Transcript Ability Based Education

Implementing an
Ability Based
Education System
Colleen Keyes
Dean of Academic Affairs
Dr. David England
Director of Institutional Effectiveness
Ability Based Education
Mandates from:
New England Association
of Colleges and Schools
Connecticut Department
of Higher Education
Ability Based Education
 Faculty concerns about
use of the Collegiate
Assessment of Academic
Progress (CAAP)
 Choice to develop and use
a faculty designed
assessment system
Ability Based Education
Alverno Model
Institution wide
commitment to
collaboratively identified
Abilities (general
education outcomes), and
Developmental Levels of
mastery of each Ability,
needed for effectiveness in
the worlds of work, family,
and civic community
Alverno Model
Explicit and direct connections
are made between
Developmental Levels of
Abilities and course syllabi,
assignments, and assessments
as well as program
requirements so that students
understand the interrelated and
progressive nature of the
curriculum and that they are
responsible for their own
ongoing learning
Alverno Model
The formal requirement that
students develop specific
Abilities in one course context
and then apply them to the
subject matter of other courses
encourages every student in
the college to transfer learning
independently because the
explicit expectation makes
every student aware of the
possibility
Alverno Model
Assessment is viewed as
developmental rather than
high stakes and as a public
activity with results shared
openly and used for
continuous improvement of
the curriculum and student
outcomes
Ability Based Education
 Five Year Project
• Determine General Education Abilities
and Levels
• Develop rubrics for assessing each
ability and level
• Distribute the abilities throughout the
curriculum
• Design standardized assessments
within each department
• Determine a method for collecting
assessment results electronically
• Review results and calibrate/revise
assessments and/or curriculum as
appropriate
Ability Based Education
 General Education Abilities
and Levels
• Abilities vs. Outcomes
• Drafted by a representative
group of respected faculty
• Distributed to departments
for comment
• Finalized
• Approved by the college’s
governance process
Ability Based Education
 Information Literacy
Effectively uses, accesses, and
evaluates information.
Level 1: Determines the nature and
extent of the information needed.
Level 2: Accesses needed
information effectively and
efficiently.
Level 3: Evaluates information and
its sources critically and
incorporates selected information
into student’s own knowledge base
and value system.
Ability Based Education
 Develop rubrics for
assessing each ability and
level
• Appoint an “Ability Group”
for each Ability
• Ability Assessment Team
consists of the chairs of each
group
• Limited but substantive
feedback from all faculty
Ability Based Education
 Distribute the abilities
throughout the curriculum
• Three disciplines/programs begin
the process each year
• Two coaches with reassigned time
for each discipline/program
• Which abilities attached to which
courses (sequential)?
• Also revise course and program
abilities
• One year for design; one year for
implementation
Ability Based Education
 Distribute the abilities
throughout the curriculum
• Ability Assessment Team (AAT)
reviews the matrix that evolves as
abilities are attached to courses
• For each Associate Degree,
students should be assessed in
every ability through Level Two
• AAT works with each department
to add and/or rearrange ability
assessments as necessary
Ability Based Education
 Design standardized
assessments within each
department
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
E-Portfolios
Capstone Projects
Embedded Assignments
Simulations
Internships and service projects
Performance on a case study
Locally developed tests
Video taping
Ability Based Education
How do we know
the instruments
we’re designing
are valid?
Alverno Model
To validate means that learning
outcomes being assessed and
the assessments must be:
Carefully thought out
Systematically designed
Subjected to rigorous reasoning
Constantly evaluated
Contextually credible
Revised re student performance
outcomes
 Reviewed for consequences






Ability Based Education
 Determine a method for
collecting assessment
results electronically
eLumen Software
• Designed to maintain and
organize outcomes
assessment data
• Available on campus
network for faculty to enter
assessments
Ability Based Education
eLumen Software
Ability Based Education
eLumen Software
Ability Based Education
eLumen Software
Ability Based Education
eLumen Software
Ability Based Education
 Review results and
calibrate/revise
assessments and/or
curriculum as appropriate
• What can be done to better
develop the abilities with which
students are struggling?
• Is there consistency in the
assessments across departments
and courses?
• What % of graduates meet
standards on all abilities?
Ability Based Education
 Creates productive interaction
between faculty about
LEARNING
 Consistent expectations of
students
 Helps students understand the
practical application of
learning
 Helps students understand the
need to demonstrate abilities
throughout the curriculum
(preparation for advanced
courses)
Data Driven Planning
Strategic and Operational Planning System
Every
Three
Years
Operational
External
Environmental
Scan
Planning
Internal
Environmental
Scan
Steps
Review of
Gen. Ed.,
Institutional &
Student Success
Outcomes
Review of
Mission &
Vision
Statements
Strategic
Planning
Steps
Every
Year
1
Review of
General
Education,
Institutional
and Student
Success
Outcomes
and Work
Group and
Task Force
Results
report
2
Identify
Strategic
Initiatives
based on
needs
identified in
outcomes
review
(multiple
steps)
3
Work
Groups
Propose
Action
Plans
President
appoints
Task
Forces
if needed
4
Budget
Requests &
Strategic
Initiative
Project
Funding
Proposals
based on
Action
Plans.
5
Implement
Plans
6
Work
Groups
& Task
Forces
Assess
Results
7
Academic Assessment Planner and Director of Institutional Research
prepare report on General Education, Institutional and Student Success
Outcomes and Work Group and Task Force Results.
Data Driven Planning
Institutional Effectiveness
Outcomes and Data
 Retention, course completion,
transfer, graduation, and
enrollment data by student
characteristics and program
 PACE and SACE surveys
 Service Satisfaction Survey
 Labor Market data
Data Driven Planning
Percent under 20 years of age:
Fall 2001
Fall 2002
Fall 2003
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
- 51%
- 60%
- 65%
- 68%
- 73%
Data Driven Planning
Fall to Spring Retention Rate by
Skill Deficiency:
One
Two
Three
Total
▲
▲
▲
▲
F04 F05
71% - 79%
71% - 85%
69% - 81%
71% - 82%
Data Driven Planning
First Year Mean GPA by Skill
Deficiency:
None
One
Two
Three
▼
▼
▲
▲
F04 F05
2.80 – 2.52
2.45 – 2.30
2.26 – 2.64
2.06 – 2.31
Data Driven Planning
 At-Risk Student
Characteristics:
Age < 25
Male
Hispanic/Black
One Skill Deficiency
Two Skill Deficiencies
Three Skill Deficiencies
GPA < 2.0
Strategic Initiative Funding
Projects that:
 Increase the enrollment and/or
retention of Hispanics, part-time
students 25-45, economically
disadvantaged students, potential
students from affluent towns
 Improve course completion rates in
developmental and first year math
and English courses
 Improve student absenteeism and
responsibility
 Meet the special needs of
developmental students
Strategic Initiative Funding
Projects that:
 Improve graduation and transfer rates
 Improve fall to fall retention
 Support and/or advance the
assessment of General Education
Abilities
 Improve collaboration and
cooperation between two or more
departments