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.