^ This is a link to an external web page.
Minding our "P's" and "Q's"
Indications of Productivity and Quality at University of South Carolina Aiken
REPORTS ON ACT 255 OF 1992 AND ACT 629 OF 1996
AS REQUIRED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
AUGUST 1, 1999 REPORT POSTED FOR JANUARY, 2000 LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Contents:
Act 629
Institutional Effectiveness Summary Report
Tables Submitted to the Commission on Higher Education in Partial Fulfillment of Act 255 of 1992
- Program Accreditation at USCA
- Surveys
- Job Placement Information
- Results of Institutional Alumni Surveys (1)
- Survey Report USCA
- Results of Institutional Alumni Surveys (2)
- Courses Taught by Faculty
- Results of Professional Examinations
Act 629
Institutional Effectiveness Summary Report
When the South Carolina Legislature enacted its first higher education accountability Act in 1988, it extended and emphasized the institutional efforts already under way to more closely monitor and more consistently improve the quality of learning and teaching. For a decade now South Carolina's public colleges and universities have been about the business of assessment; consequently, many of them are national leaders often looked to for advice on how to monitor and improve institutional effectiveness.
This year the South Carolina Higher Education Assessment (SCHEA) Network critiqued these reports and noted that collectively they demonstrate the high quality of South Carolina's assessment efforts. Although some colleges and universities have progressed faster than others in implementing effectiveness programs, and some write more detailed reports than others, there is no doubt that all institutions now emphasize outcomes and use data for improvement.
SCHEA reviewers noted weaknesses - some in the design or approach to assessing a particular area - but more commonly in the report itself. Some institutions spend more time describing processes than detailing goals and outcomes.
SCHEA representatives also pointed to numerous strengths - for example, the consistent use of multiple assessment strategies to build a fuller and clearer picture of various components. Institutions no longer rely solely on a single data source to assess any one component. This is most evident in the innovative ways in which several institutions approach two very challenging assessment areas: students writing skills and general education programs.
Equally admirable is the fact that institutions bring a thoughtful and critical eye to bear on the data collected and many are quite candid in admitting and discussing problems they have discovered. Such candor is convincing evidence of a commitment to quality and improvement.
The SCHEA Network encourages readers to note the many examples of quality assessments in this report. In such assessments institutions examine multiple data components and compare them to their own goals and, if weaknesses are discovered, take action to address them. The thoughtful reader will also remember that apples are not antelope: they are as distinctly different as our various institutional missions and student bodies. They should not be compared with one another but appreciated for their uniqueness.
South Carolina Higher Education
Assessment (SCHEA) Network
Reprinted here in entire from P's and Q's 1999 Report
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN
INTRODUCTION
USC Aiken continues the assessment of its institutional effectiveness as a demonstration of its commitment to quality in all its programs and services. Faculty and staff have consistently presented at both national and state assessment conferences in such areas as the AACSB's Outcomes Assessment Procedures; the Rising Junior Writing Portfolio; Capstone Courses, and the wide variety of methodologies used to assure quality through assessment and performance review.
This report consists of a summary of all assessment activities, outcomes and uses of outcomes in the five areas for assessment under the revised guidelines issued by the Commission on Higher Education on May 13, 1998. These areas are 1) General Education, 2) Majors and Concentrations which includes a full report for Education, and interim reports for Communications and Interdisciplinary Studies , 3) Academic Advising, 4) Procedures for Student Development and 5) Library Resources and Services. Although the Commission has designated these five areas as areas for assessment, each institution has an approved schedule of assessment under which the assessment reporting for these areas rotate. It is important to keep in mind that all the areas of the institution actual engage in assessment and self-study each year; however, the reports of the uses of assessment results and the improvements made are reported to the Commission only on a scheduled basis every two-three years depending on the institutional schedule of assessment reports. In addition, to reporting, assessment planning occurs as a separate activity for each department on a yearly basis.
USC Aiken employs a multiple measure approach and encourages all units to use a mixture of assessment methodologies such as capstone courses, senior theses/projects, interviews, surveys, portfolios, standardized instruments when appropriate, grade and course patterns, etc. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment guides departments in appropriate research design as well as the generation and interpretation of assessment data. In addition, the Office assists the units in evaluating and improving their assessment programs with the goal of using outcomes to improve the quality of the institution through improvement of the total teaching and learning environment.
We welcome your questions and comments. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, Administration Building, Room 101D, x3407 or x3205 or email the Director,
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, at lovelyu@usca.sc.edu
The full assessment report for this area was submitted for last year's P's and Q's document. This area is not scheduled to report again until summer 2000.
