Fiscal Year 1996-1997
Introduction
For 1997, we report on three Institutional Effectiveness components: Academic Advising, Entry-Level Skills and Developmental Education, and Administrative and Financial Processes and Performance. The following table describes when the other applicable components will next be reported.
| Component | Reporting Year |
| 1. General Education | 2000 |
| 2. Majors or Concentrations | NA |
| 3. Licensing Exams | NA |
| 4. Changes/External Evaluation | CHE reports |
| 5. Academic Advising | 1997 |
| 6. Entry-Level/Developmental | 1997 |
| 7. Admissions | CHE reports |
| 8. Transfer | 1998 |
| 9. Retention/Attrition | 1998 |
| 10. Minority Access/Equity | CHE reports |
| 11. Student Athletes | NA |
| 12. Student Development | 1999 |
| 13. Library | 2000 |
| 14. Administration | 1997 |
| 15. Facilities | 1998 |
| 16. Public Service | 1999 |
| 17. Research | NA |
Some of our most exciting efforts this year have been in the area of admissions and developmental support. We are taking a close look at our admissions standards and procedures and expect to raise those standards for next year. At the same time, we have strengthened the support we give to at-risk students by instituting first quarter grading and formalizing our early intervention. In the fall, we will pilot-test a program in Supplemental Instruction in an at-risk course. We will identify a qualified student to retake the course and be available to assist current students who are having difficulty. Finally, we have a TRIO grant under consideration that will, if funded, hire additional faculty and provide other tutoring, counseling, and support services.
1. General Education
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1996. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 2000.
2. Majors And Concentrations
This component is not applicable to our institutional type.
3. Performance Of Professional Program Graduates On Licensing And Certification Exams
This component is not applicable to our institutional type.
4. Reports Of Program Changes That Have Occurred As A Result Of External Program Evaluation
There have been no program changes in 1997 as a result of external program evaluations.
5. Academic Advising
Definition:
Academic advising is a long-term relationship between student and advisor that provides students with an understanding of their rights and responsibilities for completion of their degrees, programs, and/or career preparation and that helps students reach their educational goals. It consists of regular discussions of those goals, consideration of alternatives available to the student, the planning of appropriate course work, the monitoring of student progress, and referral to other campus and University resources. At USCU, all full-time faculty, our Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs, our Director of Admissions, and our Director of Financial Aid act as academic advisors. Students who declare an intention to pursue a particular baccalaureate major are assigned an appropriate advisor based on that major; undecided students are assigned advisors arbitrarily.
Indicators:
Assessment Methods:
Assessment Results:
During spring 1997, both students (n=78) and alumni (n=36) were surveyed on the quality of our academic advisement. Overall, 86% of the alumni and 87% of the students were at least satisfied with the availability of their advisors.
Related to the availability of advisors, students and alumni report that they were able to form a close relationship with an average of 2.4 faculty (where the wording of the question sets a maximum of 3). 80% of the alumni and 93% of the students reported that they had been able to form at least one such relationship.
On average, academic advisors are reported to be supportive and knowledgeable (score of 1.4 and 1.7 respectively, where 1 = strongly agree and 2 = somewhat agree with survey statement). The major weakness revealed by this study is the fact that advisors are more passive than students would like. Advisors do not always take the initiative to contact students but wait for the students to come to them (score = 1.9). This same weakness was revealed in our 1995 study of academic advisement, but there has been substantial improvement. In 1995, only 55% of the students agreed that advisors made an effort to meet with them, but in 1997, the figure was 71%.
We organized a focus group discussion, 2/5/97, in which students expressed concern about being able to plan their schedules in advance.
Use of Assessment Findings:
A detailed advisor's manual has been published periodically for the last ten years. The manual presents institutional policies and procedures concerning admission, placement testing, advisement, drop/add, withdrawal, placement, developmental instruction, suspension, advanced placement, transfer, and change of campus. The manual also includes up-to-date information on academic programs at USC-Columbia and USC-Spartanburg, institutions where most of our students plan to complete their baccalaureate degrees. New this year, the Associate Dean has been working especially closely with officials at USCS to develop specific articulation agreements, especially in business and education. Such agreements have never before been put into writing, but enough differences in course content and degree requirements have accumulated over the past years, between USCS and USC Columbia, that it now becomes necessary.
