assessment handbook pacific bible college€¦ · 22/7/2016 · pbc assessment handbook (last...

ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK

PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

PBC Assessment Handbook (last revision, July 2016) 1

Table of Contents Institutional Assessment Plan .............................................................................................................................2

Institutional Assessment Mission Statement ....................................................................................................2

Institutional Assessment Goals ............................................................................................................................2

Assessment Areas/Evidence ................................................................................................................................2

Areas of Emphasis ..................................................................................................................................................3

Types of Evidence ...................................................................................................................................................4

Assessment Timeline and Cycle ...........................................................................................................................5

Mission Assessment – How We Accomplish It ...................................................................................................7

1) Planning ...........................................................................................................................................................7

2) Implementation .............................................................................................................................................7

3) Assessment......................................................................................................................................................7

4) Report and Revise ..........................................................................................................................................7

Area of Emphasis 1 - Student Learning - How We Assess ...........................................................................8

Academic Programs– How We Assess .........................................................................................................8

Area of Emphasis 2 – Institutional Effectiveness - How We Assess ....................................................... 10

Student Support Operations – How We Assess ...................................................................................... 12

Administrative Operations – How We Assess ........................................................................................ 13

The Summative Assessment Report – How We Finish the Process ........................................................... 14


Institutional Assessment Plan Pacific Bible College defines Institutional Effectiveness (IE) as continual self-improvement through

evidence-based decision making. Fundamental to institutional effectiveness at PBC is an organized,

documented, and sustainable Institutional Assessment Plan that is used to guide assessment of student

learning outcomes at the course, program, and institutional levels, as well as the goals of administration

and service units. The results of these assessments are shared with the community to provide assurances that the administration, faculty, and staff of PBC are concerned with the quality, effectiveness, and

efficiency of the College and drive improvement.

Institutional Assessment Mission Statement The mission of Institutional Assessment at PBC is to evaluate the efficiency of programmatic, unit,

and operational goals in a comprehensive, systematic, and reliable format that demonstrates the College is

effectively accomplishing its mission.

Institutional Assessment Goals 1) Collect, analyze, and share institutional-wide data that is used for continued institutional improvements,

as well as providing evidence of how PBC College is fulfilling its mission and achieving its strategic goals.

2) Recommend new assessment processes and measurement tools. 3) Persistently research institutional effectiveness with the goal to remain current about the best practices

in the areas of assessment, analysis, and how to use the results.

4) Maintain and edit, as needed, the institutional summative assessment report.

Assessment Areas/Evidence PBC’s institution assessment involves evaluation across two areas of emphasis using

4 distinct types of evidence as depicted in the following diagram:


Areas of Emphasis

Student Learning - The assessment of Student Learning should provide evidence that our students

are accomplishing the student related outcomes in our mission statement as well as the designated

outcomes associated with their program of study.

Evaluation of Student Learning is accomplished by considering the 4 types of evidence as indicators

that our students become biblically competent, academically proficient, spiritually cultivated and culturally

engaged servant leaders as result of their enrollment in and subsequent completion of an academic

program at PBC.

Institutional Effectiveness - The assessment of Institutional Effectiveness should provide

evidence that our student support services and administrative operations are operating efficiently and

effectively to accomplish our mission.

Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness is accomplished by considering the 4 types of evidence

across two areas of emphasis: 1) Student Support Operations and 2) Administrative Operations. Student

support operations are defined as those operations that promote the academic success and holistic

experience of students. Student support services consist of advising and advocacy for students and provide

resources, referrals, and information across the PBC community. Administrative operations are operations

outside of student support that include the President’s office, business office, academic administration,

library, and fundraising development/advancement

Institutional Effectiveness

Student Support Operations

Administrative Operations


Types of Evidence

When developing/implementing assessment plans, the following categories of evidence are

examined to determine valid indicators of mission success:

1) Academic Program Assessment – This is an annual assessment of program outcome achievement conducted by faculty at the department/program level. Department Chairs in conjunction

with their faculty will examine one or more of their program outcomes each year to determine program

effectiveness. A comprehensive academic program review is conducted every five years based on the four

previous annual assessments along with the standard requirements for the 5-year review.