1999 Update: Current NEW general education projects underway include the creation, pilot and final design a grading rubric for USCA's Assessment Booklet 14 which helps to assess how well USCA students 1) Explore Values Openly and Honestly, 2) Find and Examine Relationships Among Disciplines, Concepts and Areas of Study and 3) Appreciate Cross-Cultural Perspectives, which are the three major goals of USCA's general education program. In addition to the above, all USCA students with 30 hours or less or 80 hours or more (freshmen and seniors) are required to take the College Base, a national standardized instrument which measures the strength of general education. In 1997-98 the composite score of the College Base showed that USCA freshmen began in general education scoring below the national mean with a score of (X=300) and by the time they are seniors, USCA students score at the national mean with a score of 308 indicating that USCA students do significantly gain in general education skills while attending USCA.
In addition to the above assessment activities, national presentations were given in the area of assessing general education skills through rising junior portfolios in writing, standardized speaking rubrics for communication, and general education research design and implementation, and the development of rubrics in general education. Overall, USCA's general education assessment program has continued to be used as a model for other institutions nationwide that are dedicated to assessing the quality of their general education program.
MAJORS OR CONCENTRATIONS
1999: Full Report – School of Education
USCA's School of Education's National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Education (NCATE) Full Accreditation Report is on file with the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, S.C. 29801. A review of this report shows that NCATE was very favorably impressed with all facets of the USCA School of Education and had only a few recommendations which the School of Education will continue to attend.
Summary of the Initial NCATE Accreditation Visit to the USCA School of Education
In February 1999, an NCATE accreditation team composed of NCATE Board of Examiners and representatives from the South Carolina State Department of Education and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education conducted an initial NCATE accreditation visit at USC Aiken. The Board of Examiners prepared a report of their findings that will be reviewed by the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board in October 1999. At that time, the Unit Accreditation Board will announce USC Aiken's NCATE accreditation status. The information provided below was taken from the Board of Examiners Report of the NCATE Initial Accreditation visit to USC Aiken, February 6-10, 1999.
Part 1: Summary for Professional Education Unit
The Board of Examiners Team found the USC Aiken School of Education had met all of the NCATE standards at both the initial and advanced levels.
Part II: Description of Decisions for Each Standard
All decisions were positive in the NCATE Review; however, there were several weaknesses that NCATE did point out during its review process. The School of Education will continue to strive to improve on these
The Board of Examiners Team identified six weaknesses that need to be addressed in order to further strengthen the teacher education programs at USC Aiken. Those weaknesses are listed below:
Standard I. A Initial: The conceptual framework is not clearly articulated by the USCA Beaufort campus adjunct faculty, cooperating teachers, and students.
Advanced: The conceptual framework is not clearly delineated throughout the M.Ed. program.
Standard II. A:The unit does not assure that part-time faculty are knowledgeable about practice related to the use of computers and technology and that they can integrate them in their teaching.
Standard III. B: The tenure track faculty is not sufficiently diverse.
Standard IV. A: The unit does not have sufficient full-time, tenure track faculty to support the integrity, quality, and continuity of the programs. The unit does not have sufficient full-time clerical staff to support the programs offered.
Summary of NCATE Visit Overall
The USCA School of Education is very pleased with the findings of the Board of Examiner's Team and looks forward to the official announcement of its NCATE accreditation status by the Unit Board of Examiners in October 1999. A full NCATE accreditation report prepared by the School of Education for the NCATE visit is on file at the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.
1999: Interim Reports for Communication and Journalism and Interdisciplinary Studies
Communications and Journalism Report 1999
The 1998-99 school year was the first year that USCA students could earn a Bachelor's degree in communications. Much energy during that first year was devoted to developing an assessment plan, and a plan is now in place. The first step was to clearly state the departmental mission and objectives.
Departmental Mission And Objectives
The communications degree program is designed to give students a thorough understanding of fundamental communication processes across a variety of contexts, ranging from the interpersonal context, to the small group and organizational contexts, to the public and mass communication contexts. We strive to provide our students with an understanding of communication theories, principles, functions, and concepts and with a range of systematic communication experiences in order to help them develop their communication and critical thinking skills The program is structured to prepare students for advanced study as well as a wide range of careers in business, industry, and the nonprofit sector.
The educational objectives of the program are to provide majors with learning experiences which will enable them to:
- Demonstrate an understanding of the communication discipline's areas of study as well as the theories, principles and concepts associated with different areas of study;
- Critically analyze and evaluate the communication of themselves and others across a variety of situations;
- Develop an understanding of the situational, cultural, legal and ethical aspects of communicative acts;
- Use their communication knowledge and skills to:
- communicate ideas and information clearly and accurately, whether one-to one, in small groups, or in a one-to-many setting;
- communicate persuasively whether one-to one, in small groups, or in a one-to-many setting;
- deliberate and solve problems, whether one-to one, in small groups, or in a one-to-many setting;
- Exhibit effective nonverbal communication behaviors when interacting with others;
- Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication skills;
- Demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively in writing;
The second step in the process was to identify a tentative set of assessment procedures we expect to put in place to determine if the departmental objectives are in fact being met, and to establish a tentative time frame for implementing each of the assessment procedures.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND TYPES OF DATA GENERATED
1. An exit survey of graduating seniors completed during their last semester. Questions cover student evaluations of such matters as their preparation and learning, as well as frequency and variety of offerings, learning value of assignments, etc. The survey will be completed at a computer terminal and students will be asked to respond to open and closed questions. The survey will be administered via the Internet, and analyzed by the USCA Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.
