aqipsystems portfolio - lewis university university 2016 systems portfolio.pdf · portfolio. june....

AQIP SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO

JUNE 2016

June 1, 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF ACRONYMS vi INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW 1

CATEGORY ONE: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN 3 CATEGORY ONE OVERVIEW 3 SUBCATEGORY ONE: COMMON LEARNING OUTCOMES 4 1P1 Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of Graduates from all

programs. Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes and who is involved in those processes

4

1R1 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are expected at each degree level?

6

1I1 Based on 1R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 10 SUBCATEGORY TWO: PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES 13 1P2 Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates from particular programs are

expected to possess. Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and who is involved in those processes.

13

1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are expected in programs?

14

1I2 Based on 1R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 16 SUBCATEGORY THREE: ACADEMIC PROGRAM DESIGN 17 1P3 Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders’ needs. Describe the

processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. 17

1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders?

19

1I3 Based on 1R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 20 SUBCATEGORY FOUR: ACADEMIC PROGRAM QUALITY 21 1P4 Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities, and locations. Describe the

processes for ensuring quality academic programming. 21

1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? 23 1I4 Based on 1R4, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 24 SUBCATEGORY FIVE: ACADEMIC STUDENT SUPPORT 25 1P5 Academic Student Support focuses on systems designed to help students be successful. Describe the processes for

developing and delivering academic support to students. 25

1R5 What are the results for determining the quality of academic support services? 27 1I5 Based on 1R5, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 29 SUBCATEGORY SIX: ACADEMIC INTEGRITY 30 1P6 Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. Describe the processes for supporting

ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. 30

1R6 What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? 31 1I6 Based on 1R6, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

32

CATEGORY TWO: MEETING STUDENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS 33 CATEGORY TWO OVERVIEW 33 SUBCATEGORY ONE: CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENT NEEDS 33 2P1

Current and Prospective Student Need focuses on determining, understanding and meeting the non-academic needs of current and prospective students.

33

2R1 What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’ needs are being met? 36 2I1 Based on 2R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 45 SUBCATEGORY TWO: RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION 47 2P2

Retention, Persistence, and Completion focus on the approach to collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion to stakeholders for decision-making.

47

2R2 What are the results for student retention, persistence, and completion? 48 2I2 Based on 2R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 50

June 1, 2016

ii

SUBCATEGORY THREE: KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS 51 2P3

Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of key stakeholder groups including alumni and community partners.

51

2R3 What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? 52 2I3 Based on 2R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 53 SUBCATEGORY FOUR: COMPLAINT PROCESSES 54 2P4 Complaint Processes focuses on collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students or key

(nonemployee) stakeholder groups 54

2R4 What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? 54 2I4 Based on 2R4, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 56 SUBCATEGORY FIVE: BUILDING COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS 56 2P5

Building Collaborations and Partnerships focuses on aligning, building, and determining the effectiveness of collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution.

56

2R5 What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations and partnerships? 58 2I5

Based on 2R5, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

59

CATEGORY THREE: VALUING EMPLOYEES 61 CATEGORY THREE OVERVIEW 61 SUBCATEGORY ONE: HIRING 61 3P1 Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff, and administrators to ensure

that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are provided. 61

3R1 What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring, and orienting practices assure effective provision for programs and services?

63

3I1 Based on 3R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 66 SUBCATEGORY TWO: EVALUATION AND RECOGNITION 67 3P2

Evaluation and Recognition focuses on processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff, and administrators’ contributions to the institution.

67

3R2 What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees’ contributions to the institution? 70 3I2 Based on 3R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 74 SUBCATEGORY THREE: DEVELOPMENT 74 3P3

Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating, and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers within the institution.

74

3R3 What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? 76 3I3

Based on 3R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 77

CATEGORY FOUR: PLANNING AND LEADING 78 CATEGORY FOUR OVERVIEW 78 SUBCATEGORY ONE: MISSION AND VISION 78 4P1

Mission and Vision focuses on how the institution develops, communicates, and reviews its mission and vision. Describe the processes for developing, communicating, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values and who is involved in those processes

78

4R1 What are the results for developing, communicating, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values? 79 4I1 Based on 4R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 81 SUBCATEGORY TWO: STRATEGIC PLANNING 82 4P2

Strategic Planning focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision. Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing, and reviewing the institution’s plans and who is involved in those processes.

82

4R2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing, and reviewing the institution’s operational plans? 83 4I2


June 1, 2016

iii

SUBCATEGORY THREE: LEADERSHIP 86 4P3

Leadership focuses on governance and leadership of the institution. Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution and who is involved in those processes

86

4R3 What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution? 88 4I3 Based on 4R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 88 SUBCATEGORY FOUR: INTEGRITY 89 4P4

Integrity focuses on how the institution ensures legal and ethical behavior and fulfills its societal responsibilities. Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards, monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met, and who is involved in those processes.

89

4R4 What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? 90 4I4 Based on 4R4, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

91

CATEGORY FIVE: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP 92 CATEGORY FIVE OVERVIEW 92 SUBCATEGORY ONE: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 92 5P1

Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information, and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution. Describe the processes for knowledge management and who is involved in those processes.

92

5R1

What are the results for determining how data, information, and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution?

99

5I1 Based on 5R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 101 SUBCATEGORY TWO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 102 5P2 Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational

programs and operations. Describe the processes for managing resources and who is involved in those processes. 102

5R2 What are the results for resource management? 103 5I2 Based on 5R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? 104 SUBCATEGORY THREE: OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS 105 5P3

Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. Describe the processes for operational effectiveness and who is involved in those processes.

105

5R3 What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? 106 5I3


CATEGORY SIX: QUALITY OVERVIEW 108 CATEGORY SIX OVERVIEW 108 SUBCATEGORY ONE: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES 108 6P1

Quality Improvement Initiatives focus on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiatives the institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution. Describe the processes for determining, and integrating CQI initiatives, and who is involved in those processes

108

6R1 What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives? 111 6I1

Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

113

SUBCATEGORY TWO: CULTURE OF QUALITY 113 6P2

Culture of Quality focuses on how the institution integrates continuous quality improvement Into its culture. Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution

113

6R2 What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality? 114 6I2 Based on 6R2, what improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be implemented in the next

one to three years? 114

June 1, 2016

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Common Learning Outcomes Aligned with Mission Values and Strategic Directions 5 Figure 1.2 Measures Used to Assess Baccalaureate Characteristics 7 Figure 1.3 Assessment of Distinctive Learning Characteristic: Ethical Grounding 8 Figure 1.4 2011-2015 Mean CLA Total Score: Lewis Seniors vs National Peers 9 Figure 1.5 Assessment of Graduate Student Learning Outcome (GSLO) #3 10 Figure 1.6 Lewis University Cycle for Assessment of Student Learning and the P-A-R Model 11 Figure 1.7 Lewis University Assessment Alignment 12 Figure 1.8 Assessment Results and Plans 15 Figure 1.9 Chemistry Students Achieving Benchmark in Field Test 2005-2016 16 Figure 1.10 Development Process for New Academic Programs 18 Figure 1.11 New Degree Programs 2013-2015 19 Figure 1.12 Employer Identified Preparedness of Lewis Students 20 Figure 1.13 Lewis University Program Accreditations 23 Figure 1.14 Alumni Employment for Selected Departments 2013 & 2014 24 Figure 1.15 Summer Bridge Program Student Assessment 28 Figure 1.16 Students Eligible for Learning Accommodations 2009-2016 29 Figure 1.17 Lewis University Instructor and Student Use of Turnitin for Increasing Student Learning 2013-2016 32 Figure 2.1 Process for Determining New Student Groups 34 Figure 2.2 Assessment Matrix to Track Current and Prospective Student Needs 37 Figure 2.3 Institutional Survey Item Matrix 38 Figure 2.4 Factors Influencing Traditional Undergraduate Enrollment 39 Figure 2.5 Areas of Traditional Undergraduate Student Need 40 Figure 2.6 Factors Influencing Adult Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment 40 Figure 2.7 Student Satisfaction 2009-2014 with National Benchmarks 41 Figure 2.8 Adult Undergraduate Student Gap Scores by Instructional Site 42 Figure 2.9 Climate Survey respondents who agreed/strongly agreed with the following statements about Lewis University 44 Figure 2.10 Climate Survey respondents who agreed/strongly agreed with the following statements about Sexual Assault 45 Figure 2.11 Lewis University First and Second-Year Retention Rates 2010-2014 49 Figure 2.12 Lewis University Graduation Rates 2011-2015 (2005-2009 Cohorts) 50 Figure 2.13 Alumni Overall Satisfaction with Lewis Education 52 Figure 2.14 Alumni Survey Results 53 Figure 2.15 Complaints by Type and Year 55 Figure 2.16 University Offices submitting Student Complaints 55 Figure 2.17 Results for Improvements to the Student Complaint Process 56 Figure 2.18 Top Transfer Institutions Fall 2012-Fall 2015 59 Figure 3.1 Faculty and Staff Turnover by Race & Ethnicity 2010-2015 63 Figure 3.2 Employee and Student Diversity 64 Figure 3.3 HERI Survey responses to “There is a lot of campus racial conflict here” 65 Figure 3.4 Faculty & Staff/Students 65 Figure 3.5 Student to Faculty Benchmark with Regional Peer Institutions 65 Figure 3.6 Student to Faculty Ratio compared to Peer and Aspirant Institutions 66 Figure 3.7 Lewis University Comparison of Applications for Tenure and Promotion vs Granted, 2013-2015 71 Figure 3.8 Faculty Recognition Program Awards 71 Figure 3.9 2014 Lewis University Faculty Satisfaction Compared to Catholic Peer Institutions (% satisfied or very satisfied) 72 Figure 3.10 Lewis University Faculty Satisfaction Trends 2004-2014 (% satisfied or very satisfied) 73 Figure 3.11 Adjunct Faculty Salaries Benchmarked to West Suburban Peers 73 Figure 3.12 Faculty Development Awards AY 2013-AY 2015 76 Figure 3.13 Professional Development Courses Offered 77 Figure 4.1 Alignment of Strategic Plan with Values 83 Figure 4.2 Strategic Planning Updates 84 Figure 4.3 Summary Results of Strategic Plan 2014-2015 85 Figure 4.4 Lewis Task Forces 87 Figure 4.5 Faculty By-Laws Vote 88

