1. Transcript analysis and tracking.
2. Grade distribution and GPA data.
3. Student evaluation of their courses.
4. Faculty evaluation of their teaching.
5. Student surveys.
6. Faculty surveys.
7. Alumni surveys.
8. Focus group discussion.

In a transcript analysis of our spring and summer 1997 graduates, we tallied the courses taken in each of the four skill areas of writing, oral communication, mathematics, and computer literacy and in the major fields of humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Among the four skill areas specified by SACS, writing is a required part of our AA and AS, and all of our graduates (n=26) have taken ENGL 101 and 102. Since many of our graduates plan to continue working toward baccalaureate degrees that do not require specific courses in oral communication, we do not require it as a part of our associate degrees. However, 88% of our graduates did elect to take a formal course in speech. Similarly, 92% of these graduates elected to take courses in math, and 100% elected to take courses in computer science. Students also receive training in writing, speech, math, and computer literacy in other courses, and the fifth skill area specified by SACS, reading, is broadly emphasized across the curriculum. In a liberal arts program, students must go beyond basic academic skills and study in the humanities and the social and natural sciences. Our graduates averaged over three, two, and one years’ study, respectively.

In a second effort to explore what our students are gaining from our curriculum, we surveyed both students and alumni and asked them if USCU had helped them achieve each of our 26, institutional, academic objectives, derived from the seven academic goals quoted above, a part of our institutional statement of purpose. In 1997, we added an item to our course evaluation form that asks students how well we are achieving our academic objectives in each individual course. From the course evaluation surveys, we find that students feel that we are emphasizing communication skills in many courses. Listening received 387 responses in fall 1997 (students responded to this survey more than once, depending on how many classes they were taking, so we can only compare relative numbers), reading 265, writing 245, and speaking 232. A variety of tolerance and personal growth objectives averaged 255 responses and our learning and thinking objectives averaged 225 responses. These skills are emphasized across the curriculum. Our psychological and sociological objectives averaged 140 responses, but "understanding both western and non-western cultures" received the lowest number of responses, at 71. Humanities and arts objectives averaged 102 responses, science and technology 99, and math 81. These more knowledge-based objectives are less widespread among the courses in our curriculum.

From our student/alumni survey, we also see strong agreement that USCU is successfully working to achieve our institutional objectives. The weakest responses are in the areas of mathematics (scores of 1.8 and 1.9 on a scale of 1, strongly agree, to 4, strongly disagree), non-western culture (1.8), and natural science (1.6 and 1-7). These are areas that we can try to emphasize more, in individual courses and across the curriculum.

In January 1998, we looked at all of our spring students who had first enrolled at USCU during fall 1997, and we calculated the percentage who earned at least a 2.0 GPA during that first semester. The most successful group was our concurrent students, 94% of whom earned at least a 2.0. These results are expected in this group of gifted and motivated high school students. Among our regular admits, 70% were successful, and among our opportunity students, only 28% were successful their first semester. We clearly need to support our opportunity students with as much help as we can provide.

We evaluate our academic programs with a course evaluation form, used in every class, every semester. Since 1994, at least 95% of our students rated our courses fair, good, or excellent.

Every year, full-time faculty submit to the academic dean a report of accomplishments and self-evaluation, and new teaching strategies are described and evaluated. Some of the strategies discussed recently include original and course specific study guides, concept mapping, weekly journals, case studies, student discussion groups, homework notebooks, test pools, individual tutoring, group projects, current events research, and role playing.

Student surveys of entering freshmen, of continuing students, and of alumni all show that our students are not interested in a terminal associate degree; they are ultimately seeking a baccalaureate, masters, or terminal degree (88% of entering freshmen, fall 1997; n=39). Among the baccalaureate majors, the professional programs are the most popular (business 22%, nursing/health 22%, education 11 %; n=46); students today are strongly career oriented.

A student/alumni survey item on problems at USCU shows that our students do not feel that they have problems with their course content (3-0 on four-point agreement scale: students disagreed that this was a problem; n=295). Some areas of our educational program that we could strengthen are time management (2.3), financial aid (2.8), and career exploration (2.9).

Beginning in 1997, our Student Affairs office has also been asking withdrawing or transferring students to complete a "withdrawal survey." On a scale of 1 to 4, very dissatisfied to very satisfied, our faculty was rated 3.6 and our educational program 3.5 (n=33). Students left only because they had achieved their goals or we did not offer the subsequent courses that they needed (79%). Almost no one suggested that they left because of weaknesses in the academic program (2%). Comments made on the survey mostly affirmed students' satisfaction: "everything is fine," "nothing to improve," and "individual attention is USC Union's greatest asset." Students also asked for additional courses, upper-level courses, and four-year status. Finally, there were a few specific complaints about our financial aid service and requests for tutorial service. We are actively working in both these areas.

During 1994-95, we added a question to our regular course evaluation form and asked, "if you could change one thing about USC Union, its courses, activities, facilities, administration, what would it be?" This question is not a leading question, as most survey items are, so it helps us to identify institutional weaknesses that are most obvious and most in the minds of our students. A summary of the requests made over the last four years looks like this: More Classes, 641 requests, Classroom Improvements, 235, More Extracurricular Activities, 212, Facilities Improvements, 93, Administrative improvements, 78, Scheduling Improvements, 38, Bookstore Improvements, 28, Library Improvements, 24, Advising Improvements, 26. It has been gratifying to see that the number two comment (329 responses, not included above) has been, "Nothing needs to be changed." The most common request has been that we expand our offerings and especially add more upper-level courses. Specific requests were in the areas of science, business, and foreign language.

