<p> SF Urban/Westmont in San Francisco 2011 Annual Assessment Report</p><p>Submitted by Brad Berky, Program Director</p><p>Prelude: The 2010-2011 academic year was a season of significant transition, program- staff restructuring and reassessment of our mission, goals and student learning outcomes. Such has resulted in a comprehensive re-visioning of the program; including adoption of a new name (Westmont in San Francisco) to better reflect our core liberal arts focus and shared institutional commitments. Amidst these transitions, considerable time and effort has been given to clarifying our identity and best practices; reframing our curricular and co-curricular efforts and mapping out more integrative approaches/initiatives in line with Westmont’s institutional/GE goals and student learning outcomes; much of which is still in process. What follows reflects some of where we have been this past year; while also outlining where we are seeking to go in the times ahead.</p><p>I. Mission Statement, Program Goals, Student Learning Outcomes, Curriculum Map and Multi-Year Assessment Plan</p><p>2010-2011 Mission Statement</p><p>SF Urban is an intentional residential learning community which equips students in their vocational/spiritual/personal formation within a global multi-cultural context.</p><p>Following numerous conversations this past year regarding the nature and definition of “learning communities” within higher education circles, it was determined we needed to do more homework in understanding the implications of having this term in our mission statement. Moreover, we came to the conclusion that this statement does not adequately capture all of what we do and are about amidst this new season. While continued work and reading is being done on this topic and what is required to define ourselves as such, we have provisionally decided on the following mission statement: Revised Mission Statement</p><p>Westmont in San Francisco is a residential, experiential learning-based program aimed at equipping students with a developed understanding of Christian vocation and service; a deeper awareness of urban/cross-cultural/diversity issues; and a greater sense for the academic and cultural competencies necessary to thrive personally, professionally and spiritually in an increasingly complex, globalized world. </p><p>2010-2011 Student Learning Outcomes</p><p>In the Fall of 2010 (a time during which Brad Berky was away directing the Westmont in Mexico program) the following SLO was identified and assessed:</p><p>1. Students will demonstrate positive development in cultural adaptability according to the Intercultural Development Inventory.</p><p>The assessment tool utilized was the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) which was administered by Dr. Laura Montgomery and designed to measure student openness to cultural difference and growth in appropriate adaptation. The results of this inventory (which are attached) were decidedly mixed and inconclusive with regard to the intended learning outcomes. As a result, it was mutually decided this was not a particularly useful tool and thus put on hold prior while other assessment options were considered/discussed.</p><p>Prior to the departure of program director, Scott McClelland, in December 2010 and Brad Berky’s return from Mexico an assessment addendum was submitted following numerous conversations with Tatiana Nazarenko around concerns/inadequacies of the earlier efforts and the initial report. The result was identifying three revised SLOs for the remainder of the academic year:</p><p>1. Students will demonstrate an empathic response to their urban neighbor.</p><p>2. Students will gain self-awareness by understanding their own social location and how this influences their beliefs, values, ideas and practices.</p><p>3. Students will begin to understand their vocation by identifying transferable skills gained from their internships. </p><p>During the spring semester each of these SLOs were attended to while staff planning took place in developing a new mission statement and corresponding program goals and SLOs as well as readings and conversations on “learning communities” as suggested by Tatiana Nazarenko, and parallel explorations/discussions on how we might restructure aspects of our program/curriculum more intentionally aligned with a revised mission statement and Westmont’s institutional goals. As a result, the following program goals and SLOs were established: Revised Program Goals</p><p>1. Christian Vocation/Theological Reflection</p><p>2. Urban/Cross-Cultural Understanding</p><p>3. Empathy/Hospitality Toward Difference</p><p>4. Social Justice/Global Stewardship</p><p>5. Written/Oral Communication Skills</p><p>Revised Program/Student Learning Outcomes</p><p>As a result of their internship, course and city/community life involvements students will be able to:</p><p>1. Articulate a personalized, integrative understanding of Christian vocation and to reflect theologically on lived experiences. (Christian Understanding/Critical and Interdisciplinary Thinking)</p><p>2. Demonstrate hospitable, empathic responses to urban issues/problems and cultural- worldview difference/diversity. (Diversity and Global Awareness/Active Societal and Intellectual Engagement)</p><p>3. Display increased competencies in written, oral and interpersonal communication skills/capabilities. (Competence in Written and Oral Communication) 2010-2011 Student Learning Outcomes Rubric</p><p>Criterion Initial Emerging Developed Highly Developed</p><p>Empathetic The student responds The student The student The student Response to to the urban neighbor, engages the urban identifies ideas as references the Urban without using “us”/ neighbor “good” which urban Neighbor1 “them” statements or respectfully in transcend the neighbor’s implications ‘real’ and speaker or perspective to theoretical community origin of others as one, references. those ideas. among many, worthy of consideration.