Student Learning Outcomes

National Park College collects student learning outcomes data, or key measures of student learning, based on specific general education objectives each year. Information collected through general education assessment, Business Division assessment, and individual course assessment is used to analyze student learning to improve course curriculum, degree requirements, and program viability.

TABLE 2: Student Learning Results (Standard 4)
Use this table to supply data for Criterion 4.2.
Performance Indicator	Definition
1. Student Learning Results	A student learning outcome is one that measures a specific competency attainment. Examples of a direct assessment (evidence) of student learning attainment that might be used include: capstone performance, third-party examination, faculty-designed examination, professional performance, licensure examination). Add these to the description of the measurement instrument in column two: Direct - Assessing student performance by examining samples of student work Indirect - Assessing indicators other than student work such as getting feedback from the student or other persons who may provide relevant information. Formative – An assessment conducted during the student’s education. Summative – An assessment conducted at the end of the student’s education. Internal – An assessment instrument that was developed within the business unit. External – An assessment instrument that was developed outside the business unit. Comparative – Compare results between classes, between online and on ground classes, Between professors, between programs, between campuses, or compare to external results such as results from the U.S. Department of Education Research and Statistics, or results from a vendor providing comparable data. - If for any given performance measure your goal is being exceeded repeatedly, consider either increasing the goal or changing the performance measure so that action can be taken to improve the program. - For all data reported, show sample size (n=75).

Analysis of Results
Performance Measure: For each assessment, identify the following - 1. Academic Program, 2. Student Learning Outcome, 3. Measurable Goal	What is your measurement instrument or process? Do not use grades. Indicate type of instrument (e.g. direct, formative, internal, comparative)	Current Results: What are your current results?	Analysis of Results: What did you learn from your results?	Action Taken or Improvement Made: What did you improve or what is your next step?
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 1 - "Perform tasks following acceptable guidelines and processes for the specific discipline."; Goal - 80% score on embedded test questions	In CIS-1613 (Network Pro), students scores on graded network lab assignment will assess ability to create a network of computers with switches and routers. This is a direct, formative, internal assessment.	An analysis of subpar student performance for two previous years, the goal has been met for three of the last five years.	The results vary from year to year. The network pro class is their first class in networking with a hardware hands on experience. Some students have had some prior experience with networking which has contributed to better scores in most years. There needs to be a way to get lesser experienced students performing better.	My next step is to give the students more experience in the networking fundamentals class that has focused more on knowledge to prepare for the Microsoft Networking fundamentals exam. Now we need to include more hands on experience in networking so that when they get to Networking Pro, the entire class is more proficient.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 2 - "Use appropriate technology proficiently"; Goal - 80% score on graded lab activity.	In CIS-2663 (Routing & Switching), students scores on evaluated labwork will assess ability to analyze static vs dynamic routing protocols and choose the best for each scenario, the most efficient. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment.	First year, students struggled with this. They spent a lot of time experimenting with each protocol with real hardware consuming lots of class time. 2nd and 3rd year, we were able to analyze first in a simulate environment in CPT application.	A better way to analyze the performance of routing protocols in a simulated environment to allow for more analysis time and reduce the work to setup each scenario for analysis.	Implementation of the use of Cisco Packet Tracer (CPT) and devoting one of the two class meetings each week in practicing various network scenarios to give them more time to practice, experiment, and evaluated different networking routing and switching configurations so that they could perform better on the assessment.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 3- "Evaluate alternatives that promote effective decision making"; Goal - 80% score graded project.	In CIS-2413 (Network Design), students scores on rubric evaluation of the Security Design Project will assess ability to analyze various network vulnerabilities in case scenarios and evaluate different security defense measures and choose the best options. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment.	After three years acceptable student performance, the goal has been met for the last three years.	Students are grasping after three semesters the networking concepts and are able to apply them to given scenarios and create an acceptable design.	My next step is to improve the quality of these projects by giving the students some experiential learning experience by arranging for some real world projects in the community for them to work on and see them implemented.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 4- "Use critical thinking and problem-solving skills in business scenarios"; Goal - 80% score on completed homework assignment.	In CIS-2663 (Routing & Switching), students scores on completed homework assignment in Cisco Packet Tracer exam will assess ability to analyze an existing network of three switches and 12 computers and resolve the problems. This is a direct, formative, internal assessment.	The students after three years have done well with this assessment. There is always at least one student that has trouble with it.	There is a need to provide a better explanation and demonstration of the steps involved to analyze a network and resolve its problems. To provide more practice and hands on experience with this troubleshooting lab work.	The use of video demonstrations of analyzing networks was implemented in 2019. The use of a practice application for networking, Cisco Packet Tracer was implemented to give students more practice in classroom before working in lab with real Cisco hardware was implemented in 2019 resulting in better understanding of the process and improved results.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 5 - "Communicate effectively using oral, written, and electronic methods"; Goal - 80% score on embedded test questions	In CIS-2413 (Network Design), students scores on rubric evaluation of the Final Design Project will assess ability to effectively communicate in writing and orally defend other student constructive criticism of their network design project. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment.	After three years acceptable student performance, the goal has been met for the last three years.	Students are grasping after three semesters the networking concepts and are able to apply them to given scenarios and create an acceptable design.	My next step is to improve the quality of these projects by giving the students some experiential learning experience by arranging for some real world projects in the community for them to work on and see them implemented.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 6 - "Make ethical decisions in a given business situation"; Goal - 80% score on embedded test questions	In CIS-1623 (Security Pro), students scores on final certification exam will assess ability to analyze network vulnerabilities and attack scenarios and choose the best solutions and choose the best ethical responses for defense strategies. This is a direct, summative, external assessment.	In 2015 and 2016 the passing rates were less than 80%, however the goal has been met for the last three years.	Reviewing the objectives of the exam and make sure that those concepts were effectively covered in the activities and assignments that were given. Also checking to see if students were preparing well with practice exams.	I added more real world scenarios to discuss, act out, analyze, role play, and work in groups to carry out attacks, analyze the attacks and come up with viable defense solutions. The role play resulted in much better engagement of the students. Also, stressed more the need to use the practice exams scoring a minimum of 90% before taking exam.
Program - AAS in Computer Networking; PLO 7 - Model values and characteristics of a business professional. Goal - 80% score on assigned project	In CIS-1243 (PC Hardware Maint 1), students scores on assigned project as their final exam will assess ability to select the proper computer components within a given budget amount to meet the request of a fictitious client and provide a professional written proposal. This is a direct, summative, internal assessment.	Most years all of the students do well with this assignment and find it a very fun, creative, and engaging assignment. Some years you just don't get 100% participation or their best effort like in year 2017 which had a few low scores.	You need to find more ways to make this assignment fun for the students. It is an online course so you have to find a way to engage them effectively in that setting.	Adding a introduction video or fun way to introduce the assignment to get the students more excited. I have used cartoon characters writing to the class from ACME Rocket asking for new computers and providing graphics and text to make the assignment more interesting. This coming year, I plan to use video to introduce and engage them more.

Helpful Links