Southeast Technical Institute Systems Portfolio November 2010

Apr 18, 2024

HELP

Southeast Technical Institute Systems Portfolio November 2010 [ARCHIVED CATALOG]

Category One: Helping Students Learn

Processes

1P1 Common and Shared Learning Objectives

Shared learning outcomes were based on the question “What skills do employers of STI’s graduates expect?” and were initially modeled after the Department of Labor SCANS Report for 1991 and 2000, similar outcomes at peer institutions, and national employer surveys. Faculty, administration, and staff identified eight institutional learning outcomes in 1995; these were revised to four outcomes in 2005. These common learning outcomes are reviewed periodically and updated as needed by the AQIP Education Design and Delivery and AQIP Futures teams. Suggested changes are presented to faculty for input and approval.

Common learning outcomes are taught within each program (mapping matrices) and are reinforced by general education core courses.

General Education at STI functions as an integral but complementary component of the AAS and diploma programs. General Education is designed as a coherent core of courses taught by qualified faculty in the General Education Division. Courses are intentionally integrated within each semester of the degree and diploma programs. Secondly, General Education division faculty meet once a month to address concerns and develop strategies for student success. Every full-time general education faculty member serves on Program Advisory Committees to strengthen the integration of general education courses within the programs. This participation and feedback contributes to the relevance and currency of general education courses.

The General Education mission and purposes are stated on the STI website and in the STI Catalog.

1P2 Program Specific Learning Objectives

Program faculty are charged by administration with developing specific program learning outcomes for their programs and courses. All programs validate their outcomes based on industry standards. Meetings with the STI Academic Administrative Team and program Advisory Committees, as well as interaction with business and industry, provide faculty with input regarding relevant and up-to-date outcomes, which are adjusted based on this input. For programs which have specialized accreditation, faculty incorporate standards from the accrediting agency.

Program outcomes are categorized under the four institutional learning outcomes. In 2000, each program completed a course matrix that documents where the outcomes are taught in the program. Matrices are published on program pages on the STInet site. Faculty periodically review and update this matrix to determine whether all outcomes are being addressed and whether the outcomes are current and appropriate.

1P3 Design of New Courses and Programs

New and Expanded Programs

Figure 1.1 depicts the process for designing new programs.

1. Stakeholders Input
The program approval process begins with stakeholders. STI

analyzes economic trends and employment projections, conducts environmental scans, and reviews Department of Labor statistics and projections to verify program need.
holds industry forums to monitor employment trends.
gathers input from program faculty, program Advisory Committees, and employers to generate ideas for new programs and courses.
collaborates with the South Dakota governor, legislators, and business and industry leaders to identify educational and training needs.
analyzes student input from surveys, student assessments, retention and graduation rates, etc.

2. Program Proposal Development
Administrators and program faculty teams work together to develop the program proposal, including program objectives, initial curriculum, needs assessments, etc.

3. HLC/AQIP Approval
If the program is offered at a new site or offered online, STI seeks approval from the Higher Learning Commission.

4. Local Approval
Formal proposals for new or expanded programs go to the STI Council (for recommendation) and Sioux Falls School Board (for approval) before being submitted to the State Department of Education, Office of Curriculum, Career and Technical Education (OCCTE).

5. State OCCTE Recommendation
The Director of the Office of Career and Technical Education recommends program approval to the South Dakota Board of Education, which has final approval authority. The program approval criteria for new or expanded programs include the following:

Program description, competencies, curriculum design and budget
Labor market demands in the United States and South Dakota
Student needs
Industry support
Statement of non-duplication
Wage factor

6. State Board of Education Approval
The State Board of Education scrutinizes new program proposals and only approves programs which are deemed competitive and which demonstrate a regional need for program graduates. The department also assures that duplication of programs among the four institutes does not occur unless there is a proven need (for example, Surgical Technology is offered on both the west and east side of the state).

7. Implementation and Evaluation
If approved, STI implements the new or expanded program. Once implemented, the program is evaluated through formal processes, including the State Program Review process and any appropriate accrediting body reviews.

New courses

New courses are usually initiated by faculty teams working with administration. Changes in courses are frequently the result of Advisory Committee and industry input. Courses are reviewed and approved through the STI Curriculum Committee process. Criteria for approval include appropriateness of curriculum, competitive advantage, and up-to-date content.

STI has recently developed comprehensive guidelines for online courses. Expectations for online courses mirror traditional courses, and faculty are provided resources to ensure consistency. Several teams and committees, including the AQIP Education Design and Delivery Team and Academic Administrative Team, developed the online course guidelines, online student and instructor evaluations, templates, and student communications. Additionally, two STI positions (one staff and one faculty on special assignment) have been funded for training faculty to effectively use technology for traditional, blended, accelerated, and online courses.

The Business and Industry Training division develops and implements just-in-time customized courses. These courses are not routed through the Curriculum Committee process.