</p><p>Recognize own The student recognizes The student The student The student social location the fact that the use of accurately identifies issues of incorporates an and its “Truth” and certainty articulates the personal privilege accurate influences on about many categories social location of a and/or reflection on beliefs, values, of life are not specific SF context contextualization of their own necessarily universal. which differs from possible experiences social location ideas and their own. lived out by others as part of their practices unlike themselves. description of their personal learning frame work.</p><p>Able to identify The student can The student The student can The student transferable identify their own accurately identify ways in incorporates skills from own strengths/ weaknesses identifies which they have improved and internship in their skill set which strategies to improved specific new skills focuses them for the improve areas of skills in their work within their internships they skill weaknesses. as an intern. personal pursue. vocational identity.</p><p>1 An “urban neighbor” is a person who comes from a demonstrably different ethnic, values and/or orientation context. Ideally this will be a type of person with whom the students had not had previous contact. Evaluation Application essays and Weekly journals, Weekly journals, Weekly Criterion recommendations, Faculty/ staff Faculty/ staff journals, initial conversations/ interactions, Class interactions, Faculty/ staff Duos interactions, Mid- Supervisor interactions, term site visit comments, Class Final site visit evaluations, Duos interactions, Duos evaluations, Class interactions, Duos</p><p>NOTE: These Rubrics have a graduated measurement scale implied. As a student moves through the semester, more interactions with staff and supervisors should allow for development and ability to measure as ‘benchmarks’ of the program are encountered. 2010-2011 Multi-Year Assessment Plan (Addendum to September 2010 Chart) Outcomes 20 20 20 20 2011- Means of Assessment 07- 08- 09- 10- 12 08 09 10 11</p><p>Diversity Survey and Students Demonstrate Positive Development in Intercultural Cultural Diversity Adaptability Development X X Inventory- assessed by Laura Montgomery Students will demonstrate an empathetic response to Multiple points of contact their urban neighbor. X with Staff, Supervisors and assignments Students will gain self-awareness by understanding Multiple points of their own social location and how this influences contact with Staff, X their beliefs, values, ideas and practices. Supervisors and assignments Students will begin to understand their vocation by Multiple identifying transferable skills gained from their points of internships. contact with X Staff, Supervisors and assignments II. Follow Up on Action Items</p><p>In addition to the revisions/actions outlined above, much of this past year was spent giving greater attention to assessment as whole and honing our program goals/SLOs in more consistent, focused and intentional ways. Such resulted in numerous initiatives aimed at addressing previous shortcomings and reframing future curricular efforts on these fronts. The new director and restructured staff have all been charged with taking greater responsibility in making assessment a higher priority in the years ahead, while identifying specific roles and time-lined measures in order to better blend/improve on previous assessment plans, PLOs/SLOs along with our new, revised ones. Some of the actions items to be taken up in the times ahead are outlined below (IV. Next Steps). </p><p>III. 2010-2011 Focus</p><p>In view of the staff transitions and programmatic re-structuring that took place this past year, the focus of our assessment was very much in flux and admittedly underdeveloped per the feedback offered and addendums required during the Fall 2010 semester. Given these dynamics and challenges, what we were able to accomplish around shifting SLOs while exploring new ones was somewhat limited and provisional. Nonetheless, what we came away with relative to the initial and revised SLOs is as follows: </p><p>A. Summary: During Fall 2010, the assessment method utilized was the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) mentioned above which sought to yield data on how our students “demonstrate positive development in cultural adaptability” and evaluated by Dr. Laura Montgomery. The results of this inventory are documented/on file and were discussed with faculty members Scott McClelland and Karen Andrews. While a report on these results was not filed to my knowledge it was mutually determined that the IDI was not an optimal tool for assessing the outcomes desired and thus revised SLOs were established in an addendum at the end of the semester.