June 1, 2016

v

Figure 5.1 Lewis University Knowledge Management System 94 Figure 5.2 Board of Trustees Indicators 95 Figure 5.3 Strategic Plan Key Performance Indicators 95 Figure 5.4 Surveys Aligned With Mission, Strategic Plan, BCs, and AQIP Categories 97 Figure 5.5 Tools Utilized, Results Tracked, and Data Users 99 Figure 5.6 2012-2017 University Key Performance Indicators Dashboard: AY 2014 & 2015 Results 100 Figure 5.7 Technology Resources Decision-making Processes 102 Figure 5.8 Growth in Nursing Enrollment 2013-2016 104 Figure 5.9 Lewis University Budget Process 105 Figure 5.10 Enrollment at Oak Brook and Shorewood Sites 2010-2015 107 Figure 6.1 AQIP’s Role in Strategic Planning 109 Figure 6.2 Completed and Ongoing Action Projects Aligned with Strategic Goals 109 Figure 6.3 Lewis Task Force Activity 110 Figure 6.4 Analysis of System Appraisal Feedback 111

June 1, 2016

vi

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ORGANIZATIONALLY UNIQUE NAMES

AAC&U Association of American Colleges and Universities ACBSP Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs ACC AQIP Coordinating Committee ACE American Council on Education ACS American Chemical Society ASACCU Association for Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and University ASPS Adult Student Priorities Survey (Noel Levitz) ATS Academic Technology Solutions BCSSE Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement CAS College of Arts and Sciences CASL Committee for the Assessment of Student Learning CBS Christian Brothers Services CCNE Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education CEOP Campus Emergency Operations Plan CIGE Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement CIRP Cooperative Institutional Research Program (Noel Levitz) CIT Catholic Intellectual Tradition CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative CLA Collegiate Learning Assessment COB College of Business COE College of Education COIAC Culture of Inquiry Advisory Committee CONHP College of Nursing and Health Professions CQI Continuous Quality Improvement CSI College Student Inventory CSRDE Consortium for Student Retention and Data Exchange CSWE Council on Social Work Education DNP Doctor of Nursing Practice EAB Education Advisory Board ELM Exploring Lasallian Mission ERP Enterprise Resource Planning FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCATL The Faculty Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning FTFY Full-time First Year GES General Education Subcommittee GSLO Graduate Student Learning Outcomes HERI Higher Education Research Institute (UCLA) HR Human Resources IAI Illinois Articulation Initiative ICE Introduction to the College Experience IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (US Dept. of Education) IRB Institutional Review Board KPI Key Performance Indicators LARC Leckrone Academic Resource Center LRGP Lasallian Research Grant Program MAP Monetary Assistance Program – State of Illinois financial aid award NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association NCATE National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education NCLEX National Council Licensure Exam-National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc. NILOA The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment NSAPA National Association of Student Personnel Administrators NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement OIRP Office of Institutional Research & Planning OSL Office of Service Learning

June 1, 2016

vii

PAR Plan, Assess, Respond Assessment Model PIRC Performance Indicators Review Committee PLA Prior Learning Assessment SAWG The Student Accommodations Working Group SMHEC South Metropolitan Higher Education Consortium SOAR Student Orientation, Advising and Registration SPCE School for Professional and Continuing Education SSI Student Satisfaction Inventory (Noel Levitz) TSC Technology Steering Committee UAAC University Academic Affairs Committee UAC University Administrative Council UGAC University Graduate Affairs Committee UPBRAC University Policy & Budget Review Advisory Council UPC University Planning Council WAC Writing Across the Curriculum

June 1, 2016

viii

June 1, 2016

1

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

Lewis University, in the Chicago suburb of Romeoville, Illinois, is an independent Catholic institution of higher learning sponsored by the De La Salle Christian Brothers. As a Lasallian institution, our Mission is to provide a liberal and professional education that guides students in developing knowledge, fidelity, wisdom, justice, and association. Our Strategic vision is to “be recognized as an outstanding, innovative, mid-sized Catholic university, offering programs of academic distinction to a diverse population and to prepare graduates, who are intellectually engaged, ethically grounded, socially responsible and globally connected.” To achieve this vision, our 2012-17 Strategic Plan (described in Category Four) identifies five directions for improvement:

I. Foundation for the Future – Build the foundation for an outstanding, innovative, mid-sized Catholic university.

II. Distinctive Learning Experiences – Advance distinctive learning experiences that will distinguish Lewis and optimize the success of our students.

III. Emerging Technologies – Engage learners, streamline processes and enhance communication through emerging technologies.

IV. Strategic Partnerships – Expand strategic partnerships and impact the student experience while addressing the needs of the region.

V. Resource Development and Stewardship – Develop and allocate resources that support student success and the Strategic Plan.

To achieve our Mission and vision, the University offers nearly 6,700 students a values-based curriculum with more than 80 undergraduate majors, 35 graduate programs, and two doctoral programs. Four colleges (Arts and Sciences, Business, Education, and Nursing and Health Professions) and the School for Professional and Continuing Education offer bachelor’s and master’s degrees in liberal, scientific, and professional subjects. An associate degree is available in aviation. Doctoral programs are offered in Educational Leadership for Teaching and Learning (Ed.D.) and in Nursing Practice (DNP).

Our online programs include Bachelor of Science degrees in Business Administration, Information Security and Risk Management, and Information Technology Management; Bachelor of Arts degrees in Organizational Leadership, Professional Studies, Computer Science, and Criminal/Social Justice; Master of Science degrees in Aviation and Transportation, Business Analytics, Criminal/Social Justice, Data Science, Information Security, Public Safety Administration; Master of Science in Nursing; and Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership.

Over the past five years, most undergraduates earned degrees in Aviation (480), Nursing (465), Criminal/Social Justice (449), and Psychology (409). Most master’s degree students earned degrees in Business Administration (536), School Counseling (312), and Organizational Leadership (311).

In addition to courses and programs offered on our main campus, Lewis has Illinois instructional locations in Chicago, Hickory Hills, Oak Brook, and Tinley Park and in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Additional instructional locations currently include various Chicago-area hospitals, the Chicago Police Academy, nearby community colleges, and Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. Most recently, our faculty have begun teaching our courses at area high school locations through dual-enrollment and dual-credit agreements. All instructional locations focus on operational effectiveness and assurance that the rigor of our offsite and online education and services are equal to those of the main campus. When speaking of “Lewis,” we understand it as the whole of our sites and online programs.

June 1, 2016

2

Our Fall Semester 2015 enrollment includes a student headcount of 6,689 students, a 26% enrollment increase across the last four years. Of our students, 59% are traditional undergraduates, 10.7% adult undergraduates, and 30.3% graduate students. Most students are Illinois residents, and while 61.3% are Caucasian, our student population of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity has increased to 15.9%, and 8.7% of our students are Black/African American. The number of students attending either the main campus exclusively or an instructional site exclusively has decreased slightly over the last four years, while students enrolled exclusively in online classes have increased from 440 to 676 students. Improvements in technology, faculty training in online pedagogy, and an emphasis on increasing online programs have increased our distance-education presence.