A general education issue that we have specifically focused on this year, arising out of the Act 359 performance indicators, is advisor availability. In a spring 1998 sample of 60 students, 92% were at least satisfied with the availability of their advisors. Only a few reported difficulty in contacting an advisor or setting up meetings.

During 1997-98, we formed three different focus groups of faculty, staff, students, and an outside consultant, and we discussed improvements that could be made to USCU. Some of the most important recommendations to emerge from these discussions were: Publish a long-range course schedule, so students could plan ahead and take as many courses at USCU as possible before transferring or changing schools. Establish a learning lab to help students with academic problems. Raise admission standards to exclude those who cannot benefit from our offerings. Expand the curriculum, and offer more upper-level courses. Reduce the number of multiple sections and cancel small sections. Strengthen our academic intervention program and focus on helping students be successful in problem courses, rather than encouraging them to drop these courses. Terminate our Laurens program to avoid the small sections that are typical there.

Both transcript analysis and student feedback on the extent to which we are achieving our academic objectives show that our associate degree programs do incorporate fundamental academic skills and knowledge. Our Faculty Organization and Academic Dean have looked at a variety of ways to strengthen these programs even more. We are specifically considering the possibility of requiring MATH 111, Basic College Math, THSP 140, Public Communication, and/or CSCI 101, Introduction to Computer Concepts. USC Spartanburg has gone this route; USC Columbia is focusing more on teaching these skills across the curriculum. In fall 1997, we improved our coverage of non-western culture by offering for the first time HIST 106, African History. We also offered for the first time PHIL 102, Introduction to Philosophy. As faculty consider enriching individual courses, they are especially considering the objectives with low student recognition in their specific departments. For instance, we are strengthening the treatment of math and computer literacy in science courses and the treatment of science in history courses. We have also been working on computer literacy by upgrading our computer lab. In the last year, we have spent $76,000 to install 24 Pentium machines, a T1 phone line, a LAN, and a WAN. Our courses make use of more sophisticated software, and students have access to the Internet.

The faculty clearly recognizes the need to support students, to help them reach those appropriate academic standards. Recent survey data show that instructor and advisor availability is high (94% and 92% respectively). This encourages one-on-one help outside of class. Our academic intervention program seeks to identify at-risk students early in the semester and enlist both the instructor and the advisor to intervene and to help the student solve whatever problems are preventing success. Full-time faculty participation in this academic intervention is good; we need to enlist more adjunct participation.

Three additional efforts that we are making to help students be as successful as possible are an Opportunity Scholars Program, supported by a TRIO grant; intensive sections of ENGL 101 and MATH 111, that will provide double the contact time for students who are at-risk in these areas; and a strengthened UNIV 101 program open to all students. These efforts will provide students with a cocurricular learning lab, supported by PLATO software, math and writing tutors, outside speakers, and campus-wide programming. We will emphasize basic academic skills, time management, financial planning, career exploration, and study and learning techniques and attitudes.

However, we realize that we cannot help every student. Part of the mission of USCU is to provide all area students with the opportunity to benefit from a University education. But some students do not have the preparation or the motivation to succeed. During fall 1997, we thoroughly rethought our Opportunity admissions category and carefully defined our criteria for admission. We now consider writing ability, clarity of goals, motivation, and recommendations by school officials. Of course, high school grades and SAT scores are considered, but we do not want to reject any marginal student who otherwise shows promise. Our admissions procedure now includes the provision for an interview with the admissions committee. We hope that these efforts will decrease the failure rate of Opportunity students, without excluding anyone who does have a chance of succeeding.

Our course evaluation and faculty self evaluation procedures regularly encourage assessment and improvement. Some of the recently described teaching innovations are listed above; faculty will continue to test new approaches in their efforts to reach all students. We are especially focusing on active learning, student interaction, and collaboration. This past year, we have substantially strengthened our peer evaluation procedure, incorporating class visitation and formalizing the reporting process. The results of peer evaluation will be used in determining merit compensation, if any. We are also developing a post-tenure review procedure, to be in place by 1999.

An important goal in the area of General Education is to increase the size of the full-time faculty. We have just hired a Ph.D. mathematician. Based on student need, our next addition must be in the area of business administration, and we are actively seeking private funds to partially fund this new position. To expand the curriculum further, we will have to rely on adjuncts, and we are especially seeking help in science, business, and Spanish.

We have begun to implement some of the suggestions of the 1997 focus groups and the spring consultant. Our admission standards and Opportunity Scholars learning lab are discussed above, Our specific action plan for 1998/99 includes the following: Reduce class size in problem courses; where failure rate is 15% or greater, cap enrollment at 15-20 and open a second section. Establish evening sections of UNIV 101, develop common content core for all UNIV 101 sections, and promote heavily. Increase full-time faculty presence in Laurens: schedule one full-time faculty member in the Laurens building each evening, ask that instructor to maintain office hours before and/or after class, but if enrollments continue low, close local office and administer Laurens County offerings from Union. Establish longer range scheduling so students can plan ahead: publish 1998/2000 schedule for fall, 98, expand to three-year schedule, 1999/2002 for fall, 99.

Finally, Institutional Planning and Analysis, USC Columbia, is pilot testing the ACT/COMP as a senior, exit exam. They envision the test being used in a variety of capstone courses. This test is designed to assess higher order cognitive skills and the application of general education knowledge to real life situations. It evaluates a student's ability to communicate, solve problems, clarify values, function within social institutions, use science and technology, and use the arts. If this procedure is instituted, students who started at USCU could be compared to those who started in Columbia, providing another measure of the effectiveness of the preparation that we provide.