</p><p>During Spring 2011, the focus of our assessment was the three revised SLOs; the method used for this was a rubric outlined above which sought to measure students development on these fronts. Through a diverse range of curricular/co-curricular prompts, assignments and program/course evaluations considerable narrative data was collected, though making sense of its meaning and value proved more difficult than anticipated.</p><p>For both semesters, the data set included all of our program participants--26 (fall) and 13 (spring) respectively. Regarding our departmental benchmarks and assessment archives, such has admittedly been underdeveloped and stored intermittently in previous years. </p><p>B. Interpretation: In the fall, interpreting the IDI data was collectively gathered by Scott McClelland and Karen Andrews in later consultation with Dr. Laura Montgomery. Such occurred through weekly staff meetings and supplementary planning sessions throughout the semester. In the spring, data was gathered by Brad Berky and Karen Andrews; again during weekly staff meetings, additional planning times and in consultation with Tatiana Nazarenko during a three-day program visit in April. Despite the adjustments and uneven engagement/development of this year’s assessment tools, we have nevertheless learned that our students experience significant growth and show increased competencies around aspects of this year’s SLOs--though much of the data collected proved difficult to measure as precisely as desired; in large part due to a inherited rubric with somewhat unwieldy benchmarks that could have been more fully developed/clarified. All the same, some of what we are learning is as follows:</p><p>1. By the end of each semester, students evidence abilities to respond empathically to their urban neighbor--showing “emerging” to “highly developed” sensitivities in being able to view that which is “other” (culturally/intellectually/spiritually) with a deepened sense of appreciation and critical-reflective engagement. However, we also found that for some such yielded notable questions/concerns regarding the nature of Truth amidst the challenges of diversity, pluralism and cultural relativism. </p><p>2. Likewise, students continue to gain a deeper sense of self-awareness in understanding their own social location and its influences their beliefs, values, ideas & practices--again giving evidence of “emerging” to “highly developed” data on this front and showing that one’s internship context/experience play a formative role in nurturing growth in this area. The above mentioned questions/concerns re: Truth were similarly voiced, and something that seems to be a significant intellectual-spiritual hurdle for some of our students. </p><p>3. As a result of their internship experiences and reflective-oriented activities, students appear to be showing a more developed understanding of their vocation and identifying transferable skills--something that yielded a high percentage of “developed” to “highly- developed” data and confirms our sense that this remains the core building block of our curricular efforts. However, it was also clear that more work needs to be done in better framing/articulating the distinctive nature of Christian vocation/praxis and some of the particular transferable skills we desire our students to develop in this regard. </p><p>C. Closing the Loop: As already indicated, we are amidst a season of transition and re- structuring that has resulted in a number of new program initiatives aimed at improving our mission, program goals and SLOs so as to better focus, articulate and assess what we are presently learning and desire for our students in the future. Among the initiatives that will be undertaken in the year ahead, along with a timeline and person(s) responsible, are as follows:</p><p>IV. Next Steps</p><p>A. Action Items</p><p>1. Revise the Urban Practicum, Urban Studies and elective courses in closer alignment with our revised SLOs and Westmont’s institutional/GE learning outcomes. (Dec. 2011; Karen Andrews and Brad Berky) 2. Create a revised, improved Curriculum Map, Multi-Year Assessment Plan and more clearly developed/measureable rubrics. (Nov. 2011; Karen Andrews, Brad Berky, staff). </p><p>4. Plan monthly planning meetings to further explore the literature on Learning Com- munities and how we might re-frame ourselves as such. (Fall 2011/Spring 2011; staff) </p><p>4. Seek approval to have the Urban Practicum fulfill the certification criteria as a Speech Intensive GE course beginning Spring 2012. (Oct. 2011; Brad Berky) </p><p>5. Seek approval for a weekend-intensive elective course taught by a campus faculty member in line with program goals beginning Spring 2012. (Oct. 2011: Brad Berky) </p><p>6. Invite campus Religious Studies faculty to conduct a seminar on biblical/theological hermeneutics the first month of each semester. (Nov. 2011; Brad Berky) </p><p>7. Participate in a Learning Communities conference with Tatiana Nazarenko and other Westmont faculty/staff members (Spring 2012; Karen Andrews and Brad Berky)</p><p>B. Updated Multi-Year Assessment Plan</p><p>This will be submitted as an addendum before December 15, 2011 </p><p>V. Appendices</p><p>A. Last Year’s Response</p><p>B. Prompts/Instruments Used to Collect Data</p><p>C. Rubrics Used to Evaluate Data</p>