Objectives Measured: 1, 2, and 3. In addition, this is an overall assessment of satisfaction with the program, and gives us an "external evaluation."
Start Date and Frequency: To begin Spring 1999, and be conducted annually. Data will be compiled each calendar year.
2. A capstone experience for each student consisting of either a professional internship or a service-learning internship. Students are required to submit either a research paper or a portfolio of work with a reaction paper. Standardized rubrics will be developed and used to evaluate the papers and portfolios, an annual summary rating will be calculated, and compared with a minimum standard of acceptability.
Objectives Measured: Numbers 1, 3, 4c and 7
Start Date and Frequency: Development and pretesting of rubric to begin in Spring 1999, modifications to be made in Fall 1999, and regular data collection is tentatively set to begin in Spring 2000. Data will be analyzed annually.
3. A paper and pencil evaluation of the student's communication skills. One or two faculty members plus one or two people at the location of the student's capstone experience (in business, government, or social service) will be asked to complete a paper and pencil evaluation of the student's communication skills.
Objectives Measured: Numbers 4, 5, and 6
Start Date and Frequency: Pretesting in 1999-2000, then to be conducted annually.
4. A faculty evaluation of the student's presentation skills and discipline knowledge. After completing their capstone experience, all students will be required to make an oral presentation to faculty members and other students. The presentation is to summarize the student's efforts, and reflect on his/her learning. This presentation will be evaluated by two faculty members using a standardized evaluation form built around accepted elements of effective public speaking. The evaluation form is to be adapted from the National Communication Association's rubric for evaluating public speaking.
Objectives Measured: Numbers 2, 4a and 4b, and 5
Start Date and Frequency: Development and pretesting of rubric to begin in Spring 1999, modifications to be made in Fall 1999, and regular data collection is tentatively set to begin in Spring 2000. Evaluations will be compiled annually.
5. An evaluation of the student's resume. As part of his/her capstone experience, each student must submit an up-to-date resume. We anticipate that the resume will be evaluated by two faculty and judged on the extent to which it demonstrates the student's ability to use written work to communicate clearly, persuasively, and ethically.
Objectives Measured: Numbers 4 and 7
Start Date and Frequency: Development and pretesting of rubric to begin in Spring 1999, modifications to be made in Fall 1999, and regular data collection to begin in Spring 2000. Data will be analyzed annually.
6. Every five years, a review of departmental goals and objectives and course syllabus. Department members will revisit the goals and objectives identified in this document every 5 years to assess the extent to which they continue to fit with the department's mission. Syllabi will also be reviewed to ensure that courses are designed to meet departmental goals. No assessment outcome of this measure will be reported until 2005.
Objectives Measured: Numbers 1 and 3
Start Date and Frequency: Fall 2004. Every 5 years there after.
The department will continue to work on its assessment program in the coming year. As noted, we must continue to develop and pretest rubrics and make necessary modifications. We expect to compile results for the exit interview in January 2000, after we have a sufficient number of graduates to compile meaningful data. Other assessment results will follow.
Interdisciplinary Studies-Interim Report 1999
Due to the nature of the Interdisciplinary Studies major, assessment procedures are under constant review. In an effort to assess both the depth and the coherence of any of the concentration pairings for this degree, the two major goals of the BIS program, we have relied on an exit portfolio and exit interview of our graduating seniors. From the exit interview, we obtain information about student overall satisfaction with the BIS program and with the education obtained at USCA. As a result we have added to the existing profile of the BIS program's appeal to students. It continues to attract students with strong--and frequently unconventional--career goals and decided interests in the flexibility provided by studying two disciplines. The three most frequent reasons given for selecting the BIS major, in order of preference, are that 1) the BIS major allows students to shape their studies to fit personal and professional goals, 2) USCA does not offer a traditional degree in the student's chosen major, and 3) the BIS major allows the student to study two different disciplines in some depth. As was the case last year, students are overwhelmingly satisfied with the BIS program, with all 8 of the participating students rating their degree courses as good or excellent. In response to open-ended questions, they listed several factors which contributed to their satisfaction: good working relationships with faculty, flexibility allowing for changing goals, and freedom to explore more disciplines.
As a group the BIS majors are articulate about what they have learned in their concentrations. This is evident from response on both the interview and the portfolio. The portfolio is assessed using rubrics which have been designed to measure qualitatively the kind of information it provides about students' knowledge of each of the individual disciplines and the kind of connection the students perceive between their two disciplines. We expect 80% of BIS majors to score 3.5 or higher on the rubric scale measuring the depth with which they discuss their concentrations and at least 50% of our students to score 3.5 or higher on the rubric scale measuring their discussion of connections between their concentrations. The required interview allows students to explain more fully how they perceive the quality of their work.
