Link to Kirkwood Community College

Learner Success Agenda Complete Plan

College-wide credential attainment success measure:  By 2016, increase first-time, full-time degree seeking graduation and certificate completion rate (within the 150% time frame) from 29% to 38%.

Individually and collectively through their daily work, all employees will develop and implement improvement goals aligned with the “Learner Success Agenda” to reach annual academic year measures. (July 1, 2012)
 

Instructional Innovation  |  Program Effectiveness  |  Educational Delivery
Regional Leadership  |  Market Intelligence  |  Operational Excellence  |   Information Excellence

 
Instructional Innovation
(Bill Lamb)

To improve learner success through integrated services and collaborative instructional improvement.

Objective #1
Implement a more effective and comprehensive student advising, orientation, and placement system. 

Tactics:Leader:Dates:
icon 1.1 Establish guidelines to prevent students from enrolling after a class has met. (Dena Dennis)09/14/2011 - 03/28/2012
Updates:
September 2012:Completion Report:

The tactic has been implemented effective fall 2012.

February 2012:

The committee process for this tactic is complete and the recommended changes to late registration will go into effect for Fall 2012.

December 2011:

Recommended policyStudents must register by midnight of the day before the start of the term.  For late-start classes, students must register before the class starts.  Allowable exceptions follow, with recommended process:

Any student seeking late entrance

Print existing schedule if already registered for other classes this term.

Use EagleNet to select class(es) to be added - read course description, verify prerequisites are met, verify there is space in the class.

Put desired class(es) in shopping cart and print the shopping cart.

Registered student (changing schedule or switching classes for placement reasons)

First stop:  Present printed schedule, shopping cart and add form to faculty.

If faculty approves, second stop:  Process signed form at One Stop.

Continuing student with hold on account

First stop:  Talk to department that placed the hold.  When situation is resolved, department staff removes the hold and signs the “approval to register” line of the add form.

If hold is removed, second stop:  Talk to each receiving faculty (signs form).

If faculty approves, third stop:  Process signed form at One Stop.

 

New student, not registered for the term, or continuing student enrolled last term but didn’t register during priority and comes in late to sign up for classes

First stop:  Liberal Arts majors - Advising Center,  Applied Science majors:  Applied Science Department

Talk to advisor, dean or designee about readiness and likelihood of success.  If student is deemed ready, advisor, dean or designee signs “approval to register” line on add form that means student may register in general but not for specific classes.  A student who is not ready is given advising on services available and building a schedule that starts later in the term.

If approved to register, second stop:  Talk to each receiving faculty (signs form).

Third stop:  Process signed form at One Stop.

From a faculty perspective, when a student presents a printed schedule with the add form, that tells faculty this is a student who is most likely familiar with and ready for the academic environment.  When a student presents an add form without a schedule, if a dean or designee has given approval to register the faculty member knows the student has already had a conversation about readiness for college and the only consideration needed relates to this particular class.  If a student presents an add form without a schedule and without the approval to register, faculty would direct the student to the Advising Center or department for their first stop conversation.

From a One Stop perspective, a signed form should not indicate permission to override prerequisites, corequisites or other issues that block registration. Since there is not a way to easily and reliably check all of the issues until the actual registration takes place, this committee recommends that One Stop staff encountering a registration block notify the student and faculty of the failed registration and the issue that blocked it.

Additionally, while the recommended policy stops open registration on the day a term starts, we believe there would be additional benefits to students if that deadline was earlier.  Our findings and recommended process would support an earlier cutoff date in the event other tactic recommendations request or require it.

                The group recommends that the deregistration of students with unpaid bills be moved from the Friday before classes start to the Monday of the week before classes start.  This will allow deregistered students the opportunity to re-register without needing approvals.  It will also provide an opportunity for waitlisted students to register for those seats so we have a greater likelihood of starting the term with full sections.

                There is a risk of students defecting to other schools because we prevent them from registering late.  To address this risk, the group recommends that the “message” of the new policy (during implementation and training, and in our documents) be proactive in stressing that the motivation is increased learner success.

                The group also feels students who are prevented from registering late would be well served if the deans increased the number of late-start classes so these students could still build a significant schedule for the term.

October 2011:We have analyzed late registration data and determined the causes/categories and their relationships to learner success. Late registration policies were solicited from League of Innovation schools. Data collected by Arts & Sciences faculty were analyzed. We very recently developed a tentative set of guidelines and will begin exploring its potential effectiveness and impact.
Full Tactic Team:
Angela Worrell
Jeff Sherman
Joseph (Joe) Sedlacek
Robert (Bob) Driggs
Tanya Scott
icon 1.2 Develop a course/program prerequisite model. (Jennifer Bradley)09/01/2011 - 05/31/2012
Updates:
September 2013:Completion Report:

The Higher Learning Commission - Action Project Director.

Kirkwood Community College

1. Project Goal
A: The goal of this project is to design a process to implement mandatory placement in specified courses/programs. The project will identify placement minimums, measure success rates, and design remediation processes to help students reach the entrance level for these courses. Given a revised plan, this project's timeline has been extended to May, 2014.