Lewis University has taken action on HLC recommendations from our Quality Checkup, our reaffirmation, recent appraisal feedback, and Strategy Forum. The overriding issue raised has been our data systems. We have made a significant financial and human capital investment in a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, and are near completion on the initial stage of implementation. While the benefits of this investment are specifically described in Category Five, this impacts our results and improvements across all categories. Another HLC recommendation supported the change in our faculty governance model. Previously, faculty decisions required 100% agreement from all four colleges for any motion to pass. This model of allowing a single college to veto action had been a deterrent to agility and progress. A Senate model of faculty governance was instituted May 19, 2016. These two achievements will help us progress to more mature processes and results in the future.

Another significant change we will face in 2016 is the retirement of our President of 28 years, who, with his Administrative Council, have guided Lewis’ development from a relatively unknown small institution to a highly regarded University. A new president will take office July 1, 2016 and lead us through our next strategic plan.

We are poised to make significant improvements in the assessment of student learning. Our assessment processes for student learning outcomes are maturing, and we are expanding university-wide assessment of our Baccalaureate Characteristics. Thanks to an investment in personnel, coupled with better technology systems, Lewis is supporting its university assessment plan with additional support structures. We also expect to reach consensus on a revision of our general education curriculum in the coming months, with a plan for assessment tied to our Baccalaureate Characteristics.

Finally, our location in Illinois has been challenging given the political and economic situation of the state. We have been attentive to how our budget is affected and created contingency budgets for multiple possible scenarios. We are committed to maintaining educational quality while being fiscally responsible. We are called by our Mission value of Association to work together for the success of our students. This shared value anchors us as Lewis faces the challenges and opportunities of change.

This Systems Portfolio demonstrates our processes, results, and improvements as a continuous quality institution and our adherence to the Higher Learning Commission’s Criteria for Accreditation.

June 1, 2016

Category One: Helping Students Learn | 3

Category One: Helping Students Learn

Helping Students Learn focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses.

CATEGORY ONE OVERVIEW

Lewis University assesses its systems maturity level across Category One as aligned within our processes, and systematic within results. We are actively moving toward improvements to increase the maturity of our systems in this category.

Our processes for Sub-category One, Common Learning Outcomes, are currently systematic. Assessment of student learning has been located in the programs that house courses leading to undergraduate common learning outcomes (our Baccalaureate Characteristics). Results are in the reacting stage, as we have relied primarily on CLA data. Improvements in assessment and our ERP system are in place to increase maturity of processes and results in the coming year.

For Sub-category Two, Program Learning Outcomes, we view the maturity of our processes and results as systematic. Faculty have been trained in the Plan, Assess, Respond (PAR) model and we are increasing consistency of processes across programs. Our official repository for assessment data is WEAVE, and the Colleges of Education, Business, and Nursing and Health Professions use other repositories due to discipline-specific accreditations. Collection of data has increased and we are growing in our use of measures and metrics for improvement. Results of program data collection and analysis are sometimes hard to find, although the Colleges of Business and Education post assessment data on their websites, and the Colleges of Business, Education, and Nursing and Health Professions share their data externally with accreditors. The new ERP system will improve data accuracy, storage, and accessibility and move us to an aligned maturity level in this sub-category.

Our systems are more mature within Sub-category Three, Academic Program Design, where our processes are aligned and our results are systematic. Program design is informed by program review, academic processes and the University Faculty By-Laws, within institutionally aligned and regular processes. We have discontinued programs based on our processes.

Our overall maturity of both processes and results is systematic within Sub-category Four, Academic Program Quality. Three of our colleges have formal assessment of student achievement guided by their accrediting bodies, while the assessment processes in the College of Arts and Sciences leans toward reacting.

Sub-category Five, Academic Student Support, is an area of strength for Lewis. Our processes are aligned across the University with a wide base of support. Our data usage is systematic and is moving toward aligned as we shift from measuring usage of services to measuring improvements in student learning.

The maturity of our processes for Sub-category Six, Academic Integrity, is at the systematic level and our results are at the reacting level of systems maturity. We communicate standard policies and provide student support to ensure integrity and are beginning to develop institution-wide tracking of integrity violations.

June 1, 2016

4 | Category One: Helping Students Learn

COMMON LEARNING OUTCOMES

1P1 Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of graduates from all programs. Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Aligning common outcomes to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution

(3.B.1, 3.E.2) Determining common outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.4) Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.1) Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes (3.B.3, 3.B.5) Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs

(3.B.4) Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2) Selecting tools/methods/instruments used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes (4.B.2) Assessing common learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Lewis’ five Mission values are at the core of our common learning outcomes. The University Planning Council (UPC), the University Academic Affairs Committee (UAAC), and the University Graduate Affairs Committee (UGAC) ensure the Strategic Plan Directions and common learning outcomes (our Characteristics of the Baccalaureate Graduate and Graduate Student Learning Outcomes) align with the Mission, and that the goals of the University are consistent with the learning we expect from our students. Alignment of our Baccalaureate Characteristics and Graduate Student Learning Outcomes (GSLOs) and our Mission and Strategic Plan Directions are illustrated in Figure 1.1 . (3.B.1, 3.B.2)

Through UAAC and its General Education Subcommittee (GES), the faculty monitors and reviews the Baccalaureate Characteristics. (3.B.2) We are currently near the conclusion of a more extensive general education review grounded in the University Strategic Plan’s Direction of providing our students with four Distinctive Learning Experiences. In addition to “intellectually engaged,” which is assessed in the Baccalaureate Characteristics and program learning outcomes, we also prepare graduates to be “ethically grounded, socially responsible, and globally connected,” and have launched initiatives around assessment of these experiences. A unique element of the General Education framework is our body of courses in theology, ethics, and diversity that reflect our Catholic and Lasallian values and a global perspective. (3.B.4, 3.E.2)

General education requirements for First-year Students (0-29 hours), First-year Nursing Students (0-29 hours), and Transfer Students (30 or more hours), along with identification of our courses that fulfill those requirements, are available in the online and print University Catalogs.

Since faculty must approve changes to the common curriculum, the current General Education Subcommittee’s (GES) review process included faculty feedback at multiple stages and used their input to guide further steps. Beginning with a faculty survey to evaluate the current general education curriculum, the committee developed three new models for general education. Committee members met with faculty members by college and also held several open listening sessions for faculty to raise questions and present their views. Based on this additional input, the Committee made revisions and offered two models which are now under consideration by the faculty. Once the new model is selected, the Committee will make it available to all faculty, staff, and students in all relevant media such as website, University catalogs, and print, articulating the purposes and content of the outcomes. Learning outcomes for individual programs are also aligned to the Baccalaureate Characteristics. (3.B.3, 3.B.5)

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/assessment/level-outcomes.htm


http://lewisu.smartcatalogiq.com/en/Undergrad-2016-2017/Undergraduate-Catalog


June 1, 2016


Figure 1.1 Common Learning Outcomes Aligned with Mission Values and Strategic Directions

Mission Values

2012-2017 Strategic Plan Directions (5)

Baccalaureate Characteristics (7) Graduate Student Learning Outcomes (3)

Knowledge I. Foundation for the Future II. Distinctive Learning

Experiences

1. Essential Skills 2. Major Approaches to

Knowledge 6. Critical Thinking 7. Lifelong Learning

1. Synthesize theoretical and research concepts from multiple perspectives to inform theory and practice

2. Formulate creative responses to complex issues through critical analysis.

II. Distinctive Learning Experiences

IV. Strategic Partnerships

3. Faith, Religion and Spirituality 4. Moral and Ethical Decision-

Making 5. Responsible Citizenship

3. Model ethical and professional behaviors to guide inquiry and practice in a global and diverse society

Wisdom I. Foundation for the Future II. Distinctive Learning

Experiences III. Emerging Technologies V. Resource Development and

Stewardship

4. Moral and Ethical Decision-Making

7. Lifelong Learning

1. Synthesize theoretical and research concepts from multiple perspectives to inform theory and practice

2. Formulate creative responses to complex issues through critical analysis


Justice II. Distinctive Learning Experiences


4. Moral and Ethical Decision-Making

5. Responsible Citizenship


Association II. Distinctive Learning Experiences

IV. Strategic Partnerships V. Resource Development and

Stewardship

5. Responsible Citizenship 3. Model ethical and professional behaviors to guide inquiry and practice in a global and diverse society

We use the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U) LEAP Value Rubrics as a benchmark for ensuring our undergraduate learning outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs. Other benchmarks used include the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CASHE), the Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE) Model from the American Council on Education (ACE), and our membership in the ACE Internationalization Laboratory. Moreover, our Career Services Executive Director shares benchmarks from the National Association of Colleges and Employers with leaders and faculty. (3.B.4) Similarly, faculty determine, align, articulate, and assess the GSLOs through the University Graduate Affairs Committee (UGAC).