At the beginning of the semester, the Associate Dean distributes a list of advisees to each advisor. This list includes the students' telephone numbers, as well as status information, such as admissions basis and type, hours earned, and grade point average. Advisors are urged to call their advisees, to be more proactive. On the other hand, advisors are urged not to advise casually the advisees of another advisor, but to refer these students to their assigned advisors. This too is an effort to build stronger ties between advisor and student.
A little later in the semester but before the last drop date, the Associate Dean contacts each faculty member and asks for a list of students in academic difficulty. These names are then distributed to the appropriate advisors for intervention.
Students have said they would like to be able to plan their course schedules farther ahead. During this past spring, we have developed a two-year, repeating schedule, for 1997-99.
6. Entry-level Placement And Developmental Education
Definition:
At a minimum, the entry level skills necessary for college work include college preparatory study in English, mathematics, natural science, social studies, and foreign language.
We assess our students' entry level skills through the use of high school transcripts, the SAT test, and a battery of placement tests: the nationally normed Nelson-Denny reading test and institutional (USC Columbia) writing, math, and foreign language tests.
For those students who do not score at the twelfth grade reading level or at the Columbia cut-off scores on the institutional tests, we offer remedial courses in reading, English, and math, and beginning courses in French and Spanish.
As a check on the Writing Placement Test, we administer a writing diagnostic essay during the first week of each section of ENGL 100 and 101. To maintain consistent standards in all developmental courses and to measure their effectiveness, exit exams are used that are alternate forms of the corresponding placement tests for those courses. In order for a student to pass a given developmental course, he or she must score above the cutoff on the exit exam.
Indicators:
Assessment Methods:
Assessment Results:
Are our entering students prepared for college-level work? The average SAT scores for our entering students are relatively low. During fall 1996, the average was 824; the average SAT for all five Regional Campuses was 899. Similarly, during 1996/97, 31% of those students tested were placed into developmental ENGL 100, 72% were placed into MATH 100, 59% were placed into developmental reading, and only 10% required no developmental course work.
On the other hand, survey results suggest that students feel ready to benefit. In 1997, we asked a sample of alumni (n = 34) why they left USCU. They reported that they had achieved their goals (29%), they were ready to transfer to another college (44%), the courses/programs they wanted were not available at USCU (38%), or other responsibilities became too great (18%); none indicated that they could not succeed. We asked a sample of current students (n = 78) the same question. Only 3% were dissatisfied with their academic performance, 4% were unsure of academic goals, and 1% felt their academic program was too difficult.
Other items from our student and alumni surveys (n = 114) ask directly about problems faced while at USCU. The most pressing problems for students are time management (score = 2.4 on scale from 1 to 4, where 1 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree), finances (score = 2.7), and career choice (score = 2.8). Students did not agree that they were unprepared to handle their academic work (score = 3.0). Students did feel that our placement testing (1.9) and developmental courses (1.3) were helpful in insuring success.
USC uses a formula to consider SAT scores and high school class rank, or more recently, high school college prep course grades, to predict future success in college. On average, USCU students are predicted to perform satisfactorily (1996/97 predicted GPA = 2.2; n = 80), and in fact, they perform a little better than predicted (CGPA = 2.5).
During 1996/97, 69% of those enrolled in ENGL 100 passed the course (n = 13), 89% of those in MATH 100 passed (n = 27), and 87% of those in developmental reading passed (n = 15). Of those students who do succeed in developmental courses and who continue in regular courses, most also succeed in those subsequent courses. Of those who passed ENGL 100 during fall 1995 and then enrolled in ENGL 101, 100% passed the follow-up course (n = 6). Of those who passed MATH 100 and enrolled in any subsequent math, statistics, logic, or computer science, 100% passed that follow-up course (n = 14). Considering all first-time students who enrolled in one or more developmental courses in fall, 1995, the fall CGPA was 2.3 (n = 27) and the spring CGPA was 2.2 (n = 23).
UNIV 101, The Student in the University, is a course that we use to help prepare both developmental and regular-admit students for college-level work. During spring, 1997, we interviewed six students who had taken this course to learn which components had been most helpful and how we could improve course content. All agreed that discussion and practice of study techniques, note taking, test taking, listening and questioning, and writing and research were worthwhile and contributed to success in other courses. Also cited were development of interpersonal skills and the variety of outside speakers on such topics as health, sex, gender issues, and drugs. One student said we needed to bring in past students to talk about college expectations and what it's really like on big campuses.
