institutional effectiveness plan coppin state university · institutional effectiveness at coppin...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Institutional Effectiveness Plan Coppin State University Fall 2017 – Spring 2018
2
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 3
Institutional Effectiveness Model . . . . . . 3
Coppin State University Assessment Rubric . . . . . 4
Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . 5
CSU Goals (Updated 2015) . . . . . . . 5
Assessment Goals Aligned with Middle States . . . . 7
Institutional Learning Outcomes (SLOs) . . . . . . 8
Degrees Awarded Since 2006-2017 . . . . . . 9
Institutional Assessment Model and Feedback Loop . . . . 10
2nd Year Retention and Six-Year Graduation Rates . . . . 10
Assessment Feedback Loop . . . . . . . 11
Institutional Planning to Support Departments and Colleges. . . . 11
Student Involvement with Assessment . . . . . 12
Alumni and Assessment . . . . . . . 13
Annual Schedule of Assessment Activities . . . . . 13
Annual Data Collection Timeline (Revised 2017) . . . . 15
A Balance of Tools and Direct and Indirect Measures . . . . 15
Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . 15
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 25
3
Introduction
Institutional Effectiveness at Coppin State University Institutional Effectiveness is the extent to which an institution achieves its mission and
goals. The University’s planning and institutional effectiveness process is an on-going,
institution-wide assessment process for the purposes of continuous improvement and to regularly
provide evidence that the institution is effectively achieving its mission.
The following major questions are answered by outcomes through the institutional effectiveness
process:
1. Who are we (as a campus community)?
2. What are we trying to accomplish?
3. How well are we doing?
4. How can we improve what we are doing?
5. What is the evidence that suggests we have made improvements?
Progress made towards the mission are informed by key performance indicators (KPIs) and
accomplish the following:
Provide informative data on student success and continuous improvement as they relate
to progress towards assessment of academic and non-academic goals and objectives;
Serve to inform and support each unit’s annual budget submission approval process. This
process operationalizes the final stage of the linking planning, budget, assessment, and
continuous improvement on our campus. The “loop-back” of data and information are
continuous and sustained.
How will we know how well we are achieving our mission and other stated goals of the
University? We have adopted the Nichol’s model of Institutional Effectiveness in the illustration
below. The process at Coppin, like many other institutions in compliance with the Middle States
Standards of Affiliation, institutional effectiveness, has the following three components:
1. Strategic Planning (USM System level and Institutional Level)
2. Assessment of Outcomes (KPI’s at the unit/program/course levels)
3. Review of Program Effectiveness
4
The University is able to assess progress towards the mission and goals, which are aligned with
the SLOs using a rubric from the Middle States Commission. The rubric is designed to assist in
assessing all units on campus. The University’s Assessment Committee, currently known as the
Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Council (PIE), and the Academic Affairs Assessment
Committee have adopted utilization of the rubric below. Once the rubric is completed for all
units, recommendations are made to the President’s Cabinet and changes will be implemented no
later than the following academic year. The rubric assesses program design, implementation, and
impact.
Coppin State University Assessment Rubric
Aspect Element Goal Level 0: Not Evident Level 1: Emerging Level 2: Proficient Level 3: Excelling
Design
Plan
The institution has a formal assessment plan that documents an organized, sustained assessment process covering all major administrative units, student support services, and academic programs. .
There is no overall institutional plan for assessment. Assessment may or may not be conducted at the institution, but there is no plan in place to indicate who conducts assessment, when it is conducted, and who has access to assessment results.
There is no overall institutional plan for assessment. Individual areas have written policies
and plans that pertain to who, what, and when;
there is no evident coordination of or standard for
these area plans set by the institution as a whole.
The institution has a systematic approach to conducting assessment routinely and
regularly and for sharing results as
appropriate across functional areas; Each
area may have its own written policies and
procedures which pertain to assessment, but
there is no overall institutional plan for
assessment.
There is a written plan that specifies responsibility for conducting assessment at both unit and institution levels and that identifies reporting timelines and procedures. The plan also indicates how assessment data is channeled into the strategic planning and budgeting process.
Outcomes Measurable outcomes have been articulated.
Goal/outcome statements either have not been written, or where they do exist, they are not stated in ways that directly suggest how to measure them.
Some but not all units have their own outcomes statements. For example, academic affairs may
have identified specific learning outcomes, but no
other units have identified outcomes.
All units have goals/outcomes statements, but not all of these goals/outcomes are stated in terms that link to measurement operations.
All units within the institution have clearly stated and measurable goals/outcomes.
Alignment
Unit outcomes are aligned with institutional mission, goals, and values.
Goal/outcome statements either have not been written, or where they do exist, they are not linked or aligned with the institutional mission, goals, and values. In other words, there is little or no evidence of a common or shared institutional purpose evident in unit level outcomes statements.
Each unit prepares its own outcomes statements but most do not relate to institutional mission,
goals, and values.
All units have outcome statements. At higher levels of organization (divisional) these
statements are aligned with institutional
mission, goals, and values. At lower levels
of organization (department, program) the
indications of alignment are not as obvious.
All units indicate how their goals/outcomes are aligned with institution mission, goals, and values. The indications of alignment are specific and appropriate to the unit and its role in the institution. These statements indicate a strong sense of shared purpose within the institution.
Implementation
Resources There is adequate (budgetary) support (resources) for assessment activity
Resources (budgetary or human) are not explicitly
designated to support assessment activities.