GSLOs were developed and instituted in 2011 through the collaborative work of the Dean of Graduate Studies, UGAC, Graduate Program Directors, and graduate program faculty. Two AQIP Action Projects have resulted in common requirements and practices for graduate Capstone experiences and assessment of Graduate Student Learning Outcome #3 - Modeling ethical and professional behavior. Under the guidance of the Dean of Graduate Studies, UGAC oversees assessment practices in consultation with graduate faculty. They are currently taking the three outcomes through an assessment process with two closed loop assessments before considering a discussion of review and improvements. (4.B.1, 4.B.3, 4.B.4)

Achievement of Baccalaureate Characteristics and GSLOs occurs in academic programs where program faculty select assessment tools, methods, and instruments with guidance and support from the assessment committee of their college and the University Office of Assessment. Faculty determine

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Center-for-Internationalization-and-Global-Engagement.aspx

http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Center-for-Internationalization-and-Global-Engagement.aspx

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/GraduateCapstoneProject.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/GraduateStudentLearningAssessmentClosingtheLoop.pdf

June 1, 2016


which outcomes will be assessed in their programs; select key assignments in which the outcome is demonstrated; use a benchmark rubric or one they have developed to assess learning; analyze and interpret the results; and close the loop by determining whether any actions are needed to improve learning. If improvements are made, results are compared to determine their impact on learning. These steps in the process are recorded in our WEAVE assessment management system, where the Office of Institutional Research, Office of Assessment, Provost, and Deans can monitor assessment results. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

The Committee for the Assessment of Student Learning (CASL) has provided university-wide training in assessment methods and measures and feedback to programs as their faculty works through the Plan-Assess-Respond (PAR model) process. A recently hired Assistant Provost now oversees this process and has collaborated with CASL members, college assessment committees, and the academic Deans identify improvements needed in our current process. This office has the task and authority to centralize assessment from the colleges and programs to a university-wide comprehensive assessment plan. More information on the University assessment plan is provided in the improvements section of this subcategory. (4.B.2)

Since 2011, Lewis has used the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) and the updated CLA+ to provide direct evidence of student learning in the broad skills of critical thinking, communication, and problem solving. As a summative assessment tool, CLA scores deliver value-added information about student learning and has helped the University assess Baccalaureate Characteristic #6 (Critical Thinking) in a comparative manner.

The Baccalaureate Characteristics are also supported through co-curricular processes. First, these outcomes are closely aligned with the Arts & Ideas program that brings performing artists and guest lecturers on current topics to our main campus. Students interact with these guests in Q&A sessions that follow some of these presentations. Community members are also invited to these events and participate in the Q&A, providing students with an opportunity to gain additional perspectives on the topic. (3.E.1)

The Division of Student Services, with student input, also designs, aligns, delivers and assesses co-curricular programming such as leadership development and teamwork. Two recent AQIP Action Projects have facilitated training of all Student Services unit managers to set and align goals, followed by strategic planning and creating action plans. The division is currently developing an assessment method to demonstrate the effectiveness of their plans. In alignment with our Lasallian Mission and Catholic heritage, members of University Ministry develop and provide co-curricular experiences in faith enrichment. For example, the Koinonia retreat is assessed each semester through an attendee survey. Ministry staff and student leaders discuss results and design improvement plans as needed. (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

1R1 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are expected at each degree level? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

The University’s Baccalaureate Characteristics are embedded and aligned within general education courses and in most degree programs. The assessment teams of the four colleges and the School for Professional and Continuing Education systematically enter their assessment plans and evidence of student learning in the WEAVE assessment management system. The assessment progress report

http://www.lewisu.edu/artsandideas/index-ai.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/StudentServicesGoalSetting.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/StudentServicesActionandStrategicPlanningProcess.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/assessment/weaveonline/index.htm

June 1, 2016


prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) is shared with and reviewed by assessment teams/coordinators on a regular basis. In 2015, OIRP further developed an Academic Assessment Dashboard to graphically present longitudinal assessment data for comparison purposes, discussed in more detail in Category 5.

The University’s commitment to assessment of student learning outcomes is evident in our adoption of multiple measures to determine if Lewis students are achieving learning goals. An examination of measures used identified capstone projects and field work as the most commonly used assessment method in our undergraduate programs to determine whether students were attaining the Baccalaureate Characteristics. In graduate programs, field work and clinical practice evaluation are the most frequently used methods to assess students’ attainment of the GSLOs.

Figure 1.2 details additional assessment methods used by Lewis to assess our Baccalaureate Characteristics and AQIP categories, consistent with our Mission values, and Distinctive Learning Experiences of preparing intellectually engaged, ethically grounded, globally connected, and socially responsible graduates.

Figure 1.2 Measures Used to Assess Baccalaureate Characteristics

Survey Sample or Group

Cycle Mission Values

Wisdom Knowledge, Fidelity, Wisdom, Justice, Association

Knowledge, Wisdom

Fidelity, Justice, Association

Wisdom, Association

Strategic Directions (2012-17 Strategic Plan)

Knowledge, Foundation for the Future

Distinctive Learning Experience

Emerging Technology

Strategic Partnerships

Resource Development & Stewardship

Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE)3

1st year Entering Students

Rotate with CIRP

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2, 5 & 6

Category 2 Category 6

CIRP First-Year Survey(UCLA-HERI)3


Rotate with BCSSE

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6


College Student Inventory (Noel Levitz CSI)1


Annual Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1 & 2

Category 2

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)3

1st year & Senior

Every 3 years

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6


Student Satisfaction Inventory (Noel Levitz - SSI)1

Undergraduate (Traditional)

Every 3 years

Category 4 Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristic 1

Category 2 Category 5, 6

Adult Student Priorities Survey (Noel Levitz - ASPS)1

Adult/Graduate Students

Every 3 years



http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/2010-2015AssessmentDashboard.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/2010-2015AssessmentDashboard.pdf

June 1, 2016


1 Nationally normed 2 Comparative data across local peer institutions 3 Nationally normed and data from selective peer institutions

The Lewis University Strategic Plan identified four overarching Distinctive Learning Experiences which we seek to develop in all Lewis graduates. For “ethically grounded, ”Lewis left the 2013 Strategy Forum with an AQIP Action Project to develop and implement an ethics assessment using student responses to a case study as a pilot test for university-wide assessment. Student assignments were evaluated on a scale of 0-4 in five different areas. Results of the pilot assessment showed that while students recognize ethical issues, they had a low level of referencing ethical foundations from their general education courses, and instead relied on their personal ethical system for their decisions. The Action Project members shared these results with the AQIP Coordinating Committee, CASL, and the academic Deans. Further discussions are taking place between the Dean and Department Chair of Philosophy.

Figure 1.3 Assessment of Distinctive Learning Characteristic: Ethical Grounding

2014 2015

Assessment Category* (n=155) (n=104)

Ethical self-awareness 2.30 1.87

Understanding different ethical perspectives/concepts 2.10 2.78

Ethical issue recognition 3.10 2.97

Application of ethical perspectives/concepts 2.82 2.67

Evaluation of different ethical perspectives/concepts 2.78 2.45

* Assignments were assessed using a rubric with a scale of 0-4

For the distinctive learning experience of “socially responsible,” a Civic Engagement Task Force with representation from across the University compiled a Civic Institutional Matrix of engagement activities across the following areas: Mission, Leadership and Advocacy, General Education, Majors, Minors, Academic Programs and Courses, Student and Campus Life, Community-based Experiences, and Employee and Student Reward Structures.

And for “globally connected,” Lewis completed an 18-month cohort in the ACE Internationalization Laboratory that included an internal review and self-study of all aspects of internationalization. This culminated in a formal ACE site visit and report. We shared strengths and sought guidance on improvement with others in the cohort. The Lewis Internationalization Committee, a broad-based group

Graduating Student Survey

Graduating Students

Annual Category 5 Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristic 2, 5 & 7


Graduating Student Exit Survey

Graduating Students

Annual Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristic 7


One-Year-Out Survey Alumni Twice a year

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2 & 5


Alumni Survey Alumni Every 2 years



http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/ClosingreportonUndergradethicsproject.pdf

June 1, 2016


of faculty, staff, and administrators, used this program and internal interviews with faculty and staff to develop global learning outcomes.

As part of the GES review of our current general education curriculum, both faculty and student input was collected. A survey of the faculty (48% response rate) revealed that 65.7% believed minor changes were needed in general education and 29.5% believed significant changes were needed. The remaining 4.8% believed that no changes were needed. Students were invited to participate in focus groups to get their opinions of the benefits of and recommendations for general education. A review of content from the focus group (N=16) suggested that the quality of the courses was dependent upon the instructor and that courses should be more engaging, relevant to current events, and that learning should be based on papers and projects rather than tests. GES held university-wide listening sessions and conversations to evaluate the models according to internal criteria guided by the Mission and external benchmarks such as the AAC&U and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU). Based on results of these sessions, GES narrowed the options to two models which are currently under consideration by the faculty.

Evidence of student learning pertaining to several Baccalaureate Characteristics has been collected using the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) exam. From 2011 through 2015, a total of 276 Lewis students (191 seniors and 85 freshmen) participated in the CLA and CLA+ tests. Across this five-year period Lewis seniors outperformed their nationally-normed cohorts on both the CLA and CLA+ tests.

