KINGSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE of the City University of New York

KINGSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE of The City University of New York SELF-STUDY 2005 – 2006 Prepared for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education i Executive Summary This study has been an opportunity to examine the current state of the College, demonstrate its strengths, and identify areas where effectiveness can be improved. To a large extent, the results have shown what those who work at the College already believe; that Kingsborough Community College serves its mission, actively assists students in achieving learning goals, provides them with services appropriate to their needs, and has a well-qualified and creative faculty, who teach rigorous courses of study designed to prepare students for further higher education and success in their chosen field of work. With these strengths affirmed, it is hoped that the recommendations the self-study has made will guide future progress towards greater effectiveness. Preparation for the decennial review began with academic administrators and faculty attending several MSCHE conferences between 2002 and 2004, which focused on the self-study process and the assessment of student learning outcomes. There was consensus that a comprehensive self-study would yield the most useful results for the college at this time. At the convocation for the entire college community held on February 20, 2004, Interim President Malamet announced the formation of the steering committee and sub-committees. He emphasized the primacy of the self-study over all other activities for the Spring 2004 Semester and the next academic year. Professor Bonne August, Chairperson of the Department of English, was asked to lead the self-study process because of her knowledge of and experience with the assessment of learning outcomes. She was assisted by Professor Joanne Lavin, Professor of Nursing, who is also experienced in outcomes assessment, and a test consultant for the National League of Nursing. The committees consisted mainly of faculty. Students contributed to the self-study by participating in focus groups and as survey respondents. Each committee was given responsibility for reviewing one, two or more related standards. The full steering committee, consisting of Professors August and Lavin, the co-chairs of the sub-committees and the Associate Dean of Academic Programs, met for the first time on March 16, 2004. Each co-chair received: Designs for Excellence: Handbook for Institutional Self-Study Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education Creating Meaningful Analytical Charge Questions to Guide Self-Study Excerpts from Chesapeake College Self-Study Design relevant to their sub-committees’ areas of study The list of the self-study sub-committees and their members A timeline of activities leading to the site-visit. The co-chairs were referred to documents located in the library and to the KCC web page for institutional data. They were also directed to the staff of the Office of Institutional Research for guidance on available data or for additional sources. At this first meeting, Stuart Suss, Vice President of Academic Affairs, said that the College was at a crossroad and poised for genuine ii transformation. He asked the co-chairs to use this ten-year review to produce a document that can help set the future direction for the college and facilitate this transformation. For the remainder of the Spring 2004 Semester, the sub-committees worked on developing questions and data sources. The steering committee met with co-chairs to review how work was progressing, receive feedback and suggestions, and ensure that the self-study design was developing on schedule. At the end of the semester, the co-chairs submitted questions and data sources from their committees to Professors August and Lavin and Associate Dean Loretta DiLorenzo. They organized, edited and prepared the self-study design, in consultation with the co-chairs and other committee members who were responsible for specific questions, topics or fundamental elements within a standard. In August, Dr. Regina Peruggi assumed the office of president and was immediately briefed on the status of the decennial review. In September, at her first convocation, she reported to the College community on the progress made and the work that was ahead. The final design document was distributed to the entire committee and posted on the College website in early December, 2004. About this time, Professor August announced she was leaving to assume the position of Vice President for Academic Affairs at a sister CUNY institution. Professor Richard Graziano, co-chair of the committee assigned to review standards 7 and 14 and a leading member of the College Assessment Committee, was asked to step up to co-chair the entire self-study with Professor Lavin who would continue to serve as she had, now as co-chair with Professor Graziano. Also, Dr. Richard Fox, Associate Dean of Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning, joined the steering committee at this time. Preliminary reports from each sub-committee were submitted and reviewed by the Steering Committee in February 2005. Professors Lavin and Graziano, and Associate Deans DiLorenzo and Fox, began working as an editing team, reading, discussing and writing comments on drafts of reports, which were then returned and discussed with the sub-committee co-chairs. By June 2005, final drafts of reports, which together representing all fourteen standards, were completed. During the Summer, the separate committee reports were edited and organized into a draft self-study. The draft was read by President Peruggi and Vice President Stuart Suss, and editing continued until September, when it was sent to Dr. Eugenia Proulx, chairperson of the site-visit evaluation team. Following Dr. Proulx’s preliminary campus visit October 24, the final draft was completed and disseminated to the College community for review. Overall, those who participated in the self-study found more strengths than weaknesses. The surveys of faculty and students indicate that the majority are satisfied with their experience at Kingsborough. The self-study has also assisted in formulating recommendations that can guide improvement efforts. These recommendations will be carefully considered and actions will be taken. Work has already begun on the implementation of several of them. Here are some of the most significant ones: Implement and institutionalize the new strategic planning process. iii Provide more systematic training in technology, customer service and other business skills for all levels of staff. Connect the College Assessment Committee to college governance and budget development, and connect budget development to strategic planning. Increase contacts with alumni and strengthen ties with them. Complete the writing of learning outcomes for all courses and communicate them widely to students. Assess how information literacy is currently taught and whether it is effective, and develop plans for improvement where needed. Connect all retention strategies in one integrated plan and track their effectiveness in achieving stated student outcomes. Continue to work towards recruiting and retaining a more diverse faculty and administration. Improve communication to students regarding the College’s and faculty’s expectations of them across all departments and courses. Improve learning through the use of teaching strategies based on assessment results. The self-study process has reminded us of the powerful motivation of our students, who overcome significant obstacles to achieve their objectives. Our students represent the world. They pursue higher education, while bearing responsibilities for their families, as well as themselves. Most come ill-prepared to do college work. For these students, the College has created and continues to create programs to help them prepare. Committee members have been reminded that they work in an excellent environment for learning. We share a renewed optimism that we can work together more effectively to enhance student learning further. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary/ i Glossary/ ix Self-Study Steering Committee/ xiii Standard 1 Mission, Goals and Objectives / 1 Who We Are / 1 Mission, Goals and Objectives / 1 Connecting the Mission, Goals and Objectives to Curriculum and Assessment / 3 Assessment of Mission, Goals and Objectives / 4 Recommendations / 5 Standard 2 Planning, Resource Allocation and Institutional Renewal / 6 The Assessment-Planning-Budgeting Cycle / 8 Assessment, Strategic and Annual Planning, and Budget Development Process / 8 Senior Administrators’ Retreat / 10 Recommendations / 10 Standard 3 Institutional Resources / 11 Financial Resources / 12 Human Resources / 12 Technological Resources / 12 Physical Facilities / 13 Information and Decision-making / 14 Recommendation / 15 Standard 4 Leadership and Governance / 16 University Governing Body / 16 Campus Governance / 16 Department Governance / 18 Assessment of Leadership and Governance / 19 Recommendation / 19 Standard 5 Administration / 20 Administrative Structure / 20 Assessment of Administrative Effectiveness /22 Standard 6 Integrity / 23 Communication / 23 Academic Freedom / 24 Business Practices / 24 Personnel Practices / 25 Student Policies and Procedures / 26 Research Practices / 27 Recommendations / 28 v Standard 7 Institutional Assessment / 29 Context for Assessment / 29 College Assessment Committee / 30 College Assessment Plan / 30 Assessment Measures of the Mission, Goals and Objectives / 31 Achievement of Goals Stated in Mission

Load more