1P4 Design of Responsive Academic Programming

STI has been recognized for its ability to respond to employment needs in a timely manner. This responsiveness is an advantage over four-year college competitors.

STI “designs responsive academic programming that balances and integrates learning goals, students’ career needs, and the realities of the marketplace” through the very strong relationships faculty and administration maintain with business, industry, and the community. Student learning outcomes are identified and modified as changes in each field occur, with special emphasis given to regional needs. Faculty networking with business and industry and Advisory Committees helps ensure best practices in the field and relevant courses and programs.

Graduate and employer surveys provide additional sources for determining whether courses and programs are successfully balancing marketplace trends and quality programming. Depending upon marketplace needs, STI limits program enrollments in specific programs to help balance marketplace supply and demand for graduates.

1P5 Required Student Preparation

Faculty review course and program standards and requirements at other institutions and professional standards for the field to guide their decisions about prerequisites, placement standards, and other program requirements. Student preparation requirements are also based on Advisory Committee and other employer input and information. The Employer Survey is a good indicator of what employers expect, and those results help STI make decisions about how to structure curricula. Prerequisites for courses are identified in the STI Catalog.

Initial student entrance into a program is based on program-specific entrance requirements. These requirements, developed by administration and program faculty, are used to determine student preparedness for the individual program’s curriculum. Entrance requirements vary according to the demands of the program and are based on a variety of factors, including high school gpa, ACT or COMPASS scores, and post-secondary transfer grades. Many programs have additional program requirements such as HOBET or TEAS test scores, drug testing, and background checks. Cutoff scores for ACT, COMPASS, HOBET, TEAS, and high school gpa have been set by administration with faculty input and are based on research of national statistics, historical data on student performance at STI, and comparison to STI’s previous APS test. Entrance requirements are reviewed and revised on an as-needed basis according to changes in program curriculum, testing options, and student and graduate performance.

1P6 Required Preparation Communication

Required preparation for programs and courses is communicated to students through the STI Catalog (available in hard copy, on the STI website, and through STI’s program brochures and viewbooks). Additionally, Admissions Counselors, who are assigned to specific program areas, review program requirements with students during one-on-one or group meetings, correspondence and email. The STInet site allows prospective students to view program requirements and follow their application through the various stages to acceptance.

STI also hosts open houses, high school visitation days and orientation sessions, and conducts high school visits to inform prospective students about STI, its programs, and its entrance requirements. Faculty play an important role during the on-campus visits by providing prospective students a direct opportunity to discuss program requirements.

At orientation sessions, Admissions Counselors register new students for their first semester coursework, assuring that students are placed in the correct program and general education courses required for the students’ majors.

Once students begin classes at STI, they are assigned to a primary faculty Academic Advisor and a Student Success Advisor. These individuals then work with the students to assure that the students take the coursework as required by the program curriculum sheet and receive the help they need to successfully complete their coursework.

1P7 Prospective Student Program Selection Assistance

STI Admissions Counselors are all assigned to particular program areas. This practice of designating a Health Admissions Counselor or a Business Admissions Counselor to those specific areas, for example, allows them to have a deeper understanding of particular programs and requirements. Whenever possible, Admissions Counselors take prospective students on program tours, frequently introducing prospective students to faculty for additional opportunities to learn about the program. Prospective students are also given program brochures and are directed to the STI website and STI Catalog for more program information. In some programs, videos have been developed that highlight both on-campus program experiences as well as actual work setting experiences. During the acceptance process, some programs require shadowing experiences or student signatures indicating that students understand the industry technical standards for the program prior to acceptance. For students who are completely unsure about a program, STI provides career assessment inventories to help the student discover what programs may be of interest to them.

1P8 Underprepared Student Assistance

STI has several ways of helping students acquire the necessary skills to be successful in a particular program.

Developmental Coursework: The admissions and placement process helps determine whether students need developmental courses in math, reading or English, in which case they are enrolled in those courses. Pre-academic courses are available for those students who need additional help in their coursework or who are preparing to enter post secondary education and need to strengthen their skills in specific areas. COMPASS or ACT scores are used to determine placement into ENGL 101 Composition and higher level math courses, MATH 101 Intermediate Algebra, MATH 102 College Algebra, and MATH 115 College Math. Students who test below the required placement cutoff scores take ENGL 095 Writing Made Easy, or ENGL 098 Introduction to Writing Success for English and MATH 090 Basic Mathematics or Math 098 Basic Algebra for math. Pre-academic courses are delivered through the Adult Learning Center at minimal cost to students ($50 per course).
Student Success Seminar: STI has developed a new Student Success Seminar course, piloted in fall 2008 and approved through the Curriculum Committee as a requirement for all STI students without prior post-secondary course experience, effective fall 2009. The course is part of an integrated support system for students. Students are taught where to find services, how to network, how to study, etc. Success advisors facilitate the course and act as coaches for the students throughout their entire program.
Faculty to Student Communications: Faculty use a mandatory, documented mid-semester warning code and advising process to help identify students with academic concerns in coursework and/or class attendance. Faculty work as Academic Advisors for their program students and use this information during student advising meetings to help determine student needs and provide support. Warning code information is communicated through the STInet site and is available to students and Academic Advisors. Advisors can also use the system to document advising meetings. Faculty also work with the Student Success Advisors to intervene when students need additional support.
Preparatory Coursework: In 2008 a preparatory coursework track was created to allow underprepared students the opportunity to enroll and demonstrate success in preparatory courses before they take program-specific coursework.
Tutoring: STI provides free peer tutoring services to students needing these services. The services are coordinated by the Disability Services Facilitator.