2. Reasons For Project
A: As an open door community college, Kirkwood has been innovative in providing access to students throughout the region, and beyond. The goal for this project is not to eliminate the open door, but rather to ensure that students entering the college have the prerequisite skills to be successful in certain programs and curricula. The college implemented mandatory placement in writing and math courses in the last two years with some success. Kirkwood has also launched its new strategic plan which focuses clearly and directly on learner success, not just access. With the assignment of course and program based prerequisites and co-requisites. faculty can help students learn without excessive in-course remediation. By developing a process model, faculty can work in teams to assess skills necessary for students to be successful in their discipline curriculum. Prerequisites will also help to better identify. those students who need remediation assistance and to evaluate our own academic support systems’ ability to meet their needs.


3. Organizational Areas Affected

A:

  • Learning Services faculty and support areas
  • Institutional Effectivenes
  • Enrollment Services


4. Key Organizational Process(es)
A: Student retention will be improved as students entering a course will not be lacking key skill sets necessary to be successful in the course. Currently, students may self-select to enroll in many courses without demonstrating the ability to read, write and/or do math at a level required by the curriculum. With clearly defined course ability expectations, students will enroll in courses where they have demonstrated a level of ability to be successful. Additionally, when faculty do not have to spend class time on remediation, they are able to provide a richer learning experience for student.

5. Project Time Frame Rationale
A: In 2011-12, a cross-disciplinary team established a protocol for the self-study required by faculty discipline groups to implement the co- or prerequisites. In 2012-13, the first discipline group in Psychology met to work through the five steps established in the protocol. During Fall, 2012 they reviewed syllabi and course assignments, examined completion rates, test scores, and Compass reading scores and determined that their main area of concern was reading. At the end of the Fall, 2012 term they determined proposed prerequisite scores on the Compass reading test. In Spring 2013 the proposal will be presented to the department and the Curriculum Committee for approval. In Fall, 2013 the prerequisites will be in place and at the end of the semester faculty will gather completion and grade distribution data to compare benchmark data established in the initial review phase. Per AQIP appraiser feedback and the evolving nature of this Action Project, a modified timeline for this project is now in place to more fully assess a "trial run" of this process and communicate its results to the wider college community. Therefore, this project is being extended to May, 2014.

6. Project Success Monitoring
A: Learner course success and retention will be compared pre and post implementation of prerequisites. Refinement of assessments or course level prerequisites will continue post implementation.

7. Project Outcome Measures
A: 

  1. Course retention and success rate
  2. Graduation rate
  3. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) student feedback on course rigor questions


Project Update

1. Project Accomplishments and Status
A: As a part of the Kirkwood Learner Success Agenda (LSA), a cross functional Tactic Team was formed in the fall of 2011 to develop a course/program prerequisite model. The team met through the fall semester and developed a five step process for discipline groups interested in prerequisites. The five steps included:

  1. establish the goals for placement,
  2. identify the needed entry-level skills for the target course
  3. determine cutoff scores and/or other placement indicators
  4. design remediation or identify prerequisites
  5. assess the success of placement

The committee reported the process to various groups throughout the development phase. including the deans and a number of department meetings, seeking feedback from faculty and staff. When the draft guidelines were complete, the committee presented their recommendations to the Cabinet. Additionally, the chairperson for the tactic team approached the full-time psychology faculty to solicit interest in piloting the process. The group agreed and during the Fall 2012 semester, the full- time Psychology faculty completed steps one through three, working in conjunction with the Tactic Team Chair and including faculty from other areas like Distance Learning.

Through the faculty discussions, they identified the goal for placement and identified the needed entry-level knowledge and skills by collecting test data, reading scores and other evidence. They determined that weak reading skills are a key indicator for the lack of success in the Introduction to Psychology course. By comparing midterm test scores and course progress for each student in class. the faculty determined that a minimum compass reading score of 85 was a predictor for course success. The group submitted a proposal to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in February, 2013, after receiving department approval at the February department meeting.

To make the change requiring a reading test score prerequisite, the Psychology faculty also needed the approval of the college-wide Curriculum Committee. The faculty completed the curriculum change request, and it was approved at the April meeting, in time for Fall 2013 implementation. The prerequisite change was communicated to the discipline deans at the normal meeting, and the Social Sciences dean communicated the change to the Student Services and Enrollment team. Changes were made in the enrollment process to block students from enrolling without the appropriate reading score effective with the Fall 2013 enrollment. Students not enrolling in Psychology were advised to consider the College Reading courses and to retest at a later date, after working to improve their reading comprehension. Meanwhile, Institutional Research also did a study including all Introduction to Psychology sections over several semesters and predicted that the prerequisite change would only result in a 4% increase in success while restricting nearly 400 students from enrolling in the course. The report was shared with the faculty for review; however, the pilot process continued. This report, however, will serve as a benchmark when the comparison is completed after Fall 2013 grades are submitted for thecourses. The faculty will then consider the actual success/failure results of all sections to see what impact the reading test score prerequisite has in terms of student success. Adjustments will be proposed or the processes refined for the future, including a more defined remediation process for students not meeting the score level.