2) Institutional Data – PBC uses the following data systems to obtain reliable information for

evaluating and enhancing student learning and institutional effectiveness:

a. Audited Financial Statements PBC’s annual financial audit provides fiscal information

for measurement.

b. Campus Security Data Analysis - this information is collected by the U.S. Department of

Education's Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE). The data is acquired from the OPE Campus Security

Statistics Website database. Annually, institutional crime statistics are submitted by all postsecondary

institutions receiving Title IV Federal funding.

c. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This is the nation's core

post-secondary education data collection program. This comprehensive system is designed to compare PBC

data to similar institutions.

d. Populi – PBC’s web-based college management system that provides institutional

research data on academics, enrollment, admissions, retention, completion, billing, people, course

evaluations, and library,

3) Institutional Surveys - PBC uses the following surveys to obtain reliable information for

evaluating and enhancing student learning and institutional effectiveness

a. Student Admissions Survey - Information attained from this measurement provides

data about student experience in our admissions process.

b. Faculty-Staff Opinion Survey - This bi-annual survey captures faculty and staff opinions

about various aspects of PBC performance.

c. Alumni surveys - This gathers insights about PBC graduates, their experiences with PBC,

and where they are in their respective careers or their continued education.

d. Student course evaluations - This assessment provides data about the student's

interpretation of and experience with PBC faculty and course work.


e. ABHE Barna IFR survey – Provides information on prospective and current students

concerning Christian Higher Education.

4) Artifacts – Artifacts consists of student course work or experiences that are selected for use as

evidence of student learning outcome achievement.

Assessment Timeline and Cycle

PBC’s assessment cycle is a continuous feedback loop consisting of four phases: 1) Planning 2)

Implementation 3) Assessment and 4) Report and Revision.


The assessment timeline begins in August with start of fall semester and generally includes the

following timelines and events:


Mission Assessment – How We Accomplish It

As discussed above, PBC determines mission

effectiveness by assessing Student Learning and

Institutional Effectiveness. We consider the four

types of evidence to answer the question, “How well

are our students becoming biblically competent,

academic proficient, spiritually cultivated and

culturally engaged as servant leaders?” To answer

this question, we evaluate one of these outcomes

annually. This methodology allows for a complete

evaluation of mission outcomes by year 4 and in year

5 to conduct a comprehensive review of the information gained

from the first four years to close out the cycle. (The year 5 comprehensive assessment

also includes considering any other evidence as designated in the assessment guidance for that year)

The annual process consists of the following phases:

1) Planning During the Planning Phase (July –August), guidelines are developed and communicated to

Department Chairs, Administrators and staff concerning the assessment process for the upcoming

academic year. The planning cycle is informed by the findings from the previous year’s assessment, as well

as other important college processes that occur just prior to this timeline such as academic and curriculum

review and strategic planning review.

2) Implementation During the Implementation Phase (August-April -Beginning of the fall semester through the end of

the spring semester), evidence is identified to support assessment of the key missional objective for the

year. Department Chairs develop a collection plan with respect to the artifacts and experiences they will

use to provide information for the assessment of the missional objective as well as for their individual

program outcomes (See academic program assessment on page 8). In the implementation phase, we collect

the necessary data, develop the necessary rubrics and assessment instruments, and implement the

required actions to provide the information necessary for the assessment phase.

3) Assessment During the Assessment Phase (Last week of April through the first week in June), we conduct our

assessment, determine findings and write the appropriate reports to inform process improvement and

planning. The assessment findings are completed within this window of time as the provide essential

information to inform our academic and curriculum review process, strategic plan review, policy and

handbook updates, and finalized budget development/approval.

4) Report and Revise During the Report and Revise phase (June – August), assessment findings are reported to all

primary stakes holders (Board, Faculty, Administration and Staff). This phase overlaps with the planning


phase because it integrated and informs every aspect of the planning process. Finalized reports are

published and changes are implemented based on the findings.