1P9 Addressing Student Learning Styles

STI has addressed learning style differences primarily through teaching faculty about adapting to multiple learning styles in the classroom. In-service presentations during the mandatory seven in-service days have included whole brain learning, traits of millennials, active learning, adapting to student needs (in particular special population students), and creating learning environments for technology-savvy students. Many faculty have also attended sessions on learning styles at various educational conferences and seminars. Learning styles are addressed as part of discussions on teaching methods and instructional strategies between academic administrators and faculty during the faculty evaluation process. All new instructors discuss learning styles as part STI’s mentoring program.

Faculty develop lessons and instructional opportunities that incorporate the various learning styles within the presentation or learning experience. During instructional evaluations, STI administrators observe classroom presentations and discuss with and assist faculty in further developing lessons that meet student learning style needs.

Learning styles are also covered with students as part of the curriculum for the Student Success Seminar course. This self-analysis helps students recognize their own learning style needs so they can request additional support from their instructors.

1P10 Addressing Special Needs of Student Subgroups

STI assists the special needs of student subgroups in the following ways:

Disability Services: A full-time Disabilities Coordinator provides support for those STI students with disabilities. These services may include both class accommodations and modifications and provide students with resources, equipment, or other classroom assistance in order to help the student succeed.
Tutoring Services: A full-time Tutoring Facilitator assists students struggling with coursework to connect with free peer tutoring services. Peer tutors are paid for their time and are students who have a proven record of success in the classroom. Some courses, such as Ultrasound Physics, have instructor-led tutoring available to students.
Adult Learning Center (ALC): STI’s Adult Learning Center provides English as a Second Language students the opportunity to improve their English skills independently or in small groups.
Student Success Center: Open since fall 2009, STI has developed a Student Success Center with three Student Success Advisors and an Evening and Online Enrollment Coordinator/Success Advisor for assisting students with their individual needs. The advisors teach Student Success Seminar classes (required of the majority of students) and then work with their assigned students throughout the entire time the students are enrolled. The advisors address questions from enrollment to financial aid to referrals for counseling or social services. The advisors meet with students and help them address their needs on an individual or group basis.
Student Organizations and Activities: STI’s student organizations promote student development of leadership skills, networking with industry employers, participation in conferences and competitions, and learning important program and social networking skills. The organizations must be directly related to a program; therefore, co-curricular events are closely aligned with student development in the program. Student activities such as bowling, basketball and volleyball are also available as intramural experiences. The Student Activities Coordinator helps students organize many campus events to encourage student involvement: inviting political candidates to speak; volunteering for the Sioux Falls Marathon, Children’s Miracle Network, and Food Pantry Drive; organizing clothing donations to the Pine Ridge Reservation; and bringing the Blood Mobile to campus.
Evening and Online Students: STI’s new position, the Evening and Online Enrollment Coordinator, provides assistance to evening and online student subgroups and serves as a Success Advisor for those students. Prior to fall 2010, a Business Administration faculty member served as the evening coordinator.
Nontraditional Student Services: STI also provides services for nontraditional program students (students in programs nontraditional for their gender), displaced homemakers, and single parent students through its Nontraditional Student Advisor. This individual coordinates several services for students and networks with 43 different social services agencies and the Department of Labor to assist students with child care, vocational rehabilitation, county welfare, food bank, and other agencies such as Goodwill. Additionally, the Department of Social Services for Lincoln and Minnehaha counties has designated STI as the provider of the Parenting Program, which serves over 200 parents a year in continuously running 6-week class sessions.
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): The Nontraditional Student Advisor is a liaison for the Department of Labor WIA program. This program provides funding support for eligible students to take WIA approved programs at STI.
Wheels to Work: The Nontraditional Student Advisor is the Co-Chair for Wheels to Work which accepts donated vehicles for single parents who need transportation for work or school. The program stores the vehicles and issues license and title transfer fees at no cost to the students.