One of the frustrations with BIS assessment is that, since there are no faculty or curricula under the supervision of the BIS program, using the assessment results effectively has been a problem. Much of the information obtained from the interviews has been useful in the advisement process for current students, but more needs to be done with what we've learned about this program through our assessment process. Beginning with the 1999-2000 academic year, the BIS director will present to the Academic Council a more complete assessment report about interdepartmental BIS curricula findings, in addition to the annual program review report currently shared with the Council.
In an effort to make the exit interview process more time-efficient, we are exploring the possibility of putting part of it on the computer for students to access at their convenience. If this can be done without losing the wealth of information we obtain in the personal interview, this will be a major change in the BIS assessment process this year. To evaluate this, we will compare response rates on items and the nature of the item responses from both collection methods. In addition, in an effort to make the portfolio more informative for our purposes, we are in the process of revising the brochure we give to students which provides guidelines for compiling and annotating their portfolio's contents.
The Office of Academic Advisement coordinates advisement for the entire campus, which includes thirteen academic units. The mission of the Office of Academic Advisement is to assist students in the development of meaningful educational plans compatible with their life goals.
Advisor Training
All new faculty must complete new faculty orientation. A discussion of academic advising by the Director of Academic Advisement is one of the components of this orientation program. In addition, the Director also schedules individual appointments with new faculty members to acquaint them with policy and procedures of advising. Also, during the semester the Office of Academic Advisement offers training sessions for all advisors, new and veteran. These sessions are two hours in length and are scheduled a few weeks before advisement and early registration for the subsequent semester. There are approximately twelve of these sessions scheduled at various times each semester. New advisors are required to attend and veteran advisors must attend every three years. It is during these sessions that current policy and procedures are reinforced and new ones are introduced. Any changes in procedure or new procedures are also communicated to the advisors by memo immediately before each advisement and registration period. Each advisor is provided with an advisement manual, as a training and a reference tool.
Veteran advisors are required to attend mandatory training sessions every three years. Of course if any major changes occur between these times, training sessions are held as needed. New advisors are trained as new faculty are hired.
Evaluation and Assessment
Student Evaluation of Advising: Each year as a part of performance funding a question is asked about academic advising and the availability of academic advisors outside of the classroom, (Performance Indicator 2E2) USCA scored an "exceeds" on this indicator with an actual satisfaction rate of students of 97%. In addition to this question, all students are given a USCA advising survey after every advising session (fall and spring) and asked to return the survey to the Office of Advising where they proceed as the next enrollment step. Overall responses on this survey indicate that students are generally very satisfied with advising at USCA.
| Question | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction with advising (Question added to 1998 Advising Survey) | NA | NA | NA | NA * | 98.6% |
| Satisfaction with the advisement by faculty within their chosen major | 77% | 79.6% | 73.7% | 85% | 97.4% |
| Satisfaction with the Office of Advisement Services | N/A | N/A | 89.1% | 91% | 86.7% |
* In 1997 with the advent of the CHE Performance Funding Question concerning the availability of advising both the question content, process for returns, and format of the Advising Survey changed from a random classroom administration to an all student administration which takes place during pre-registration so that all students going through the process of advising have the opportunity to evaluate it. Since many students use TIPS (automatic telephone enrollment) or Desktop Registration procedures, actual course enrollment could not be used. Because of the importance of getting students to respond to the required advising questions, the process was strengthened to get more valid response rates.
In addition to the above types of on-campus evaluations, alumni surveys have been conducted asking past graduates how satisfied they were with the advisement they received from faculty within the chosen major. Alumni are surveyed three years after graduation. The following results have been found from alumni. While the satisfaction with advisement of current students is increasing, the level of satisfaction with alumni tends to be decreasing. The Office of Advisement is continuing to monitor this trend.
| ACADEMIC YEAR OF GRADUATION | PERCENT SATISFIED WITH FACULTY ADVISEMENT WITHIN THE CHOSEN MAJOR |
|---|---|
| 1989-90 | 95.0% |
| 1990-91 | 95.5% |
| 1991-92 | 92.4% |
| 1992-93 | 85.1% |
| 1993-94 | 81.1% |
| 1994-95 | 92.9% |
| 1995-96 | 85.8% |
Procedures for Student Development
The full assessment report for this area was submitted for last year's P's and Q's document. This area is not scheduled to report again until summer 2001.
Library Resources
The full assessment report for this area was submitted for last year's P's and Q's document. This area is not scheduled to report again until summer 2001.
In order for all on-line readers to understand the importance of assessment at USCA the portion of the Undergraduate Catalogue requiring assessment has been reprinted below. If you have any questions about the above institutional effectiveness report or the assessment procedures used at USCA, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, Director, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, University of South Carolina Aiken, 471 University Way, Aiken, S.C. 29801; telephone 803/641-3338; email lovelyu@aiken.sc.edu. Thank you for your interest in assessment at USCA.