Area of Emphasis 1 - Student Learning - How We Assess

Student learning is assessed by considering at least two direct measures and two indirect measures.

This is not a limiting requirement as we can develop as many measures as we determine. It is however our

baseline threshold for determining success. Direct measures are regularly employed to measure learning

in the classroom. Direct measures are those that measure student learning by assessing actual samples of

student work. Examples include: exams/tests, papers, projects, presentations, portfolios, performances, etc.

Indirect measures provide a less concrete view of student learning; for example, attitudes, perceptions,

feelings, values, etc. Indirect measures imply student learning by employing self-reported data and reports.

Indirect measures help to substantiate instances of student learning. Indirect measures include surveys,

interviews, course evaluations, and reports on retention, graduation, and placement, etc.

The following chart provides an example of the types of direct and indirect measures that are used:

As indicated in the chart above, the academic program assessment is critical to the success of our

evaluation of student learning. Department Chairs and designated faculty hold the primary responsibility in

determining the academic success of our students. Faculty also determine the end of program experiences

that provide the best evidence to evaluate student level of outcome achievement.

Academic Programs– How We Assess

The primary work for academic program assessment occurs during the implementation and

assessment phases. Based on the assessment guidelines for the upcoming academic year, faculty will

develop and implement the required assessment actions. Department Chairs in conjunction with their

faculty will examine one or more of their program outcomes each year to determine program effectiveness.

The goal is to evaluate all program outcomes within a 4-year cycle. Then in the 5th year, a comprehensive

academic program review is conducted in light of the four previous annual assessments along with any

additional requirements developed as a result of the planning cycle for the 5-year review.


Departments Chairs are responsible for determining a minimum of two direct measures and two

indirect measures for their process. One of the direct measures and one of the indirect measures must

assess the accomplishment of the PBC mission outcome as designated by the assessment cycle. The other

direct/indirect measures are for determining program outcome achievement. Each department will

conduct their assessment in such a way as to provide the following information in their final

assessment report (See also the academic program assessment template at Appendix A):

1) Department name and program to be reviewed.

2) Program outcomes or objectives.

3) Provide locations of where program outcomes are published.

4) An analysis of the effectiveness of the previous year’s assessment findings and actions.

5) The PBC mission objective and program outcome to be evaluated for the assessment.

6) Overview of the direct and indirect measures that will used as evidence.

7) A description and explanation of the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the assessment time period.

8) The number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that were evaluated.

9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected.

10) How they evaluated, analyzed, or interpreted the evidence.

11) Summarized results of the assessment activities.

12) The specific actions that will be accomplished as a result of the assessment.

13) Appendices:

A. Current curriculum map

B. Assessment artifacts

C. Other relevant documents

At the completion of their evaluation, the program assessment report is provided for administrative

review and approval. The information is then incorporated into the PBC summative assessment report.


The typical schedule for academic departments conducting program assessment is the following:

Time-period Event 3rd week of July - PBC summative assessment results for the

previous year are presented at Faculty In-Service

2nd week of August - Department Chairs receive annual assessment guidance for the upcoming academic year from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE)

3rd week of August – end of September - Departments develop program assessment plan and communicate to the OIE

October through April (end of spring semester) -Departments implement assessment activities, collect evidence and prepare all appropriate tools for the assessment phase

End of April -1st week in June -Departments complete their assessment process, record the results, and turn in their reports to the OIE

3rd Week of June -4th week in July -Departments complete their academic and curriculum standards review informed by completed and approved academic program assessments.

4th week in July – end of August (start of fall semester)

-Implement changes based on findings from their academic program review

End of August -New academic year begins

Area of Emphasis 2 – Institutional Effectiveness - How We Assess

PBC determines institutional effectiveness by assessing student support operations and

administrative operations. Student support operations are defined as those operations that promote

the academic success and holistic experience of students. Student support services consist of advising and

advocacy for students and provide resources, referrals, and information across the PBC community.

Administrative operations are operations outside of student support that include the President’s office,

business office, academic administration, library, and fundraising development/advancement. Institutional

effectiveness is assessed by The Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) which includes the President,

Chief Academic Officer, Dean of Students, a representative faculty member and a representative staff

member.