1P11 Expectations for Effective Teaching and Learning

STI has defined and documented its expectations for effective teaching and learning in its Instructor Evaluation Handbook. This document includes STI’s Indicators of an Effective Instructor and the Classroom Evaluation Form, which outline and define STI’s instructor expectations. Effective teaching and learning expectations are communicated to faculty through in-service presentations, formal and informal evaluations, meetings with academic administrators, and formal training processes such as STI’s mentoring program for new instructors. All full-time faculty are evaluated on a set evaluation cycle, which is used to identify areas for improvement and to determine employment. Faculty who do not meet minimum expectations are placed on a Plan of Assistance and are given help to improve instruction. Part-time faculty are also evaluated by administration on a periodic basis.

Processes for communicating expectations and assessing student learning have been developed through committee and program faculty input and are led by a faculty HLC/Assessment Coordinator working with program faculty teams. Beginning in 1995, the STI Administrative Team made a commitment to support assessment initiatives through committees, professional development, in-service, monthly staff meeting agenda time, and a budget line item. Various committees have been convened to address assessment (Assessment Committee, HLC/Assessment Committee, and AQIP Education Design and Delivery Team). However, through trial and error, STI determined that program and faculty teams work best to address assessment. Program teams work directly with the HLC/Assessment Coordinator to design, conduct, and report assessment activities. Each year, the Coordinator presents workshops on documenting student learning and meets with program faculty in their office areas to help them complete the required Student Learning Report and the Program Action Projects in the respective databases. This dedicated in-service time and individual program meetings help faculty understand and complete assessment tasks. The Vice President of Student Affairs and Institutional Research and the Vice President for Academics supervise the process and help ensure that everyone complies with the expectations for conducting assessments and reporting. The Academic Planning Calendar and a magnet with directions communicate to faculty the dates and activities required for HLC work.

The syllabi, STInet, and STI Catalog are the primary documents used to communicate learning expectations to students.

The cycle for defining, measuring, analyzing, and communicating expectations and results for student learning are depicted in Figure 1.2.

1P12 Course Delivery System

Increasing course delivery options to better meet student needs is one of STI’s goals and has been an STI AQIP Action Project. As a result, STI has developed an online delivery option and strengthened its evening and accelerated course offering models. In fall 2009, after HLC approval, STI began offering its first fully online program in Business Administration.

Creating new and improved delivery systems, while continuing STI’s successful traditional class delivery system, has been an STI priority. The AQIP Education Design and Delivery Team played a significant role in the development of new delivery models. Based on input from faculty, staff, students, and administration, the team created processes, including online evaluations, student communications, etc., to help STI successfully launch its first online program. The team is continuing to work on additional improvements for online, hybrid, and evening program offerings. Guidelines for online and hybrid courses and instructor evaluation have been approved by administration and the faculty bargaining unit.

To assure that all STI delivery systems meet the needs of students, STI administration and staff who are charged with the responsibility of developing the institute’s master schedule meet with program faculty in individual program meetings each semester to determine the course schedules for that program. During these meetings, course delivery and scheduling are discussed with the goal of developing the best schedule to meet student and program needs. During these meetings, assessment results are also reviewed and discussed as part of the planning process.

1P13 Ensuring Currency of Courses and Programs

New and Expanded Programs

Figure 1.1 depicts the process for designing new programs.

1. Stakeholders Input
The program approval process begins with stakeholders. STI

analyzes economic trends and employment projections, conducts environmental scans, and reviews Department of Labor statistics and projections to verify program need.
holds industry forums to monitor employment trends.
gathers input from program faculty, program Advisory Committees, and employers to generate ideas for new programs and courses.
collaborates with the South Dakota governor, legislators, and business and industry leaders to identify educational and training needs.
analyzes student input from surveys, student assessments, retention and graduation rates, etc.

2. Program Proposal Development
Administrators and program faculty teams work together to develop the program proposal, including program objectives, initial curriculum, needs assessments, etc.

3. HLC/AQIP Approval
If the program is offered at a new site or offered online, STI seeks approval from the Higher Learning Commission.

Program description, competencies, curriculum design and budget
Labor market demands in the United States and South Dakota
Student needs
Industry support
Statement of non-duplication
Wage factor

New courses

The Business and Industry Training division develops and implements just-in-time customized courses. These courses are not routed through the Curriculum Committee process.

1P14 Changing or Discontinuing Programs

Changing or discontinuing programs follows rigorous processes. All continuing programs are subject to state and local annual review processes to gauge performance.

State Annual Program Review

STI submits data on all program enrollments, retention, and placement to the State Office of Curriculum, Career and Technical Education (OCCTE) every year. The OCCTE reviews the data and compares it to a set of performance levels established by OCCTE and the technical institutes. Programs that fall below the established performance levels are required to complete a follow-up report on how the institute plans to improve the performance level of the program for that particular measure. After a third consecutive year below an established performance level, a program is assessed as high risk, and the director of OCCTE submits an updated continuing program report to the Secretary of Education and the Board of Education with recommendations regarding the continuation of the program. The recommendation may be to continue or discontinue the program. The director’s recommendation includes parameters for ongoing review and continued approval of the program if the Board of Education approves program continuation.