Some units have dedicated resources for assessment activities within their area, but there is
little evidence of support for assessment at the
institutional level
There is widespread budgetary support of assessment activities within units that
conduct assessment. There is no overall
institutional plan for providing resources to
support assessment
There is evidence that the institution and each unit has made a budgetary commitment to assessment and provides both financial and human resources for assessment.
Culture
All members of the faculty and staff are involved in assessment activities.
Assessment, if occurring, is done by lone individuals charged with assessment responsibilities.
Some units involve all faculty/staff in assessment
planning and collection and review of data.
All units involve all faculty/staff in some aspect of assessment, planning data collection, and/or review of data.
All members of the university community are involved in assessment activities in their
respective units. Institution leaders
frequently articulate assessment as an
important value/activity of the institution.
Data Focus
Data from multiple sources and measures are considered in assessment.
Assessment data are not collected. Assessment data is collected in one or more units but consists primarily of survey results and/or
anecdotal evidence.
All units collect some combination of direct and indirect evidence to assess performance.
Assessment of institutional performance is based on, where appropriate, multiple measures of performance, including direct and indirect measures and quantitative and qualitative data.
Sustainability
Assessment is conducted regularly, consistently, and in a manner that is sustainable over the long term.
The institution cannot document that there is sustainable assessment activity occurring within any functional responsibility areas (academic, student services/support and administrative offices).
The institution can document that sustainable assessment activity is regularly occurring
within several units of the institution, but
assessment practices are either not universal or
not sustainable for the long term.
Assessment is routinely conducted in most, if not all, units. The sustainability of the assessment activity varies in terms of how regularly it occurs or in how systematically outcomes/goals are assessed. Assessment activity is becoming a regular part of each unit’s functioning.
Assessment is routinely conducted in all appropriate units. The sustainability of the
assessment activity is evident in that
assessment occurs regularly and
systematically and has been ongoing for
many years. Assessment activity is a
regular part of each unit’s functioning.
Monitoring
Mechanisms are in place to systematically monitor the implementation of assessment activities.
There is little or no evidence that the institution has in place or is developing effective systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities within and across units.
Assessment plans are in place. Systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of
assessment activities is occurring within some
units, but not others. There is little evidence of
institutional level monitoring of assessment
activities.
Systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities is
occurring within most, if not all, units. The
institution has begun establishing a means
for ensuring that all units regularly conduct
and report assessment activities.
There is evidence of systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities within all units. The institution has an established mechanism for monitoring unit compliance with institutional assessment policies
Impact
Communication
Assessment results are readily available to all parties with an interest in them.
Assessment results, if they exist, “live” in the
individual unit and are not broadly communicated.
Assessment results are owned by the functional area and are shared with others on an as-needed
basis.
Units within the institution share assessment results routinely with each other or make
them accessible to others within the
institution. Public disclosure of appropriate
assessment data is limited.
Assessment results are disseminated to appropriate audiences at appropriate times;
data appropriate to external audiences are
available in easily accessible public
domains; data needed for internal decision
making are readily accessible to decision
makers.
Strategic
Planning
and
Budgeting
Assessment data are routinely considered in strategic planning and budgeting
Assessment data stay within the area in which they were collected. They do not factor into institutional strategic planning and budgeting.
One or more units use assessment results in budgetary requests and/or to inform strategic
planning.
Assessment data are used in strategic planning and budgeting, but there is no clear mechanism in place to ensure this is accomplished routinely.
Institution is able to demonstrate that strategic planning and budgeting processes have utilized assessment data in decision making.
Closing the
Loop
Assessment data have been used for institutional improvement.
There is little or no evidence that assessment results are used for institutional improvement.
There is evidence that assessment results are
occasionally used for institutional improvement.
There is evidence that all units regularly use
assessment results to inform improvements.
There is an institutional commitment to using results to inform improvements; all units regularly use assessment data to close the loop; the institution presents evidence that assessment results, including student learning assessment, are routinely used for institutional improvement, effectiveness and planning.
5
Coppin’s Mission Statement
Coppin State University is an urban, comprehensive, and Historically Black Institution. Building
on a legacy of excellence in teacher preparation in the metropolitan community, the university
offers quality undergraduate and graduate programs in teacher education, liberal arts, health
professions, technology and STEM disciplines.
Coppin as an anchor institution is committed to providing educational access and diverse
opportunities for all students while emphasizing its unique role in educating residents of
Metropolitan Baltimore, multigeneral, and first-generation college students. Coppin is committed
to community engagement and partnering with businesses, governmental and non-governmental
agencies to meet workforce demands; preparing globally competent students; strengthening the
economic development of Baltimore, Maryland and developing stronger strategic partnerships.
As a constituent institution of the USM, Coppin adopts and supports USM’s strategic goals.
Vision
Coppin State University aspires to be an exemplar of public, urban higher education by:
Educating our multigenerational student body through community engaged teaching and
learning.
Focusing on research and creative activities to enhance student learning; and
Becoming a leader in developing and using data analytics for continuous excellence in
student success.
Key Assets
Cradle to Career Education Continuum
Multigenerational Student Body
Underrepresented & Differently Prepared Populations
Urban Location
CSU Goals (Updated in 2015)
Increase Enrollment- In addition to recruiting students directly from high school and transfers
from community colleges, university enrollment efforts will target working adults seeking
degrees/certifications for career advancement and economic gain.