During the planning phase (July-August), success indicators are developed informed by the

previous year’s assessment process. Once these measures are determined, they are codified and a data

collection plan is established for the implementation phase (August-April) of the designated academic year.


During the assessment phase (May-June), the finalized data is examined against the success indicators and

the findings recorded in PBC’s summative assessment report.

The next two pages illustrate a typical set of success indicators for both Student Support Operations

and Administrative Operations. It is important to note that these success indicators are reviewed during

the planning phase each year to make sure they are effective and relevant to enhancing continuous

improvement. These are examples only and may or may not be presently used in our assessment

process for the current year.


Student Support Operations – How We Assess Student Support Operations are assessed by considering areas of emphasis, operational objectives,

direct measures, indirect measures and success indicators. Based on the assessment guidelines for the

upcoming academic year the OIE will develop a chart similar to the one depicted below. The success

indicators are developed in such a way to give a quantitative score that represents 1) expectations

exceeded 2) expectations met 3) expectations partially met or 4) expectation not met. The following chart

provides examples of assessment measures used in determining effectiveness:


Administrative Operations – How We Assess Administrative Operations are assessed by considering areas of emphasis, operational objectives,

direct measures, indirect measures and success indicators. Based on the assessment guidelines for the

upcoming academic year the OIE will develop a chart similar to the one depicted below. The success

indicators are developed in such a way to give a quantitative score that represents 1) expectations

exceeded 2) expectations met 3) expectations partially met or 4) expectation not met. The following chart

provides examples of assessment measures used in determining effectiveness:


The Summative Assessment Report – How We Finish the Process

PBC’s Summative Assessment Report is prepared by the Office of Institutional Assessment (OIE).

The OIE meets throughout the Report/Revise phase (June-August) to accomplish the following goals:

1) Review and approve the academic program assessments.

2) To interpret the findings of the student learning and institutional effectiveness assessments and

then determine the level of success indicated towards PBC mission fulfillment.

3) To summarize the findings of the summative assessment report and develop/summarize the

institutional improvement actions based on that report.

4) To communicate the finalized report to all key stakeholders and monitor the implementation of

improvement actions.

5) To develop and distribute assessment guidelines for the next evaluation cycle.

6) Keep appropriate records that are professional and accessible to internal and external users.

The Summative Assessment Report provides all the details of our assessment methodology. It is

developed by the members of the OIE, through multiple meetings, research/collection of available

evidence, and evaluation of progress toward goal achievement. This report reflects the results of

assessment, the level of mission effectiveness, major achievement/challenges and recommended changes

for continuous improvement.

PBC defines mission fulfillment in the context of its mission, vision, goals and values. Guided by that

definition, it articulates institutional accomplishments or outcomes that represent an acceptable threshold

or extent of mission fulfillment. Interpretation of mission fulfillment at PBC is defined collectively and

individually as meeting an acceptable level of performance within two major areas of emphasis for

institutional performance: 1) Student Learning and 2) Institutional Effectiveness. Each area of performance

has one or more stated goals supported by relevant, verifiable indicators of achievement. Mission

fulfillment is assessed at three levels (area of emphasis, goals, and indicators). At each level, scores are

aggregated to determine PBC’s level of achievement of its mission. The OIE uses a scoring system based

on the following numeric scale and word pictures:

• A score from 0-2 indicates that the college has “not met” expectations.

• A score from 2-4 indicates that the college “partially met” expectations. This level of performance is

considered acceptable.

• A score from 5-8 is representative of very good progress and is deemed to have “met” expectations.

• A score of 9-10 indicates that there are conclusive results with evidence that “exceed” expectations.

PBC’s goal is that every indicator and goal would achieve a score of five or higher during

assessment. During assessment, each indicator is scored by the OIE and then all indicator scores are totaled

and averaged to determine the overall status of the supported goal. The summative assessment template

can be found at Appendix B.