STI Local Level Review

At the local level, the STI Administrative Team reviews all programs each year using both the criteria outlined in the continuing program process from the state and other criteria deemed important by the institute. STI may discontinue a program after careful consideration of the following program related criteria:

Student enrollment
Retention
Graduation rates and number of graduates
Regional employment needs
On-going program costs
Program facility needs
Regional graduate salaries
Instructor availability

Whenever STI determines that a program will be discontinued, a plan is developed for phasing it out. This plan includes information on how STI will assist current program students to complete the program or transition into another one, communicate changes to faculty, staff and the community, and remove the program from various processes and publications, etc. The process for changes in programs is described in 1P 3 .

1P15 Learning Support Needs

Learning and support needs are addressed through multiple means. A large percentage of student needs are identified through individual student interactions with faculty and staff, incoming student assessments, classroom assessments of student skills, and results of student surveys including Student Surveys of Instruction, Graduate and Employer surveys, and the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. Key support personnel such as the Disabilities Coordinator, Personal Counselor, Success Advisors, Tutoring Facilitator, Librarian, and Student Government Advisor work with faculty to address and meet student support needs. (See

Category 3 Stakeholder Need

& Category Six: Supporting Institutional Operations for more details.)

1P16 Co-Curricular Development Goals

Co-curricular goals derive directly from the program areas and align with professional organizations in each field. The following student organizations offer students professional networking and leadership opportunities, exposure to social and civic responsibility, and promotion of the broad learning outcome of professionalism:

American Institute of Graphic Art (AIGA)
Animation Technology Artisans
Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP)
Civil Engineering Technology
Construction Management
Dakota Turf-Golf Course Superintendent’s Association of America (GCSAA)
ENDT-Electroneurodiagnostic Technology
International Society of Certified Electronics Technicians (ISCET)
Professional Landscape Network (PLANET)
Skills USA
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)
STI Student HVAC Organization
Society of Nuclear Medicine
South Dakota Home Builder’s Association (SDHBA)
Students Taking Initiative

1P17 Documentation of Learning – Awarding of Degrees and Certificates

STI verifies that students who are awarded degrees and certificates have met learning expectations by electronic degree audit and manual review by the Registrar Officer. (See also 1P 18 and 1P 11). General graduation requirements for all STI graduates and program-specific graduation requirements are listed in the STI Catalog.

1P18 Design of Processes for Assessing Student Learning

The syllabi, STInet, and STI Catalog are the primary documents used to communicate learning expectations to students.

The cycle for defining, measuring, analyzing, and communicating expectations and results for student learning are depicted in Figure 1.2.

Results

1R1 Measures of Student Learning and Development

All programs conduct an annual program assessment and faculty record results in the Student Learning Database. Faculty also complete an annual program report that details program actions, challenges, and accomplishments. Both are accessible on the STInet Program pages. Tables 1.1 through 1.3 list the various direct measures of student learning used by STI faculty. The STI Proving Student Learning chart details the various methods STI uses to assess student learning.

Table 1.1 Program Level Assessments

CQI Instrument (During Program)	Action Agents
Program Capstone/Course Projects	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Portfolios	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Mock Licensure/Certification Exams	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Clinical/Internship Reports	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Pre/Post Tests, Exams	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Licensure/Certification Exams
ARDMS Registry	Cardiac, Vascular, DMS, Advisory Committees, Administration
RCIS Registry	Invasive, Advisory Committees, Administration
Registry ABRET	ENDT, Advisory Committees, Administration
NCLEX-PN	LPN Team, Advisory Committees, Administration
NMTCB Registry	Nuclear Medicine Team, Advisory Committees, Administration
PTCB	Pharmacy Technician
Pesticide Licensure	Horticulture/Sports Turf/Landscape Team, Advisory Committees, Administration
National Certification Exam for Surgical Technologists	Surgical Technology Team, Advisory Committees, Administration
HVAC (EPA 608)	HVAC Team, Advisory Committees, Administration
ASE	Transportation Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
ASCP	Pharmacy Technician

In each program, one faculty member is responsible for ensuring that program level assessment results are compiled and shared with other program faculty. Included in the report are analyses and actions for improving learning. The reports (Action Database and Student Learning Database ) are routed to the Academic Administrative Team which reviews and discusses these with faculty during budget and program planning meetings. Thus, actions are tied to budget and overall program planning.

Table 1.2 Institutional Level Assessments

Continuous Quality Instrument	Action Agents
Writing Across the Curriculum	English Faculty, VP of Student Affairs and Institutional Research, HLC/Assessment Coordinator
Employer Survey Results	VP of Student Affairs and Institutional Research, HLC/Assessment Coordinator, Academic Administrative Team, Program Faculty

Assessment of institutional level broad general education outcomes has been designed to be accomplished over a cycle of four years. Written communication has been measured through a Writing Across the Curriculum project.

