Proficiency Profile Institutional Mean Score comprised of scores from all students at Associate Degree Colleges

from July 2011 to June 2016.

Institutional Trends Comparison (Maximum 5 points in Years 4-5)

2018-19 2019-20

0.0 0.0

8.26 7.22

102% 102%

447.2 445.5

438.9 438.3

National Norm Comparison (Maximum 15 points in Years 1-3 and 10 points in Years 4-5)

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Total Eligible Graduates:

Total Graduates Tested:

Percent of Eligible Graduates Tested:

Graduates in Score Report:



General Education Assessment

The General Education Assessment standard is designed to provide incentives to institutions for improvements in the

quality of their undergraduate general education program as measured by the performance of graduates on an

approved standardized test of general education.

Tennessee Higher Education CommissionQuality Assurance Funding

General Education Assessment 1

ETS® Proficiency Profile

Summary of Scaled Scores

To show the ability of the group taking the test

Pellissippi State Community College Cohort Name: 2015 Summer (pt. B from June 2015

on) - 2016 Spring

Close Date: 06/06/2016

Student Level: All

Abbreviated

Test Description: Abbreviated Form B

Number of students tested: 1168

Number of students included in these

statistics: 1143

Number of students excluded (see

roster): 25

Possible

Range

Mean

Score

95%

Confidence

Limits* for

Mean

Standard

Deviation

25th

Percentile

50th

Percentile

75th

Percentile

Total Score 400 to

500 447.16 446 to 448 19.16 434 445 461

Skills Subscores:

Critical

Thinking

100 to

130 112.19 111 to 113 6.30 107 110 117

Reading 100 to

130 118.85 118 to 120 6.74 114 119 125

Writing 100 to

130 114.91 114 to 116 5.02 111 115 119

Mathematics 100 to

130 114.12 113 to 115 5.97 110 113 119

Context-Based Subscores:

Humanities 100 to

130 114.96 114 to 116 6.20 111 115 119

Social

Sciences

100 to

130 113.86 113 to 115 6.30 109 113 119

Natural

Sciences

100 to

130 116.21 115 to 117 5.62 112 116 120

*The confidence limits are based on the assumption that the questions contributing to each scaled

score are a sample from a much larger set of possible questions that could have been used to

measure those same skills. If the group of students taking the test is a sample from some larger

population of students eligible to be tested, the confidence limits include both sampling of

students and sampling of questions as factors that could cause the mean score to vary. The

confidence limits indicate the precision of the mean score of the students actually tested, as an

estimate of the "true population mean" - the mean score that would result if all the students in the

population could somehow be tested with all possible questions. These confidence limits were

computed by a procedure that has a 95 percent probability of producing upper and lower limits

that will surround the true population mean. The population size used in the calculation of the

confidence limits for the mean scores in this report is 1143.

Reports based on a sample of fewer than 50 test takers are representative of the performance of

that sample only. Reports based on fewer than 50 test takers should not be considered

representative of the larger group of like students, and inferences or generalizations about the

larger population or subgroup should not be made based on such small samples.

TO: Victoria Harpool, THEC

FROM: Nancy Ramsey, PSCC

DATE: July 13, 2017

SUBJECT: Student Exemptions from Exit Exam (2016-17)

Pellissippi State Community College has recognized exemptions for graduating students as regards the completion of the identified exit exam, CBASE/ETS.

Out of the 1455 graduates, 1198 had ETS scores and 32 had CBASE scores.

The remaining 225 students received a waiver based on PSCC’s waiver policy.

57 Waiver due to having a previous degree 28 Waiver due to designation as English as a Second Language 7 Waiver due to non-attendance for up to one year prior to graduation date 7 Waiver due to living out of state and completing degree online or working out of state

during the final semester 126 Waiver due to students being Reverse Transfer from the four year institutions and not

being required to complete the exit exam per TBR instructions 225 Total Waivers

15

#DIV/0!

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test Type

No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested

No.

Passed

Inst Pass

Rate

Comp

Pass Rate

% Inst to Comp

Pass Rate*

1 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3AAS 2015 NCLEX 89 74 83% 66 89.2% 84.56% 100%


No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested Inst Score

Comp

Score

% Inst to Comp

Score*

1 06.11.0101.00 COMPUTER INFORMATION TECH 2.3.AAS 2015-16 Brainbench 45 48 100% 3.573 2.57 100%

2 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3.AST 2015-16 PRAXIS 43 21 49% 164.7 162.2 100%

3 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3.AAS 2016-17 Peregrine 68 67 99% 43.7 0 #DIV/0!

4 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 2017-18 Local

5 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2.3 AAS 2018-19 Local

6 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3.AAS 2018-19 Local

7 32.52.0401.00

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL

TECH 2.3.AAS 2018-19 OPAC

8 30.50.0408.00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 2019-20 Local

9 09.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 2019-20 AWS Sense

#DIV/0!

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree

1 06.11.0801.00 WEB PAGE AUTHORING 2.3AAS

2 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS

3 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3AAS

4 21.30.0000.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS

5 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3AAS

2015-16 Licensure Results


No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested

No.

Passed

Inst Pass

Rate

Comp

Pass Rate

% Inst to Comp

Pass Rate

1 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3AAS 2015 NCLEX 77 77 100% 71 92.2% 84.5% 100%


Maximum Points:


Major Field Assessment

The Major Field Assessment standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of major field programs as evaluated by the performance of

graduates on approved examinations.

Recommended Points:

Licensure Programs Reported Annually

Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle

Multidisciplinary

Average institution pass rate/score to comparison pass rate/score

* Maximum of 100% used of scoring

Performance Oriented

Program Exemptions for 2015-20 Cycle

Exemption

Low Producing

Multidisciplinary

Multidisciplinary


Major Field Test 1

Year 2: 2016-17

Academic ProgramBUSINESS

Test Code Peregrine

Institutional Mean (local) or

National Mean (Standardized Test)

2015-20 Cycle Average 43.7

% Inst to Comparison Score #DIV/0!