2. Institution Involvement
A: As with all of the LSA Tactic Teams, progress updates and summary information are posted on the college website at regular intervals. College personnel are encouraged to review the site regularly to stay informed. In addition, the Tactic Team presented its findings to the Cabinet and to various faculty meetings. Once the pilot project with the Introduction to Psychology faculty was defined, then the faculty worked with the Tactic Team Chair to make sure they were following the guidelines proposed. Additionally, the supervising dean presented the plan to peer groups and student service areas so that they could adapt advising and enrollment processes to meet the change, especially since the Introduction to Psychology course is a requirement for a number of Career and Technical Education programs. Once the pilot was approved, an announcement was sent to the campus community through the electronic newsletter.


3. Next Steps
A: The next step will be to complete step five which assesses the success of the placement score in terms of student success in the course. Semester success and retention rates will be compared to past semesters to see if the change made an impact, and if the change was more successful as compared to the Institutional Research prediction of 4%. The faculty will work with IR to review end course success and to consider if the reading test score requirement should remain as is, be revised, or be eliminated.

4. Resulting Effective Practices
A: Prior to the work of the Tactic Team, pre-and co-requisites were placed on courses/programs often without a research or data awareness. Rather, faculty made changes based on comparisons to other colleges or feedback from graduates or transfer students. The guidelines developed provide a clear model to follow and a clear assessment strategy. Most importantly, the Psychology faculty formed a unified team that evaluated student success. Their question: What changes can we make to help students be successful? Their discussions and consensus process will serve as a model for other faculty groups and disciplines as they consider learning outcome assessment and strategies to help improve student learning Finally, once the process is complete and the results are considered, the faculty team will further recognize the implications of this change in terms of enrollment, curriculum consistency across site and delivery modality, and the need for a clear remediation process. These conversations will occur as a result of the final step in the process which closes the loop on the prerequisite change.

5. Project Challenges
A: One related challenge that evolved as a result of this process is the need for clear communication throughout the curriculum review and change process. Although each department has representation on the committee, several career programs that require Introduction to Psychology as a prerequisite to program admission were not informed of the change until the process was complete. Additionally, Institutional Research needs to be involved in the process much earlier in order to provide support to the faculty teams. Although these are perhaps not specific challenges to this Action Project, these are tangent improvements that need to happen as other departments consider implementing this change process.

Update Review (Feedback from HLC)

1. Project Accomplishments and Status
A: Making curricular decisions based on data collection (Cat. 7 Measuring Effectiveness) to improve student success in their coursework (Cat. 1 Helping Students Learn) is central to a quality institution, and Kirkwood Community College is to be commended for choosing this action project. From the narrative included, a process was developed as a result of efforts of a focused cross-section of faculty (and perhaps others). A gateway course (Psychology) was selected to pilot the action project. Given the nature of the teaching intensive college environment, the timeline to implementation is reasonable (Cat. 4. Valuing People). The collaborative investment and focus on student success help generate a positive teaching environment. The action project is a small active piece of the overarching Success Learning Agenda. Given the context and number of gateway courses and their impact on student success and retention, Kirkwood Community College is making progress on this action project.

2. Institution Involvement
A: The Kirkwood Community College website includes cross departmental reporting of success initiatives, this action project being one, demonstrating college wide commitment to students and other key stakeholders (Cat. 3). This action project process involves a campus-wide communication effort (Cat. 5 Leading and Communicating). While there seems to be significant exchange between areas, this reviewer wonders if the Institutional Research efforts are parallel or integrated with the tactic team in this action project. Parallel efforts in various areas of an institution can sometimes lead to missed opportunities, even those whose collective spirit are focused on the same initiative (Cat. 5 Leading and Communicating).

3. Next Steps
A: Kirkwood Community College is actively engaged in the final stage of the pilot phase of the prerequisite change for its gateway course; thus, the college is waiting to see the change has made a difference. Step 5 compares course success and retention rates against previous years without the implementation of the prerequisite. These data are being weighted against Institutional Research data showing the prerequisite change will increase success by 4% but have unintended negative consequences for a greater number of students. The collaborative conversations unpacking the data between faculty, Institutional Research, and even students may enhance potential for project success. (Cat. 7 Measuring Effectiveness and Cat. 5 Leading and Communicating).

4. Resulting Effective Practices
A: Making informed decisions based on data is a mark of institution guided by continuous quality ideals (Cat. 7 Measuring Effectiveness). The process of discussion and consensus further demonstrates a commitment to positive interdepartmental communications (Cat.5 Leading and Communicating). While the various possible outcomes to the results of the pilot are listed, the reviewer was unclear whether curriculum consistency included considering curriculum redesign or if delivery modality was addressing student learning styles, teaching technology, or andragogy. The data results may (or may not) provide the institution with solution; therefore, opening the need to examine the course data with other solutions the college has listed in mind (Cat.1 Helping Students Learn).

5. Project Challenges
A: Communication is problem common to all institutions (large and small), and in so noting this, when an institution notes a communication break-down, this discovery becomes an opportunity for improvement in college processes (Cat.5 Leading and Communicating) Researching for an answer is a complex task. Collaborative solutions created by people from all areas that interact with students across campus help ensure the action project process journey is communicated broadly and solutions come from diverse perspectives (Cat.9. Building Collaborative Relationships).
 