Information literacy has been measured through an information literacy exam given during Composition 101. Additionally, the Employer Survey measures computer literacy skills. A plan for reporting institutional level results for measuring professionalism by standardizing internship, clinical and preceptor results for institutional aggregate reporting has been proposed but not officially adopted by all programs. The Employer Survey questions regarding skills in teamwork, interpersonal, customer service and work ethic provide the measure of how well graduates meet professionalism outcomes.

Table 1.3 Course Level Assessments

Continuous Quality Instrument	Action Agents
Faculty Student Learning Course Analysis	Program Teams and Vice President of Academics

Assessment of general education AAS education outcomes is accomplished through course projects, performance evaluations, portfolios, and tests. General Education faculty analyze and report improvement strategies for one course level assessment outcome every year.

1R2 Performance Results for Common Student Learning Objectives

STI defines four institutional student learning outcomes: technology, problem solving/critical thinking, communication, and professionalism. Throughout the two years of a program, students are expected to acquire these skills as a result of the accumulated experiences in various classes. Program faculty developed initial course mappings in 1995, which indicate what courses address specific outcomes. The matrices (maps) have been periodically updated and are located on the STInet program pages. These common student learning outcomes are measured through program-embedded projects, internships and clinicals, and through the institution-level Writing Across the Curriculum and sections of the Employer Survey, which address professionalism (Customer Service, Interpersonal, Teamwork, Work Ethic, Computer Literacy, Problem Solving, and Communication).

Written Communication

Written communication was selected to be measured first because the Employer Survey indicated that graduate skills in written communication were weaker than expected. Written communication has been analyzed at the institutional level through the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) assessment project since spring 2005. Student writing samples are received from all divisions and are analyzed and rated on a Likert scale.

The WAC project results for the last five years (see Chart 1.1) indicate a trend toward improvement since the measure was implemented. A rubric score of 22 was determined to be the minimum target for student performance in written communication. The HLC Assessment Committee set the score after extensive review and discussion of standards and employer and program expectations. The score represents a 69% average on the seven categories. The Committee determined that students should at least be able to achieve an “average score” to be workplace competent in their writing. While many factors may be contributing to the perceived improvement in scores, it is believed that STI’s in-service presentations on WAC, discussions about writing within programs, and the requirement that programs participate and have students do some writing outside the required general education courses has improved student writing and the general awareness of the importance of writing on campus and the workplace.

Computer Literacy

Computer literacy is tracked within the Employer Survey, which indicates a trend toward improvement since 2005. In 2009, employers indicated that graduates performed above expectations in computer literacy (4.14 on a Likert scale of 1-5). This positive result may be attributed to the attention given to computer skills at STI. The Laptop Program and wireless network system were the product of a careful plan to implement a program to increase student computer skills. A Laptop Transition Team followed by CMS, LMS and Academic Tech Committees have placed technology high on institutional priorities. Currently, a majority of STI students are required to purchase laptops. Daily access coupled with the emphasis of computer literacy and applications in the program curriculum have contributed to stronger computer literacy skills. STI has set as its goal to move all programs to laptops by fall 2012.

Table 1.4 Computer Literacy Results (Actual/Expected)

Employer Survey Skill	2009	2008	2007
Computer Literacy	4.14/3.84 (+.30)	4.08/3.81 (+.27)	4.02/3.79 (+.23)

Professionalism

Four aspects of the professionalism of graduates are measured through the Employer Survey administered every two years.

As part of its Employer Survey, STI asks employers to rate graduates on their basic and program-specific skills. A Likert Scale is used with the following choices: 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Satisfactory, 2- Unsatisfactory, 1-Unacceptable. Employers are asked what they expected the graduate to be able to do in a given area, and what they actually were able to do. The survey results are also aggregated by program for improvement at the program level. All results are on the STInet site.

The first number indicates the graduates’ actual performance average. The second number indicates the employer’s expected performance average. The number in parentheses indicates if the graduates exceeded expectations (+) or did not (-).

As Table 1.5 shows, the overall level of graduates’ interpersonal, customer service, team skills, and work ethic have improved since 2005. Employer Survey information is disaggregated by program so that faculty in each program area can analyze results and adjust curriculum to better meet the professional needs of their field of study.

Table 1.5 Employer Survey Results for Professionalism Skills (Actual/Expected) 2005-2009

Skills	2009	2007	2005
Interpersonal Skills	3.99/3.87 (+.12)	3.91/3.84 (+.07)	3.79/3.94 (-.15)
Customer Service Skills	4.03/4.01 (+.02)	4.08/4.00 (+.08)	3.89/4.03 (-.14)
Team Skills	4.15/4.02 (+.13)	4.13/4.08 (+.05)	3.98/4.10 (-.12)
Work Ethic	4.37/4.21 (+.16)	4.33/4.21 (+.12)	4.24/4.36 (-.12)

Each program also checks the professionalism of its students as it applies in the workplace through internship and clinical evaluations, which include a section on professionalism. These vary by program and are not currently able to be aggregated institution-wide. STI is working on a project to standardize the internship and clinical results so there can be an institution-wide comparison.