ASSESSMENT AT USCA
(reprinted from the 1999 Undergraduate Catalogue)
Assessment, in a university or college setting, means several things. Assessment is the process of evaluating the success of a university in meeting its mission (institutional assessment), and it is the process associated with evaluating outcomes in relation to stated program goals (program assessment), and it is using course-embedded assessment activities to deliver and evaluate student learning (classroom assessment). Assessment at USCA, then, is the ongoing process of self-improvement through analyzing and evaluating all of our programs and services through a variety of methods and measurements.
The Office of Assessment assists faculty, staff and administrators in gathering data to evaluate the effectiveness of USCA programs and services. The mission of the Office is to coordinate and implement an overall academic assessment program for the University that reflects USCA's institutional mission statement, and includes the assessment of general education and the assessment of the academic disciplines. To this end, the Office seeks to:
- Assess effectively the basic skills of entering students (with between 0-30 credit hours) and exiting students (with between 85-100 credit hours), and to assess other attitudes and skills during appropriate points of a student's undergraduate experience.
- Coordinate and monitor the assessment of academic programs.
- Serve as the primary assessment consultant to the University administration, academic units, departments/schools, and faculty committees.
- Serve as the primary academic assessment liaison to outside agencies and institutions.
- Conduct and analyze survey research of academic programs, as needed.
- Conduct workshops, as needed, on assessment-related issues.
Student participation in assessment activities is a university priority and obligation, and is mandatory. All students wishing to receive a baccalaureate degree from USCA must complete procedures required for the assessment of general education, and those required by their major and/or their area of concentration and other areas deemed important by the institution to measure its effectiveness. Primary responsibility for the assessment of academic programs within a major or area of concentration, including graduate programs, is with the faculty in each academic unit. Information pertinent to assessment of the major or area of concentration is provided to students by the department from which the degree will be granted.
Primary responsibility for assessing the effectiveness of our General Education curriculum and with other educational quality indicators lies with the Office of Assessment. The Office administers the assessment of general education and administers exams, interviews, focus groups, surveys, questionnaires, and/or other instruments as developed by the Office of Assessment, the academic units and/or the University Assessment Committee.
For USCA's General Education program assessment, the Office of Assessment notifies students of times, dates and locations of required assessment procedures. Letters are sent to the student's official home of record, and an attempt is made to telephone the student at the telephone number which the University has on file. Therefore it is important for all students to make the University Records Office aware of their current address and phone number at all times. If a student fails to participate in a required assessment activity, a "hold" will be placed on that student's record. The "hold" will indicate that the student will not be allowed to register for classes and/or that no diploma, certificate, grade report, or enrollment verification will be issued to or for the student. This "hold" will be removed after the student completes the required assessment(s). Generally, assessment tests are administered during March/April and October (around advisement but before pre-registration) and during July orientation for new students. If a student does not take the required assessment during the regularly scheduled times of administration, and wishes to complete enrollment and registration or have a diploma, certificate, grade report or enrollment verification issued, that student must pay a $50. (fifty dollars) administrative charge and arrange for individual testing with the Office of Assessment.
Although assessment is a required activity, the results of any individual assessment activity may not be used for the evaluation of any individual student's academic progress. Assessment results are compiled and used in the aggregate form; all individual responses are kept confidential. All university assessment reports are the responsibility of the Office of Assessment. For further information on assessment at USCA, the student should contact the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.
TABLES SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER
EDUCATION
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF ACT 255 OF 1992
| NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION | ACCREDITABLE PROGRAM(S) | ACCREDITED PROGRAM(S) |
|---|---|---|
| Teacher Education (TED) - Baccalaureate and graduate programs for the preparation of teachers and other professional personnel for elementary and secondary schools |
1 | 1 |
| NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR NURSING, INC. | ACCREDITABLE PROGRAM(S) | ACCREDITED PROGRAM(S) |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing (PNUR) - Practical nursing programs | ||
| Nursing (ADNUR) - Associate degree programs | 1 | 1 |
| Nursing (DNUR) - Diploma programs | ||
| Nursing (NUR) - Baccalaureate and higher degree programs | 1 | 1 |
| SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS | ACCREDITABLE PROGRAM(S) | ACCREDITED PROGRAM(S) |
|---|---|---|
| Forestry (FOR) - Programs leading to a bachelor's or higher first professional degree |
Those institutions which have business programs should complete one, but not both, of the following:
| AMERICAN ASSEMBLY OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS | ACCREDITABLE PROGRAM(S) | ACCREDITED PROGRAM(S) |
|---|---|---|
| Business (BUS) - Baccalaureate and masters degree programs in business administration and management |
1 | Spring 2000 |