Academic Transformation – Enhance the academic enterprise to ensure that students are
community engaged, graduate in four years or less, and are prepared to succeed in their future
careers and other post-graduation opportunities.
Student Experience- Address the needs of our multigenerational student population by creating
an environment that supports learning outcomes inside and outside the classroom.
External Relationships – Develop partnerships with community organizations, industry
professionals, corporations and incubator facilities to expand student career paths and networks.
Resource Development and Stewardship –Build upon relationships with alumni as well as
public and private stakeholders to strengthen fundraising capacity and ensure stewardship of
6
human, financial, and facility resources.
Information Technology – Maintain and strengthen IT infrastructure required to further enable
the current innovative uses of technology for operational educational excellence.
Middle States Reaffirmation – Strengthen assessment infrastructure required for Middle States
reaffirmation (site visit in 2018).
Data-Supported Decision Making – Develop a campus-wide culture of continuous excellence
by leveraging the use of descriptive and analytical data.
Communications & Market – Tell the Coppin story in a way that enhances the public
perception of the University; helps drive enrollment and increases fundraising results.
Goal Alignment and Compliance with Middle States
The mission of the University is aligned with the strategic goals of the State, the University
System of Maryland, and also the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Each
strategic goal is cross-walked on the following page, showing alignment with one or more of the
Standards for Accreditation. The Standards include:
Standard I – Mission & Goals
Standard II – Ethics & Integrity
Standard III – Design and Delivery of the Student Experience
Standard IV- Support of the Student Experience
Standard V – Educational Effectiveness Assessment
Standard VI – Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement
Standard VII – Governance, Leadership, and Administration
The following table depicts the alignment.
7
Institutional Assessment Goals and Middle States Alignment
Mission: Urban, Comprehensive
HBCU
MSCHE Standards
1.
Mis
sio
n a
nd
Vis
ion
2.
Eth
ics
and
In
teg
rity
3
. D
esig
n a
nd
Del
iver
y o
f th
e S
tud
ent
E
xp
erie
nce
4.
Su
ppo
rt o
f th
e S
tud
ent
Ex
per
ien
ce
5.
Ed
uca
tion
al E
ffec
tiv
enes
s A
sses
smen
t
6.
Pla
nn
ing
, R
eso
urc
es a
nd
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Impro
vem
ent
7.
Go
ver
nan
ce L
ead
ersh
ip a
nd
Ad
min
istr
atio
n
8.
Co
mp
lian
ce
1. Goal I: Enrollment- Enhance the enrollment
management enterprise X X X X
2. Goal II: Academic Transformation – Enhance the academic enterprise to ensure that
students learn, graduate in 4 years or less, and are prepared to succeed in their future careers
and post graduate opportunities.
X X X X X X X
3. Goal III: External Relationships –Maintain
and establish external relationships. X X X X X
4 Goal IV: Resource Development and
Stewardship – Develop an infrastructure for
continuous improvement of human and
financial resources and facilities
X X X X
Goal V: Information Technology – Maintain
and strengthen IT infrastructure to enable
innovative uses for technology for educational
and operational excellence.
X X X X
Goal VI: Student Experience - Address the
needs of our multigenerational student population by creating a campus environment
that supports learning inside and outside the
classroom, develops team member and leadership skills, fosters academic and career
success, and encourages community
engagement.
X X X X X
Thematic Emphasis: Community
Engagement. The University engages the
community by enriching scholarship, research,
and creative activity; enhances curriculum, teaching and learning; prepares educated,
engaged citizens; strengthens democratic values and civic responsibility; addresses critical
societal issues; and contributes to the public
good.
X X X X
8
Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
Guiding the assessment across the campus are guided by the KPI’s of the individual units, and
more importantly, the SLOs. Each division, service unit, academic or non-academic has goals
that are uniquely connected to the mission and the institutional SLOs. The SLO’s were last
modified in 2011 and have been assessed on a cyclical basis throughout the units. The regular
assessment of the General Education Program served as a conduit for getting program level
courses to fully embrace the culture of assessment across the campus. A review of General
Education programs and practices are revisited every two years or as needed. Assessment at the
program and course levels happens continuously throughout the semester as results are shared
broadly according to the Assessment schedule of activities.
Description of Institutional/Student Learning Outcomes
1. Written and Oral Communication
Writing clear expository and persuasive prose
Use of valid research based arguments to support written or oral positions
Expression of ideas in language appropriate to the topic and audience
Writing and speaking proficiently for various audiences
2. Analytical Reasoning
Thinking critically and analytically to respond to various issues and problems/concerns
Applying applications of classical and/or current theories and principles from specific
content areas
Using critical judgments from a combination of evidences and assumptions to reach
viable conclusions
Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data via computational literacy and scientific
reasoning
3. Information Literacy
Proficiency in the use of technology and its appropriate applicability
Use of multiple information sources such as online databases, videotapes, government
documents, and journals in conducting research and/or in problem solving (e.g.,
electronic and print periodicals, chapters in books, government documents, archival
material, and microfilm)
4. Social and Self Awareness
Understanding of self and responsibilities as an engaged citizen and leader of service in
the community
Awareness/understanding of economic, political, and organizational systems
Appreciation of diverse cultural heritages and global societies.
5. Reflective Practice
9
Personal responsibility for intellectual growth through reflective practice in order to
engage in continuous personal and academic development
Use of professional organizations to develop a comprehensive understanding of the
expectations of the chosen profession
Development of professional competence through continuous learning experiences.