December 2012:

The Psychology faculty have agreed to conduct a pilot test of the process for establishing course pre and co-requisites.  During the fall semester they completed steps one through three of the process.  They identified the goal for placement, identified the needed entry-level knowledge and skills by collecting test data, reading scores and other evidence.  They have determined that weak reading skills are a key indicator of lack of success in the course.  Through data analysis, they have determined students must have a minimum compass reading score of 85 to be successful in the course.  A written proposal outlining the findings and requesting department approval will be presented at the February department meeting.    

February 2012:

A final draft of the document detailing the process for determining the need for co- or pre- requisites was presented by the group to Bill Lamb February 6.  Dr. Lamb shared his feedback and indicated the group was ready to present our document to the Cabinet. He will arrange to have us added to the calendar and will get back to us with the date. Once the document has met with the approval of the Cabinet, the work of the tactic team is complete. Jennifer will arrange to meet with the faculty teaching Introduction to Psychology to present our document and invite them to pilot the process. They will provide feedback and suggestion for any additional clarifying revisions to the document. 

December 2011:

Major accomplishments from the prior report are: Committee has established a five step process for discipline groups interested in prerequisites. The five steps are as follows: 1) establish the goals for placement, 2) identify needed entry-level skills for the target course, 3) determine cutoff scores and/or other placement indicators, 4) design remediation or identify prerequisites, and 5) assess the success of placement. 

New items that our team learned regarding our initiative: We discovered that it is best to keep the process we’ve outlined specific enough to serve as a guide while also flexible enough to allow each group’s unique situation.  To that end we are providing many resources they may access as needed.

Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days: A draft is on KIN and members of the committee are making editing suggestions.  A meeting has been set for January 25, at 2 p.m, to review a final draft and make any final revisions. The committee will meet with Bill Lamb (tentatively scheduled for 2/6/12) to present the final document and solicit feedback before proceeding to the pilot stage.

The completion date of this initiative is expected to be: The process document will be completed in February and the pilot will be completed during March and April. Final revisions to the document will be made in May based on feedback from the pilot group.

Subject matter experts are being sought for the following: No experts are being sought at this time.

October 2011:The group has met three times and established a clear understanding of our assigned task, gathered and reviewed information about current prerequisite processes and how they were established, and developed a framework for how to proceed. We established a KIN site and have begun posting meeting minutes, handouts and other resources there. We are now ready to begin mapping the suggested process for individual faculty groups to establish pre-requisites. We also identified the need to include guide questions regarding intent, need, and examination of current pedagogical practice as part of the suggested process. We have added Cort Iverson from Institution Effectiveness to our committee. Cort brings expertise in data analysis.
See all Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Cort Iverson
David Bullwinkle
Fred Ochs
Greg Petersen
Sondra Gates
Terri Jedlicka
icon 1.3 Develop advising guidelines for liberal arts student cohorts. (Kate Black)09/01/2011 - 05/01/2012
Updates:
January 2013:Completion Report:
View/download Report
January 2013:

In late October 2012, the Advising tactic sent a draft of their final recommendations to Dr. Lamb for further review.  The document is currently being reviewed by Dr. Lamb and other cabinet members, and once the cabinet has reviewed the recommendations, the tactic group will present their findings at a cabinet meeting and a town hall meeting.

January 2013:

Starting in September of 2011, the advising tactic team was initially charged with developing advising guidelines for liberal arts majors students  The team began meetings during the fall and team membership was expanded in the spring of 2012 to include representation from several applied science departments. Likewise, the scope of the tactic team was expanded beyond advising in the liberal arts to include students in the applied programs.

The tactic team concluded their meetings in late October 2012 and submitted their recommendations to the cabinet for further review.  The tactic team anticipates presending their recommendations to the cabinet in late February or early March of this year.

January 2012:
  1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are:
  2. Collection of faculty surveys indicating a strong desire of some faculty to participate in certain aspects of liberal arts advising provided there would be training and compensation provided.
  3. Consensus among tactic group that advising increases student success, and that it may not be feasible for all students to be held to mandatory advising, that there may be several at-risk cohort groups that it would be advantageous to hold to mandatory advising.

 

  1. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative:
  2. Possible mandatory advising cohorts could include:
  3. First time/full time students
    1. Students not making satisfactory academic progress
    2. Early Warning/Academic warning students

 

  1. Activities that will be worked on during next 0 to 90 days:
  2. Determine what kind of training faculty would need in order to become advisors, and what capacity faculty would serve.
  3. Based on data collected by the Advising center, determine whether or not the advising center could accommodate a significant increase in the number of students seen and when there would be a need for additional advising assistance.

 

  1. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be:
  2. May 1, 2012.