Finally, once the summative assessment is complete, the results are communicated to the following

stake-holders: 1) Board of Trustees 2) core faculty 3) administrators and staff, 4) student government

leadership and 4) required external agencies. The report is also posted on the OIE webpage which makes it

available to the public and students. The typical schedule for the OIE in completing the summative

report is the following:

Time-period Event 1st week of June -Academic Program Assessment reports received

-Institutional Effectiveness data collected/complete

2nd week of June OIE Meeting –validation/approval of Academic program results and Institutional Effectiveness data

3rd Week of June OIE Meeting – Evaluation and scoring of indicators, goals, and areas of emphasis -Academic and curriculum standards review begins informed by completed and approved academic program assessments.

4th week of June OIE Meeting – Evaluation and scoring of indicators, goals, and areas of emphasis

3rd Week of July OIE determines findings and continuous improvement plans.

4th week July -Summative assessment complete -Administrative staff complete the final budget review for the upcoming academic year informed by the assessment results - Academic and curriculum standards review complete

1st week of August -Results presented to the Board of Trustees with student government leadership present -- Updating of appropriate catalogs, handbooks, web pages complete Results presented at Faculty In-Service

2nd week August -Report is posted on the OIE webpage -OIE communicates assessment guidance for the upcoming academic year

3rd week of August -Assessment results provided at faculty inservice End of August New academic year begins

Appendix A – Academic Program Review Template

Appendices


Academic Program Assessment Template

Department:

Program:

Name of Degree or Certificate:

Academic Year:

Date:

1) Program Outcomes/Objectives

2) Please list where the program outcomes /objectives are published (handbooks,

websites etc…)

3) Provide an analysis of the effectiveness of the previous year’s assessment findings

and actions

4) The PBC mission objective and program outcome(s) to be evaluated for this

assessment are the following:

PBC Mission Objective: Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators

Program Outcome/Objective: Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators

5) What types of evidence did the program use as part of their assessment process?

(Check all that apply.)

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)

☐Artistic exhibition/performance

☐Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level

assessment

☐Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)

☐Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)

☐Exit exam created by the program

☐Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)


☐Portfolio of student work

☐Publication or grant proposal

☐Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual

student evaluation (graduate level only)

☐Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical,

practicum)

☐Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation

☐Other 1: (Explain)


Indirect evidence of student learning ☐Alumni survey that contains self-reports of Student Learning Outcome (SLO) achievement

☐Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement

☐Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement

☐Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO

achievement.

☐Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement



6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place

for the period August 20xx to April 20xx? (Check all that apply.) ☐Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., Student Learning Outcomes)

SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)

☐Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement

☐Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups

☐Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy,

design new course, hiring)

☐Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs,

course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.

☐Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in

question 7)

☐Other:

7) Provide a narrative overview of the program-level assessment activities designated in

question 6 above.

8) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that were

evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)


☐Course instructor(s)

☐Faculty committee

☐Ad hoc faculty group

☐Department chairperson

☐Persons or organization outside the college

☐Faculty advisor

☐Advisors (in student support services)

☐Students

☐Administrator

☐Other: (Explain)

10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.) ☐Used a rubric or scoring guide

☐Scored exams/tests/quizzes

☐Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)

☐Compiled survey results

☐Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data

☐External organization/person analyzed data

☐Other: (Explain)

11) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.) ☐Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling,

communications with faculty, etc.)

☐Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)

☐Personnel or resource allocation changes

☐Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course

evaluation form)

☐Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website,

program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)

☐Celebration of student success!

☐Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations

☐Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated

or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)

☐Other

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6 and what

will be accomplished based on those results.


13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can

include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great

achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.

Appendices: A. Current Curriculum Map

B. Assessment Evidence

C. Other relevant documents

Appendix B – PBC Summative Assessment Template

SAMPLE 20XX-20XX Summative Report

INTRODUCTION A. Introduction

This document is PBC’s Summative Assessment Report concerning outcomes identified in the 20XX/20XX Assessment Plan. It was developed the Office of Institutional

Effectiveness (OIE) through multiple meetings, research of available data, and evaluation of progress toward goal achievement. The 20XX-20XX academic year was the baseline

year for PBC’s assessment. This report reflects Year X annual results, major achievement/challenges and recommended changes to affect outcome achievement. .