6. Responsive Citizenship
Participation with broader communities
Understanding of society and commitment to political and civic engagement
Understand and respect diversity of people, ideas, communities and cultures
Appreciation and awareness of environmental issues and initiatives
Continuous assessment culminating with specific capstone activities provide students with the
opportunity to demonstrate several levels of proficiency across all courses. In addition to the
SLOs, other measures of success at Coppin are demonstrated by the number of students retained
at the institution and the number of graduates produced. Annually, the institution graduates over
500 students, who are equipped with the knowledge necessary to obtain jobs and succeed in the
workforce. The current 2nd year retention rate is 66% and the six-year graduation rate is 24.5%.
DEGREES AWARDED SINCE 2006 - 2017
ACAD. YEAR Bachelor Master Doctorate Total
2006-07 407 109 0 516
2007-08 383 112 0 495
2008-09 392 91 0 483
2009-10 421 76 0 497
2010-11 439 83 0 522
2011-12 492 58 0 550
2012-13 462 75 0 537
2013-14 508 84 0 592
2014-15 453 80 0 533
2015-16 509 80 0 589
2016-17 428 78 2 508
Total 4920 900 2 5822
10
Current 2nd Year Retention and Six-Year Graduation Rates
Institutional Assessment Model and Feedback Loop
The goal of the University’s assessment process is to encourage institutional self-awareness, self-
understanding, and genuine self-improvement. The University has an institutional assessment
model that incorporates assessing student learning outcomes at the institution, program, and
course levels. Both the institution and program levels are informed by the mission and strategic
goals, which provide a blueprint for the future direction of the University.
The four college deans in collaboration with department chairpersons, and the Division of
Academic Affairs, lead efforts to improve student learning assessment in their respective
colleges and schools based on course and program level competencies. Each college has a
process for addressing course level performance, which includes the development of direct and
indirect measures using conceptual frameworks and learning management systems such as
Blackboard Learn, Blackboard Outcomes, and TK20.
The major divisions such as Administration and Finance, Enrollment Management and Student
Affairs, Information Technology, Institutional Advancement, and Athletics have established
measureable goals, objectives, and benchmarked KPIs. The goals are aligned with the campus
strategic goals, which are aligned to the Middle State’s Standards of Accreditation and
Requirements of Affiliation. Each year, each division reports outcomes to the Office of the
President in March. The results are shared and communicated with the four colleges and other
academic units to ensure a continuous loop of improvement of the university’s operations and
student success.
11
The CSU assessment process is also inclusive of comprehensive survey research, fiscal data,
student perception of teaching quality, skill acquisition, learning outcomes, technical
infrastructure, technical learning support, assessment, specialized studies, program level data,
and institutional learning. The departments within the four colleges have identified goals, which
are aligned with the campus’ strategic goals.
Data that inform achievement made towards the institution’s mission and goals are monitored
and reported by the institution’s Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Council. In the
future, an assessment plan and schedule of assessment events will be shared with the broader
campus community throughout the academic year.
The diagram below shows a continuous process of assessment and institutional effectiveness.
The highlighted box below reflects the proposed strategy to enhance the assessment feedback
process to broader constituents, including the campus community. Implementation and data
sharing will occur through the proposed University Assessment Day.
Assessment Feedback Loop
Data and Report
Review
Division Review
Data and Report Review and Feedback
Institution Assessment Committees Review
Presentation &
Feedback
President’s Cabinet
Cabinet
12
INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING SUPPORT TO DEPARTMENTS AND COLLEGES
The University has several support systems to assist departments and colleges in assessment
initiatives. The Office of Planning and Assessment (OPA) supports, seeks suggestions from, and
provides data to the administration, faculty, and staff by collecting and supplying verifiable data
and information; conducting policy analysis; coordinating campus assessment and evaluation
activities; and facilitating strategic planning and implementation. Each year the OPA performs
analyses of the data collected on multiple performance measures and reports the results to the
USM. These analyses are then used within CSU to identify strengths and areas for growth with
strategies developed to improve performance or replicate success. The OPA also supplies data to
regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for
Education Statistics.
Annually, the OPA reviews the aggregate results of faculty course evaluations with the
Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and with individual faculty who seek support to
understand the students’ perceptions of instruction. Conversations regularly occur on the subject
of finding additional uses of the outcomes beyond the tenure review process. Annually, the
OPA conducts a series of college wide workshops designed to further engage faculty in the
process of program outcomes assessment. For example, a spring 2017 workshop assisted faculty
with updating curricular maps already aligned to department and college goals and to the
institutional learning outcomes.
Curriculum maps are used to show linkage to the student learning outcomes and the institution’s
mission. Institutional student learning outcomes that address written and oral communication,
analytical reasoning, information literacy, social and self-awareness, reflective practice, and
responsive citizenship are linked to academic programs. Program curriculum maps are a
component of program assessment plans. The university formally assesses 53 academic
programs (undergraduate, graduate, and certificate) and the general education program using a
7-year program review cycle. In addition, the mapping process reflects the alignments of the
courses within each program to the program outcomes, linked to the student learning outcomes,
and the institution’s mission. Faculty are required to include the student learning outcomes in
course syllabi. For example, academic programs have outcomes related to communication and
analytical reasoning. Furthermore, when faculty submit program course and curricula proposals,
the submission must demonstrate alignment to the student learning outcomes and the syllabus of
record.