 

  1. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following:
  2. None at this time.
September 2011:1. Major accomplishments from the prior report: The initial meeting for this tactic was held 9/13/2011. We clarified the scope of the tactic and discussed examples of areas for examination such as: the Career Options model of advising, the applied science model of advising, plans of study for two-year liberal arts students. 2. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative: There is nothing that is “off the table.” In these economic times, recommendations will need to be cost-effective in order to be implemented. 3. Activities that will be worked on during next 0 to 90 days: cohort groups discussion, tier system in advising, mandatory advising, email/electronic advising, how to reach students who miss priority registration, department-specific advising, best practices from other League schools. 4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be: May 1, 2012 5. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following: Currently we are working to coordinate a time for a representative of Hawkeye Community College to speak to our group about their successes and challenges implementing mandatory orientation sessions.
Full Tactic Team:
Gary Donnermeyer
Jack Terndrup
Jon Buse
Laura Riley
Richard Underwood
Susan Skoglund
icon 1.4 Establish an orientation program for all entering students. (Jon Buse)10/01/2012 - 12/31/2013
Updates:
September 2013:Completion Report:
View/download Report
No Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Bobbi Miller
Doug Bannon
Greg Clevenger
John Henik
Laura Riley
Michelle Kruse
Misty Brents
Nick Borders
Steve Sickels
Thomas O'Shea
icon 1.5 Document methods utilized for design of an incremental phased-in approach for a defined cohort population. Process and service strategies will include Central Point of Entrance design, Student Profile design, and Student/Advisor/Navigator assignments. Results are documented and build on the successful, best-practice programs which include College Prep Block, Project START/FINISH, KPACE, and Wal-Mart Brighter Futures 2.0 (Judy Stoffel)10/01/2013 - 12/31/2014
Updates:
No Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Bobbi Miller
Carla Andorf
Carolyn Stephenson
Cindi Reints
Danielle Ebaugh
Gary Vogt
Gary Vogt
Jon Buse
Kim Becicka, Ph.D.
Kim Wagemester
Kristie Fisher
Marcel Kielkucki
Mark Ash
Mary Gesing
icon 1.6 Assess the current placement model for math, writing, reading and ELA, implement alignment by working with ACT, and make improvements or model changes based on data collected. (Allison York)11/11/2013 - 06/30/2014
Updates:
No Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Dr. Dale Simon
Jana Hanson
John Weglarz
Judith Wightman
Ryan Dehner
Sara Kepros
icon 1.7 Define and communicate a college-wide mission and vision for Kirkwood's Regional Centers (Todd Prusha)01/06/2014 - 12/31/2014
Updates:
No Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Doug Bannon
Evone Vognsen
Heather Conley
Jeff Mitchell
Jody Donaldson
Jon Neff
Katie Stephens
Kristy Black
Laurie Worden
Mike Penrod
Mindy Thornton
Nicholas Blomme
Nicky Cline
Sarah Peters
Wendy Good

Student Success Measure (measure to be determined)
1. Improve year-to-year cohort program “Good Start” rates, including full-time and part-time students.
 
Objective #2
Implement team-based professional development within all departments for faculty (full-time and adjunct) and other instructional staff to improve department/program learner success by 2014.

Tactics:Leader:Dates:
icon 2.1 Develop and implement a structured mentoring program for full-time and adjunct faculty. (Dr. John Dawson)09/01/2011 - 12/31/2012
Updates:
September 2013:

Our tactic was completed in spring 2013.  Final report was posted on September 13, 2013.

January 2013:

The team spent part of the fall semester working on a draft of our final recommendations for changes to the mentoring of faculty (both full time and adjunct).  We hope to have our final recommendations in the next few weeks.  Some of our final recommendations will include:

  • KCELT should create or seek out a mentoring course that can be used to both train new mentors and also help recruit them.  We believe that KCELT should play a central role in recruiting mentors instead of leaving the selection of mentors to the individual deans.
  • Mentors should be paid through release time to mentor several faculty members (potentially both full-time and adjunct).
  • The role of mentors as teaching experts should be separated from the role of being discipline experts.  That would mean that a new faculty member could have two mentors – one assigned to them through KCELT and one assigned to them by their dean based on discipline.  The discipline expert would potential be less formalized and would help with the “nuts and bolts” of the discipline and/or course specifics instead of how to teach in the classroom.
  • Orientation for new adjunct faculty should be mandatory and well documented.  In addition, a universal check-off list should be created to make sure all the basic processes and services are told the adjuncts in the different departments in venues at Kirkwood.
  • Mentoring program for new full-time faculty should be hybridized with the Master Teacher Program and with some content delivered online.  For the adjunct faculty, an online component to the mentoring program can help with their diverse and busy schedules.
January 2012:

1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are:

  • We are still in the information gathering stages. 
  • We had conversations with Lauri Hughes and Genny Yarne about the current mentoring program for new full-time faculty.  We gathered some input on potential improvements of the program from them.
  • We have been brainstorming ideas in our meetings so far and have some wonderful suggestions that still need to be fleshed out (see details below).

2. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative:

Summary of our current ideas and suggestions for mentoring at Kirkwood are the following:

  • There are many dimensions to mentoring including orientation to the college, points/people for information, mentoring within your discipline/department and across disciplines / departments, and informal mentoring.
  • We believe that a mentor training program that could include full-time and adjunct faculty should be developed at Kirkwood.
  • We discussed changing the current mentor/mentee program into a hybrid format similar to the History of the Community College course – some material delivered online or as videos and faculty meet to discuss issues.
  • We discussed the idea that a faculty member mentoring more than one person and/or designing mentor teams (two mentors and two mentees for example).

3. Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days:

  • We will schedule regular meetings so that we can narrow down our suggestions for changes to the mentoring program.
  • We need to look at external resources on mentoring so that we can get ideas of what has worked in other places.
  • We will meet with the groups of adjunct faculty with members of the Adjunct Faculty Advisor Committee being a starting point.  The goal is to seek input for what needs new adjunct faculty have when it comes to the mentoring.