PBC defines mission fulfillment in the context of its mission, vision, goals and values. Guided by that definition, it articulates institutional accomplishments or outcomes that

represent an acceptable threshold or extent of mission fulfillment. Interpretation of mission fulfillment at PBC is defined as collectively and individually meeting an acceptable

level of performance within two major areas of institutional performance: 1) Assessment of Student Learning and 2) Institutional Effectiveness. Each area of performance has

one or more stated objectives supported by relevant, verifiable indicators of achievement. Mission fulfillment is assessed at three levels (area of emphasis, goals, and

indicators). At each level, scores are aggregated to determine PBC’s level of achievement of its mission. PBC has implemented a scoring system based on the following numeric

scale and word pictures:

A score from 0-2 indicates that the college has “not met” expectations.

A score from 2-4 indicates that the college “partially met” expectations. This level of performance is considered acceptable.

A score from 5-8 is representative of very good progress and is deemed to have “met” expectations.

A score of 9-10 indicates that there are conclusive results with evidence that “exceed” expectations.

PBC’s goal is that every indicator and goal would achieve a score of five or higher during assessment. During assessment, each indicator is scored by the OIE and then all

indicator scores are totaled and averaged to determine the overall status of the supported goal. The members of the OIE met four times during the June-July 20XX time frame to

complete the process. The average score for indicators and goals were the following:


Area of Emphasis: STUDENT LEARNING (Score: XX)

AREA OF ASSESSMENT SCORE

GOAL A: Students are Biblically Competent Indicator 1: Able to articulate the biblical gospel and interpret the Bible in light

of it.

Indicator 2: Able to articulate the nature of Scripture:

a. Primacy of biblical authority in matters of faith and practice.

b. Canonicity, history, development.

c. Verbal plenary inspiration.

Indicator 3: Conversant with the biblical theology of redemption:

a. Creation, Fall, Redemption, Renovation.

Indicator 4: Conversant with the systematic theological formulations.

a. Theology courses in place.

b. Creedal formulations as per Nicaea and Chalcedon

GOAL B: Program Specific Learning Indicator 1: Associate of Biblical Studies Program Outcomes

Indicator 2: AAS Christian Counseling Program Outcomes

Indicator 3: Certificate Christian Ministries Program Outcomes


Area of Emphasis: INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (Score: XX)

AREA OF ASSESSMENT SCORE

GOAL C: Student Support Operations Indicator 1: Admission’s Office

Indicator 2: Learning Resources

Indicator 3: Student Personal

GOAL D: Administrative Operations Indicator 1: President’s Office

Indicator 2: Business Office

Indicator 3: Development Office

B. Participants in the Development of the Summative Report

Mike Robinson, President John Osbourn, Chief Academic Officer Daniel Nicholas, Dean of Students Faculty (TBD) Mary Neal, Administrative Assistant


Template -Pacific Bible College Summative Assessment Report

II. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

Goal A: Students are Biblically Competent Rationale: This is core component of PBC’s philosophy of student development and values. Defining, developing a self-awareness, and progressively aligning the student’s worldview with the Kingdom and the King are foundational to realization of our mission.

Indicator 1: Able to articulate the biblical gospel and interpret the Bible in light of it.

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments Student Course Evaluations Mean Score of <2.5

(expectations not met) Mean Score of <3.0 - 2.5 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 2: Able to articulate the nature of Scripture: a. Primacy of biblical authority in matters of faith and practice b. Canonicity, history, development c. Verbal plenary inspiration



Indicator 3: Conversant with the biblical theology of redemption: a. Creation, Fall, Redemption, Renovation.


Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments

Student Course Evaluations Mean Score of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of <3.0 - 2.5 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 4: Conversant with the systematic theological formulations. a. Theology courses in place. b. Creedal formulations as per Nicaea and Chalcedon



Goal B: Program Specific Learning Rationale: The academic program assessment is critical to the success of our evaluation of student learning. Department Chairs and designated faculty hold the primary responsibility in determining the academic success of our students. Faculty also determine the end of program experiences that provide the best evidence to evaluate student level of outcome achievement.