Figure 1.4 2011-2015 Mean CLA Total Score: Lewis Seniors vs National Peers

Source: CAE Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)

CLA also places value added scores on a standardized (Z-score) scale to assign additional performance levels that account for individual student ACT and SAT scores. CLA test scores falling between -1.00 and -2.00 are classified as “well below expected,” between -1.00 and +1.00 as “near expected,” and between +1.00 and +2.00 as “well above expected. ” Between 2011 and 2015, over half of the sample of Lewis seniors performed above or well above their expected performance levels.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/GeneralEducationSummaryReport.pdf

June 1, 2016


The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Task Force has almost completed its three-phase analysis. Phase I included an orientation to WAC and a review of the Lewis writing curriculum and writing support services; Phase II included data collection and review; best practices research; community feedback and discussion. The Task Force is now in Phase III, discussion; formulation and recommendations, and planning for the future. The WAC Task Force has communicated with UAAC and the GES throughout their work. The University is also a member of the South Metropolitan Higher Education Consortium (SMHEC)’s Writing Across Institutions initiative and the Task Force enlisted the SMHEC Initiative’s writing chair to conduct norming sessions for quality writing standards with English faculty.

Development of GSLOs was an improvement in our previous Systems Portfolio. In 2014-2015 we completed an AQIP Action Project to assess GSLO # 3 - Modeling ethical and professional behavior. Findings from that assessment are identified below. In fall 2015, these findings were reviewed by our graduate program directors, the College Deans, and UGAC. Improvements that resulted are discussed in the next section.

Figure 1.5 Assessment of Graduate Student Learning Outcome (GSLO) #3

GSLO 3a. Consider ramifications of ethical issues

GSLO 3b. Evaluate diverse ethical perspectives to guide inquiry and practice

GSLO 3c. Integrate professional behaviors

Assignments Assessed n=130 n=130 n=125

Mean Score* 3.63 3.56 3.62

Median Score* 4.00 4.00 4.00

Std. Deviation 0.96 1.12 1.05

* Assignments were assessed using a rubric with a scale of 0-5

1I1 Based on 1R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Lewis has undertaken significant improvements in assessment. The inconsistent collection of our data for assessment became apparent as OIRP and CASL reviewed data posted by programs in WEAVE. Measures of Baccalaureate Characteristics varied in format with limited use beyond individual program assessment.

CASL’s primary purpose was to provide assessment training, initiate projects to address student learning outcomes, and provide support for assessment within the Colleges. Members of the Faculty Development Committee used an AQIP Action Project to investigate best practices and proposed establishing a Faculty Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning as a needed faculty resource beyond providing funds for training and conferences. This new structure is aligned with the Strategic Plan’s key initiative of restructuring the organization of the institution for efficiency. The Provost hired an Assistant Provost to lead The Faculty Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (FCATL) and to oversee University assessment. The FCATL combines the work of a revitalized Faculty Development Committee, Academic Technology Solutions (ATS), and the Office of Assessment to support faculty in assessing and ensuring program quality.

To help solve data limitations identified in our use of WEAVE, and to simplify the assessment process, Lewis added the Blackboard Outcomes Assessment Module to the Blackboard learning management system suite of tools we already use. This investment will streamline both collection and use of assessment data. A pilot training process for using the Module is being coordinated by the FCATL, and includes training in the new support system for housing usable assessment data. Moving forward,


http://www.lewisu.edu/facultycenter/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/facultycenter/index.htm

June 1, 2016


Baccalaureate Characteristics and GLSOs will be measured through key assignments in the Blackboard Outcomes Assessment Module, with future plans to include assessment of co-curricular activities. (4.B.3)

Based on our results, a major need for improvement is to strengthen the comprehensive, university-wide assessment plan that provides direct evidence of student learning within Baccalaureate Characteristics, GSLOs, and program outcomes. Over the last year our new Assistant Provost for FCATL has led development of a University Assessment Plan that will be fully implemented in fall 2016. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) Transparency Framework was used in developing the plan, fully incorporating all six components of student learning assessment as recommended in the Framework. Institutional examples recognized on the NILOA website were researched and studied to create the Lewis University Assessment Plan. The plan provides a structure for the assessment of student learning, allowing any institutional unit the ability to follow the cycle to produce evidence of continuous improvement.

The Plan includes a five-step assessment cycle that provides consistency to the assessment process for the University. When implemented, we will have evidence of outcome mapping for academic programs; alignment of course outcomes with program outcomes; program outcomes with University-level outcomes; evidence of assessment activities across the University; data collection and measurement against benchmarks; review and analysis at all levels; aggregate evidence of student learning for both undergraduate and graduate programs; evidence of how data is being used to make improvements, and a University-wide reporting and accountability process. (4.B.3)

Figure 1.6 Lewis University Cycle for Assessment of Student Learning and the P-A-R Model

Implementation of the Plan will be conducted by two groups. For academic program accountability, the academic deans will provide oversight for the assessment of all programs within their colleges and will report to the Provost annually on the implementation of improvements and impact on student learning based on results of program assessment. The other group is the Assessment Committee, an advisory group responsible for supporting our measurement of the Baccalaureate Characteristics and Graduate Student Learning Outcomes. The advisory committee will be comprised of faculty representatives from

June 1, 2016


each college and the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, with leadership from the Office of the Provost and the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP). The Assessment Committee will provide guidance and support for activities in the Cycle for the Assessment of Student Learning, which as Figure 1.6 illustrates, is consistent with our existing Plan-Assess-Respond assessment model.

Figure 1.7 shows the aligned structure of the new process, including accountability and responsibility at the different levels of assessment.

Figure 1.7 Lewis University Assessment Alignment

A new Assessment web presence provides comprehensive information on our Baccalaureate Characteristics, GSLOs, all program learning outcomes, and the assessment plan. This is an important step to increased communication and transparency. Our initiatives to provide distinctive learning experiences have also resulted in improvements.

Ethically grounded: It is recommended that future assessment use multiple measures, including an embedded assignment rather than an external case study to measure student learning.

Socially responsible: Following the development of their matrix of engagement activities, the Civic Engagement Task Force’s next step is completing a gap analysis, recommending areas for improvement, and setting targets for student learning.

Globally connected: Following our 18-month cohort in the ACE Internationalization Laboratory and development of global learning outcomes for our students, the next steps are conducting a student survey and completing a global strategic plan in the next year. Global issues are also an important element of the general education revision.

An improved assessment plan is necessary for the revised general education curriculum expected to be approved in the next academic year. Through the process and analysis described above, the GES has narrowed the plan options to two, and UAAC will make their recommendation to the Faculty Senate in September. In preparation, the GES and UAAC worked with the Assistant Provost for Assessment and the FCATL to develop an accompanying general education assessment to measure our Baccalaureate Characteristics across the proposed curriculum. The draft plan is consistent with the AAC&U LEAP model and our new University Assessment Plan. The timeline and methods of assessment will be determined

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/assessment/

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/DRAFTGeneralEducationAssessmentPlan.pdf

June 1, 2016


by the GES and UAAC in the coming year, following Faculty Senate approval of one of the proposed models.

Assessment of the results of our AQIP Action Project assessing Graduate Student Learning Outcome # 3 resulted in improvements to the rubric used to analyze the data, and alignment of course and program outcomes across graduate programs for modeling ethical and professional behavior. (4.B.3)

Another improvement to support student learning that we anticipate in the coming year is developing a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Program. The Writing Across the Curriculum Task Force is currently formulating their recommendations and plans for the future.

While recognizing that our current assessment of Baccalaureate Characteristics and GSLOs could be more robust, we expect the improvements identified here will move us in that direction.

PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES

1P2 Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the

institution (3.E.2) Determining program outcomes (4.B.4) Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes (4.B.1) Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs

(3.B.4) Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2) Selecting tools/methods/instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes (4.B.2) Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

The process for determining, aligning, and articulating outcomes for programs taught at all Lewis University locations is the responsibility of program faculties. This is coordinated with College Deans and Assessment Committees comprised of college faculty members. One faculty member from each college Assessment Committee will be a representative to the new Assessment Committee of the University. (3.E.2, 4.B.4) Programs are aligned to the Lewis Mission, the Baccalaureate Characteristics or GSLOs, and accrediting bodies where applicable. (3.E.2) Information in WEAVE includes the stages of the program assessment process. Faculty determine performance targets expected of students. They select the tools, methods, and instruments used to assess achievement of the targets. This is often an assignment in a particular course that provides evidence of learning and a rubric to assess the level of learning. Faculty in the program analyze data on results for achieving the target, and based on these findings faculty create action plans when needed to support identified opportunities for improvement. They close the loop with implementation of the plan and a re-assessment of learning. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Program faculty review their student learning outcomes and assessment processes as part of the program review process. Included in program review is an analysis and comparison of programs at peer and benchmark institutions, curriculum reports from professional discipline organizations, and input from external advisory boards. This process also ensures that the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs. We expect faculty to articulate the purposes and content of the program learning outcomes to their students. (3.B.4, 4.B.1)

Program faculty work with internal units and external employers to design, align, and deliver co-curricular activities to support learning. The Director of Service Learning sets requirements for

June 1, 2016


designation as a service-learning course in the programs and collaborates with faculty to adapt the content and assignments to attain that designation. The Office of Graduate Studies, along with the Culture of Inquiry Advisory Committee (COIAC), Doherty Center, History Center, Center for Ministry & Spirituality, Faculty Development Committee, and the Scholars Academy co-sponsor the annual Celebration of Scholarship to showcase student learning via research paper presentations or posters and creative works or performances. The College of Business Stahl Center for Entrepreneurship hosts competitions in “elevator” speeches and business plan presentations that are open to students in any program. Program faculty consult with various employers in the area to provide internships and clinical experiences to support experiential learning in the program. (3.E.1, 3.B.4, 4.B.2)

Students work with faculty members and Student Services to establish co-curricular organizations that support program learning such as college chapters of professional and honorary societies. Each organization approved by Student Services is allocated funds by the University and has a faculty or staff advisor charged with the guidance and direction of the organization as well as the growth and leadership of the group. Additionally, each organization is expected to uphold the integrity of the Lewis University Mission Statement by offering: (3.E.1)

Educational programs that deepen knowledge and understanding of issues;

Programs and activities that provide a healthy and conflict-free environment;

Programs that support and develop student leadership opportunities;

Service projects that advance the well-being of the community, and members of the clubs and organizations; and

Offer social events that encourage the development of the Lewis community.

The Flight Team, Art Club, Sustainability Club, Mock Trial, Model U.N., American Marketing Association, Best Buddies, Student Nurses Association, and the Fellowship of Justice are a few among the many co-curricular learning opportunities for Lewis students.

1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities that are expected in programs? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Overall levels of deployment of assessment processes within the institution Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained

The faculty of each academic program determines which measures and tools, such as a field test, a performance, a research paper, best demonstrate achievement of their learning outcomes. In cases of colleges and programs with a professional accrediting body (Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Federal Aviation Administration, etc. ) outcomes, measures and tools are mandated externally.

Within the institution, results from 2014-2015 indicate 65.4% of our programs have reached a closed loop of assessment with the implementation of an action plan for improvement. This is an increase from 9.9% in 2010-2011. Sample results and plans from programs are identified below.

http://www.lewisu.edu/celebration-scholarship/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/academics/cob/lsc/index.htm

June 1, 2016


Figure 1.8 Assessment Results and Plans

Program Outcome Assessment Result Action Plan

Accountancy (BS)

Writing Target – score of 66% as acceptable

15 of 19 students achieved or exceeded for a success rate of 94%

Department faculty decided no changes needed at this time will continue to assess longitudinally to measure consistency

Early Childhood Education (BA)

Ability to plan instruction

Candidates create will achieve Level a comprehensive curriculum plan 2 or above on 5 of 6 rubrics and a total score of 6 or above 2013 -2014 N=6 2014-2015 N=9

2013-2014 Target partially met 5 of the 6 candidates met the target. 2014-2015 100% of candidates met target

Additional instruction on curriculum development is being added to the Foundations for Early Childhood Education course

Aviation Maintenance and Transportation (MS)

Synthesize theoretical and research concepts from multiple perspectives to inform inquiry and practice in applied aviation and transportation studies

Comprehensive exam in the capstone course of the program Target - 75% (3 out of 4) or better for each of the outcomes

100% of all students met the target This is first administration of the assessment and set a high baseline; however, we determined that students continue to struggle with the questions related to research methodology, constructing research questions, and constructing a hypothesis. Therefore, program faculty are proposing Research Methods as two sequential classes

Computer Science (MS)

Work in a team to design and implement complex data processing systems collaboratively

Target- score 33 points out of 44 possible on a rubric; 75% of students will reach this goal

69% of students (N=16) reached the score; target was not met

Low scores were in team member support, conflict management, and attending scores; faculty will place more emphasis on group functioning and will assess the need to provide more group experiences

Nursing (BS) Math competency for drug dosage calculations

Sophomore II 85% Junior I 90% Junior II 90% Senior I 95% Senior II 95%.

The following percentage of students met the passing standard on the first attempt (Fall 2014): Traditional students - Sophomore 2, 75%: Junior 1, 83.82%; Junior 2, 92.85%; Senior 1,68.42%; Senior 2, 92.0%; Accelerated students - Junior 2, 100%; Senior 1, 90.47% The follow percentage of students met the passing standard on the first attempt (Spring 2015): Traditional students - Sophomore 2, 100%: Junior 1, 92.59%; Junior 2, 91.66%; Senior 1, 69.81%; Senior 2, 85.71%; Accelerated students - Junior 1, 100%; Senior 1, 90.90%; Senior 2, 100%

Assistance is provided to all who don’t make the benchmark. Mathematics workshops meet the weekend prior to the start of each semester. Students are given instruction, worksheets, and supervised homework in a lab setting. Students repeat the competency test until they score the appropriate benchmark for their level.

Source: WEAVE

June 1, 2016


Another example of how our programs determine if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected can be found in the Chemistry Department. Chemistry uses the American Chemical Society (ACS) exam to measure student learning. As this is a challenging exam, their benchmark has been 50% of their students achieving the 50th percentile, but their review of passing rates identified that student scores were lower than the target, and inconsistent. After implementing improvements

(discussed in the next section) student scores jumped above the target and have continued to increase.

Figure 1.9 Chemistry Students Achieving Benchmark in Field Test 2005-2016

*As a result of the manner in which data is available to the Chemistry Department, this data point combines scores from AY 2005-06 through 2008-09

1I2 Based on 1R2, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Individual programs use information from their assessment to improve student learning. Our WEAVE assessment management tool tracks these improvements, including the following examples.

In Chemistry, our students’ ACS exam scores were historically low and inconsistent. The Chemistry Department made improvements by hiring new faculty members and dedicated course development starting in fall of 2012 that began the trend of improving and stabilizing scores. The redesign and implementation of a more rigorous and integrated project-based laboratory manual in 2014-15, which includes student design projects, further improved the ACS exam scores in 2015-16 to a 72% pass rate – a 36 percentage point increase from 2010-11. (4.B.3)

The recent hire of the Assistant Provost who heads the Faculty Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning which includes the Office of Assessment and a new university-wide assessment plan is the improvement we need to produce direct evidence of student learning of Baccalaureate Characteristics, GSLOs, and program outcomes. We look forward to implementing this assessment plan in Fall 2016.

June 1, 2016


ACADEMIC PROGRAM DESIGN

1P3 Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders’ needs. Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2) Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2) Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic

programs Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or discontinuing when necessary (4.A.1)

As a comprehensive University that values diversity, Lewis welcomes traditional undergraduate, graduate, adult, and military/veteran students, residents and commuters of multiple cultural backgrounds and faiths. We are dedicated to meeting the needs of these students, revealed sometimes through standardized testing and frequently through interpersonal conversations. Student support organizations such as Black Student Union, Latin American, International, and Commuter Student Organizations and the Office of Veterans Affairs provide a voice to express needs. Attentive to particular needs, Lewis has a unique Veteran’s Introduction to the College Experience common learning requirement that honors these students who have particular needs transitioning from military to civilian life. (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

The Office of Enrollment Management utilizes demographic, enrollment, employer and census data to verify market demand for program proposals. Market research intelligence is also gathered through our affiliation with the Education Advisory Board (EAB), Public Insight, and Burning Glass Labor analytics. Our EAB contract provides customized research on specific program proposals as well as general market research on specific program opportunities. Academic programs monitor student educational needs through discipline-specific professional organizations, partnerships, advisory boards, and new developments in the field. Internal and external resources help faculty work through the research and new program development process illustrated in Figure 1.10. Research methods include a market needs analysis, factors demonstrating demand, internal and external competition, current and future job prospects, anticipated costs of the program including new resources, and expected revenues over time. After the research stage indicates viability for a new program, the department prepares a concept paper following standardized required information and required approval as noted in the following process. (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

http://www.lewisu.edu/veterans/index.htm

June 1, 2016


Figure 1.10 Development Process for New Academic Programs

There is also a process for suspension or discontinuation of a program that may result from the annual dashboard program review process. Deans meet with department chairs to discuss the status of each program and then the Provost to deliberate which programs should be continued, discontinued, or placed on a review list. Eight programs have been discontinued in the past four years following a teach-out of all majors. (4.A.1)

Employers are a key stakeholder group whose needs must be included in our process for determining that our programs are current. With the selection of a new Executive Director for Career Services, additionally discussed in Category 4, determining the needs of employers is now a part of this process.