4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be:

The hope is to have narrowed our focus and have action on changes to and/or improvements to faculty mentoring by the end of the spring semester.

5. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following:

  •  We still need to meet with adjunct faculty and gather input about mentoring from them.
  •  We may need to find external experts that can help with any design aspects of mentor program or mentor training.
September 2011:1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are: Nothing major to report, since we have just started. 2.New items that our team learned regarding our initiative: The tactic team discussed what we know about the current mentoring process for new faculty at Kirkwood. Most of the conversation focused on new full-time faculty, but we did briefly talk about the need for a process for the adjunct faculty. 3. Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days: We will meet with the KCELT staff to discuss the details of the current process for new full-time faculty mentor and what the team can do to improve their process. We will meet with the groups of adjunct faculty with members of the Adjunct Faculty Advisor Committee being a starting point. The goal is to seek input for what needs new adjunct faculty have when it comes to the mentoring. 4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be: The hope is to have the initial data gathering stage to be accomplished by the end of the fall semester. 5. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following: Will contact Lauri Hughes and Genny Yarne from KCELT and possibly John Kerr and Glenn Jensen from the adjunct faculty.
Full Tactic Team:
Curtis Mitchell
Emily Sara Logan
Gale Smetana
Jennifer Storer
Joe Christopher
icon 2.2 Implement a process at department and program levels for sharing techniques and best practices to improve learner success. (Dr. Dale Simon)09/01/2011 - 03/28/2012
Updates:
January 2013:

We have completed tactic 2.2 under Instructional Innovation and have presented our work to the cabinet. After surveying faculty and researching the literature, we developed a tool for faculty to share techniques and best practices to improve learner success. The tool is organized to be easily searchable in different ways, such as by delivery method, discipline, technique, etc. We collaborated with KCELT and the tool is going to be housed in and administered by the Kirkwood Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching.  We also developed a consultative process for KCELT to use when vetting submission of techniques and best practices to be posted on the website. 

The following link will connect you to the website: https://kcelt.kirkwood.edu/?q=teach_learn_database

 

We recommend that tactic 2.2 be presented to the Faculty Council.

March 2012:

Since our last update, we made a presentation on Collaborative Learning Days. The presentation consisted of a demonstration on how KIN might work as a repository for faculty to share teaching practices they use with their colleagues. The major concern faculty expressed in the feedback segment of our presentation was that if we expected faculty to share their work it would need to be easy to use. We have designed a database that will serve as the repository for hosting the teaching practices faculty will be sharing. The database will allow for information to be stored by department, category, medium, and faculty name.The database will be cross referenced and searchable by department, category, medium, and faculty name.The database is presently being programmed and we plan to have a model for demonstration by the end of March.

December 2011:

Tactic 2.2 implement a process at department and program levels for sharing techniques and best practices to improve learner success update 11/20/2011.  We have settled on using KCELT as the site for sharing faculty techniques and best practices.  We met with Patrick Clemence and Darrin Zabloudil to learn about the capabilities through KIN and they assured us that using KIN would work for our purpose. They suggested that we have our project scheduled with Kris Tharp and the SharePoint team. Kris and her team will meet with us at our January meeting. We conducted a session with the faculty at Collaborative Learning days to get faculty input on what they thought would be the best way to share best practice data.  Our next steps will be to design a process that will facilitate easy access and retrieval of the best practice information. We are in the process of securing a programmer to help design and program our site.

October 2011:Major accomplishments from the prior report are: We discussed the career program assessment database and a KCELT representative spoke to the group about KCELT's information sharing related to best practices. Our tasks could be a duplication of KCELT' information sharing endeavors. Therefore, we will look at how we can partner with KCELT. We invited a KCELT representative to serve on our committee. Activities that will be worked on during the next 90 days: Develop a presentation for Collaborative Learning Days in November, explore a design for providing faculty feedback on the KCELT website through a decision tree. Completion date of the initiative is expected to be: April of 2012. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following: Bonnie Cackoski is contacting Jay Raabe about the design of the KCELT website.
Full Tactic Team:
Arbe Bareis
Jane Grabowski
Kate Hess
Keith Hench
Nancy Glab
icon 2.3 Redesign new faculty professional development to improve learner success. (Genny Yarne)07/01/2011 - 05/31/2013
Updates:
September 2012:Completion Report:

This tactic was in place to support the KCELT Master Teacher program development for new faculty.  The curriculum is in the final stages of development and the tactic is no longer needed.

September 2012:

This tactic is being completed under the direction of the KCELT Director and this tactic is complete.

September 2012:

This tactic is complete and in process through KCELT.

March 2012:

The major accomplishment from the prior report was planning for spring semester of the MTP. Additionally, working with the information from the assessment by the new faculty and Dee Fink's online course, the team worked on revising Year 1 and planning Years 2 and 3. The MTP will become a hybrid course to meet the diverse needs of the faculty. Activities that the team will work on during the next 0 to 90 days is clarifying the requirements of the new faculty and incorporating ideas from the online design course into the second and third years of the MTP. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be 2013. As an expert, the KCELT Instructional Technologist has continued to meet with the new faculty, as a group and individually, to help with ePortfolios.