Use of Assessment Findings:
USC Union has long been committed to maintaining accessibility for all students who have a reasonable chance of benefitting. Our Student Affairs Committee has begun to identify specific criteria that can be considered when evaluating a borderline applicant, including SAT and high school grades considered separately, extra-curricular and community activities, written work submitted with the application, and counselor recommendation. The committee has developed a brief admissions test of reading, writing, and analytical thought and will be pilot testing the instrument during the summer. We do expect to increase our admissions standards for the fall semester.
Our second effort in this area has been to institute a system of first quarter grading (S/U) and otherwise to strengthen our program of academic intervention. Instructors congratulate students who are performing satisfactorily, and they offer specific suggestions for improvement to those who are performing unsatisfactorily. Further, they refer problems to academic advisors well before the last drop date. Advisors encourage the student to make the effort necessary to be successful, and encourage the student to drop the course if that effort cannot be made.
A third developmental effort is only in the proposal stage at this time and is called PALS or Peer Assisted Learning for Success. The Academic Affairs Committee proposed this experiment in Supplemental Instruction, and the Faculty and Staff Organizations committed up to $2,000 from the campus Family Fund for a pilot study in the fall. Student assistants will have made an A or a B+ in the target course and will receive instruction in group dynamics and how to apply the principles of group dynamics to the PALS program. Each PAL will attend the course in which he or she will serve as an assistant. At a designated time during the day, all the PALs will be available to assist students in one designated area on campus. Students will have the opportunity to seek assistance in the PALS sessions voluntarily, but students who are identified through our academic intervention program will be required to seek the assistance of a PAL.
As long as we are allowed to use formal, developmental courses, we will continue to work to strengthen them, so that they will better prepare our students for regular college course work. We must also increase the proportion of developmental students who enroll in developmental courses, and we believe that publicizing the success of these courses in preparing students for subsequent course work will help. However, these courses are being eliminated throughout USC, and we see the PALS program as a possible substitute.
In the past, we have sought external funding for a learning lab and co-curricular tutoring program, and we plan to continue these efforts. We currently have a TRIO grant under consideration that would hire additional faculty and provide other tutoring, counseling, and support services. We will continue these efforts and look for additional sources in both the public and private sector.
7. Success Of Entering Students In Meeting College Or University Admissions Prerequisites
This component is not applicable to our institution type.
8. Achievement Of Students Transferring From Two-year To Four-year Institution
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1995. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1998.
9. Analyses Of Undergraduate Retention And Attrition
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1996. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1998.
10. Minority Student And Faculty Access And Equity
| Fall Semester | Total F.T. Faculty | Black F.T. Faculty Number | Black F.T. Faculty Percent |
| 1992 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| 1993 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| 1994 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
11. Academic Performance Of Student Athletes
This component is not applicable to our institutional type.
12. Procedures For Student Development
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1996. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1999.
13. Library Resources And Services
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1996. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 2000.
14. Administrative And Financial Processes And Performance
Definition:
Administrative and financial processes are those policies and procedures designed to manage our fiscal, human, and physical resources so that they efficiently support the institutional mission. This administration is organized into two major divisions, with academic and student affairs under the supervision of the Associate Dean and business and administrative affairs under the supervision of the Dean.
Indicators:
Assessment Methods:
Assessment Results:
Published budget figures show that USCU devotes about one fifth of its budget (21% in 1995-96) to institutional support (A005) and to maintenance of the physical plant (A001). These are the major budget categories not directly related to instruction or student services, and this percentage has not changed significantly in the last three years.
In 1994, USC's Internal Audit department tested the areas of expenses, accounts receivable, equipment, revenue, agreements, admissions, financial aid, continuing education, bookstore, and other selected business practices and controls. The audit revealed many exceptions that were cleared immediately or that were minor in nature and a few problems that were more serious. Some financial aid files were found to be incomplete, and some required procedures were not being followed.
Also in 1994, Dr. A. Troy Barksdale, Associate Vice President for Planning at the University of North Carolina, was asked to conduct an evaluation of the institutional planning and assessment offices of the Columbia and Regional Campuses. His recommendation was that the University needed to develop a more integrated or coordinated approach to assessment and planning but that each Regional Campus needed to accept the responsibility for collecting data and for editing, analyzing, interpreting, and incorporating the results into an on-going planning process.