Academic areas access EagleAnalytics to review live data on students in programs, which
include such measures as grade point averages, enrollment history, and registration information
for the purposes of monitoring and outreach. For example, outreach may be facilitated through
the use of call centers by academic units and cohort management fostered through faculty and
staff within the Academic Success Centers established in fall 2017. Data are provided through a
dashboard powered by Pyramid Analytics with multiple views. As a result, departments are able
to increase enrollment of new students, persistence of returning students, and graduation rates.
The Enrollment Action Team, an ad hoc committee called by the president during registration,
includes members of the functional units, and uses data to enroll new students and retain current
students. The Team meets weekly during the summer and at the beginning of each semester to
13
monitor the enrollment process, which includes identifying next steps and progress towards
achieving enrollment goals.
STUDENTS INVOLVEMENT WITH ASSESSMENT
Coppin has student facing analytics in which real time data are available to provide students with
insights into their academic performance. Real-time access to data enables students to seek
support from faculty or academic resources to improve academic performance. Students are able
to self-assess and compare their performance to other students within their enrolled courses.
Students are also able to receive real-time classroom performance feedback.
The four academic deans, in collaboration with department chairpersons and the Division of
Academic Affairs, lead efforts to improve student learning assessment. Each college addresses
course level performance, which includes the measurement of direct and indirect measures using
learning management systems, such as Blackboard and TK20. The OPA provides assistance to
departments with specialized accreditation by administering and interpreting surveys, providing
program level data on assessment of learning outcomes, and interpreting the standards for
reaffirmation. The institution provides support for learning management systems such as
Blackboard Learn and TK20 through which student performance data are captured, evaluated,
and maintained. The Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs provides
support for external programs reviews.
Through the OPA, input from stakeholders is encouraged and integrated for many of CSU’s
accredited programs. For example, the Master’s in Rehabilitation Counseling Program (RCP),
which is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP), uses an external advisory board as a tool to review program data. The
RCP advisory board is comprised of state vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors, faculty,
alumni, and employers, and is an excellent source of indirect assessment. State VR counselors
and employers provide indirect assessment through feedback, based on their perceptions of
students when they enter the workforce.
ALUMNI AND ASSESSMENT
Alumni members provide indirect assessment through constructive feedback regarding the
efficacy of teaching, based on their ability to obtain/maintain employment, get promoted within
their agencies, and pass licensure and certification exams. Data obtained through annual advisory
board meetings are shared and used to modify courses to better prepare students for the
workforce.
14
ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
Assessment Tool Description Key Measures Collection
Schedule
Reporting Unit
NSSE National Survey of Student
Engagement
Senior
Perceptions;
Attitudes;
Value Added
Bi-Annual;
January
Institutional
Research
BCSSE Beginning College Survey
of Student Engagement
Freshmen
Perceptions;
Attitudes;
Preparedness
Annually;
August
Institutional
Research;
Freshmen Seminar
GSS Graduating Senior Survey Value Added;
Job Placement;
Experience;
Grad/Prof.
School Prep.
Bi-Annual
fall and
spring
graduations
Institutional
Research
Alumni Survey Alumni – 1-yr after
graduation
Value Added;
Job Skills;
Affirm
Learning
Outcomes;
Grad/Prof.
School Prep.
Every 3
Years;
MHEC
USM/MHEC
Access and Success
Report
Retention on Male and
Female Students
Retention/Grad
rates by special
programs;
Mentoring
Annually;
April
Institutional
Research
Title III Annual Report Report of Retention
Activities by Division
Student
Support
Services;
Academic
Prep.
Annually;
December
VSA Voluntary System of
Accountability
Value of
Education
Annually;
October
Institutional
Research
SAM Student Assessment
Measures
Retention and
Graduation;
longitudinally
Annually;
October
Institutional
Research
Performance
Accountability Report
Managing For Results
Institutional Core Data
Institutional
Goal
Attainment
Annually;
August
Institutional
Research
Faculty Course
Evaluations
Instructor and Course
Effectiveness
Faculty and
Course
Effectiveness
Bi-Annually;
End of
Fall/Spring
Semesters
Institutional
Research
Divisional Effectiveness
Reports
Strategic Effectiveness
Goals and Outcomes
Strategic Goal
Attainment
Annually;
March
Office of the
President
Retention/Graduation
Report
2nd Year Retention and 6th
Year Graduation Rates to
USM and MHEC
All students
vs. Students in
the State
Annually;
June
Institutional
Research;
Enrollment
Managemnt
Enrollment Projections USM/MHEC Projections
for Budget and Planning
Actual vs.