| Business (BUSA) - Baccalaureate and masters degree programs in accounting |
OR
| ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE BUSINESS SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS | ACCREDITABLE PROGRAM(S) | ACCREDITED PROGRAM(S) |
|---|---|---|
| Business (BUAD) - Associate degree programs in business and business-related fields |
||
| Business (BUBD) - Baccalaureate degree programs in business and business-related fields |
||
| Business (BUMD) - Master's degree programs in business and business-related fields |
Total Programs: _____4___Accreditable _3 *_____ Accredited for 75%
NOTE: For act 255 USCA currently has 4 programs accreditable and 3 programs accredited (since for act 255 an institution may only count those programs that are fully accredited by the reporting date). However, for Act 359 USCA will be able to count AACSB Business Accreditation since that visit will be in Spring 2000 making USCA's number 4 and 4 or 100% accredited program for this indicator under Act 359 guidelines
SURVEYS
USCA Alumni Surveys
Major Program of Study:
- Very Satisfied 55%; Satisfied 35%; Somewhat Satisfied 8%; Somewhat Dissatisfied 2%; Dissatisfied 1% and Very Dissatisfied 0%
- Rate of Return 27%
- Number of Responses to Questions 139
Instruction in the Major:
- Very Satisfied 50%; Satisfied 39%; Somewhat Satisfied 8%; Somewhat Dissatisfied 2%; Dissatisfied 1% and Very Dissatisfied 0%
- Rate of Return 27%
- Number of Responses to Question 127
Overall Academic Experience:
- Very Satisfied 52%; Satisfied 37%; Somewhat Satisfied 10%; Somewhat Dissatisfied 0%; Dissatisfied 1% and Very Dissatisfied 0%
- Rate of Return 27%
- Number of Responses to Question 127
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| How many graduates did you survey? | 481 | |
| What percent of your graduates does this represent? | 94% | |
| How many surveys were returned? | 130 | |
| What is the survey response rate? | 27% | |
| Survey Based on (circle one): | Sample | Total Group |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Prior to leaving college | 45 | 38% |
| b. Less than one month | 20 | 17% |
| c. 1 to 3 months | 25 | 21% |
| d. 4 to 6 months | 14 | 12% |
| e. 7 to 12 months | 3 | 3% |
| f. Over 12 months | 5 | 4% |
| g. Have not obtained a full-time job | 1 | 1% |
| h. Did not seek a full-time job | 7 | 6% |
| Total | 120 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Continuing my education full-time | 5 | 4% |
| b. Employed and continuing my education | 19 | 16% |
| c. Employed full-time | 87 | 72% |
| d. Employed part-time | 4 | 3% |
| e. Self-employed | 0 | 0% |
| f. Serving in Armed Forces | 0 | 0% |
| g. Caring for a home/family | 0 | 0% |
| h. Unemployed seeking work | 2 | 2% |
| i. Unemployed not seeking work | 2 | 2% |
| j. Other | 2 | 2% |
| Total | 121 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Highly related | 73 | 62% |
| b. Moderately related | 19 | 16% |
| c. Slightly related | 10 | 9% |
| d. Not related | 12 | 10% |
| e. Not employed | 3 | 3% |
| Total | 117 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Highly related | 73 | 65% |
| b. Moderately related | 15 | 13% |
| c. Slightly related | 11 | 10% |
| d. Not related | 13 | 12% |
| e. Not employed | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 112 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. South Carolina | 84 | 71% |
| b. Southeast, outside of South Carolina | 25 | 21% |
| c. Outside the Southeast | 5 | 4% |
| d. Not employed | 4 | 3% |
| Total | 118 | 100% |
RESULTS OF INSTITUTIONAL ALUMNI SURVEYS
Name of Institution: USC Aiken
Year: 1995-96
Listed below are the common questions to be used by all public institutions and the requested aggregate data for your institutions should be placed in the appropriate columns.
| How many students were surveyed? | 481 |
| What percentage of students responded? | 27% |
| Was this population a sample or the total group? | total |
| Possible Response | # Of Responses to Survey | % Very Satisfied | % Satisfied | % Somewhat Satisfied | % Somewhat Dissatisfied | % Dissatisfied | % Very Dissatisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 MAJOR Program of Study | 129 | 55% | 35% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| 1.2 INSTRUCTION in the major | 127 | 50% | 39% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| 1.3 GENERAL EDUCATION program of study (non-major requirements) | 129 | 34% | 50% | 12% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| 1.4 INSTRUCTION in general education | 127 | 34% | 48% | 16% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| 1.5 OVERALL ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE | 127 | 52% | 37% | 10% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
| Possible Response | # Of Responses to Survey | % Weekly | % Monthly | % Annually | % Less Often | % Never |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Career-related advanced education or training | 128 | 20% | 29% | 38% | 10% | 3% |
| 2.2 "Lifelong learning"/personal enrichment studies outside career area(s) | 125 | 13% | 22% | 24% | 27% | 14% |
| 2.3 Professional or service organizations | 127 | 16% | 28% | 24% | 16% | 16% |
| 2.4 Volunteer, public or community service | 126 | 15% | 19% | 23% | 23% | 20% |
| 2.5 Social/recreational organization | 125 | 20% | 24% | 15% | 22% | 18% |
| 2.6 Support or participation in the arts | 125 | 7% | 14% | 25% | 31% | 22% |
| # Of Responses to Survey | % Strongly | % Moderately | % Somewhat | % None at all |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 18% | 37% | 27% | 18% |
| # Of Responses to Survey | % All | % Most | % Some | % Few | % None |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 38% | 40% | 10% | 3% | 8% |
SURVEY REPORT USCA
PLACEMENT DATA ON GRADUATES
Name of Institution: USC Aiken
Academic Year for Graduating Students: 1995-96
Act 255 of 1992 requires public institutions of higher learning are required to report placement data on graduates. By including the placement data as part of the alumni follow-up survey, institutions will be reporting biannually on graduates three years prior. Please indicate the number of responses to each item and the percentages in the appropriate columns. (Individual percentages are rounded to the next highest number.)