December 2011:

The major accomplishments from the prior report are finishing the online design course by professional development fellows and KCELT personnel, assessing the first semester of the three-year Master Teacher Program (MTP) for new faculty, and planning for spring semester of the MTP.  Regarding our initiative, our team learned that the new faculty should submit assessments as the semester progresses instead of waiting until the semester ends.  The team facilitators of the MTP learned there is a need to provide diversification for the wide range of abilities.  Activities that the team will work on during the next 90 days is clarifying the requirements of the new faculty, addressing the concerns expressed by the new faculty, aligning topics with competencies in the Quality Faculty Plan, and exploring how to incorporate ideas from the online design course into the second year of the MTP.  The completion date of this initiative is expected to be 2013.  As an expert, the KCELT Instructional Technologist met the new faculty, as a group and individually, to guide them in setting up and using ePortfolios and ANGEL.

See all Updates
Full Tactic Team:
John Weglarz
Mary Rhiner
icon 2.4 Implement an instructional leadership program focused on research, leadership, talent development and higher education trends. (Bob Freeman)12/01/2012 - 12/01/2013
Updates:
No Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Carolyn Stephenson
Dr. David Keller
Lisa Dutchik
Maggie Thomas
Rebecca Machen
Scott Ermer
Theresa Moore
Thomas O'Shea
icon 2.5 Implement instruction practices and learning technology core standards and training for faculty. (Tim McGee)09/01/2011 - 05/31/2012
Updates:
September 2012:Completion Report:
View/download Report
January 2013:

The tactic is complete, and was presented to the Cabinet on 12/1712 and to the Town Hall meeting on 1/17/2013.  

May 2012:

Tactic recommendations complete - turned in to VPAA in April.

December 2011:

1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are: We identified categories of desired student abilities, related instruction practices, and learning technology core standards, and explored how training can be provided to help our faculty model these abilities and develop them in our students. 2. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative: We have identified core standards at other educational institutions, researched tools and their uses for specific outcomes, and decided on categories of core student performance standards on which we will base proposed faculty development training. 3. Activities that will be worked on during the next 90 days: We will interview successful faculty who use technology, and conduct research to find specific examples of uses of technology that meet the standards we have identified. 4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be: We will complete this project by May 31, 2012. 5. Subject matter experts are being sought for the following: We will consult faculty, researchers and others who can provide examples of best practices and stories of success that address the core standards we have identified, and work with them to develop an understanding of which standards are important, needed and measurable. 

November 2011:

We have discussed our direction and deliverables at length, identified existing standards, tools and practices, and identified a group of core standards based on this question: “What is it that we want our students to be equipped to do to improve their success on program and course outcomes?” We then discussed training for faculty to help us understand what they will need in order to incorporate these standards in our program and course outcomes. We plan to create a Faculty Technology Learning Plan to encompass standards, needed training and measures of success.

See all Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Alan Peterka
Bonnie Cackoski
Claudio Hidalgo
Daniel (D.J.) Hennager
Mary Ann Hamre
Phillip Brown
icon 2.6 Implement a team-based career pathways and skills developmental model between/within departments and disciplines. (Evone Vognsen)09/01/2011 - 12/31/2012
Updates:
February 2013:Completion Report:
View/download Report
July 2012:

Tactic team has had some team member changes. Destery Hildenbrand, Mike McLaughlin and Lisa Williams have resigned. Dena Rauch has joined the team. Dena and Evone are working on a process document this summer for how alternative credit will be awarded to students.

The committee defined alternative credit as:

  • Credit by examination
  • Experiential learning/work experience
  • Non-credit articulated learning
  • Non-credit non-articulated learning
  • Industry recognized, third party portable certificates
    • Certificate
    • Credential
    • Licensure

The goal is to have this document with required forms completed by middle of September so whole group can reconvene (with new members TBD) and finalize the documents.

Still on schedule to be completed by 12-31-12.

February 2012:

1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are:

Evone met with the deans January 10 to discuss the tactic and pinpoint any type of pathway activity currently occurring and to receive input on ideas for programs or models to use. A couple of points coming out of the meeting were the need to focus on veterans, how to identify credit students with challenges and look at some type of "reverse transfer" concept.  Interest in the KPACE program was indicated, therefore, KPACE navigators presented at the dean's meeting February 14. The navigators showed video student testimonials, describing the impact the program had. It was well received by the deans, who commented on the need for a navigator type role for "a few thousand more" students.

The team's recent focus has been discussing assumptions about Kirkwood's policies on waived credit and credit by exam. We are using DMACC's policy on alternative credit as a template to draft a new policy for Kirkwood. We are creating definitions for alternative credit options and will be continuing to work through the policy, processes and creation of forms required for various options.

 

2. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative:

There are many ways that current policies are being interpreted throughout different areas of the college. A better and more clearly defined process/policy needs to be put in place for continuity within the college.

  

3. Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days:

We will continue creating definitions for alternative credit options and will continue to work through the policy, processes and creation of forms required for various options.  