Number of Graduate Scores 67

Graduate ScoresBUSINESS

1 32.5

2 55

3 30

4 35

5 37.5

6 50

7 47.5

8 42.5

9 47.5

10 40

11 55

12 57.5

13 47.5

14 55

15 27.5

16 37.5

17 47.5

18 67.5

19 32.5

20 52.5

21 32.5

22 50

23 42.5

24 50

25 45

26 37.5

27 30

28 40

29 27.5

30 42.5

31 50

32 37.5

33 45

34 42.5

35 50

36 45

37 50

38 57.5

39 40

40 25

41 40

42 52.5

43 42.5

44 40

45 52.5

46 55

47 40

48 32.5

49 42.5

50 40

51 57.5

52 42.5

53 47.5

54 37.5


Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle


Major Field Assessment


Major Field Test 1

Graduate ScoresBUSINESS

55 25

56 47.5

57 45

58 45

59 30

60 65

61 42.5

62 42.5

63 35

64 57.5

65 50

66 37.5

67 45

68

69

70


Major Field Test 2


Assessment Period: 2/1/2017 - 3/20/2017

Academic Level: Associate

Course: Outbound Comprehensive Exam

Number of Exams: 67

Specia

lizat

ion

Learner First Name Last Name Accountin

g

Econom

ics

Man

agem

ent

Mar

ketin

g

1 Management Ballew, Nicholas Nicholas Ballew 30 20 30 50

2 Management Beene, Candace Candace Beene 60 40 60 60

3 Hospitality Burnette-Jenkins, TabithaTabitha Burnette-Jenkins 50 40 10 20

4 Management Callahan, Ashlyn Ashlyn Callahan 50 20 20 50

5 Culinary Callie, Andrew Andrew Callie 60 20 40 30

6 Accounting Cardin, Misty Misty Cardin 70 60 50 20

7 Accounting Clements, Jessica Jessica Clements 60 70 40 20

8 Management Coke, Ryan Ryan Coke 30 30 30 80

9 Management Correro, Mary Mary Correro 20 40 80 50

10 Hospitality Cox, Lesley Lesley Cox 10 70 50 30

11 Accounting Crippen, Sara Sara Crippen 90 40 60 30

12 Hospitality Cyran, Justyna Justyna Cyran 50 70 80 30

13 Management Davis, Katelyn Katelyn Davis 40 40 40 70

14 Management Davis, Leah Leah Davis 70 40 60 50

15 Management Ealey, Jelessa Jelessa Ealey 40 20 30 20

16 Accounting Fletcher, Cynthia Cynthia Fletcher 50 40 20 40

17 Management Fore, Lindsey Lindsey Fore 60 40 80 10

18 Management Forrey, Anthony Anthony Forrey 70 70 70 60

19 Management Garner, Jasmine Jasmine Garner 30 30 40 30

20 Management Gresham, Hannah Hannah Gresham 70 40 70 30

21 Accounting Gu, Ivy Ivy Gu 40 20 30 40

22 Accounting Hamilton, Elizabeth Elizabeth Hamilton 50 30 60 60

23 Management Headrick, Bo Bo Headrick 60 20 40 50

24 Management Heatherly, James James Heatherly 40 60 40 60

25 Management Henson, Blaine Blaine Henson 50 40 50 40

26 Management Hobson, Gregory Gregory Hobson 30 50 40 30

27 Management Householder, Evan Evan Householder 30 30 20 40

28 Accounting Howard, Tanner Tanner Howard 50 40 30 40

29 Management Howe, Kevin Kevin Howe 10 30 30 40

30 Hospitality JOHNSON, MELISSA MELISSA JOHNSON 50 20 70 30

31 Accounting Kanipe, Whitney Whitney Kanipe 50 60 50 40

32 Hospitality Kear, Courtney Courtney Kear 30 50 40 30

33 Management Lanciano, Angela Angela Lanciano 40 30 30 80

34 Management Lester, Jessica Jessica Lester 50 40 50 30

35 Management Liston, Abbie Abbie Liston 60 50 50 40

36 Management Lowery, Tiffianny Tiffianny Lowery 70 20 50 40

37 Management Lynch, Madison Madison Lynch 50 50 60 40

38 Accounting MANUEL, ERIKA Y ERIKA Y MANUEL 80 20 80 50

39 Management Marlow, Jonathan Jonathan Marlow 30 30 50 50

40 Management Massey, Bethany Bethany Massey 30 30 30 10

41 Management Mathews, Taylor Taylor Mathews 10 40 70 40

42 Management Mays, Misty Misty Mays 70 40 40 60

43 Accounting McCarter, Whitley Whitley McCarter 30 40 50 50

44 Management McGinnis, Alyson Alyson McGinnis 40 50 50 20

45 Management McKeever, Kelly Kelly McKeever 40 70 90 10

46 Management McLeod, Samantha Samantha McLeod 50 60 70 40

47 Management McNeal, Megan Megan McNeal 20 60 50 30

48 Management Morse, Hunter Hunter Morse 10 40 30 50

49 Management Myers, Nicholas Nicholas Myers 30 30 60 50

50 Accounting Neubert, Lara Lara Neubert 50 50 40 20

51 Accounting O'Connor, Tessie Tessie O'Connor 60 50 60 60

52 Management Olar, Penina Penina Olar 40 50 30 50

53 Management Orndorff, Charles Charles Orndorff 40 50 60 40

54 Management Patel, Bhavin Bhavin Patel 50 40 30 30

55 Management Patterson, Julia Julia Patterson 20 10 30 40

56 Management Pietzyk, Noah Noah Pietzyk 40 40 60 50

57 Management Price, Abbey Abbey Price 70 30 50 30

58 Culinary Queen, Chad Chad Queen 30 50 50 50

59 Management Russell, Diana Diana Russell 20 60 20 20

60 Hospitality Schlosser, Alec Alec Schlosser 60 40 90 70

61 Management SKWARCZYNSKI, SHIRLEY SHIRLEY SKWARCZYNSKI 40 50 40 40

62 Accounting Stephens, John John Stephens 60 50 40 20

63 Accounting Thordsen, Helena Helena Thordsen 40 40 40 20

64 Management Turner, Brandon Brandon Turner 30 60 70 70

65 Management Vaughn, Margaret Margaret Vaughn 40 70 50 40

66 Hospitality Wilson, Deborah Deborah Wilson 40 40 30 40

67 Management Wracker, Lisa Lisa Wracker 60 40 40 40

Learner First Name Last Name Man

agem

ent

Mar

ketin

g

Final

Score

Duratio

n (min

)

Comple

ted

Percentil

e Ran

k

32.5 20.83 2017/02/27 11:49:21 18

55 24.38 2017/02/27 11:50:06 75

30 22.2 2017/03/06 08:06:32 14

35 19.65 2017/02/23 05:22:03 23

37.5 28.82 2017/02/27 10:43:01 29

50 15.97 2017/02/23 05:19:14 62

47.5 19.67 2017/02/27 10:11:04 56

42.5 19.63 2017/02/27 10:10:38 42

47.5 21.95 2017/02/23 05:26:04 56

40 18.05 2017/02/27 10:08:50 35

55 18.08 2017/02/23 05:24:44 75

57.5 79.27 2017/02/27 11:17:15 80

47.5 20.57 2017/02/23 05:24:26 56

55 24.03 2017/02/23 05:28:50 75

27.5 32.8 2017/02/23 05:36:34 10

37.5 20.73 2017/02/23 05:31:00 29

47.5 22.2 2017/02/23 05:25:29 56

67.5 39.78 2017/03/01 02:04:06 94

32.5 13.55 2017/02/23 05:20:48 18

52.5 19.45 2017/02/27 10:10:10 69

32.5 43.47 2017/02/23 05:53:48 18

50 11.75 2017/02/27 10:07:03 62

42.5 21.13 2017/02/27 10:13:43 42

50 18.55 2017/02/27 11:46:34 62

45 29.73 2017/02/27 10:21:54 49

37.5 28.38 2017/02/23 05:33:56 29

30 21.35 2017/02/27 11:54:41 14

40 17.12 2017/02/27 10:09:15 35

27.5 14.72 2017/02/27 10:10:12 10

42.5 22.55 2017/02/27 11:51:09 42

50 19.7 2017/02/27 10:13:17 62

37.5 15.57 2017/03/01 11:30:44 29

45 24.9 2017/02/23 05:37:07 49

42.5 19.93 2017/02/23 05:24:10 42

50 23.15 2017/02/27 11:50:18 62

45 19.92 2017/02/23 05:23:13 49

50 30.13 2017/02/23 05:34:26 62

57.5 34.87 2017/02/23 05:46:05 80

40 19.55 2017/02/23 05:24:22 35

25 28.83 2017/02/27 11:56:05 7

40 23.5 2017/02/27 11:52:15 35

52.5 26.98 2017/02/23 05:36:20 69

42.5 22.08 2017/02/27 10:13:20 42

40 18.67 2017/03/08 11:13:39 35

52.5 15.23 2017/02/23 05:18:10 69

55 26.75 2017/02/23 05:29:22 75

40 28.75 2017/02/27 10:20:48 35

32.5 18.35 2017/02/27 11:44:08 18

42.5 15.43 2017/02/23 05:18:02 42

40 23.92 2017/02/23 05:26:57 35

57.5 22.97 2017/02/27 10:15:07 80

42.5 22.52 2017/02/23 05:25:05 42

47.5 30.13 2017/02/27 12:00:59 56

37.5 20.7 2017/02/27 11:49:36 29

25 15.2 2017/03/01 11:31:02 7

47.5 19.05 2017/02/27 10:10:26 56

45 21.03 2017/02/27 11:48:04 49

45 26.33 2017/02/27 11:55:55 49

30 29.85 2017/02/23 05:33:59 14

65 74.07 2017/03/02 03:13:39 91

42.5 24.25 2017/02/27 11:58:04 42

42.5 16.07 2017/02/27 10:06:58 42

35 27.53 2017/02/27 10:22:19 23

57.5 20.62 2017/02/23 05:27:21 80

50 20.85 2017/02/27 11:48:04 62

37.5 20.93 2017/02/27 10:13:14 29

45 21.48 2017/02/23 05:25:25 49

Overview: Outbound Exam Results Compared to theAggregate Pool for Located Inside the US Programs

T o t a l R e s u l t s a n d S u m m a r y A n a l y s i s f o r L o c a t e d I n s i d e t h e U S

Pellissippi State Community College - External Comparison Report

External Comparison Report, Version 2013-14 1.0 Peregrine Academic Services, LLC™ 7/13/2017 5:02:47 PM

8 Maximum Points: 5

7 Recommended Points: 5

1

100%

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree LevelAccrediting

Agency

Accreditation

Cycle - Begin

Accreditation

Cycle - End

Next Site

Visit

Accreditation

Letter DateAccredited

106.11.0101.00

COMPUTER INFORMATION

TECH 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

2 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ATMAE 2013 2017 2017 9-Dec-13 Yes

312.19.0706.00

EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION 2.3 AAS NAEYC 2015 2022 2022 18-Mar-15 Yes

4 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3 AAS ABA 2009 2016 Feb-17 16-Feb-11 Yes

5 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3 AAS ACEN 2013 2018 2018 1-Aug-13 Yes

6 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

7

32.52.0401.00

ADMINISTRATIVE

PROFESSIONAL

TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree LevelAccrediting

Agency

109.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ATMAE

2010 CIPDegree

Level2010 CIP Degree Level

106.11.0101.00 2.1 C2 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

2 06.11.0103.00 2.1 C1 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

3 06.11.0901.00 2.1 C1 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

4 09.15.0000.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

5 09.15.0000.01 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

6 09.15.0000.02 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

7 09.15.0000.03 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

8 09.15.0000.04 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

9 09.15.0000.05 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

10 09.15.0000.06 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

11 09.15.0000.07 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

12 09.15.0303.01 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

13 09.15.0612.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

14 09.15.0613.00 ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING 2.2 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

15 09.15.0613.01 2.2 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

16 09.15.0805.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

17 09.15.1102.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

18 12.19.0706.01 2.1 C1 12.19.0706.00 2.3 AAS

19 07.12.0500.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

20 32.52.0101.01 2.1 C2 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

21 32.52.0205.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

22 32.52.0302.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

23 32.52.0904.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

24 31.51.0707.01 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AAS

2531.51.0713.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AAS

26 31.51.0716 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AASMEDICAL SCRIBE ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY


Academic Programs: Accreditation

The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.


Certificate Program Associate Program

Total Accreditable Programs:

Accredited Programs:

Programs Seeking Accreditation:

Percent Accredited:

Accreditation

Accredited Programs

Programs Seeking Accreditation

Accreditation Timeline

New program effective Aug 2015. Full time instructor hired in Summer 2016. Request

approval from SACSCOC submitted.

Embedded Programs*

UNIVERSITY COMPUTER SCIENCE

PREPARATION COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

A+/NETWORK+CERTIFICATION COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ALTERNATE ENERGY AND PROCESS ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PRINCIPLES ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABILITY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

*Embedded Programs are technical certificates whose curriculum, content and requirements are contained within the greater requirements of a related associate degree program.

The related degree program assumes responsibility for quality control and assurance.




EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY

COMPUTER AIDED MANUFACTURING

3D PARAMETRIC MODELING

SURVEYING

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

GENERAL CULINARY ARTS

PRE-BUSINESS TRANSFER

SUPERVISION

BUSINESS

BUSINESS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SPECIALIST

MEDICAL INSURANCE CODING &

REIMBURSEMENT

BUSINESS

BUSINESS

ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST

GENERAL HOSPITALITY


Accreditation 1

10

7

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic ProgramDegree

Level

2010-15

Evaluation

2015-20 Cycle

Schedule

2015-20

Evaluation

Total

Standards

"NA"

Standards

Rating

of 0

Rating

of 1

Rating

of 2

Rating

of 3Average*

130.50.0408.00

INTERIOR DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS PR 2015-16 PR 25 0 0 1 10 14 2.5

2 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3 AST AA 2016-17 AA 22 0 0 1 20 1 2.0

3 06.11.0801.00 WEB TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS AA 2017-18 AA

4 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS AA 2017-18 AA

5 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3 AFA -- 2017-18 AA

6 21.30.0000.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS AA 2018-19 AA

7 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3 AA, AS PR 2019-20 PR

8 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2.3 AAS -- 2019-20 AA

Undergraduate Programs Total 47 0 0 2 30 15 2.3

2010 CIPDegree

Level2010 CIP

1 05.10.0105.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

2 05.10.0201.00 2.2 C1 05.10.0105.00

3 05.10.0203.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

4 06.11.0801.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

5 06.11.0801.01 2.2 C1 06.11.0801.00

6 06.11.0801.01 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

7 06.11.0801.02 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

8 06.11.0801.03 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

9 06.11.0801.04 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

10 06.11.0801.05 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

11 30.50.0409.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

12 30.50.0504.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

13 30.50.0602.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

14 30.50.0605.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

15 30.50.0605.01 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

Not Evident 0 Points Level Initial Subsequent

Emerging 1 Point Undergraduate 20 22

Established 2 Points

Highly Developed 3 Points

Poor 0 Points Level Standards

Fair 1 Point Certificate and Associate 25

Good 2 Points

Excellent 3 Points


Academic Programs: Program Evaluation

The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Program Evaluation

Undergraduate Programs

Embedded Programs**

Certificate Program Associate Program Degree Level

VIDEO AND MEDIA ARTS MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

VIDEOGRAPHY MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

SOUND PRODUCTION MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

WEB PAGE AUTHORING MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

Academic Audit (AA) Rubric Academic Audit Standards

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

MOBILE WEB DESIGN

ACCESSIBLE WEB DESIGN AND

WEB DESIGN TOOLS

INTERACTIVE WEB DESIGN

VISUAL COMMUNICATION FOR GRAPHIC

BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY

STUDIO PHOTOGRAPHY 2.3 AAS

*Average calculated by multiplying the count of standards with a Rating of 0, 1, 2 and 3 by the number of points attributed to each rating divided by the total number of applicable standards.

**Embedded Programs are technical certificates whose curriculum, content and requirements are contained within the greater requirements of a related associate degree program. The related

degree program assumes responsibility for quality control and assurance.

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

Program Review (PR) Rubric Program Review Standards

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AASWEB TECHNOLOGYWEB PAGE AUTHORING

SCRIPTWRITING

VIDEO EDITING

E-COMMERCE WEB DESIGN MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS


Program Evaluation 1

Pellissippi State Community College - Page 1

Report Visiting Team Worksheet

Associate, Baccalaureate & Master LevelOutcomes Assessment Accreditation Model

Visiting Team Report for the

The Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering

Institution: Pellissippi State Community College President or CEO: Dr. Anthony Wise City & State: Knoxville, Tennessee

Previous ATMAE Accreditation(s): November, 2013

Current Accreditation Request Date: October, 2016

Date of Accreditation Self-Study Report: March 9, 2017

Date of Visiting Team Report: April, 2017

Visiting Team Members: Mr. David Brinkruff (Chair) IVY Tech Community College-South Bend

Mr. Mark Dotson Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.

Mr. Mehran Mostajir Columbia State Community College

Program(s) Reviewed (with options): AAS – Engineering Technology

Options in: Automated Industrial Systems Civil Engineering Electrical Engineering Industrial Maintenance Manufacturing Mechanical Engineering Sustainable Design

AAS – Welding Technology


I. The On-Site Visit

A. Date of the Visit April 9-11, 2017

B. The Visiting Team (provide names, addresses, and telephone numbers)

Chair: Mr. David Brinkruff Address 1: Ivy Tech Community College Address 2: 12762 Cellar Street City, State Zip: Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (574)238-8829

Team Member 1: Mr. Mark Dotson Address 1: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Address 2: 109 Maple Tree Lane City, State, & Zip: Watauga, TN 37694 Business Phone: (423)543-6823

Team Member 2: Mr. Mehran Mostajir Address 1: Columbia State Community College Address 2: 1665 Hampshire Pike City, State, & Zip: Columbia, TN 38401 Business Phone: (931)540-2710

C. On-Site Visit Agenda (provide the specific agenda followed during the visit)

ATMAE ACCREDITATION SITE VISIT

April 9-11, 2017

Agenda

Sunday, 4/9/2017

4:00 - 4:30 Sami Ghezawi to meet team at hotel to bring to campus

4:30 - 5:00 Meet with Dean and Program Coordinators

5:00 - 6:00 Tour classrooms and labs and provide access to team resource room.

6:00 – 7:30 Dinner with Dean and Program Coordinators

7:30 – 9:00 Team meeting to strategize and plan for division of responsibilities

Monday, 4/10/2017

8:00 – 9:00 Tour Campus with Dr. Sami Ghezawi

Possible Class observations (8:35-9:30)

EET 2235 – Instrument Technology – Leach – MC215

SURV 1550 – Surveying Principles – Cox – MC130

9:00 – 10:00 Meeting with Students in the resource room – (3 students from each area)



ENGT 2995 - CET Capstone – S. Ghezawi – MC128

ENGT 2995 - EET Capstone – Mallette – MC217

MET 1040 – Applied Statics – Klett - MC118

MET 1050 – Strengths of Materials – Malkina – MC119

10:00 – 10:30 Office meetings


o Team Member 1 – Dr. L. Anthony Wise Jr., President

o Team Member 2 – Dr. Ted Lewis, Vice President Academic Affairs

o Team Member 3 – Ron Kesterson, Vice President Business and Finance

10:30 - 11:00 Office meetings

o Team Member 1 – Dr. Rebecca Ashford, Vice President Student Affairs. (panel

interview including personnel from Admissions and Registration Services,

Enrollment Development and Retention Services, and the Student Success Center)

o Team Member 2 – Richard Smelser, Director of Financial Aid (and other key

Financial Aid personnel)

o Team Member 3 – Cindy Atchley, Director of Placement


EET 1012 – Electrical Circuits – Holmes – MC215A


ENGT 2995 - CET Capstone – S. Ghezawi – MC128

ENGT 2995 - EET Capstone – Mallette – MC217

MET 1050 – Strengths of Materials – Malkina – MC119

11:00 – 11:30 Office meetings

o Team Member 1 – Aneisa McDonald, Vice President, College Advancement

o Team Member 2 – Dr. Beth Norton, Assistant Vice President/Academic Affairs

o Team Member 3 – Teri Brahams, Executive Director/Business and Community

Services

11:30 – 1:00 Lunch meeting with Advisory Committee members and graduates (3 members

and graduates from each area – CET/Sustainable, AIS/EET, IMT/Manf/MET, and

Welding) – Faculty/Staff Dining Room


EET 1055 – Industrial Electricity – Leach - MC217

MET 1012 – Materials & Manuf. Processes – Akard – MC119

MET 1100 – Fund Mechanical Drawing – R. Ghezawi – MC203B

1:00 – 1:30


CET 1022 – Construction Materials – S. Ghezawi – MC128

EET 1012 – Electrical Circuits Lab – Holmes – MC215A

MET 1012 – Materials & Manuf. Processes – Akard – MC119


1:30 – 2:00 Meet with Program Coordinators

Mr. Carl Mallette - AIS/EET Program Coordinator

Dr. Sami Ghezawi - CET/Sustainable Program Coordinator

Mr. Pat Riddle - IMT/Manf/MET Program Coordinator

Mr. Adam Streich - Welding Program Coordinator

2:00 – 6:00 Resource Room review


CET 1022 – Construction Materials – S. Ghezawi – MC128

EET 1012 – Electrical Circuits Lab – Holmes – MC215A




WELD 1070 – Shielded Metal Arc Welding – Thompson – Byington-Solway


CET 2080 – Fund. of Building Info Modeling -REVIT – Armour – MC205

CET 2081 – Adv. Building Info Modeling -REVIT – Armour – MC205

ENGT 1010 – Eng. Tech Technical Comm – Habib – MC118

ENGT 2021 – Project Scheduling – Winston – MC130


MET 2022 – Fluid Mech & Power Appl – Akard – MC127

MET 2310 – Geometric & Coord Measure - Williams – MC119

MET 2720 – CNC Turning – Freshour – MC116

6:00 Box Dinner (Team members only) – delivered to Resource Room

6:00 – 9:00 Work Time for Team

9:00 Return to Hotel

Tuesday, 4/11/2017

8:00 – 12:00 Open agenda for any of the following activities:

Tour branch campuses

Resource Room review

Follow up interviews and meetings as needed

12:00 – 2:00 Lunch and Final Report Out – Faculty/Staff Dining Room

Dr. Wise (President), Dr. Lewis (Vice President), Margaret Ann Jeffries (Dean), Dr. Sami

Ghezawi (PC CET/Sustainable), Carl Mallette (PC AIS/EET), Pat Riddle (PC

IMT/MNF/MET), and Adam Streich (PC Welding) and Visiting Team

D. Current Accreditation Status of Programs (provide the current accreditation status of all programs and program options under consideration)

The following Engineering Technology concentrations are currently accredited by the

Association of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering through November 1,

2017:

Engineering Technology/Civil Engineering

Engineering Technology/Electrical Engineering

Engineering Technology/Mechanical Engineering

Engineering Technology/Industrial Maintenance

Engineering Technology/Manufacturing

Engineering Technology/Electrical Construction Management

The Engineering Technology/Electrical Construction Management is not being

reviewed for re-accreditation per the request of Pellissippi State Community

College.