Provost approves/modifies & advances/rejects

Vice President for

Strategic Enrollment

Management verifies

market projections

Executive Vice President

verifies budget

Revisions completed as needed and advanced to College EPC, then Provost

Approval given for development of formal New Program / Degree Proposal

Required changes made with Dean and approved by program

faculty/presented to appropriate Educational Policy Committee

College/Faculty approval received

Department develops new program / degree concept paper & screens for mission, quality, cost, sustainability,

competition, market demand and unique characteristics.

Concept paper shared with Dean

Board Academic Affairs Committee votes & advances/rejects

President reviews & advances/rejects

Board approves/rejects

June 1, 2016


1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Lewis University has extensive documentation of our processes for determining if programs are both current and meet stakeholder needs. These include developing new programs to meet needs and discontinuing those that no longer do. We have used the previous processes to add new programs (Figure 1.11). They reflect a focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic (STEM) disciplines where market research suggests expanding growth.

Figure 1.11 New Degree Programs 2013-2015

Date Program College

2/11/2013 BA in Professional Studies SPCE

2/11/2013 BA International Relations CAS

10/28/2013 BS in Computer Engineering CAS

2/14/2014 BA Interactive Media CAS

2/14/2014 BS Biomedical Sciences CAS

2/14/2014 BA Spanish Language & Culture CAS

2/14/2014 BA Spanish Language Arts: Teaching Certificate COE

2/14/2014 MS Data Science (Data Mining & Analytics) CAS

5/5/2014 MS Business Analytics COB

5/5/2014 BS Unmanned Aircraft Systems CAS

2/9/2015 BS Aviation and Aerospace Technology CAS

2/9/2015 BS Exercise and Movement Science CAS

2/9/2015 MS Chemistry CAS

2/9/2015 MS Physics CAS

2/9/2015 MS Chemical Physics CAS

10/26/2015 MS Occupational Therapy CAS

10/26/2015 Master of Social Work CAS

10/26/2015 MS Computer Science CAS

10/26/2015 Certificate - Data Science CAS

In the 2015-16 academic year our Career Services office began collecting data from employers, an important stakeholder group, confirming that our students and graduates meet their personnel needs. In September 2015, employers who had participated in our Part-time Job and Internship Fair were surveyed regarding the number of Lewis students they planned to hire as a result of that event. While survey response was low (17 employers), it did identify that 59% (10 employers) planned to hire 1-3 Lewis students, and 41% (7) planned to hire 4-6 Lewis students.

June 1, 2016


To build upon the data collected at the Part-time and Internship Fair, we surveyed employers who participated in our March 2016 Career Expo. This survey netted a larger response, with 64 employers providing information on the preparedness of the Lewis students they had interviewed at that event.

Figure 1.12 Employer-Identified Preparedness of Lewis Students

Appropriate Not Appropriate

Appearance 64 (100%) 0 (0%)

Resume 64 (100%) 0 (0%)

Introductory speech 57 (89.06%) 9 (14.06%)

Company knowledge 44 (70.97%) 18 (29.03%)

Position knowledge 46 (74.19%) 16 (25.81%)

Source: Lewis Career Services 2016 Employer Survey

The employers participating in the Career Expo were also asked to identify the number of Lewis students they planned to hire based on the interviews they had conducted. Of the 62 employers responding to this question, 59 (95%) planned to hire at least one of the students they had interviewed that day. Ten of the employers in this group planned to hire four or more Lewis students. Additional results on meeting employers needs is included in Sub-category 1R4.

1I3 Based on 1R3, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

A review of the program design process revealed that each college had its own process for creating the new program proposal internally. While all required content was included, lack of a standard application format caused delays when applications reached various levels of reviewers. A university-wide standardized format developed collaboratively by the College Deans improved efficiency in this multi-layered approval process.

Similarly, Deans implemented a university-wide process for recommending the discontinuation of a program. It was improved by adding a section to indicate data analysis of numbers of students, enrollment inquiries and trends; overlap with another program; stand-alone courses requiring resources; cost in terms of resources needed; value beyond enrollment numbers; competition and success at other institutions.

Career Services will continue improving their processes for identifying whether our students are meeting the personnel needs of employers. Data collected in the two 2015-16 surveys will serve as a baseline for employers’ planned hires. An additional survey was sent in May 2016 to all employers who posted positions on Flyers Get Hired or recruited at on-campus career events in the 2015-16 academic year. This survey, in addition to student surveys, will collect the actual hire and internship data. The same survey will be sent to employers and new 2016 graduates in August to gather employment results for new teachers and nurses, consistent with the typical hiring timeframes for these industries.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/UpdatedNewProgramDegreeProposal.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/UpdatedNewProgramDegreeProposal.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/ProgramDiscontinuation,Suspension,ReviewandReinvestmentGuidelines.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/ProgramDiscontinuation,Suspension,ReviewandReinvestmentGuidelines.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/resources/careerservices/employers.htm

June 1, 2016


ACADEMIC PROGRAM QUALITY

1P4 Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities, and locations. Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula,

programs, courses, and learning they will pursue (4.A.4) Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia, and when offering dual-

credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4) Awarding prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3) Selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation(s) (4.A.5) Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels (3.A.2, 4.A.6) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities

Faculty are responsible for determining student preparation requirements for programs and courses, ensuring program rigor, seeking specialized accreditation, and assessing learning outcomes. Other personnel assist in communicating those preparation requirements. These include the Office of Admissions staff who interact with potential students and their families and the Offices of Marketing and Communications and the Registrar’s Office who update University Catalogs for print and website. Requirements for different programs and student classifications are included in the Catalogs and online, including First-year, Nursing (who have additional requirements such as a minimum ACT composite, completion of the Kaplan Admissions Test, a pre-clinical checkpoint, etc. ), Homeschooled, GED, Transfer, Adult (Accelerated Programs), Adult First Year, International, At-Large, Second Bachelor’s, and Returning to Lewis. Because of our Mission as a Lasallian institution, we have a sensitivity to poverty and the marginalized. Therefore, we have a Conditional Admission for a limited number of first year students who exhibit a strong potential to successfully complete a bachelor’s degree. These students are placed in the Success Program described in 1P5. (4.A.4)

Similarly, admission standards for graduate programs are listed in the Graduate Catalog with additional information on other requirements in the University Catalog, for example, the College of Education Writing Exam, the results of which assure appropriate course placement for their graduate students. (4.A.4)

Guidelines and approval processes have been established for assuring our consortial, contractual and dual-credit programs meet regulations. College Deans, department chairpersons, and program directors are responsible for confirming that course content is consistently rigorous through syllabi and online modules whether it is delivered face-to-face, online, or hybrid. Lewis University has developed university-wide policies and processes for online and blended delivery coursework. The Distance Learning Policy Statement includes requirements for completion of university sponsored distance learning training workshops. Each online course must meet the Lewis University Quality Assurance Standards and undergo review by an instructional designer and the Assistant Provost for FCATL, as well as the academic governance unit of their respective colleges prior to being offered through online delivery. The university-wide platform for delivery of online and blended coursework is Blackboard, which contains a variety of options for instruction and assessment. Several times during the year, an online and blended certification program is offered to Lewis University faculty, both full-time and adjunct. Faculty must complete a course offered through FCATL to be certified to teach in the entirely-online modality. As a member of NC-SARA, we comply with their published policies and standards for distance learning as a condition of our membership. (4.A.4)

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/undergraduate/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/academics/nursing/admrequirements.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/undergraduate/homeschool.htm#q3

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/transfer/transfercredits.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/adultundergraduate/adultundergrad.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/adultundergraduate/adultundergrad.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/international/applicationreq.htm

https://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/reactivatestudent.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/admissions/graduate/index.htm

http://www.cs.lewisu.edu/cats/quality-assurance.php

June 1, 2016


We have two processes for accepting credit earned before matriculation to Lewis. Lewis University participates fully in the General Education Portion of the Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI). Transfer students who have completed the IAI general education core courses with a previous institution complete only the appropriate Mission-based courses as part of the graduation requirements for Lewis University. The Illinois Articulation Initiative website includes information on approved courses from each participating Illinois college. Transfer guides for Illinois community colleges are available on the Lewis University website. Beyond the IAI, other requirements include a limit of 72 credit hours from community colleges and 96 from four-year colleges and the final 32 hours being completed at Lewis. For graduate transfer credit a maximum of 12 credits (grade of B or higher) may be considered for transfer from previously completed graduate coursework that meets degree requirements as determined by the program administrator. (4.A.2, 4.A.3)

Alternately, credit may be earned through the Prior Learning Assessment process. Credit is not granted on the basis of a student’s experience; instead it is granted for college-level learning which can be demonstrated and documented. At Lewis University, PLA includes the successful completion of national proficiency examinations, departmental challenge examinations, special licensure and credentials in a profession, and the development and submission of a Prior Learning Portfolio. (4.A.3)

Credits awarded for prior learning are recorded on transcripts on a pass/no credit basis, with no impact on the student’s grade point average. A Lewis student may earn up to 30 credits through PLA, but those credits are not considered in satisfying the 32-hour residency requirement of the University.

