arkland College is "a comprehensive (public) community college in Illinois dedicated to providing programs and services of high quality to its students and committed to continuous improvement, to academic achievement and its documentation, and to the concept of shared governance" (Parkland College 2004-2005 Catalog, Mission and Purpose Statement, p. 10). The phrase, "committed to continuous improvement, to academic achievement and its documentation" is the College's promise to assess learning outcomes throughout the institution. With this promise, Parkland College began its journey in academic assessment.

As with many colleges, the process of institutionalizing academic assessment began with asking administrators and faculty to address questions such as: 1) What is academic assessment? 2) What more does it involve than documenting student learning through course grades? 3) How does it differ from program review, which includes seat time and retention rates as measures? As the administration was committed to a faculty-driven process, identifying a faculty committee was the logical next step.

The Committee

The Academic Assessment Committee ( AAC ) was formed in 1989 as one of several committees of the Parkland College Association (PCA). Invitations to join the Committee were extended to full time faculty members from each of nine academic departments; two department chairs; representatives from the Counseling and Career Placement and Assessment offices; elected and appointed members from the PCA; the Vice-President of Academic Affairs; and the Director of Institutional Research, Evaluation, and Planning.

The value of the resulting 19-member Committee was integral in gaining campus-wide input from those who would ultimately administer the assessment. The size of the Committee was also a drawback and impeded progress to tackle the general education piece of the academic assessment puzzle. A smaller committee, including one full-time faculty member selected from the departments responsible for general education courses, was determined to be a better committee structure to enable the assessment of general education and efficiently produce more focused work. As a result, a sub committee of the AAC for General Education Academic Assessment was formed. The purpose of the subcommittee was (and is) to assess and make recommendations to the Curriculum Committee regarding general education core courses and objectives.

Getting Started

At the onset, the AAC was charged with learning about the academic discipline of outcomes assessment and sharing their knowledge of assessment, as well as "best practices," with other faculty. Through this monumental task, the Committee wrestled with vast information on academic assessment, potential connections to North Central Association (NCA) requirements, and strategies for disseminating information to faculty. The Committee experienced perceived and physical barriers to the concept of assessing and documenting student learning in publicly reported hard data. College faculty feared that a "Big Brother" report could threaten academic freedom, while adding just "one more thing" to their already lengthy to-do lists. They also found that trying to understand assessment language often lead to confusion, such as unclear distinctions between direct and indirect measures. For instance, some faculty asked, "Why is it that seat time and course grades no longer fit the college's full assessment model?" In response to these issues, the Committee adjusted its approach. The Committee recognized the need to develop and promote an overall assessment plan for the college with clearly delineated rules for assessment. The outcome of their efforts was an assessment cycle model.

The Assessment Cycle

In 1998, NCA provided community colleges with recommendations and general guidelines for best practices to serve as framework to follow. The AAC at Parkland embraced this guidance, while carefully ensuring that the process fit the culture of their institution. The result was a model they entitled the Assessment Cycle. This model was deliberately chosen to represent the ongoing nature of assessment.

Applying the Assessment Cycle

Much discussion centered on categorizing the object of the assessment. The Committee started with an interest in examining program learning outcomes. Yet, how should "program" be defined? In some of the departments defining the program was simple. Each health profession, such as Nursing, had a course of study that began with introductory courses and ended with degree completion. It was understood that assessing learning for such programs was done throughout the two years, but outcomes could be measured at the end by the standardized professional licensure examination.

Defining "program" proved more difficult in other areas. In parts of the college, faculty identified course clusters (groups of related courses within a department) as a program. Each course cluster culminated with a capstone course, where outcomes embedded throughout the cluster could be measured at the end of the sequence. This approach works well for areas where students must take the full course sequence and capstone. Yet again, this is not the case for all areas.

There were some academic areas where students frequently maneuvered in and out of sequences, and perhaps did not take the expected capstone course. In other cases, students were hired away before completing the curriculum, thus hampering accurate measurement of program effectiveness. Because of the difficulty collecting meaningful data, many faculty changed their focus to measuring key concepts within courses where enrollment was high. As a result, English 101 and 102, Mathematics 107, Psychology 101, and Sociology 101 have course assessment plans even though they are not "programs."

Managing Information

Currently, there are over 90 "programs" (including some clusters) that are required to assess and document learning outcomes. Parkland 's assessment website, www.parkland.edu/aac , assists in the dissemination of information that has resulted from the assessment efforts across the college. As courses and programs shift, the information management system flexes to accommodate new data. Website management helps all faculty handle the volume of program reports and provides continuity to the data. A Microsoft Access program houses data such as dates, types of measures used, persons responsible for assessment, College Mission and Purposes statements, types of direct and indirect measures used, as well as actual data collected and the faculty's analysis and action. Individual program reports can be updated and printed. The website has proved to be valuable to its internal audience and to others at colleges across the country that are going through the same process.