1R3 Performance Results for Specific Program Learning Objectives

Program-specific outcomes are measured within particular programs and tracked as project scores, course grades, certification/licensure pass rates, graduation rates, and employment rates. STI’s Proving Student Learning assessment chart summarizes these assessments. Programs conduct a minimum of one comprehensive measure of student learning annually. The results of this measure are analyzed, documented in a database, and communicated through Student Learning reports.

Licensure Pass Rates

Several of STI’s programs have licensures/certifications that allow STI to measure student performance against national statistics.

Table 1.6 provides information on student licensure/certification performance.

Table 1.6 Licensure/Certification Pass Rates

Program

2009-2010
STI	Nat’l.

2008-2009
STI	Nat’l.

2007-2008
STI	Nat’l.

Cardiac Ultrasound

100%

68%

94.4%

67%

84.6%

71%

DMS Abdominal

91%

59%

73%

61%

91%

59%

DMS OB/GYN

82%

74%

91%

74%

100%

77%

DMS Physics

100%

74%

91%

56%

100%

53%

ENDT (PSG)

Not Avail

N/A

49%

100%

48%

ENDT (EEG- Written/Oral)

Not Avail

100%

68%/52%

100%/100%

50%/46%

ENDT (EP)

Not Avail.

46%

100%

30%/45%

50%

35%/44%

Hort/Turf/Land(General)

56%

Not Avail

85%

Not Avail

66%

Not Avail

Hort/Turf/Land (Ornamental)

76%

Not Avail

93%

Not Avail

71%

Not Avail

HVAC (EPA 608)

100%

72%

100%

72%

100%

72%

I-CAR (Collision Repair)

96%

Not Avail.

100%

Not Avail

100%

Not Avail

Invasive Cardiovascular

100%

71.8%

100%

71.8%

90%

71.8%

LPN

98.73%

Not Avail

89.36%

Not Avail

85.94%

Not Avail

Nuclear Medicine

100%

89.9%

100%

86.3%

100%

86.7%

Pharmacy Technician

100%

72.4%

82.35%

69.72%

80%

69.91%

Surgical Technology

54%

62.4%

70%

65%

Not Avail

66%

Phlebotomy

91.6%

86%

91%

86%

Not Avail

Vascular Ultrasound

89%

58%

94.4%

61%

100%

54%

Graduate Placement

From 2005 to 2009, STI’s graduate employment placement rates after six months have been from 96% to 99% with 86% to 95% in field, the lowest occurring in 2009, potentially due to the recession.

Employer Surveys

As Table 1.7 indicates, STI graduates receive high praise from employers in almost every category of the survey and outperform employer expectations. The table also indicates that the positive difference between actual and expected performance has grown from 2005 to 2009, further indicating that STI’s graduates are meeting the general and program specific learning objectives as outlined by the institute.

Table 1.7 Employer Survey Results Above Expectations (Actual/Expected)

Category	2009	2007	2005
Customer Service Skills	4.03/4.01 (+.02)	4.08/4.00 (+.08)	3.89/4.03 (-.14)
Interpersonal Skills	3.99/3.87 (+.12)	3.91/3.84 (+.07)	3.79/3.94 (-.15)
Equipment Familiarity	3.98/3.71 (+.27)	3.89/3.74 (+.15)	3.94/3.83 (_.11)
Team Skills	4.15/4.02 (+.13)	4.13/4.08 (+.05)	3.98/4.10 (-.12)
Technical Skills	4.05/3.90 (+.15)	3.91/3.84 (+.10)	3.97/3.90 (+.07)
Computer Literacy	4.14/3.84 (+.30)	4.08/3.81 (+.27)	4.02/3.79 (+.23)
Basic Skills	3.79/3.71 (+.08)	3.81/3.73 (+.08)	3.71/3.70 (+.01)
Work Ethic	4.37/4.21 (+.16)	4.33/4.21 (+.12)	4.24/4.36 (-.12)
Overall Performance	4.11/3.90 (+.21)	4.03/3.89 (+.14)	3.96/3.95 (+.01)

Table 1.8 below indicates rating areas where employers expected better performance than graduates achieved.

Table 1.8 Employer Survey Results Below Expectations (Actual/Expected)

Category	2009	2007	2005
Oral Skills	3.87/3.90 (-.03)	3.85/3.85 (.00)	3.74/3.88 (-.14)
Written Skills	3.75/3.85 (-.10)	3.74/3.77 (-.03)	3.64/3.75 (-.11)
Problem Solving Skills	3.79/3.81 (-.02)	3.74/3.84 (-.10)	3.77/3.86 (-.09)
Safety Knowledge	3.73/3.75 (-.02)	3.87/3.82 (+.05)	3.83/3.85 (-.02)

Those areas indicated by negative gaps continue to be areas STI will need to focus on in order to meet employer expectations in the future. As described above, written skills have been targeted with Writing Across the Curriculum.