The following concentrations and program are being proposed for initial accreditation:

Engineering Technology/Automated Industrial Systems

Engineering Technology/Sustainable Design

Welding Program


It is requested that, upon acceptance, the three new concentrations/program be placed

on the same six year cycle as the presently accredited concentrations.

II. General Information

A. The Institution (summarize the information about the institution included in the self-study report)

Pellissippi State Community College is a vital institution accustomed to transformation and

growth. Since its founding in 1974 as State Technical Institute at Knoxville, the College

has expanded the teaching of technology, the use of technology in instruction, and the

transfer of technology to local business and industry in support of regional economic

development.

Pellissippi State has five campuses in its Knox and Blount county service area: Hardin

Valley, Division Street, Magnolia Avenue, Blount County and Strawberry Plains. As of

fall 2016, the College employed 1,056 employees (faculty and staff) either in a full-

time or part-time capacity. Of these, 238 were full-time faculty and 307 were part-time

(adjunct) faculty.

B. Administrative Unit(s) Information (include specific organization and personnel information about the department, college, and division housing the programs being evaluated)

1. Name and Address of College and/or Department Administrative Unit(s)


Engineering and Media Technologies Department

10915 Hardin Valley Road

Knoxville, TN 37933

2. Administration of the Institution

a. Head (President)

Dr. L. Anthony Wise, Jr.

President, Pellissippi State Community College


Knoxville, TN 37933

b. Chief Academic Officer (Vice President of Academic Affairs)

Dr. Ted Lewis

Vice President of Academic Affairs


Knoxville, TN 37933

3. Major Academic Units within the Institution

All departments and programs/concentrations/options fall under the following

academic units:


Business and Computer Technology

Engineering and Media Technologies

English

Liberal Arts

Mathematics

Natural and Behavioral Sciences

Nursing

4. Name(s) of Dean and/or Department Head

Dr. Margaret Ann Jeffries, Professor

Dean, Engineering and Media Technologies Department

5. Names and Titles of Others with Program Administration and/or

Coordination Responsibility

Dr. Sami Ghezawi – CET/Sustainable Design Program Coordinator

Mr. Carl Mallette - AIS/EET Program Coordinator

Mr. Pat Riddle - IMT/MNF/MET Program Coordinator

Mr. Adam Streich - Welding Technology Program Coordinator


Standards for Accreditation

Compliance with Standards (describe how each program and option complies with, or fails to comply with each standard - the final line shall indicate whether the program or option is in non-compliance, partial compliance, or compliance)

Standard 1 - Preparation of Self-Study Report The Self-Study Report shall follow the guidelines of the Accreditation Handbook version in place

at the time of the accreditation application. The report shall be completed by a representative portion of the institutions administrative staff and teaching faculty directly related to the program(s) to be reviewed. Students should be involved in the Self-Study process.

Team Comments:

All Program/Option Same: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance

Automated Industrial Systems: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Civil Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Electrical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Industrial Maintenance: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Manufacturing: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Mechanical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Sustainable Design: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Welding Technology: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance

Standard 2 - Program Definition: A program is a set of courses leading to a degree. A program may have more than one option, specialization or concentration, but specific course requirements for each option shall be clearly specified, and as appropriate all program/options shall meet ATMAE standards. In situations where an option is not appropriate for ATMAE accreditation based upon the approved definition of technology, management, and applied engineering, the request for accreditation should clearly state which option, concentration, or specialization is seeking accreditation and which ones are excluded. The case for exclusion should be made with the application for accreditation. If an option, concentration or specialization is excluded and the program becomes accredited, the program must identify specifically which concentrations, options and specializations are and are not accredited in all their publications and promotional materials that mention accreditation.

Team Comments:



Program Inputs:

Standard 3 - Program Title, Mission, and General Outcomes: Each program/option shall have appropriate titles consistent with the approved ATMAE definition of Technology, Management,


and Applied Engineering. Representative student transcripts for each program and/or option shall be made available for the visiting team. Please make sure you respond to the information in each paragraph below.

The program/option title, definition and mission shall be compatible with the ATMAE definition of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering. The program/option shall lead to a degree at the associate, bachelor, or master’s level.

ATMAE approved definitions for degree programs are as follows:

a. Associate Degree: Programs/options that prepare individuals for positions thatcontribute to the design and development, production, distribution or operational support of complex technical systems.

b. Baccalaureate Degree: Programs/options that prepare individuals for positions thatinvolve the management of complex technological systems.

c. Master’s Degree: Programs/options that prepare individuals for career advancement inthat involve the management of complex technological systems

General outcomes shall be established for each program/option that provides a framework for the development of specific measurable competencies. Validation of the general outcomes shall be accomplished through a combination of external experts, an industrial advisory committee and, after the program is in operation, follow up studies of graduates.

Only institutions legally authorized under applicable state law to provide degree programs beyond the secondary level and that are recognized by the appropriate regional and/or national accrediting agency are considered for accreditation. Evidence must exist that the programs are understood and accepted by the university/college community, and the business/industry community.

Note: Each program/option shall have appropriate titles consistent with the approved ATMAE definition of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering. Representative student transcripts for each program and/or option shall be made available for the visiting team.

Team Comments:



Standard 4 - Program Competency Identification & Validation: Measurable competencies shall be identified, assessed and validated for each program/option. These competencies must closely relate to the general outcomes established for the program/option and validation shall be accomplished through a combination of external experts, an industrial advisory committee and, after the program is in operation, follow up studies of program graduates.


Team Comments: Pellissippi State has identified and validated program competencies. They have provided a matrix for assessing program competencies. However, these assessments have not yet been accomplished. The college is in transition to a new model which will be excellent for showing assessments for competencies and the assessment results and the use of those results. This new approach is to be completed this fall.



Standard 5 - Program Structure & Course Sequencing: Each program/option shall meet minimum foundation semester hour requirements. Programs/options may exceed maximum foundation semester hour requirements specified in each area, as long as minimums are met. A specific list of courses and credit hours that are being counted toward each category shall be included in the Self Study Report (please use the attached table C). For institutions on the quarter system, you must calculate your quarter hours to semester hours by dividing your quarter hours by 1.5. For example, 5 quarter hours divided by 1.5 equals 3.3 semester hours. Minimum and maximum foundation semester hour requirements for degree programs/options are listed below:

a. Associate Degree: Programs/options shall be a minimum of 60 semester hoursand shall meet the following minimum/maximum foundation semester hourrequirements:Communications (must include both oral and written courses.................6-9 Mathematics ………………………………………………………………….3-12 Physical Sciences* …………………………………………………………..3-12 Management and/or Technical ……………………………………………29-45 General Electives …………………………………………………………….0-12

*Life Sciences may be appropriate for selected programs of study.

Students must successfully complete a minimum of 12 semester hours of management and/or technical course work at the institution seeking accreditation.

Categories Required Hours

Automated Industrial Systems

Civil Engineering

Electrical Engineering Industrial Maintenance

Communications 6-9 6 6 6 6

Mathematics 3-12 3 3 6 6

Physical Sci 3-12 3 4 4 4

Mgt &/or Tech. 29-45 39 41 38 38

General Electives 0-12 9 6 6 6


Categories Required Hours

Manufacturing Mechanical Engineering

Sustainable Design

Welding Technology

Communications 6-9 6 6 6 6

Mathematics 3-12 6 6 3 3

Physical Sci 3-12 4 4 4 3

Mgt &/or Tech. 29-45 38 38 41 42

General Electives 0-12 6 6 6 6

(provide specific program names at top of columns and summarize findings)

NOTE: Programs in manufacturing at the Associate, Baccalaureate and Masters levels should review and consider for adoption as a quality improvement tool, the SME 4 Pillars of Manufacturing as may be appropriate for their respective Programs. ATMAE Accreditation has formally adopted this concept for use as a model quality improvement tool and encourages manufacturing programs to utilize components that apply to their programs. The Pillars are applicable to both technical manufacturing and to manufacturing management curricula. Specifics regarding the 4 Pillars of Manufacturing are available at the following URL: www.C2015.com

Appropriate laboratory activities shall be included in the program/option and a reasonable balance shall be maintained between the practical application of “how” and the conceptual application of “why.” Master’s degree programs and/or options may not have formal laboratory activities, but must maintain a balance between the practical application of “how” and the conceptual application of “why.”

There shall be evidence of appropriate sequencing of courses in each program/option to ensure that applications of mathematics, science, written and oral communications are covered in technical and management courses. Examples of graded student work and textbooks for each management and/or technical course shall be provided for the visiting team. Further, sequencing should ensure that advanced level courses build upon concepts covered in beginning level courses.