| Number | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| How many graduates did you survey? | 481 | |
| What percent of your graduates does this represent? | 94% | |
| How many surveys were returned? | 130 | |
| What is the survey response rate? | 27% | |
| Survey Based on (circle one): | Total Group | |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Prior to leaving college | 45 | 38% |
| b. Less than one month | 20 | 17% |
| c. 1 to 3 months | 25 | 21% |
| d. 4 to 6 months | 14 | 12% |
| e. 7 to 12 months | 3 | 3% |
| f. Over 12 months | 5 | 4% |
| g. Have not obtained a full-time job | 1 | 1% |
| h. Did not seek a full-time job | 7 | 6% |
| Total | 120 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Continuing my education full-time | 5 | 4% |
| b. Employed and continuing my education | 19 | 16% |
| c. Employed full-time | 87 | 72% |
| d. Employed part-time | 4 | 3% |
| e. Self-employed | 0 | 0% |
| f. Serving in Armed Forces | 0 | 0% |
| g. Caring for a home/family | 0 | 0% |
| h. Unemployed seeking work | 2 | 2% |
| i. Unemployed not seeking work | 2 | 2% |
| j. Other | 2 | 2% |
| Total | 121 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Highly related | 73 | 62% |
| b. Moderately related | 19 | 16% |
| c. Slightly related | 10 | 9% |
| d. Not related | 12 | 10% |
| e. Not employed | 3 | 3% |
| Total | 117 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. Highly related | 73 | 65% |
| b. Moderately related | 15 | 13% |
| c. Slightly related | 11 | 10% |
| d. Not related | 13 | 12% |
| e. Not employed | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 112 | 100% |
| Possible Response | # of Responses | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| a. South Carolina | 84 | 71% |
| b. Southeast, outside of South Carolina | 25 | 21% |
| c. Outside the Southeast | 5 | 4% |
| d. Not employed | 4 | 3% |
| Total | 118 | 100% |
RESULTS OF INSTITUTIONAL ALUMNI SURVEYS
Name of Institution: USC Aiken
Year: 1995-96
Listed below are the common questions to be used by all public institutions and the requested aggregate data for your institutions should be placed in the appropriate columns.
| How many students were surveyed? | 481 |
| What percentage of students responded? | 27% |
| Was this population a sample or the total group? | total |
| Possible Response | # Of Responses to Survey | % Very Satisfied | % Satisfied | % Somewhat Satisfied | % Somewhat Dissatisfied | % Dissatisfied | % Very Dissatisfied |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 MAJOR Program of Study | 129 | 55% | 35% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| 1.2 INSTRUCTION in the major | 127 | 50% | 39% | 8% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| 1.3 GENERAL EDUCATION program of study (non-major requirements) | 129 | 34% | 50% | 12% | 2% | 2% | 0% |
| 1.4 INSTRUCTION in general education | 127 | 34% | 48% | 16% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| 1.5 OVERALL ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE | 127 | 52% | 37% | 10% | 0% | 1% | 0% |
| Possible Response | # Of Responses to Survey | % Weekly | % Monthly | % Annually | % Less Often | % Never |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Career-related advanced education or training | 128 | 20% | 29% | 38% | 10% | 3% |
| 2.2 "Lifelong learning"/personal enrichment studies outside career area(s) | 125 | 13% | 22% | 24% | 27% | 14% |
| 2.3 Professional or service organizations | 127 | 16% | 28% | 24% | 16% | 16% |
| 2.4 Volunteer, public or community service | 126 | 15% | 19% | 23% | 23% | 20% |
| 2.5 Social/recreational organization | 125 | 20% | 24% | 15% | 22% | 18% |
| 2.6 Support or participation in the arts | 125 | 7% | 14% | 25% | 31% | 22% |
| # Of Responses to Survey | % Strongly | % Moderately | % Somewhat | % None at all |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 18% | 37% | 27% | 18% |
| # Of Responses to Survey | % All | % Most | % Some | % Few | % None |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 38% | 40% | 10% | 3% | 8% |
Institution _USC Aiken ___________________
Lower Division Instructional Courses (Sections)
Directions:
Two- and Four-Year Institutions will report the number and percent of lower division courses taught by full-time faculty, part-time faculty and by graduate assistants for Fall 1998. Please provide the data for your institution in the appropriate columns below.