Indicator 1: Associate of Biblical Studies Program Outcome Achievement


(expectations not met) Mean Score of <3.0 - 2.5


(expectations partially met) Mean Score of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 2: AAS Christian Counseling Program Outcome Acheivement



Indicator 3: Certificate Christian Ministries Program Outcome Achievement



II. ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Goal C: Student Support Operations Rationale: Student support operations are defined as those operations that promote the academic success and holistic experience of students. Student support services consist of advising and advocacy for students and provide resources, referrals, and information across the PBC community. They are critical to student retention, persistence, and completion.

Indicator 1: Admissions a. High Quality Applicants b. Rapid Turnaround


c. Complete Files Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments

High School Class Standing Measures students who completed High school or higher; and students completed SAT or Wonderlic

Mean standing in bottom 25% or less (expectations not met) Mean standing below top 50% (expectations partially met) Mean standing of top 50% or greater (expectations met) Mean standing of tope 25% or greater (expectations exceeded)

Transfer students’ previous college GPA from previous college

Mean GPA of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean GPA of 3.0 - 2.5 (expectations partially met) Mean GPA of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean GPA of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

First-time students’ GPA for first semester at PBC

Mean GPA of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean GPA of 3.0 - 2.5 (expectations partially met) Mean GPA of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean GPA of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

Processing time from applicant to to enrolled (Dan)

Mean processing time of > 18 days (expectations not met) Mean processing time of 15-18 days (expectations partially met) Mean processing time of 11-14 days (expectations met) Mean processing time of <10 days (expectations exceeded


Admission's Conversion rate for Prospects (Dan)

Convert 39% or less of our prospects (expectations not met) Convert 40-49% of our prospects (expectations partially met) Convert 50-59% of our prospects (expectations met) Convert > 60% of our prospects (expectations exceeded)

Percentage of incomplete files (Dan) % of files incomplete are >20% (expectations not met) % of files incomplete are 16 - 20% (expectations partially met) % of files incomplete are 10 - 15% (expectations met) % of files incomplete are <10% (expectations exceeded)

Student Admission's Satisfaction Survey

Mean Score of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of <3.0 - 2.5 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of <3.5 -3.0 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=3.5 expectations exceeded)

Indicator 1: Learning Resources a. Effective Instruction

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments Quality of Instruction (Course evaluations) Measures classroom interaction, management and learning environment

Mean Score of <4 (expectations not met) Mean Score of <4.0 – 4.3 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of <4.3 -4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 expectations exceeded)


Quality of Instruction (Course evaluations) Measures teaching methods, assignments, grading and communication

Mean Score of <4 (expectations not met) Mean Score of <4.0 – 4.3 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of <4.3 -4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 expectations exceeded)

Course withdrawal rates for credit students

Rate is <40% (expectations not met) Rate is 21-40% (expectations partially met) Rate is 11 - 20% (expectations met) Rate <=10% (expectations exceeded)

Student Persistence (Dan) Percentage of any credit student during an academic year who persists from one semester to the next (average all three) Fall to Spring Spring to Summer

Rate is <40% (expectations not met) Rate is 40 -49% (expectations partially met) Rate is 50 - 70% (expectations met) Rate >70% (expectations exceeded)

Student Completion rates Full-time students: Any full-time, first-time students who began between the start of fall semester and the end of summer semester who complete a program within 150% of their program time. (9 semesters for degree seeking

Rate < ABHE mean 10% or greater (expectations not met) Rate < ABHE mean by less than 10% (expectations partially met) Rate = ABHE mean or is > ABHE mean by 10% (expectations met) Rate > ABHE mean by more than 10 %


students, 5 semesters for certificate seeking students)

(expectations exceeded)

Student Completion rates Part-time students Any part-time, first-time students who began between the start of fall semester and the end of summer semester who complete a program within 150% of their program time. (12 semesters for degree seeking students, 6 semesters for certificate seeking students)

Rate < ABHE mean 10% or greater (expectations not met) Rate < ABHE mean by less than 10% (expectations partially met) Rate = ABHE mean or is > ABHE mean by 10% (expectations met) Rate > ABHE mean by more than 10 % (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 1: Student Personal a. Effective student support b. High student retention

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments Student Retention (Fall 2015) Any first time student who begins in the Fall or Spring semester, and who 1) Re-enrolls subsequent Fall semester, or 2) completes a program in the same academic year.