Team Comments:



Standard 6 - Student Admission & Retention Standards: There shall be evidence showing that the quality of technology, management, and applied engineering students is comparable to the quality of students enrolled in other majors at the institution. The standards for admission and retention of technology, management, and applied engineering students shall compare favorably with institutional standards. Sources of admission information may include test scores and grade rankings. Sources of retention information shall include general grade point averages of technology, management, and applied engineering students compared to programs in other institutional programs


Team Comments:



Standard 7 - Transfer Course Work: The institution shall have policies in place to ensure that coursework transferred to the program is evaluated and approved by program faculty.

Team Comments:



Standard 8 - Student Enrollment: There shall be evidence of an adequate number of program majors to sustain the program, and to operate it efficiently and effectively. Program enrollment shall be tracked and verified.

Team Comments:



Standard 9 - Administrative Support & Faculty Qualifications: There must be evidence of appropriate administrative support from the institution for the technology, management, and applied engineering program/option including appropriately qualified administrators, an adequate number of full time faculty members and budgets sufficient to support program/option goals. Full time faculty assigned to teach courses in the technology, management, and applied engineering program/option must be appropriately qualified. Faculty qualifications shall include emphasis upon the extent, currency and pertinence of: (a) academic preparation; (b) industrial professional experience (such as technical supervision and management); (c) applied industrial


experience (such as applied applications); (d) membership and participation in appropriate technology, management, and applied engineering professional organizations; and (e) scholarly activities. The following minimum qualifications for full time faculty are required (except in unusual circumstances which must be individually justified):

a. Associate Degree: The minimum academic qualifications for a regular full-timefaculty member is expected to be an earned bachelor’s degree in a discipline, or incertain cases for documented reasons, an associate’s degree plus professionalcertification/licensure closely related to the faculty member’s instructionalassignments.

b. Bachelor’s Degree: The minimum academic qualifications for tenure track, or full timefaculty members shall be an earned graduate degree in a discipline closely related tothe instructional assignment. A minimum of fifty percent of the tenure track, or full-time, faculty members assigned to teach in the program of study content area(s) shallhave an earned doctorate or other appropriately earned terminal degree as defined bythe institution. Exceptions may be granted to this standard if the institution has aprogram in place that will bring the faculty demographics into compliance within areasonable period of time.

c. Master’s Degree: An earned doctorate degree in a discipline closely related to thefaculty member’s instructional assignment (exceptions may be granted for specializedtechnical management programs/options).

Policies and procedures for faculty selection, appointment, reappointment and tenure shall be clearly specified and shall be conducive to the maintenance of high quality instruction. Faculty teaching, advising, and service loads shall be reasonable and comparable to the faculty in other professional program areas.

Team Comments: Welding professor has associate degree and is a CWI/CWE from AWS. He has a NIMS certification, 6 years of relevant experience and one semester previous teaching experience. He has demonstrated excellent teaching and program development skills while at Pellissippi State.



Standard 10 - Facilities, Equipment & Technical Support: Facilities and equipment, including the technical personnel support necessary for maintenance, shall be adequate to support program/option goals. Evidence shall be presented showing the availability of computer equipment and software programs to cover functions and applications in each program area. Facility and equipment needs shall be included in the long range goals for the program.

Team Comments: In the view of the visiting team, the welding program should have equipment and facilities in at least one location that is available for use during normal business hours. At this time, all instruction must occur after 3:30 pm due to high school or Tennessee College of Applied Technology use of the equipment. Equipment costs do not appear in the program’s long range goals, however.




Standard 11 - Program Goals: Each program shall have current short and long range goals, and plans for achieving these goals.

Team Comments:



Program Operation:

Standard 12 - Program/Option Operation: Evidence shall be presented showing the adequacy of instruction including: (a) motivation and program advising of students; (b) scheduling of instruction; (c) quality of instruction; (d) observance of safety standards; (e) availability of resource materials; (f) teaching and measurement of competencies (specific measurable competencies shall be identified for each course along with the assessment measures used to determine student mastery of the competencies); (g) supervision of instruction; and (h) placement services available to graduates.

Management and/or technical course syllabi must be presented which clearly describe appropriate course objectives, content, references utilized, student activities, and evaluation criteria. Representative examples of student’s management and/or technical graded work shall be available for each course.

Team Comments:




Outcome Measures:

Standard 13 - Graduate Satisfaction with Program/Option: Graduate evaluations of the program/option shall be made on a regular basis (two to five years). These evaluations shall include attitudes related to the general outcomes and the specific competencies identified for the program/option. Summary data shall be available for the graduate evaluations of the program/option.

Team Comments: Sustainable Design, Welding Technology and Automated Industrial Systems have had no graduates and thus have no survey results. By May of 2018, we should see graduates in these programs.



Standard 14 - Employment of Graduates: Placement, job titles, and salaries of graduates shall be tracked on a regular basis (two to five years) including the degree to which jobs held by graduates are consistent with program/option goals. Summary data shall be available for the employment of graduates.

Team Comments: Welding surveyed present employers of students who would graduate in May. These represent data that is useful and is designated as partially compliant. Sustainable Design and Automated Industrial Systems will survey once students graduate and are employed.



Standard 15 - Job Advancement of Graduates: The advancement of graduates within organizations shall be tracked on a regular basis (two to five years) including promotions to positions of increasing responsibility. Summary data shall be available for the job advancement of graduates.

Team Comments: Three concentrations/program have not had graduates that have had the opportunity to advance in their careers.




Standard 16 - Employer Satisfaction with Job Performance: Employer satisfaction with the job performance of graduates shall be tracked on a regular basis (two to five years) including employer attitudes related to the importance of the specific competencies identified for the program. Summary data shall be available showing employer satisfaction with the job performance of graduates.

Team Comments: Welding surveyed present employers of students who would graduate in May. These present data that is useful and is designated as partially compliant. Sustainable Design and AIS will survey once students graduate and are employed.



Standard 17 - Graduate Success in Advanced Program: If a goal of the program/option is to prepare students for advanced studies, then the success in the advanced study programs shall be tracked and confirmed. Summary data shall be available showing success in advanced programs.

Automated Industrial Systems: Not applicable Civil Engineering: Not applicable Electrical Engineering: Not applicable Industrial Maintenance: Not applicable Manufacturing: Not applicable Mechanical Engineering: Not applicable Sustainable Design: Not applicable Welding Technology: Not applicable

Team Comments:


Automated Industrial Systems: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Civil Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Electrical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance


Industrial Maintenance: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Manufacturing: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Mechanical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Sustainable Design: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Welding Technology: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance

Standard 18 - Student Success in Passing Certification Exams: If a goal of the program/option is to prepare students to pass certification examinations, then the success in passing these examinations shall be tracked and confirmed. Summary data shall be available showing success in passing certification exams.

Automated Industrial Systems: Not applicable Civil Engineering: Not applicable Electrical Engineering: Not applicable Industrial Maintenance: Not applicable Manufacturing: Not applicable Mechanical Engineering: Not applicable Sustainable Design: Not applicable Welding Technology: Not applicable

Team Comments: The Manufacturing concentration did provide pass/fail data on the NIMS

certification tests that were completed. All other concentrations did not have a goal of

passing certification exams.



Standard 19 - Advisory Council Approval of Overall Program: An industrial advisory committee shall exist for each program/option and shall participate in general outcome and competency validation and the evaluation of overall program success. If more than one program of study or program option is available, then appropriately qualified industrial representatives shall be added to the committee or more than one committee shall be maintained. Policies for the advisory committee shall exist that include: (a) criteria for member selection; (b) procedures for selecting members; (c) length of member appointment; (d) committee responsibilities; (e) frequency of meetings (at least one per year); and (f) methods of conducting business. A roster of advisory committee members and minutes of advisory committee meetings shall be made available to the visiting team

Team Comments:


Automated Industrial Systems: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Civil Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Electrical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance


Industrial Maintenance: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Manufacturing: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Mechanical Engineering: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Sustainable Design: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance Welding Technology: Compliance Partial Compliance Non-Compliance

Standard 20 - Outcome Measures Used to Improve Program: Evidence shall be presented showing how multiple outcome measures (for example: Graduate Satisfaction with Program/Option, Employment of Graduates, Job Advancement of Graduates, Employer Satisfaction with Job Performance, Graduate Success in Advanced Programs, Student Success in Passing Certification Exams, and Advisory Committee Approval of Program) have been used to improve the overall program/option (please use the attached table B in addressing this standard). Evidence that program stakeholders participate in this process must be demonstrated.

Team Comments: The three new programs (SD, WELD and AIS) had outcome measures from their advisory committees and the other concentrations had multiple measures. Thus the three new program/competencies were deemed to be partially compliant, whereas the other competencies were fully compliant.



Standard 21 - Program Responsibility to Provide Information to the Public: The program must make available to the public via website, information on student performance and achievement as may be determined appropriate by the institution or the program. Information on student performance and achievement may also be provided in hard-copy forms as may be determined appropriate by the institution or the program. Sources of potential information include, but are not limited to: student graduation rates from the program; average starting salaries; mean grade point averages; promotions achieved; time to secure first position; average years to complete the degree; and student awards/scholarships received. Institutions are required to provide the hyperlink of where this information located.

Team Comments:




IV. Summaries and Recommendations

A. Summaries:

1. Place a “C” in the appropriate space if the Program/Option meets all the criteria of thestandard.

2. Place a “P” in the appropriate space if the Program/Option meets most of the statedcriteria for the standard, but has weaknesses or deficiencies that need to be corrected.