Lower division courses include all sections of courses which the institutions considers to be below the junior or third year level, in most cases courses carrying a number below 300. Developmental courses should be included. Graduate teaching assistants are to be included if they are the instructors of record.
| Total # of Lower Division Sections | # of Full-Time Faculty | # of Part-Time Faculty | # of Graduate Assistants |
|---|---|---|---|
| 386 | 252 | 134 | 0 |
Institution __USC Aiken __________________________
STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN SPONSORED RESEARCH
Four-Year Institutions
Directions:
Each institution that receives research dollars generated by external funding (sponsored research) shall report the number and percentage of graduate and upper division undergraduates who receive funding through grant monies and thus participate in sponsored research programs. The nature of student involvement in the projects is not addressed, i.e., what role the student played; nor is there an attempt to determine the extend to which students participate in non-externally funded research projects. Please report the number of students in each category who participated in sponsored research programs at your institutions during Fall 1998. CHE will calculate the percentage using these data and enrollment data from the Fall 1998 IPEDS Enrollment Forms.
| Number of Students
Participating in Sponsored Research (Exclude first professional students) |
|
|---|---|
| Upper-Division Students | 12 |
| Graduate Students | 0 |
Institution ____USC Aiken____________________
SUCCESS OF STUDENTS IN DEVELOPMENTAL COURSES
Applies to Four-Year Institutions except MUSC
Directions:
All four-year post-secondary institutions shall report the number and percent of students enrolled in developmental courses and the number of students exiting such courses and successfully completing the entry-level course (for which the developmental preparation was intended).
For purposes of counting students who exit developmental courses and successfully complete the appropriate entry level course, a student enrolled in more than one developmental course and completing more than one entry level course should be counted once for each developmental course he/she exits and once for each entry level course he/she completes. Appropriate entry-level courses for which successful completion is determined will be defined by the developmental instructor as the course for which the student is being prepared.
| Number
of first-time, full-time entering freshmen enrolled in Fall 1997 (include
first-time freshmen who enrolled either part-time or full-time in the
Summer 1997 if they returned full-time in the Fall 1997) Item (1) |
Number
of those students who were enrolled in one or more developmental courses
in Summer or Fall 1997 Item (2) |
Number of
those students in each developmental course who successfully completed
the appropriate entry level course by the end of Spring 1999. Item (3) |
|---|---|---|
| 342 | 3 | 1 |
Breakdown of Items (2 and 3)
List below the developmental courses taught in Summer and Fall 1997 (combine all sections for each course). For each course indicate the number of students included in item (2) above who enrolled, the number who completed the course, and the number who successfully completed the entry level course by the end of Spring Semester 1999.
| Course Description (symbol, number, title) | Total Enrollment | Number Exiting | Number Completing Entry-Level Course |
|---|---|---|---|
|
AMTH 098 Beginning Algebra |
3 | 3 | 1 |
|
AMTH 099 Intermediate Algebra |
1 | 1 | 0 |
Note: These figures reflect enrollment in Summer 1997 remedial courses. All remedial courses were discontinued effective Fall 1997.
Institution ___USC Aiken_________________________
RESULTS OF PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATIONS
Two- and Four-Year Institutions
All public institutions must report student scores on professional examinations with detailed information over time. CHE reports all national and regional pass rates and will contact (within a 30-day period) all licensing/examination bodies directly for their data.
The information reported should include all first-time examinees who completed the specific exam during the period of April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999 and should list the entire (proper) name for each exam. All institutions should report each test administered and the dates of those tests.
| Name of Exam | Date(s) Administered | # of 1st time Examinees | # of 1st time Examinees who Passed | % Passing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National
Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses |
4/1/98-12/31/98 | 37 | 29 | 78 |
| 1/1/99-3/31/99 | 27 | 26 | 96 | |
| Total: | 64 | 55 | 86 |
| Name of Exam | Date(s) Administered | # of 1st time Examinees | # of 1st time Examinees who Passed | % Passing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRAXIS Professional Knowledge Exam |
5/2/98 | 9 | 9 | 100 |
| 7/11/98 | 14 | 14 | 100 | |
| 10/17/98 | 27 | 27 | 100 | |
| 11/21/98 | 24 | 24 | 100 | |
| 1/23/99 | 7 | 6 | 86 | |
| 3/13/99 | 16 | 16 | 100 | |
| Total: | 97 | 96 | 99 | |
| PRAXIS Specialty Area Exam |
5/2/98 | 1 | 1 | 100 |
| 7/11/98 | 1 | 1 | 100 | |
| 10/17/98 | 27 | 26 | 96 | |