Projections;
Annually;
February
Institutional
Research;
15
informs budget
and planning
Enrollment
Managemnt
PRAXIS Education Licensure Exam Pass Rates for
Education
Annually;
October
MSDE; SOE
NCLEX Nursing Licensure Exam
Pass Rates for
Nurses
Annually;
November
MBON; CHP
Academic Program
Review
Cyclical Review of
Selected Academic
Programs
Faculty
Resources,
Student
Success,
Mission
Annually
internally;
Every 7
Years by
USM
APRC; Provost;
Institutional
Research
Annual Report of
Academic Units
Annual Report of the Four
Colleges
Enrollment,
SLO’s,
Teaching
Annually,
June
Deans, Provost
ANNUAL DATA COLLECTION TIMELINE (New; Revised 2017)
January – -April Budget Hearings/Internal Budget Processes on Campus Based on Data
January – -April Strategic Planning Processes at Unit Level; Review Measures
March -- Cabinet reports to the President on Unit-Level Goals and Measures
April Unit Levels Present Budget Requests for Next Fiscal Year; Priority Revisions
May - August: Institutional Research Reporting Out to External Constituents during the
proposed University Assessment Day
June- August: Institutional Research Supports/Trains; Reviews Measures and Program
Improvement Plans with Chairs
September 30th Administrative/Academic Data Used in New Fiscal Year Plan
October 1 – Campus Assessment Units Engage in Review
November 15th – New IE Plans, Annual Reports Data Due; Units Update Blackboard,
Tk20, SharePoint with current data and projections
December 15th – IE Plans and Data Reports Accepted, Reported Out by Assessment
Committees; Recommendations and Implementation Timeline for Improvements Made
A Balance of Tools and Direct and Indirect Measures The School of Education utilizes TK-20 to access the campus’ student information management
system known as EagleLinks and the School of Nursing and College of Business, along with the
rest of the university community use BlackBoard Learn for Assessment. These systems
collectively satisfy the reporting requirements related to the outcomes developed by the units in
collaboration with accreditation requirements. Each of the systems provide a direct linkage to the
institutional learning outcomes as well as help measure progress towards the university’s
mission. A role of the PIE Council is to identify a software package that will serve academic and
non-academic units, which will facilitate closing the assessment loop in a more efficient manner.
Course Level Assessment Systematic review of curriculum structure, content, and outcomes is
managed by the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC), Curriculum Policy and
Standards Committee, Faculty Assessment Committee, and the General Education
Subcommittee. These committees are responsible for content and assessment affecting the
16
educational programs in the University. Ultimately, all actions and recommendations made by
the committees are approved by the faculty. These committees are also responsible for reviewing
course and programmatic assessment data to ensure that expected abilities and competencies are
being met in each year of the specified program. The General Education subcommitte has been
charged with assessing the course and program level performance of General Education at CSU,
has been very active in providing administrative oversight for documenting and evaluating
assessment outcomes.
Continuous Improvement
Each Division within Coppin State University implements strategies and tactics to effectively
accomplish the University’s strategic goals. Outcomes are achieved by leveraging key
performance indicators that provide ongoing assessment of how we are meeting or exceeding
each strategic goal. The University regularly assesses and evaluates outcomes and assesses
whether each tactic is effective in providing adequate movement toward desired outcomes as the
University strives for continuous improvement.
CABINET LEVEL KPIs (Includes colleges, units, department, program KPI’s)
Annually, in March, the President’s Cabinet convenes assessment meetings to review unit-level
KPIs. The measures typically point to enrollment, retention, and graduation data. However, each
year, vice presidents are required to update their unit-level plans to ensure congruency and
alignment with the President’s goals. These goals are those in which the Chancellor of the
System uses to view the success of the leadership and mission attainment of the University.
17
Institutional Goals and Key
Performance Indicators by
Division
CSU Institutional Goals for FY 2018
Goal I: Increase Enrollment
1.0 Improve call response, information delivery and communications
Dr. Michael Freeman
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Implement a Coppin Solution-oriented call center with Blackboard
Increase service and satisfaction Reduce dropped calls by 60%
Enhance campus admitted student events
Increased interest in Coppin among prospective students and families
Increase visitors to campus by 15%
Leverage merit scholarship and need-base financial aid
More effective use of financial aid. Students awarded earlier
Improve yield rate from admit to enroll by 5%
Streamline registration processes Continued use of data to make decisions and improved applications
rates Continue Royall Partnership to target
potential students
1.1 To enhance student support services to athletes ensuring academic success, retention and graduation
Mr. Derek Carter
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Expand the Athletic Academic Resources Initiative by providing comprehensive academic services through the entire
calendar year
To graduate student athletes in four (4) years
To report an NCAA 70% graduation rate, and to provide a progress rate report score of 950
Assist student-athletes in graduating within four years or less of initial
collegiate enrollment
1.2A Improve transfer pathways
Dr. Michael Freeman
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Complete Articulation Agreements Increase enrollment of transfer students # of transfer students in fall 2018
Complete Dual enrollment activities with area High Schools
18
1.2B Improve Transfer Pathways
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Articulation agreements or 2+2 programs
1) Increased enrollment of transfer students
1) Increased Enrollment of Transfer Students in Fall 2018
Curricular Reform 2) Increased retention of transfer students
2) At least 13 signed articulation and Reverse Transfer (RT) Agreements with BCCC,
CCBC