Table 1.9 Program Level Assessment

Continuous Quality Instrument	Action Agents
Program Capstone Projects/Exams	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Academic Admin. Team
Internship Reports	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Mock Licensure/Certification Exams	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Clinical Reports	Health & Human Services Teams, Advisory Committees, Administration
Pre/Post Tests, Exams	Program Teams, Advisory Committees, Academic Admin. Team

Results for all program level assessments are reported annually in the Student Learning Database. These vary by program so that the programs can use the measures which are most valid for their area. Data and the reports are available for STI employees on the STInet website.

1R4 Stakeholder Evidence of Student Learning

Employer Surveys are the primary tool for determining how well STI prepares students for employment (see results in 1R 3). Furthermore, several programs have national certification or licensures, which provide additional indicators of skill level attainment.

1R5 Learning Support

Learning support process results can be found in Category Six: Supporting Institutional Operations.

1R6 Comparative Results

Many of STI’s programs are accredited through outside organizations, indicating an additional mark of excellence for these programs (see Table 1.10).

Table 1.10 Program Accreditations

Accrediting or Certification Organization	Division and Program	Date of Initial Approval or Certification	Next Review
	Health and Human Services
Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP)
Joint Review Committee on Cardiovascular Technology	Cardiac Ultrasound	1995	2015
	Vascular Ultrasound	1995	2015
	Invasive Cardiovascular	1995	2015
Joint Review Committee on Diagnostic Medical Sonography (DMS)	DMS	Sept. 2006	2015
Accreditation Review Committee of Surgical Technologists	Surgical Technology	Oct. 1999, April 2004	2014
Joint Review Commission on Nuclear Medicine Technology (JRCNMT)	Nuclear Medicine	1995	2010
Electroneurodiagnostic Technology, Polysomnography, Evoked Potential	ENDT	2010	2015
American Society of Health Systems Pharmacists (ASHP)	Pharmacy Technician	2009	2012
South Dakota Board of Nursing	Licensed Practical Nurse	Interim: 2001-2003; full approval-2003 and fall 2007	fall 2011
Law Enforcement Officer and Training Commission Reciprocity Testing Privileges	Law Enforcement Science	Feb. 2005	renewed annually
	Transportation Technology
National Automotive Technology Excellence Foundation (NATEF)	Automotive Technology	Dec. 1991	2010
	Collision Repair Technology	2000	2011
	Industrial Technology
National Institute of Metalworking	Machine Tool Technology	Module Level I Jan 2008	2013
HVAC Excellence	HVAC Technology	2004	2014

For Licensure comparison results see 1R 3 .

Improvements

1I1 Improvements and Comprehensive Processes

Improvements

Recent improvements in the processes for addressing student learning include:

A newly adopted negotiated agreement for evaluating online and hybrid course instruction.
The creation of Faculty Guidelines for Hybrid and Online Learning.
A student evaluation process for online and hybrid courses.
A Comprehensive Faculty Training Action Project for 2010-2011.
Initial Accreditation for Pharmacy Technician and ENDT programs.
Reaccreditation in HVAC.
Two full-time positions: Academic Instruction and Technical Support and Instructional Facilitator.
State approval for nine new programs in the last five years.
Requirement that faculty teaching online complete online training coursework.

Systematic Comprehensive Processes

The curriculum, course, and program development and review processes are well-established, systematic and comprehensive. The negotiated teacher evaluation process has also been in place for over ten years, with the most recent updates in the 2010-2011 professional faculty contract.

The processes for assessment (identifying program and institutional outcomes, identifying instruments to measure those outcomes, and conducting the annual checks on student learning) have been addressed since 1995. Reporting and documenting the results of program learning has been implemented and in place for the last seven years, with reporting in electronic database form for five years.

1I2 Culture and Infrastructure Role in Setting Targets and Selecting Processes for Improvement

STI fosters a culture of being student centered. The mission of educating for employment and lifelong learning is well understood and embraced by all staff. Therefore, virtually all discussions for improvement feature students, their learning, faculty instruction, and support services which will improve those experiences.

Through STI’s strategic planning process, specific strategic goals, stemming from the institute’s mission and key performance indicators , are set by the Administrative Team and STI Council. The AQIP Futures Team and AQIP Information and Analysis Team both provide initial input to this process. Program faculty, working with the Academic Administrative Team, develop action projects for the program. Action projects are designed to achieve the performance indicators and are prioritized as part of the budget process. Adjustments and recommendations for program performance indicator targets are developed at this time. All changes are submitted to the Administrative Team for review and approval. This continuous quality improvement process is monitored by the Vice President of Student Affairs and Institutional Research, and the HLC/Assessment Coordinator coaches the program teams as they develop action projects.

STI has found that its culture and infrastructure have worked well in determining specific processes to improve and has found positive results from the changes.