3. Place an “N” in the appropriate space if the Program/Option fails to substantially meetthe criteria of the standard.

Note: More than one table needed

Standards AAS – Engineering Technology - Automated Industrial Systems

AAS – Engineering Technology -

Civil Engineering


Electrical Engineering


Industrial Maintenance

Standard 1 C C C C

Standard 2 C C C C

Standard 3 C C C C

Standard 4 P P P P

Standard 5 C C C C

Standard 6 C C C C

Standard 7 C C C C

Standard 8 C C C C

Standard 9 C C C C

Standard 10 C C C C

Standard 11 C C C C

Standard 12 C C C C

Standard 13 N C C C

Standard 14 N C C C

Standard 15 N C C C

Standard 16 N C C C

Standard 17 C C C C

Standard 18 C C C C

Standard 19 C C C C

Standard 20 P C C C

Standard 21 C C C C


Standards AAS – Engineering

Technology – Manufacturing

AAS – Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering

AAS – Engineering Technology - Sustainable

Design

AAS – Welding

Technology

Standard 1 C C C C

Standard 2 C C C C

Standard 3 C C C C

Standard 4 P P P P

Standard 5 C C C C

Standard 6 C C C C

Standard 7 C C C C

Standard 8 C C C C

Standard 9 C C C C

Standard 10 C C C C

Standard 11 C C C C

Standard 12 C C C C

Standard 13 C C N N

Standard 14 C C N P

Standard 15 C C N N

Standard 16 C C N P

Standard 17 C C C C

Standard 18 C C C C

Standard 19 C C C C

Standard 20 C C P P

Standard 21 C C C C


B. Visiting Team Recommendation Select only one option. The recommendation should include accreditation level and conditions)

Program (Please List)

Accreditation Accreditation with a Report

in 2 Years

Accreditation with an

On-Site Visit and report in 2 Years

Non Accreditation

AAS – Engineering Technology - Automated Industrial Systems

AAS – Engineering Technology - Civil Engineering

AAS – Engineering Technology - Electrical Engineering

AAS – Engineering Technology - Industrial Maintenance

AAS – Engineering Technology – Manufacturing

AAS – Engineering Technology - Mechanical Engineering

AAS – Engineering Technology - Sustainable Design

AAS – Welding Technology

C. Conditions:

1. Accreditation - Report in Two Years: A written progress report is required in twoyears which details the corrective action taken to meet standards.

2. Accreditation Report and On-Site Visit in Two Years: A written progress reportby the institution and an on-site visit by one of the initial visiting team members isrequired in two years.

3. Non-Accreditation: Denial of accreditation occurs when a program does notsubstantially comply with standards. If a program receives Non-Accreditation status,the application for reaccreditation will be considered as an initial application and themaximum period of accreditation granted will be four years.

1

Academic Audit Final Report Associate of Science in Teaching

Department of Natural and Behavioral Sciences Pellissippi State Community College

Academic Audit Team Members Stacie Bradshaw, Roane State Community College

Norma Hogan, East Tennessee State University Paul Ludwig, Walters State Community College

April, 2017

2

Introduction

The Associate of Science in Teaching (AST) at Pellissippi State Community College (PSCC) is housed in the Behavioral Sciences unit of the Department of Natural and Behavioral Sciences. Until recently the program prepared students to transfer to any four-year TBR institution and complete their bachelor’s degrees in elementary education with teacher licensure. The program has a well-established 2+2 program with Tennessee Technological University. More recently, the program has been revised to provide Tennessee Transfer Pathways for K-5 education, Pre-K-3 education, and 7-12 English education.

On April 5, 2017, the program and campus were visited by the Academic Audit team consisting of three members: Norma Hogan, Professor Emerita of Curriculum and Instruction at East Tennessee State University (team chair); Stacie Bradshaw, Assistant Professor of Education, Roan State Community College; and Paul Ludwig, Associate Professor of English, Walters State Community College. Prior to the visit, the team review the self-study and worked together to develop preliminary sets of questions and observations.

The Academic Audit team met with the following groups:

Faculty—Three faculty members including the program coordinator, an instructor in teacher education, an adjunct instructor in teacher education, and a biology/science pedagogy instructor.

Students—Ten students currently enrolled in the AST; four recent alumni currently completing the 2+2 program with Tennessee Technological University; one student intending to pursue secondary education.

Stakeholders—One faculty member from Tennessee Technological University.

Administrators—Five administrators with direct or supporting responsibility for the program, including the Dean of Math, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of Natural and Behavioral Sciences; Executive Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Assessment, and Planning, and the Teacher Education Program Coordinator.

The visit was very well organized, and the arrangements were excellent. The self-study was clear and covered the focal areas; the faculty, administrators, and students who were interviewed were well-chosen and all were able to provide relevant information. Area school personnel had recently participated in an input session on campus, and the team reviewed their written input.

At the exit interview, the team members presented their summary reports, including the QAF rubric and the Onsite Evaluation Checklist (with written statements of Commendations, Affirmations, and Recommendations) and left copies with administrators.

After the visit, the team members drafted sections of the report, which were compiled by the team chair; and the preliminary draft was sent to the team members. The final draft was submitted to TBR for distribution to Pellissippi State Community College administration and program faculty.

3

Overall Performance

The self-study was written by a small group, with input from a group that included faculty in both teacher education and general education and both regular faculty and adjuncts. The draft was shared and input solicited. The self-study process resulted in faculty identifying two significant improvement initiatives (summarized on p. 20 of self-study report) that were affirmed by the Academic Audit team:

• Research, develop, and implement an elective EDU course that will provide focused instructionin the core skill areas necessary for successful classroom teachers. (Affirmation #2)

• Incorporate a structured field experience component to one or more required AST course(s),beginning with PSYC 2100. (Affirmation #3)

For each initiative, faculty have developed a rationale (pp. 18-19), as well as statements of measurable outcomes, individuals/groups responsible, performance indicators, and timetable for implementation (p. 20).

The self-study report reviewed their response to the recommendations of the previous academic audit and their progress on previous initiatives (pp. 14-17). Overall, the program reported substantial attention to and progress in implementing previously identified needs; however, collaboration among faculty and professional development for faculty remain as significant areas to be pursued (Recommendations #2 and #3).

Performance in the Focal Areas

Focal Area 1: Learning Outcomes

The Natural and Behavioral Science (NSB) department has identified seven departmental goals that were established by the department faculty. These goals were approved by all lead faculty within the Natural and Behavioral Science (NSB) division and are addressed on each master syllabus. Each goal is designed to produce an outcome that aligns with the Associate of Science in Teaching program and curricula.

The curriculum for the AST program is designed by the department, and a master syllabus is developed for each course. Faculty have stated that, while each course has set assessments outlined, faculty do have a certain level of autonomy regarding course decisions (e.g., assessments), however faculty must consult with the lead faculty member for the course about any proposed changes. This policy seems to not only be true for education faculty, but also for courses related to the AST program such as the science concept courses and MATH 1410 and 1420.

It has also been noted in the self-study report, as well as during interviews with faculty and students, that the AST faculty usually do ask for student feedback at the end of each semester. This is usually done through a test question on the final exam. The information is then used, as noted by faculty, to modify instruction to improve student success in the courses. Examples of modifications based on student input included the addition of more field experience to the courses and reinstating the lesson plan to the course assignments.

However, one recommendation to come from the interviews with the students is that there be a more formal and systematic process for the students to provide feedback regarding their courses and

4

experiences (Recommendation #1). Although students feel they can speak to the Teacher Education Program Coordinator, they would like to have a better process where they provide input and then are then provided with information about the outcomes of their input when appropriate.

Another recommendation to come out of the meetings would be that PSCC education faculty conduct more formal meetings with various stakeholder groups consisting of current students, alumni, general education faculty, and TTU faculty. It was noted that meetings do occur; however, they generally take place in an informal setting. It is the recommendation that these be conducted in a more formal setting and in more frequent intervals to share ideas, make sure all learning outcomes are being met, and evaluate and improve all aspects of the program (Recommendation #1).

Focal Area 2: Curriculum and Co-Curriculum

The audit team found that the program’s description of how the program is reviewed to be “established.” For instance, the faculty often collaborates informally in design of curriculum and improvements. One example of the effectiveness of the program is the understanding of what the local four-year schools require, and in way the program faculty have changed their Pre-K-3 Sequence in response to specific courses local four year colleges require. This Pre-K-3 sequence is somewhat different than the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s (THEC) recommended sequence, but better serves Pellissippi’s student population by offering a degree easily transferable to local four year institutions. In addition to remaining cognizant of local four-year program requirements, the faculty are regularly looking at their sequences in both the Pre K-3 and K-4 programs in light of THEC recommendations, and the results of required testing (such as the PRAXIS exams) in order to continually offer transferable, rigorous degree programs.

The program has a highly developed and commendable program with regards to incorporating appropriate complementary co-curricular activities and programs to supplement and support student learning. For example, TBR’s minimum definition of service learning states that “Service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities. Within the TBR System, credit-bearing service-learning designated courses are incorporated into general education or college core requirements for a degree program.” The AST curricula at PSCC include structured field-based “experiential learning” alongside community partners, which reinforces course learning outcomes. The AST program uses much of the TBR language in their own service-learning program, which suggests that high impact practices are in place in the program. The review team affirms the program’s implementation of these specific TBR high impact practices in service learning (Affirmation #1).

The team noted the opportunity for the program to create more formal processes for collaboration and consensus in creating effective design of curriculum and in planning improvement. The informal “hall meetings” discussed in the interview with faculty during the audit, in which faculty members discuss curriculum and planning, do organically transform curriculum and planning. However, more formal processes should be implemented in addition to the established, but informal, processes. The team suggests that, in order to avoid both cost and scheduling issues, such processes could be small groups led by faculty with brief sessions scheduled throughout the semester. Online strategies might also be used to exchange ideas and information and to obtain input.