3) Increase Dual Enrollment at Coppin Academy High School and other area high
schools to 100 50 with 2017-2018 enrollment numbers serving as baseline data
Evaluation and coordination of transfer resources in the following units:
Enrollment Management, College of Business, College of Health Professions, College of Arts, Sciences & Education,
College of Behavioral and Social Sciences
Implement cohort tracking of transfer
students by major
1.3 Enhance support services for at-risk student populations
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Enhance or expand the following: Orientation, Academic Advising,
Tutoring, Early Alert System, Mentoring Programs, BridgeEdU, Student Success
Council
Better academic performance for at-risk student populations
1) Establish baseline for the following: D,W,F grades at midterm, Number of
withdrawals, Number of dropped classes, Number of academic probations, Number of
dismissals 2) Redesigned Freshman Seminar course to
reflect activities designed to improve retention of first time freshman
Redesign Freshman seminar course and First Year Experience, formerly University College, for fall 2018
implementation
1.4 Target Enrollment Mix
Dr. Michael Freeman
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
19
Partner with Royall to focus on increasing FTFT freshmen, transfer and
out-of-state students
Create and optimal enrollment mix for sustainable growth
Increase FTFT freshmen by 7% over fall 2017
Increase transfer students by 5% over fall 2016
Increase out-of-state FTFT freshmen students by 2% over fall 2017
Goal II: Academic Transformation
2.0 Develop University-wide student learning outcomes
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Provost/VPAA and VP for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs will hold joints meetings with faculty and
staff to develop outcomes assessment framework for aligned to the university-
wide student learning outcomes
A framework for embedding student learning outcomes in the general
education program, academic programs and co-curricular experiences to ensure
all students, regardless of major and transfer
1. Record of at least 6 monthly meetings between VPAA and VPEMSA designed to
develop assessment framework aligned to university SLO
status, graduate with the university’s unique stamp
2. Record of SLOs embedded in all GE course
3. Evidence of program SLOs posted to website
2.1 Enhance use of technology to support online program offerings and increase options for new and continuing students
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Provide support for faculty certification in online teaching
1) An organizational structure that supports online instruction and an
1) Hire a new director of eLearning and an instructional
increase in online and hybrid course offerings
designer by June 30, 2018
Goal III: Student Experience
20
3.0A Drive student engagement, retention and graduation through enhanced academic and career-related activities
Dr. Michael Freeman
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Promote student engagement by including students in program planning
and implementing activities
Student co-curricular programs tied to institutional learning outcomes
Documented # of programs tied to learning outcomes
Encourage coordinated and collaborative programming within the division and
with other
Student developing leadership skills # of Programs tied to career –related skill building
Divisions
Increased engagement in the Baltimore local community
# of community service or service learning activities
Promote career-related activities in the residence halls
Promote career related activities
connected to colleges/departments
3.0B Drive student engagement, retention and graduation through enhanced academic and career-related activities
Mr. Derek Carter
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Promote student engagement by including students in program planning
and implementing activities
Increase the numbers of shadowing, internship and service opportunities for
student athletes
10% increase in career center student contacts for student athletes
Encourage coordinated and collaborative programming within the division and
with other divisions
10% increase in partnerships with academic & other career-assisting offices for student
athletes
Promote career-related activities in the residence halls
Promote career related activities connected to colleges/departments
10% increase in the numbers of community service projects for student athletes
3.1 Increase the numbers of evening and weekend office hours
Dr. Michael Freeman
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Implement a centralized student services center
Improved access to services for a multi-generational student body
Establish baseline for day and evening student contacts
Incorporate and implement a generalist philosophy among student affairs staff
21
Cross-train staff in student services activities
Improved student engagement and involvement
3.2 Improve Advising through professional development
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Define role of and provide training for professional advisors – both faculty and
Academic Advisement staff
1) Increased student retention and graduation rates
2) Established equity among ASC Coordinators
1) At least 3 workshop designed to improve advising quality for all advisors
Standardize competency goals and expectations and compensations for all
ASC staff
3) Increased internship and job placements
2) Determine baseline data on number of D grades earned each semester with intent to
decrease by 25%
3) At least 50% of majors receiving advisement at least once in each newly
established ASC Monitor D grades earned early in
program to determine potential for successful degree completion
4)
3.3 Use data to improve advising
Dr. Leontye L. Lewis
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Ensure all students with a declared major is assigned a faculty advisor
reflected in EagleLinks
Increase in number of declared majors in EagleLinks with assigned Advisor;
1) Decrease the average number of repeat courses and unused credits
2) Decrease in number of undeclared majors by 25%
Goal IV: External Relationships
4.0 Increase external funding for athletics
Mr. Derek Carter
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Set priority on basketball season ticket sales
Identify new prospects for ticket sales, alumni, and corporate sponsors.