 The committee defined alternative credit as:

  • Credit by examination
  • Experiential learning/work experience
  • Non-credit articulated learning
  • Non-credit non-articulated learning
  • Industry recognized, third party portable certificates
    • Certificate
    • Credential
    • Licensure

The alternative credit process will allow:

  • The articulation of Kirkwood non-credit training to credit course work.
  • Students will request their non-credit work to be assessed for equivalency to Kirkwood credit course work.
  • Non-credit when converted to institutional credit is not applicable to the residency requirement at Kirkwood.

4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be 12-31-12

Subject matter experts being sought:

Angie Gillis, John Henik, Dena Rauch

December 2011:

Major accomplishments from the prior report are: Third team meeting was held 12-7-11. With 1/3 of the team not able to attend, those in attendance spent the session getting a better vision of what our next steps need to be. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative: see #3. To reiterate, the following are the main goals of the team.

A. Models for articulation and partnerships between credit and non-credit

a) CE manages credit program (E.g. Water Environmental Technology) 

b) Credit contracts CE courses

c) Articulation agreements (waived credit from non-credit coursework/certificates)

d) Incubator -CE to credit 

B. Pathway Initiatives 

a) Pilot programs 

b) Future pathway program possibilities

3. Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days: We will begin meeting in January and will be scheduling at least bi-weekly meetings to really begin producing some results out of this tactic.

Evone has been given an agenda item for the 1-10-12 deans meeting. The goal is to help pinpoint what departments are doing, if anything, for any kind of “unofficial” pathway type of activity currently and if they are, what they are doing and the processes involved. We doubt there is much going on but need to get a grasp on it. It will also hopefully help generate some interest and conversation on the deans part as to perhaps what they would like to see in the future for pathway-type programs.

At our next meeting we are also going to bring in Angie Gillis from Industrial Tech to help us map out a non-credit to credit pathway process. We will pick a current Cont Ed certificate offering and go through the process Angie would do to create a connection between the two sides of the college in order for that student to attain credit for what they have already learned via non-credit. Carlton Goodwin will also attend as he is the programmer on the non-credit side.

We will also do the same with a focus on a health program. Health has been informally creating pathway mapping or transitioning programs between the non-credit and credit side for several years.

After the next meeting outcome we also want to bring in John Henik to request what written policies are in place now for processes of students receiving credit whether that be waived credit, test out credit or other methods.

This could be a challenge. There seems to be a lot of autonomy and decisions being made at dean level and even below on how “articulation” occurs. But our focus will be on documenting the procedures/models versus enforcement of them.

The completion date of this initiative is expected to be 12-31-12

Subject matter experts being sought: academic deans, Angie Gillis, John Henik, Carlton Goodwin

November 2011:

1. Major accomplishments from the prior report are:

Second team meeting was held 11-2-11. Reviewed articles on pathway mapping concept. Viewed 3 videos on education and the economy. Had 2 guest speakers.

 

2. New items that our team learned regarding our initiative:

Team had a good meeting with Bethany Parker and Mialisa Chew about the KPACE pathway initiative and the processes in place for this new program. A good discussion and questions were addressed by Bethany and Mialisa and gave the tactic group a good background for current pathway program and its processes.

Briefly discussed again the overall pathway concept and the following goals of the team.

A. Models for articulation and partnerships between credit and non-credit

a) CE manages credit program (Eg. Water Environmental Technology) 

b) Credit contracts CE courses

c) Articulation agreements (waived credit from non-credit coursework/certificates)

d) Incubator -CE to credit 

B. Pathway Initiatives 

a) Pilot programs 

b) Future pathway program possibilities

3. Activities that will be worked on during next 90 days:

 For our next meeting on December 7th we will begin to build our Project Charter and our Work Breakdown Structure, Network Diagram and Communication Management Plan in accordance with Project Mangement guidelines.

Begin discussions on models for articulation listed above.

4. The completion date of this initiative is expected to be 12-31-12

Subject matter experts being sought:

None yet.

See all Updates
Full Tactic Team:
Dena Dennis
Jeff Mitchell
Michelle Kruse

Professional Development Measure
All departments/programs will implement a professional development model focused upon research-based practices and innovative instructional designs to improve learner success on the following:

Academic Progress Measures (measures to be determined)

  1. First-time, full-time A.A./A.A.S. students graduating within 150%/200% of time.
  2. First-time, full-time students earning a certificate within 150%/200% of time.
  3. New, direct from high school students graduating and/or earning a certificate within 150%/200% of time.
  4. Students earning a post-secondary credential between ages of 24-42 within 150%/200% of time.
  5. Adult Basic Education (ABE) Diploma/General Education Diploma (GED) completion rates.
  6. Number/percentage of students enrolling and completing initial college-level English and math within one calendar year of enrollment.
  7. Reduce time to completion of developmental education coursework.
  8. Increase program retention, pass, and/or success rates relative to Iowa Community Colleges.
  9. Liberal Arts core courses by reading, writing, and math.
  10. Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs.
  11. Kirkwood transfer GPAs at U of Iowa, ISU, and UNI
  12. Adult Basic Education (ABE) Diploma/General Education Diploma (GED) students to credit and/or certificate programs.
  13. English Language Learners (ELL) students in credit programs.
  14. Percent of full-time learners completing 40 credits within 2 years.
  15. 11-12th grade concurrent enrollment—Post Secondary Enrollment Options/Career Academy.