Focal Area 3: Teaching and Learning Processes

5

The AST faculty at PSCC have developed a base set of assignments that must be completed within each of the education courses. This is done through the use of master syllabi and meetings with the lead faculty member to assure that all requirements are being met. Discussions with faculty members outside of the education department also showed dedication to teaching various strategies to students in their courses such as MATH 1410 and 1420, as well as their science concept courses. However, it is once again a recommendation that more formal sessions occur between these general education faculty and the education faculty members to align strategies and discuss any upcoming changes.

As part of the AST program, all students much complete a set number of field experience hours. Students cited field experience as the most important aspect to the program because it introduces students to the classroom setting, allows them to see various teaching styles, and enables them to get a clear picture of what the teaching profession is like early on.

Another positive aspect of the program, and as a field experience requirement, is the dedication to STEA, the Student Tennessee Education Association. By requiring membership for all AST students, PSCC is providing the opportunity for their students to stay current on issues and trends in education and become involved in their profession from the beginning. The students interviewed were very positive about the organization and the value of STEA activities to their professional growth. The team commends the program for the strong emphasis on students’ participating in their professional organization (Commendation #3).

However, students clearly stated that they wanted the opportunity to provide formal feedback about their mentoring teachers (as well as course instructors). It was a consensus that this would help ensure that all pre-service teachers are provided with appropriate, meaningful experiences. This aspect is included in the team’s recommendation (Recommendation #1) that the program faculty obtain more frequent and more formal input from students, alumni, and other stakeholders to evaluate and improve curriculum, instruction, and learning outcomes.

The AST faculty also are dedicated to staying current with trends in the field of education. This is noted in the self-study report by mentioning the use of mobile technology in the classrooms and by incorporating tools found in current K-12 classrooms into the education courses. Another example of this would be including Praxis Core content into the AST courses such as the education courses and MATH 1410 and 1420. To maintain this dedication, it is important that the education faculty stay current on trends in education. In order to do this, it is important to maintain communication with colleagues within the community college system, as well as participating in professional development opportunities. Although noted that faculty are interested in this, there was no evidence that it occurs on a regular basis. It is a strong recommendation that the program implement more consistent approaches to professional development (Recommendation #3). Faculty might explore low cost opportunities in addition to attending relevant professional development conferences and seminars; examples might include free or inexpensive webinars, inexpensive speakers and workshops, train-the-trainer approaches or self-study groups.

PSCC also has a strong relationship with Tennessee Technological University through a 2+2 program. This program allows students to complete the AST degree at PSCC and transfer to TTU seamlessly, yet remain at the PSCC campus to complete their bachelor’s degree. Many students take advantage of this opportunity and students currently enrolled at TTU in this program noted that they felt very well prepared entering TTU for their junior year.

6

Focal Area 4: Student Learning Assessment

Administrators and faculty gather multiple data to evaluate student learning, and faculty members have established indicators of student learning success that are aligned with the program and SLO’s to influence the AST program’s success. For instance, the program administers in the EDU 2010 course an objective test to students at the beginning and end of the semester and evaluate adjusted gain scores to monitor learning. The program plans on discussion of the data in 2017, and creating an action plan based on that data. The review team suggests that disaggregation of data for various sub populations might be helpful, as reviewing TBR data on touchstone or key classes that are predictive indicators of student success. Critical course grade distributions that TBR has researched may inform the program as well.

In the program’s assessments, the team found that instructors evaluate student learning using rubrics and exam scores and include assessment of writing using rubrics as well. The program might include professional development that enabled the faculty to engage in norming sessions to gain consensus on “touchstone writing samples” that faculty can refer to throughout the semester as guidelines in grading. Moreover, such sessions are an example of formal, professional development times when faculty can collaborate and reach consensus about what their students should, and perhaps should not, be creating, reading, and studying. For the most part the team found that the program’s practices for assessing student learning were established, effective, and on the way to becoming highly developed practices.

Quality Assurance

The team found no issues related to the quality of the program. The team’s commendations and affirmations reflect the commitment of administration and faculty to maintaining and improving the quality of the AST program in terms of both students’ experiences and learning outcomes. The main resource issue identified was support for professional development for faculty. The team felt that the allocation of modest resources plus creativity easily could move faculty forward in this area.

Conclusions

The Audit Team concluded the site visit by making the following Commendations, Affirmations, and Recommendations during the exit session:

Commendations Commendation #1 –The team commends the program faculty members’ continuing commitment to monitor, evaluate, and improve students’ basic skills.

Commendation #2 –The team commends the program’s integration of academic and pedagogical instruction to meet the needs of prospective teachers.

Commendation #3 –The team commends the program’s strong emphasis on students’ participating in their professional organization.

Affirmations

7

Affirmation #1 – The team affirms the program’s implementation of high impact practices in service learning.

Affirmation #2 –The team affirms the program’s plan to continue to strengthen students’ preparation in basic skills. (Initiative #1)

Affirmation #3 –The team affirms the program’s plan to expand field experience opportunities for students. (Initiative #2)

Recommendations

Recommendation #1 – The team recommends that the program faculty obtain more frequent and more formal input from students, alumni, and other stakeholders to evaluate and improve curriculum, instruction, and learning outcomes.

Recommendation #2 –The team recommends that the program implement more formal processes for faculty interaction and collaboration regarding curriculum, instruction, and student learning assessment.

Recommendation #3 –The team recommends that the program implement more consistent approaches to professional development.

10

10

Year 1: 2015-16 Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE)

Year 2: 2016-17 Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Year 3: 2017-18 SENSE & Qualitative Report

Year 4: 2018-19 Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Year 5: 2019-20 Comprehensive Satisfaction Report

Institution Peer Group* Effect Size** Points

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

ACADEMIC CHALLENGE

4p. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an

instructor's standards or expectations5b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or

theory5c. Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information or

experiences in new ways

5d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of

information, arguments, or methods5e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new

situations

5f. Using information you have read or heard to perform a new

skill

6a. Number of assigned textbooks, manuals, books, or book-

length packs of course readings

13h1. Frequency: Computer lab

4h. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

4i. Participated in a community-based project as a part of a

regular course

4r. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others

outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

STUDENT EFFORT4c. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before

turning it in4d. Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas

or information from various sources

4e. Came to class without completing readings or

assignments***

6b. Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for

personal enjoyment or academic enrichment

10a. Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing,

doing homework, or other activities related to your program)

13d1. Frequency: Peer or other tutoring

13e1. Frequency: Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)

4g. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class

assignments


Maximum Points:

Schedule Recommended Points:

Year 2: 2016-17

Community College Survey of Student Engagement

2016-17 CCSSE Engagement Themes

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

4a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

4b. Made a class presentation

4f. Worked with other students in projects during class


Institutional Satisfaction

The Institutional Satisfaction standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their undergraduate

programs as evaluated by surveys of students at different points in their academic career.


Institutional Satisfaction 1

Institution Peer Group* Effect Size** Points

Community College Survey of Student Engagement

2016-17 CCSSE Engagement Themes

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

38

Small Colleges (fewer than 4,499 students) 10,395

Medium Colleges (4,500-7,999 students)

Large Colleges (8,000-14,999 students)

Extra-Large Colleges (15,000 or more students)

Institution Peer Group Classification

Fall 2016 Enrollment:

13a1. Frequency: Academic advising/planning

13b1. Frequency: Career Counseling

Total

*Peer group determined by the Center for Community College Student Engagement based on institutional enrollment size during the

administration term.

**Effect Size: Center for Community College Student Engagement considers a difference in mean to be significant when there is an

effect size of -.20 or greater.

***Question 4e is deemed successful if the 2017 institutional score was less than the peer average or previous comparison score.

Since the question is reversely worded (“came to class without completing readings or assignments), an average score closer to 1

(never) is the preferred outcome on the Likert score scale (1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often and 4=very often).

9f. Providing the financial support you need to afford your

education

4k. Used email to communicate with an instructor

4l. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor

4m. Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor

4n. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with

instructors outside of class4o. Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors

on your performance

4q. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework

ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORK

9b. Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this

college

9c. Encouraging contact among students from different

economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

9d. Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities

(work, family, etc.)

9e. Providing the support you need to thrive socially

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION

6c. Number of written papers or reports of any length7. Mark the box that best represents the extent to which your

examinations during the current school year have challenged you

to do your best work at this college

9a. Encouraging you to spend significant amount of time studying


Institutional Satisfaction 2

10

6

Year 2: 2016-17

Points

Possible Points

1

1

o

o

o

o

o

4 0

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

3 Yr. Avg

Benchmark 2015-16

Percent

Attained* Points

1 Adult Learner Graduates 1,082 969 1,283 1,111 1,090 98% 6

*Maximum of 100% attained used for scoring.

Data Source: THEC Student Information System

Institutions will submit a strategic Action Plan that seeks to improve the quality of adult learner

services and experiences and increase the quantity of adult graduates.


Adult Learner Success

The Adult Learner Success standard is designed to incentive institutions to qualitatively and quantitatively improve services for adult

learners. The standard directs institutions to enhance the quality of adult student services in an effort to increase the enrollment, retention

and completion of adult learners.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Qualitative: Action Plan

Total

Quantitative

Quantitate Metric

Objectives developed with specific details and informed by the self-assessment and adult learner survey

from Year 1Clearly defined success indicators and descriptions of what evidence demonstrates progress/success.

Detailed strategy for:

2

Recruiting, engaging, and graduating adult learners informed by evidenced-based best practices and

research

Including prior learning into adult learner degree plans

Incorporating adult learner survey feedback into current institutional policies and practices

Improving the quality of adult student services and experiences

Increasing the quantity of adult learner graduates


Adult Learner Success 1


Adult Learner Strategic Plan 2017-2020

The Pellissippi State Community College (Pellissippi State) Adult Learner Strategic Plan is the result of two years of effort by faculty and staff at

the College. In 2015-16, the College established a data committee comprised of faculty and staff to study the adult learner at Pellissippi State.

