stas preczewski vice president, academic & student affairs juliana lancasterdirector,...
TRANSCRIPT
Stas Preczewski Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs
Juliana Lancaster Director, Institutional Effectiveness
Lily Hwang Director, Institutional Research
4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia (1st in over 100 years)
Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005 President hired in September 2005 Leadership team assembled during
Spring 2006
Charge from University System of Georgia
Desires of Gwinnett County Initial Environmental Scan Background research on student
engagement & learning
Continuous review, assessment, change & experimentation
Holistic student focus Partnerships with local constituents Competent, action-oriented, innovative
faculty/staff Innovative and appropriate use of technology Global/Multicultural environment and focus Supportive and collegial work environment
Relatively flat organizational structure Academic & Student Affairs combined Deliberate integration of personnel across
areas Frequent, focused discussion among
decision-makers Careful hiring of faculty/staff who “fit” Leadership efforts to model collegiality, etc
Institutional focus on interdisciplinary/ integrated education
Commitment at every level to student learning and effectiveness
Openness to going “outside the box” – provided there is a plan for assessment
Students:
Enrolled students from Gwinnett County at time of matriculation: 72.7%
Faculty (Fall 2008): Instructional full-time faculty: 105 Instructional part-time faculty: 10
Facilities: Total acreage: >200 5 Occupied Buildings: A, B, C, D (Student Services Ctr), F (Fitness
Ctr) Library, Student Housing under construction Student Center groundbreaking in 2009 Parking Deck: 734 cars
Semester
Fall 2007 Spring 2008
Fall 2008 Spring 2009
Headcount
788 867 1,563 1,608
FTE 696 753 1,374 1,401
Current Degree Programs BBA, Business; BS, Biology; BS, Information
Technology; BS, Psychology Planned Future Programs (pending accreditation,
system approval, and substantive change approval) Education: Early Childhood, Special Education,
Secondary Nursing & Allied Health areas Spectrum of Liberal Arts & Sciences
Accreditation Status Initial Application to SACS-COC in Fall 2007 Hosted Candidacy Committee in Spring 2008 Admitted to Candidacy in June 2008 Hosted Accreditation Committee in Spring 2009 Awaiting action by Commission in June 2009
Advantages of starting from scratch Strong executive level support for and understanding of
IE Limited number of programs and offices at start-up Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures
Disadvantages to starting from scratch Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures Each individual brings a different set of assumptions
and expectations Rapid growth and hiring leads to continuous need for
explanation/education
In order to get “…ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes…[SACS]” we needed: Structure and resources Broad buy-in, consensus and agreement
Working “ground rules” Institution-wide and pervasive Integrated with institution’s mission & strategic plan Faculty/staff participation and basic control Interdisciplinary and developmental assessment of
student learning
Program level student learning outcomes and assessment plans
General Education curriculum designed around student learning outcomes
Agreement to develop and assess for institutional student learning outcomes
Agreement to integrate curricular and co-curricular student learning efforts
Leading to: Integrated Educational Experience (IEE) Student Learning Outcome Goals for GGC
Integrated Educational Experience SLO Goals
Institutional Goals
Administrative Unit Outcome Goals
General Education GoalsProgram of Study Goals
Course Goals
Lesson Objectives
Student Affairs Goals
Student Affairs Activity Goals
Conceptual Relationships Among Outcome Goals and Objectives
Organizational Structure to Manage Resulting Flood of Data
IEE Goal Team•Interdisciplinary•Operationally define & plan assessment(s)•Integrated review of program findings
IEE Assessment Review Committee•Communication•Integrated review of IEE assessment results
Assessment Steering Committee•Integrated review of all assessment results•Strategic analysis of results; impact on strategic plans
Administrative Review Committee
General Education CommitteeGeneral Education Goal Teams
Program Goal Teams
Planning All operating units, both academic and administrative
developed assessment plans. Academic units focused on course-level, embedded
assessments. All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing
and planning assessment. Goal teams developed operational definitions of each
institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)
Execution All units attempted to fully execute their assessment plans
Some outcomes were not measurable Some measures called for unobtainable data
All units were able to collect valid data on at least one outcome
Most units were able to identify at least one needed action in response to assessment 60% identified needed changes in curriculum or
operations 34% identified needed changes in assessment plans
Planning Academic and administrative assessment plans improved. Academic units continued course-level, embedded
assessments and began identifying critical program-level assessment points.
All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing and planning assessment.
Goal teams completed operational definitions of each institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)
Execution All units executed their assessment plans All units were able to collect valid data on each outcome Most units were able to identify at least one needed action
in response to assessment
Challenges & Lessons Learned Implementing program-level assessment plans while still
developing the institutional framework Communicating the history of and basis for having both
General Education and IEE student learning outcomes at the institutional level
Articulating the initial task of the Goal Teams: To operationally define each Student Learning Outcome
Managing expectations at multiple levels
Next Steps Review the conceptual and actual relationships
between the two sets of institution-wide student learning outcomes
Initiate a broad-based process to determine what, if any, changes are needed
Continue developing a broad base of informed, skilled individuals across campus to lead assessment efforts.
Continue efforts to establish systematic, manageable assessment at all levels
Institutional Environment Banner hosted institution -- technical
environment located at a central location – Office of Information & Instructional Technology (OIIT)
Internal support available for IR: a core data manager (Banner function person, currently vacant), and a programmer (IT).
Major Tasks Learning legacy data system, e.g., Student
Information Reporting System (SIRS) and Curriculum Inventory Reporting (CIR), etc.
Learning USG reports, e.g., Semester Enrollment Report (SER)—State definitions.
Learning new Academic Data Mart (ADM) systems. Producing reports (required, routine, ad hoc,
internally & externally). State reports, IPEDS, common surveys (e.g. CUPA) Institutional information support for accreditation
purposes College Factbook (currently, the 2nd book).
Major Challenges Entering in the transitional period from the
legacy data system to new ADM system; allowing very brief learning curve.
Learning together with other Units, e.g., the Registrar’s Office, Human Resources (e.g., transition form PeopleSoft to ADP); requiring close relationships .
IE and IR IR operates within the college framework that
IE facilitates and monitors.
Specific tasks for IR in support of IE operations: Information generated for assessment projects, e.g.,
NSSE and Course Evaluations
Anticipated tasks for IE in support of IR Collaboration in design of specific studies
Plans Identifying and developing research agenda (for
major studies) in support of institutional decisions on growth Team (committee) required e.g., environmental scanning
Continuous support for Enrollment Management Identifying report items to be routinely supplied; e.g.,
retention/graduation analysis, analysis of fall enrollment, benchmarking analyses
Planning for Program Review. Team (committee) required
Presenters:
Stanley Preczewski Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs
Juliana Lancaster, Director, Institutional Effectiveness
Lily Hwang, Director, Institutional [email protected]
AIR Forum 2009, Atlanta GA Session 682 June 2, 2009