Charting Progress

The Committee created a visual model to both chart progress and to motivate departments and programs along the journey. A bar graph was developed that displayed progress within the cycle model. A second chart represented each department's progress along a timeline with "Assessment Cycle implementation" and "NCA visit" as the anchor points. The graphs were distributed at the beginning of the academic year at the all-college faculty meeting, posted above many copy machines, and posted on the assessment web site. Initial reactions to the high visibility of these working documents were mixed. Some healthy discussion (and even shades of competition) emerged, as well as some concern about boiling large efforts down to one simple chart. The end result of displaying each department's assessment progress was increased motivation for most faculty to demonstrate that their programs were meeting the college's assessment criteria. In addition, the bar graph was an easy way to display the progress of assessment to the board of trustees and other stakeholders with vested interest in the initiative.

Outcomes of the Assessment Journey

The process of institutionalizing assessment takes time and manifests itself in many forms. As Parkland grew, and with it programs and courses increased, the Committee worked tirelessly to keep up with the growth as it impacted assessment. To ensure early impact, the AAC requested that the Curriculum Committee require all new programs to produce an approved academic assessment plan prior to appearing before the Curriculum Committee for program approval. The strategy was clear. If a plan were in place to assess learning outcomes before any new program started, there would be a culture of assessing from day one. The Curriculum Committee agreed to this strategy, and it was supported by the administration.

The NCA Visit: Not the Journey's End!

NCA site visitors wrote the following report in 2002 : " Assessment of student academic achievement meets its purpose of documenting student learning for continuous improvement of courses and programs . . . Most academic programs and all general education programs have developed outcomes that have a foundation in the College's mission, purposes, and core values. Assessment findings are being incorporated into program review, planning, and budget processes. Faculty involvement is outstanding. Assessment of general education courses has been implemented in almost all general education courses. Budgetary support exists for faculty to participate in assessment conferences and other learning experiences."

Although the NCA report was impressive, we knew the most important aspect of outcome assessment was the lessons learned in the process of meeting the accreditation guidelines.

Lessons Learned

Assessing learning outcomes has been a valuable journey. While difficult at times, it was worthwhile not only for the purpose of accreditation, but also for the dialogue it has inspired within programs, between programs, and across disciplines. Entire curricula have been redesigned as a result of lessons learned through academic assessment. At this point the lessons that are the most salient are:

Getting Started

• Establish a committee that is inclusive of all departments within the institution, while balancing size and functionality.
  
• Develop a model that serves as a plan to guide the process.
  
• Establish policies and procedures as soon as possible to help direct the journey.
  
• Develop a method to track progress that can be used to both measure and motivate.

Disseminating Results

• Standardize the reporting form to increase readability. (During the NCA visit, the site visitors were impressed with the clarity provided by the consistent way in which data were reported.)
  
• Develop a body of evidence that documents that assessment is being done. The evidence should be gathered program-by-program, and should include: the program's goal, the goal as it relates to specified mission and purpose statements of the college, the objectives and competency levels, actual dates of data collection, and the faculty's analysis and actions related to the data.
  
• Require regular updates of faculty documentation regarding how changes were made in the classroom to improve student learning. (These reports demonstrate the ongoing nature of assessment. They create a body of evidence that is not only necessary for a NCA accreditation, but also for its historical value as new faculty and administrators come on board.)
  
• Determine how many programs identify that they are fulfilling specified Purpose statements and publish the results.

Building Continued Support

• Find effective partners such as The Curriculum Committee to ensure that new programs begin with assessment policies in place.
  
• Recognize and cultivate the essential, strong administrative support which will be key to implementation of decisions made by your AAC.

Shaping the Future

• Recognize that the debate over the object of assessment (e.g. programs, clusters, courses) will continue as the college grows and changes. Be prepared for and open to ongoing discussion.
  
• Provide new faculty with the right to modify assessments to reflect their professional judgment of important learning outcomes.
  
• Respect the process. As the Academic Assessment Committee matures, so will its focus. Less emphasis will be placed on "how," and more effort will be directed at institutionalizing the concept as an important part of continuous improvement.
  
• Remember that Academic Assessment is ongoing - a journey of continuous discovery!  

Mary Emmons, M.Ed., serves as Chair of the Academic Assessment Committee at Parkland College, Champaign, Illinois. She is also the co-director of the Dental Hygiene Program. She can be reached at memmons@parkland.edu.