Following the sharing of the findings in spring 2016, the College appointed a taskforce to identify items for the strategic plan. The taskforce met

in fall 2016, and presented a proposal in spring 2017. The senior administrative staff have worked with various groups to finalize the strategic

plan for submission to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission during the Quality Assurance Funding reporting.

During spring and summer 2017, the College began implementation of the Adult Learner Strategic Plan. The College made the decision to use

institutional funding to launch ReconnectNow for Pellissippi State. Following the guidelines for the TnReconnect program, the College began

advertising the option in spring 2017. The College is currently experiencing a significant increase in applications and students enrolled compared

to the same time in the previous year. For that reason, the College is working to ensure a smooth transition for adult students entering in fall

2017.

The Strategic Plan actions are the result of research on best practices in student access, engagement and retention. The College has relied

heavily on Complete College America, Purpose First, Center for Community College Student Engagement and the Council for Adult & Experiential

Learning.

Strategic Mission for Adult Learners at Pellissippi State

Pellissippi State will work to increase adult learner access, opportunities for success and

engagement.

Key Performance Indicator 1: Confer awards on 2100 students annually by year 2020. Key Performance Indicator 2: Increase and maintain adult enrollment at 30% of overall enrollment.

Adult Learner Strategic Goals and Actions

2017-2020

Goal Steps Description Deadline Assigned to Resources Assessment

1 Increase adult student enrollment

1 Develop recruitment message to resonate with adult students

April 2017 Marketing Additional resources not required

# impressions adult campaign (2016-17 Baseline: 462,999) # unique ad views (2016-17 Baseline: 6,869) # actions (2016-17 Baseline: 48,506) # Reconnect Now landing page hits (2016-17 Baseline: 29,746)

2 Provide Reconnect Now funding for adult students using institutional funds

April 2017 Senior Administration; Financial Aid

Institutional funding for year 1

Increase in adult student applicants and enrolled students (Fall 2016 Baseline: 981)

3 Participate in TBR Reconnect Taskforce in identifying statewide best practices for recruitment of adult learners.

Spring 2018

PSCC identified staff

Additional resources not required

Regular attendance at meetings; communicate meeting results with Retention Committee


2 Improve onboarding process for new students

1 Convene onboarding visioning retreat February 2017

VP Student Affairs; VISTA leader

Funding for retreat

Attendance of student affairs staff; identification of shared work teams

2 Scheduled meetings of onboarding shared work teams to review policies and procedures to identify opportunities for improvement in the onboarding process

May 2017 Work team leaders; Central Coordinating Council


Completed flow chart of activities; Log of completed activities

3 Adoption of adult learner centered model

Summer 2017

Adult learner taskforce; VPs for Academic Affairs and Student Affairs

Additional recruiter

Personnel identified for initial contact with adult learners

4 Explore possibility of establishing Reconnect Center

Spring 2018

Senior administrative staff

Space Conclusion regarding establishment of a space for adult learners

5 Establish Reconnect Committee to identify opportunities for improvement of the onboarding process for adult students

Fall 2017 AVP Academic Affairs


Committee established with set meeting times; compiled list of actions

6 Identify process for ensuring all incoming Reconnect students have a degree plan

Fall 2018 Director of Advising; Academic Programming Support


100% of all incoming adult students will have a degree plan by October each year

7 Development and delivery of new adult student orientation

Summer 2017

Director, NSO No additional resources required

# new adult student orientations; # adult students attending

8 Participate in TBR Reconnect Taskforce in identifying best practices for onboarding students

Spring 2018





3 Improve programming targeting adult students

1 Begin establishment of Weekend College at Magnolia Avenue for AA/AS programs

August 2017

Academic Deans; Site Deans; VP Acad. Affairs


# of courses offered; # enrolled in Weekend College

2 Expand Weekend College programs to include AAS

Fall 2018 and ongoing as needed

Academic Deans; Site Deans; VP Acad. Affairs


# of programs offered in weekend format; # majors in weekend programs

3 Expansion of evening programming through identification and establishment of clear academic career pathways

Fall 2018 and ongoing as need develops

Academic Deans; Site Deans; VP Academic Affairs


# students enrolled in evening programming

4 Expansion of weekend and evening services

August 2017

VP Student Affairs; VP Academic Affairs

May require additional funding for tutoring and IT support

# attending Saturday onboarding events; tutoring hours scheduled in evening and weekends

5 Continued training of staff and faculty in PLA process

Ongoing Cohort and Certificate Specialist; Manager of Records

No additional resources required

100% of Full-time staff and adult learner specialists trained

7 Provide additional opportunities for career counseling for adult students

Fall 2018 Placement Director; Career Counseling


# students participating in Career Coach assessment

8 Participate in TBR Reconnect Taskforce in identifying best practices for onboarding students

Spring 2018




9 Identify adult learner success coordinator to provide support to students

Fall 2017 Director, Academic Support Center


# student contacts with coordinator


4 Increase fall to fall retention of adult students

1 Conduct needs assessment with faculty regarding working with adult students

Fall 2017 Adult Success Coordinator; Teaching and Learning Center Director; IEAP Technical Clerk


Faculty training needs identified; Training plan developed;

2 Training provided to faculty on working with adult students

Fall 2018 – Fall2020

Teaching/Learning Center Director; VP Academic Affairs

Funding available in Title III

100% of new faculty participate in training by Fall 2018; 50% of existing faculty participate in training by 2020

3 Establish Purpose First taskforce to identify possible actions to increase adult student retention

Fall 2017 VP Academic Affairs; VP Student Affairs


Membership established; action items identified with plans for implementation

4 Implementation of Purpose First actions targeting adult students

Fall 2018-Fall 2020

VP Academic Affairs; VP Student Affairs


Implementation of actions as identified each year

5 Increased communication regarding availability of services in Academic Support Center

Fall 2017 Director, Academic Support Center


# students using Academic Support Center


5 Student learning outcomes assessment process established

AVP Academic Affairs; Exec. Dir. IEAP

Demonstrated improvement in SLO attainment

1 Draft assessment plans submitted by all departments

Spring 2016

Academic Deans; Program Coordinators


Draft plans submitted to IEAP and Academic Affairs

2 Student assessment of identified outcomes

Fall 2016 Faculty in identified courses


Fall assessment data and artifacts gathered

3 Analysis of SLO data and identification of actions

Spring 2017; continues

Program Coordinators


All assessment data entered in Outcomes software by deans

4 Assessment Academy planned and delivered for program coordinators and deans

Fall 2017 AVP Academic Affairs; Exec. Dir. IEAP


100% of program coordinators trained in Fall 2017

5 Assessment Academy planned and delivered for 75% of full-time faculty

Fall 2020 AVP Academic Affairs; Exec. Dir. IEAP


75% of full-time faculty will have attended the Assessment Academy


6 Increase adult student engagement 1 Conduct needs assessment of adult

students regarding specific engagement activities needed

Fall 2018 Retention/ Completion Committee


Needs assessment conducted and analyzed; action items identified

2 Establishment of adult learner club Fall 2017 Student Life Additional resources not required

# club members

3 Welcome to Pellissippi Stateevents at each campus with a focus on programs

Fall 2018 Academic and Faculty Deans

Minimal additional resources

# attending events

4 Adult learner focused workshopsin areas related to use of campus technology (email, computer literacy, D2L)

Fall 2017 Director, Access and Diversity


# attending events

10

#DIV/0!

Year 2: 2016-17

2013-14 2014-15 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

1004

Graduates Enrolled in Community Colleges 512

77

42

8

309

317 0

Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement Rate** 98% #DIV/0!

Graduates Enrolled in Universities


Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement

The Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement standard is designed to provide incentives for community colleges to continue to

improve job placement of graduates.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Academic Year

Total Graduates*

**Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement Rate is calculated by dividing the Graduates Employed Fulltime by the Graduates Engaged in the

Tennessee Job Market.

Graduates Employed Part-time

Graduates Engaged in Tennessee Job Market

Graduates with Unemployment Claim

Graduates Employed Fulltime

Total Graduates Engaged in the Tennessee Job Market

* Total Graduates equals the graduates for academic year, excluding University Parallel (16.24.0101) and Professional Studies (16.24.0102) degrees

and certificates.


Tennessee Job Market 1

25

22

Year 2: 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-153 Yr. Avg

Benchmark2015-16

Percent

Attained*

Points

Recommended

1 337 361 371 356 448 126% 5

2 1,287 1,220 1,645 1,384 1,344 97% 4

3 1,080 924 1,174 1,059 1,140 108% 5

4 343 396 404 381 360 95% 3

5 70 63 103 79 117 149% 5

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 3 Yr. Avg 2015-16

173 256 195 208 158

170 140 209 173 202

343 396 404 381 360

*Maximum of 100% attained used for scoring.

** Self reported data

Data Source: THEC Student Information System

Low Income


Student Access and Success

The Student Access and Success standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to increase the number of graduates from select focus

populations. Institutions select those focus populations particularly important to the institution’s mission and measure the quality of services

dedicated to those students. The measure of institutional success is an increase in the focus population graduation rate.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Focus Population

Assoc. transfer to 4 Year Institution

15. Engineering Technology

Total

Males

STEM Programs

Veterans**

STEM Programs

11. Computer & Information Sciences


Student Access and Success 1

pellissippi state community college · the quality assurance funding program seeks to incentivize...

Documents