G. Curriculum and teaching-learning practices are evaluated at regularly scheduled intervals to foster ongoing improvement

Elaboration: Faculty use data from faculty and student evaluation of teaching-learning practices to inform decisions that facilitate the achievement of individual student learning outcomes. Such evaluation activities may be formal or informal, formative or summative. Curriculum is regularly evaluated by faculty and other communities of interest as appropriate. Data from the evaluation of curriculum and teaching-learning practices are used to foster program improvement.

Program Response:

The evaluation plan insures that regular and strenuous evaluation of the curriculum and teaching learning practices occur. There are several primary components of curricular evaluation. Every semester, the course leader is responsible for submitting a course summary according to the SON template which is available in the Resource Room. Students have the opportunity every semester to complete the

Instructional Assessment System (IAS) with responses to address course and faculty factors, the Clinical Facility Evaluation, and the Clinical Associate Evaluation. Students are also encouraged to offer written comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the course and the faculty. The written comments are compiled in a word document by the Administrative Associate, the handwritten comments are destroyed and the typed responses are shared with faculty. All evaluation feedback is shared with the specific faculty member after all course grades have been submitted. Most faculty also collect a mid-course evaluation via the survey tool in Blackboard. This allows faculty to address any concerns while the course is still in progress. Course notebooks are maintained electronically by the Administrative Associate. All information will be made available to the accreditation team in the Resource Room.

Another important component of the curriculum evaluation is the annual evaluation retreat. This event takes place annually at the end of Spring semester. The purpose of the retreat is to completely review the curriculum and teaching learning practices. Utilizing information gathered in the course summaries and information reported by the COPE committee as well as other standing committees, a day is spent reflecting on content and teaching and learning practices. This discourse allows for an

examination of specific content within the courses, the role of each course in the curriculum and most effective (or ineffective) teaching practices. Faculty discuss proposed revisions as they relate to the overall achievement of program outcomes. In addition to the annual Evaluation Retreat, faculty also meet after Fall semester each year to review courses taught in the Summer and Fall to provide data regarding continual practice or revisions at a midpoint in the year. That information is then revisited at the annual retreat in the perspective of the entire curriculum as appropriate. An example of how the evaluation

retreat is beneficial for curriculum review and how course summaries function in tandem to foster ongoing improvement can be found in the Evaluation Retreat Minutes from June 4, 2010 and the Faculty Council Minutes from July 16, 2010. While reviewing course summaries at the June 2010 Evaluation Retreat it was noted that the former grading policy which required 90% of theory course grades be from objective exams only, really limited learning activities that could be extremely beneficial. After a lengthy discussion, faculty were asked to consider a motion that would be sent out for electronic vote. Faculty Council Meeting Minutes from July 16, 2010 reflect the result of 8 in favor and 1 abstention.

The COPE Committee plays a primary role in curricular evaluation. The committee is charged with monitoring the effectiveness of curriculum implementation, and is chaired by the Associate Dean and made up of the NRC coordinator, the EARN coordinator, the MEREN Mentor and two additional faculty.

As described in Standard I-B, the COPE Committee reviews and revises the mission, goals and expected outcomes of the curriculum. All COPE Committee recommendations go to Faculty Council for a full faculty vote. The COPE Committee is also responsible for assessing student learning outcomes required by the evaluation plan.

As part of the evaluation of the curriculum, the Dean and Associate Dean track the results of the evaluation tools for each course. All courses regularly score above the benchmark on the course evaluation and clinical course evaluation tools. If faculty score below the benchmark, the Dean and/or Associate Dean meet with faculty to address areas of concern. In cases where a clinical associate does not meet the benchmark, the faculty of record is included to work with the clinical associated to improve performance.

Analysis of Compliance with Standard III

 Unit and course objectives guide student expectations throughout the curriculum, leading to attainment of curricular outcomes

 The curriculum was developed and is implemented and based on clear student learning outcomes and professional nursing guidelines

 Faculty were proactive in developing and implementing a completely new curriculum based on the 2008 Essentials

 The AUM core curriculum and pre-nursing requirements provide a strong foundation in the arts, sciences and humanities

 Teaching-learning practices and the environment support student outcomes

 The Simulation lab in conjunction with the Baptist Simulation Center offer a variety of learning opportunities for the students

 The curriculum and teaching-learning practices of AUMSON consider input from the community of interest

 The evaluation plan is well developed and consistently utilized

 Feedback and outcome data are used to foster program improvement

STANDARD IV

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS: AGGREGATE STUDENT AND FACULTY OUTCOMES