Enrollment Growth Measures total credit enrollment growth from academic year to academic year


Student population growth

Rate is <10% (expectations not met) Rate is 10 -19%


(expectations partially met) Rate is 20 - 39% (expectations met) Rate >40% (expectations exceeded)

Student Admission's Satisfaction Surveys

Mean Score of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of 2.5 but <3.0 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of 3.0 but <3.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=3.5 (expectations exceeded)

Goal D: Administrative Operations Rationale: Administrative operations are operations outside of student support that include the President’s office, business office, academic administration, library, and fundraising development/advancement. They are critical to the viability and integrity of the institution.

Indicator 1: President’s Office a. Effective Leadership b. Vision Casting c. Expanded Constituency

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments Coordinating and supporting activities that are maximally beneficial to core internal and external stake holders

Board of Trustees effectiveness rating: Mean Score of <3.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of 3.5 but <4.0 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of 4.0 but <4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 (expectations exceeded)

Model and communicate regularly institutional mission and activities to stakeholders and the community

Board of Trustees effectiveness rating: Mean Score of <3.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of 3.5 but <4.0 (expectations partially met)


Mean Score of 4.0 but <4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 (expectations exceeded)

Represent the college to community and business groups, accrediting bodies, national organizations, legislators, alumni, donors, and the media.


Donor Development Board of Trustees effectiveness rating: Mean Score of <3.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of 3.5 but <4.0 (expectations partially met) Mean Score of 4.0 but <4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 (expectations exceeded)

Facilitate initiatives such as strategic planning, institutional resource development, new program development, community service projects, partnership development with business, industry, and other educational and governmental agencies and institutions.


Annual Board Effectiveness Evaluation

Mean Score of <2.5 (expectations not met) Mean Score of 2.5 but <3.5 (expectations partially met)


Mean Score of 3.5 but <4.5 (expectations met) Mean Score of >=4.5 (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 2: Business Office a. Financial Stability

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments Cash Ratio > 4 (expectations not met)

4 - 5 (expectations partially met) >5 but <6 (expectations met) >6 (expectations exceeded)

Debt to Equity Ratio > 4 (expectations not met) 4 - 5 (expectations partially met) >5 but <6 (expectations met) >6 (expectations exceeded)

Reserve Fund < 1 month of operating expenditures (expectations not met) >1 month to 3 months of OE (expectations partially met) >3 (expectations met) >4 (expectations exceeded)

Clean Financial Audit Board of Trustees effectiveness rating: Score of 0-2 (expectations not met) Score of 3-5 (expectations partially met) Score of 6-8 (expectations met) Score of 9-10 (expectations exceeded)

Indicator 3: Development Office a. Increased Gift Income

Direct/Indirect Measure Success Indicators Assessment Results Effectiveness Score Comments

% increase of gift income 10% increase or less (expectations not met)


11% - 15% (expectations partially met) >=16% - 30% (expectations met) >30% (expectations exceeded)

% of operating budget supported by gift income

15% or less (expectations not met) 16% - 35% (expectations partially met) >= 36% - 49% (expectations met) > 50% (expectations exceeded)

Increase in # of Donors 5% increase or less (expectations not met) >5% - 10% (expectations partially met) >10% - 20% (expectations met) > 20% (expectations exceeded)

FINDINGS AND FUTURE ACTIONS

Goal A: Students are Biblically Competent

Goal B: Program Specific Learning

Goal C: Student Support Operations

Goal D: Administration Operations

Additional Observations:

assessment handbook pacific bible college€¦ · 22/7/2016 · pbc assessment handbook (last...

Documents