For the first time this year, full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and both full-time and part-time staff were invited to evaluate our Dean and Associate Dean. Twenty-two faculty and staff responded to this administrator evaluation (compared to only eight faculty, last year). On average, this group agreed with almost all of the statements of good practice , and both administrators were rated "good." The evaluation form provided space for comments after each item. The dominant criticism centered around the issue of communication among administration, faculty, and staff.
During spring 1997, both students and alumni (n=114) were asked how they felt about the various administrative support services at USCU. As we have documented in the past, students have a relatively positive view of our campus administration. The administration is honest and fair (score = 1.2 on scale from 1 to 4, where 1 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree), efficient (score = 1.3), and acts for the welfare of both the students (1.3) and community (1.2). The buildings and grounds are well-kept (1.2) and safe (1.4). Students are happy with the operation of our bookstore (1.3) but are somewhat less satisfied with the food service part of that operation (1.7). Agreement that student involvement in institutional decision making was reasonable was 1.5, and that USCU has sufficient financial resources was 1.7.
Use of Assessment Findings:
In response to the 1994 USC internal audit, we have reorganized both the Financial Aid Office and its procedures. During spring, 1997, another internal review of our financial aid procedures was made. We have not received the written review, but we understand that conditions are much improved.
In response to the Barksdale evaluation, we have assigned responsibility for institutional research and assessment to the Associate Dean, with substantial involvement of faculty leaders (the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC)). After a hiatus of several years, the campus became reaffiliated with the South Carolina Higher Education Assessment Network, and a member of the FAC joined the SCHEA board. This faculty representative also participates in regular meetings with the Columbia Office of Institutional Planning and Analysis. We have taken the first steps toward increasing our computing capability. A T-1 telephone line is being installed, and personal computers are being reconfigured to download and manipulate University data.
Based on the results of our administrator evaluation, both the Dean and the Associate Dean plan to communicate more often and more clearly with the rest of the organization. The Dean plans to reinstitute a periodic newsletter, and he will prepare written reports for both the faculty and staff organization meetings. His goal is to inform and to solicit input on the activities of both his office and that of the local CHE and Partnership Board. The Associate Dean has begun to work one-on-one with both faculty and staff, in the setting of goals, the planning of strategies, and the evaluation of results.
For several years, students have held voting membership on the key Student Affairs and Academic Affairs faculty committees. This year, the Faculty Organization has identified these student members early and published their names; each committee chair will encourage their participation.
In addition to state appropriations, tuition and fees contribute substantially to our operating budget, and our income can be increased by increasing enrollment. We have long operated with a written recruitment plan, but this year, we are revising and more clearly targeting our efforts toward four specific groups: traditional, nontraditional, minority, and concurrent. New features of this plan include improved literature, more mailings, and more telephone dissemination of information. Our Associate Dean has organized a minority, community, focus group that recommended that we work through local churches. Letters are going out to all pastors, asking them to identify one member to act as a liaison between USCU and each church, for the distribution of information. One of our current African-American students spoke at a church conference, and our local high school has agreed to give us a list of their African-American students for a direct mail campaign.
Finally, we have made several efforts to shift institutional resources from administration to instruction. The biggest change occurred in 1994, when we eliminated two of the four dean-level positions and reorganized all campus operations under one Dean and one Associate Dean. In 1996, our Director of Graduate Regional Studies left the campus, and his duties were taken over by the Associate Dean. This reorganization was made possible by increasing the responsibilities and authority of our two division Coordinators. This year, they are primarily responsible for the formation of the course schedule, and they play a role in faculty evaluation.
During 1997-98, we plan to make a small administrative budget go even farther by organizing one or more volunteer groups. We currently have one office worker who is not a volunteer, but who is funded by the local AARP and donated to USCU, and we believe that other local groups or individuals would be interested in volunteering to help with recruitment, registration, tutoring, or library work.
15. Facilities
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1994. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1998.
16. Public Service
This component was last submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1995. Based on our schedule of reporting, a report for this component will be submitted next to the Commission on Higher Education in July, 1999.
17. Research
This component is not applicable to our institutional type.