Increase season ticket sales by 50%
Alumni and Corporate Annual Giving Increase alumni donors by 50%
Naming Rights for the PEC
22
4.1 Increase current external relationships and increase the number of donors and new advocates for CSU
Mr. Doug Dalzell
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Increase personal solicitations Golf Tournament plus the addition of a Weight Quake event led by the CSUDF
Board
Increase alumni participation rate to 10%
Add 8 new Foundation Merit Scholarships and conduct 4 legacy events
Raise $80,000 for the SOS program
Complete 100 Development calls and 8 Coppin Sundays
Submit 30 quality proposals
Implement Communications Plan
Implement Reunion Giving Program for 4 CSU classes
Raise $2,000,000
Goal V: Resource Development and Stewardship
5.0 Increase effective dialogue among employees who should be “connected” by a shared mission and associated goal congruence
Mr. Steve Danik
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
University faculty and staff professional development
Improve skills of employees for the performance of their responsibilities
Develop a schedule of activities for the year
Improve communication and transparency of the process
Develop a schedule for regular quarterly meetings
Continue engaging the university’s budget committee
Provide a process for input from all stakeholder groups to ensure buy- in and
a comprehensive set of specifications
Develop a process for RFP and Bid document development
Allows departments to plan their budget development process and
Develop a timeline and schedule for budget development
Develop a cohesive interdepartmental collaborative process for development of
RFP’s and Bid documents
solicit input from their constituents and information submission
Develop a timeline for the annual budget development process
Become less reactionary and more proactive in decision making
Identify financial KPI’s to help target areas of strength and areas of need
Develop data driven analysis of financial data to aid in budgeting and financial
projections
5.1 Decrease the backlog of unmet need for facilities improvements
Mr. Steve Danik
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
23
Compile a comprehensive inventory of deferred maintenance and facilities
renewal requirements
Improve and maintain the functionality, reliability, safety, and
Reduce the backlog of unmet need for facilities
Prioritize projects and develop a funding plan and timeline for completion
attractiveness of the Coppin campus improvements by 15% per year on average
5.2 Increase the opportunity for entrepreneurial initiatives
Mr. Steve Danik
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Decentralize “ownership” of certain revenue generating activities and
positive budget variances
Improve the ability of managers to plan spending and “investment”
Continue to improve the financial position of the University – i.e., Increase unrestricted
fund balances by 15% annually
Develop a formula based allocation methodology for discretionary budget
allocation
over multiple fiscal periods. Eliminate “use or lose” budget mentality at year
end
Develop a formula for discretionary spending budgetary
Improved financial closing and reporting process timelines
resource allocation by June 30, 2018
Goal VI: Information Technology
6.0 Upgrade IT Infrastructure
Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Upgrade large lecture halls IT technologies
Improve students learning experience 2 lecture halls will be upgraded
Upgrade PeopleSoft HCM to current version, v9.2
Stay current with ORACLE HCM Release and provide additional
On time, on budget seamless upgrade
functionality for managers 'self-service
Expand E-Payment options to campus community
Make it more convenient to make business with Coppin.
Add 3 more options for ePayment campus wide
Upgrade IT E-storage Infrastructure Protect Coppin's Data Integrity Ensure high data availability and business continuity
Implement Windows 10 IT Security best practices
100% compliance of Windows 10 security best practices
Comply with the accessibility standards
Devise accessibility planning for instructional technology
Plan is 100% developed
6.1 Provide for IT Development & Innovation opportunities
Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Conduct staff IT Summer Institute Increased efficiency and productivity by using technology in operations
Train 15 staff
24
Provide virtual training opportunities Improve IT Skills for faculty, staff, and students
Conduct 3 sessions
Conduct Adjunct Faculty IT Development Saturday
Improve faculty skills for Academic Transformation
Conduct 1 session in the Fall
Conduct Faculty IT Innovation Institute Increased proficiency in using technologies for teaching and learning
14 faculty will be trained
Launch IT Innovation Center Improve faculty, staff, and students skills for Academic Transformation
Support 3 innovation projects
Conduct TechKNOW Squad sessions Improve students familiarity with current technologies
conduct 15 sessions each semester
Conduct Faculty Digital Design Camp Improve faculty skills in course design and Bb usage
14 faculty will be trained
6.2 Improve IT Security
Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Rollout mobile security for Coppin owned mobile devices
Protect Coppin owned mobile devices Cover 75% CSU owned mobile devices
Deploy PII
Comply with FERPA requirement 80% success rate of end point scanning
Align CSU IT Security program with the new BOR 4.0 IT security standards
Comply with the new BoR IT Security Standards
Meet 80% of the new standards
Enforce IT Data retention policy related to files and email services
Comply with Coppin's Data Retention Policy
100% Enforcement
6.3 Support Data-Supported Decisions at Coppin
Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Deploy Financial Aid analytics Provide data insights into Financial Aid Provide 100% access and training to enrollment
Provide data analytics tool to improve Student Success
management team
Provide IT support for deployment of Phase 1 CIVITAS predictive analytics
Provide an analytics tool to manage cost of instruction
100% IT infrastructure for Phase 1 predictive analytics
100% IT infrastructure completed
Provide IT Support for the Cost of Instruction Analytics
Provide an analytics tool to improve class scheduling to shorten time to achieve
100% IT infrastructure completed
Provide IT Support for Course Scheduling Analytics
6.4 Improve the Students Experience
Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan
25
Conclusion
The continuous improvement process at Coppin provides an opportunity to conduct a thorough
introspection of established processes and data to assess the effectiveness of strategies to achieve
its mission. The process not only affirms Coppin’s relevance, progress, and achievement, but
also determines areas where additional attention must be provided if the institution is to maintain
its positive trajectory of success and continuous improvement. There is no doubt that Coppin is
current and relevant. Meeting workforce demands with qualified graduates, providing
community service initiatives, employing highly-credentialed personnel, and collaborating in
strategic partnership efforts are a few proven examples of how Coppin State University
demonstrates its effectiveness, currency, and relevance. More importantly, students continue to
be successful, gaining invaluable experience and becoming essential contributors to the
workforce.
Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)
Upgrade the Eagle Mobile App to include Degree audit
Improve the students experience in meeting their degree requirement
100% accessibility to all students
Upgrade EagleMobile app to include course scheduling
Increase Wireless Capacity in Student Areas
Improve the students experience in scheduling their classes
100% accessibility to all students
Upgrade student video services for residential students
Expand Digital Displays in student areas Improve the students experience in accessing resources in open areas
Increase Wireless capacity by 50% in open student areas
Deploy Wi-Fi Printing campus wide Improve the students experience in residence halls
100% increase of campus cable TV services
Improve the students engagement in campus events
Add 15 Digital Displays to relay student communication
Improve the students experience in mobile device printing
100% Wi-Fi printing campus wide