The university-wide approach for PLA provides a system for working with adult students enrolled in an undergraduate degree program offered by the four colleges, or in an accelerated undergraduate degree program delivered through the School for Professional and Continuing Education (SPCE). Registrations for PLA are coordinated by the SPCE, and all adult students who would like to pursue credit through PLA attend a free orientation program before registering. The orientation includes detailed information about each PLA method available, the time commitment involved for this alternative approach to earning credits, and other related processes. (4.A.2, 4.A.3)

Each college sets its cycle for academic Program Review, but all follow the same format and content, which among other topics includes reviewing retention and graduation rates, a review of the discipline to detect developments that might impact curriculum, projected demand for the program, stakeholder collaboration, and faculty/course evaluations by students. Moreover, an external reviewer reads the program’s preliminary report before visiting with faculty and students to probe achievements and areas for improvement or growth. The Provost reviews the preliminary report and meets with the external reviewer. After receiving the reviewer’s report, the Dean meets with program faculty to close the review loop by developing a response to the results of the review. These are the processes and measures that faculty and Deans use to reveal currency and rigor of the program in all its modalities. (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)

Faculty, through the guidance of program directors, department chairs, and Deans, select, implement, and maintain specialized accreditations. The process begins with an analysis of what the application process involves, feasibility of implementation, and cost/benefit analysis of maintaining the accreditation. If the Dean approves, he or she confers with the Provost and Vice-President for Enrollment and Planning, and following their approval the President approves pursuing accreditation. Due to the ongoing commitment and costs of maintaining accreditation, the Board of Trustees makes the final approval. (4.A.5)

The University assesses the level of outcomes attainment by all graduates using data collected from the student learning outcomes assessment described in 1P1 and 1P2, such as the CLA and CLA+ tests and/or

http://www.itransfer.org/

http://www.lewisu.edu/transfers

http://www.lewisu.edu/academics/spce/accel_priorlearning.htm

June 1, 2016


a capstone experience. The OIRP tracks student employment rates and entry to graduate programs as a measure for meeting student and employer needs. Another indicator is the pass rate for those fields requiring certification or licensure examinations. (3.A.2, 4.A.6)

1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Lewis tracks the awarding of prior learning to ensure the quality of such credits. From calendar year 2013-May 24, 2016, 28 students have received 359 credit hours for Student Portfolios, 52 have earned 255 credit hours for Challenge Exams, and 207 (mostly in Nursing) have received 2,459 credit hours for licensure and credentials.

We currently hold the following specialized accreditations.

Figure 1.13 Lewis University Program Accreditations

College Accrediting Body Program(s) Accredited

COE National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)

COE (2020)

COB Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP)

COB (2020)

CAS Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE)

Athletic Training (2019)

CAS Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Undergraduate Social Work (B.S.W.) (2017)

CAS Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Maintenance Technician School (Indefinitely)

CAS Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aircraft Dispatch (2016)

CAS Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Pilot School (2018-19)

CONHP Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)

CONHP – baccalaureate, master's and doctoral programs (2020)

When asked about their employment status at time of commencement, 42% (n=217) of the 2015 May Commencement Exit Survey respondents reported being currently employed full-time (n=169) or have been offered a full-time job (n=48). Nearly three in five (59%) of graduating seniors were employed, had a job offer, or were headed to graduate school at the time of commencement. Data from the 2013 and 2014 Alumni Surveys suggest that 92% of Lewis graduates were either employed (full or part-time) or attending graduate school within one year of graduation. About 38% of Lewis graduates found a job prior to graduation, 64% obtained work within three months post-graduation, and 83% reported spending no more than 12 months to find their first job. Figure 1.14 provides results from the Alumni Surveys for some of our largest programs.

June 1, 2016


Figure 1.14 Alumni Employment for Selected Departments 2013 & 2014

Undergraduate Alumni Employment for Selected Departments

Department Responses Employment Rate

at 6 Months at 12 Months

Accounting 16 56% 100%

Aviation & Transportation 27 48% 85%

Business Administration 37 82% 95%

Criminal/Social Justice 21 81% 90%

Elementary Education 14 36% 86%

Human Resource Management 10 90% 100%

Marketing 11 55% 100%

Organizational Leadership 23 74% 91%

Psychology 14 57% 79%

School Counseling 22 64% 91%

Special Education 16 81% 94%

Source: One-Year-Out Survey

Another measure of the quality of our academic programs is our students’ licensing exam pass rates. Between 2011 and 2015, Lewis met its goal to have annual pass rates on licensing exams at or above the national/state pass rates:

ISBE Teacher Licensure exam pass rate for 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 academic years of 100% meets state (100%) measure

National Registered Nurse (NCLEX) exam pass rate for 2011 and 2012 of 100%, and 98% for 2013 and 95% for 2014, exceeds state (84%) and national (82%) measures. The minimum passing score was increased for the 2013 administration resulting in a lower pass rate for all populations

FAA (Aviation Maintenance) exam pass rates of 100% in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and 97% for 2014 exceeds national (91%) measure

We also measure quality through our ATS certification for online teaching. Since 2013 we have certified 351 members of the faculty to teach online: 136 full-time and 215 adjunct.


The Board of Trustees has approved pursuing ABET accreditation for our new undergraduate Computer Engineering program; CACREP accreditation for our graduate program in Clinical Mental Health Counseling; ACOTE accreditation for Master of Science in Occupational Therapy; and CSWE accreditation for our new Masters of Social Work program. Achieving and maintaining these accreditations will both assure and demonstrate the quality of those programs.

We have no other plans for improvements in this subcategory at this time.

June 1, 2016


ACADEMIC STUDENT SUPPORT

1P5 Academic Student Support focuses on systems designed to help students be successful. Describe the processes for developing and delivering academic support to students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Identifying underprepared and at-risk students, and determining their academic support needs (3.D.1) Deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete courses and

programs (3.D.2) Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry (3.C.5) Determining and addressing the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library, laboratories,

research, etc. ) of students and faculty (3.D.1, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5) Ensuring staff members who provide student academic support services are qualified, trained, and

supported (3.C.6) Communicating the availability of academic support services (3.D.2) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness

of support services

Student success is at the center of Lewis’ Mission and our Strategic Plan. Multiple units of the University collaborate to ensure that all students are supported to succeed.

The determination that a student is underprepared or at-risk is made following a thorough review of the student’s file by a small committee of administrators in the Enrollment Management division. The committee is comprised of the Dean of Undergraduate Admission, Director of Freshman Admission, Director of Financial Aid Services, and Senior Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management/Dean of Retention. The team carefully considers the student’s ACT Composite score, sub-scores, high school G.P.A., and high school transcript and curriculum. In some cases, students are asked to write a brief essay or statement of interest to help the team better understand their interest in attending Lewis. If a student doesn’t meet the traditional admission criteria but shows strong potential to be successful, they may be invited to enroll at the University through the Success Program, which includes their participation in a two-week intensive Summer Bridge college preparatory experience. (3.D.1)

If the student is enrolled as a “mainstream” First-year student but there is some aspect of their high school experience or test scores that suggests they may need special assistance or would benefit from a particular academic support intervention, a note is made in the student’s file and as part of their online record so a professional staff member can follow-up once the semester is underway. In some cases, we reach out to students during Orientation to discuss particular recommendations we have for assistance or additional support we can provide.

We also use Student Orientation Advising and Registration (SOAR) to place students in the appropriate level for writing (essay sample) and math courses (ACT scores and a transcript review of math courses and grades). (3.D.2) Registration and advising is primarily guided by a faculty member from the student’s intended major to establish an early link. Career Services advises students who are undecided on a major. (3.D.3)

Based on these processes and the interaction of various units, we provide the following support services through the Leckrone Academic Resource Center (LARC), which functions as the primary academic resource for all students (traditional undergraduate, adult undergraduate, graduate, and online). (3.D.2)

http://www.lewisu.edu/academics/success/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/resources/larc/index.htm

June 1, 2016


Tutoring and Writing Center Support Face-to-face Course Tutoring in 83 subject areas Face-to-face Writing Center Tutoring (located in the Library) Online Writing Center Tutoring Face-to-face Writing Center and Research Librarian Joint Tutoring Learning Strategies Workshops offered to students Learning Strategies Workshops offered within particular classes, upon instructor request Writing Center Workshops for students Writing Center Workshops offered within classes upon instructor request Smarthinking online 24/7 Tutorial Service for students Technology Support Technology Workshops offered to students Technology Workshops offered within classes upon instructor request One-on-one Technology support provided to students in a variety of formats (online, face-to-face,

email and telephone) Support for and instructional and testing accommodations for students with documented

disabilities

Support for and verify compliance for student athletes

Academic advising for students who have not declared a major

Support for and monitoring of students who are on academic probation

Summer Bridge Program – Two week, intensive summer college preparatory program Academic skills enhancement courses (Reading, Writing, Math, Information Literacy, Technology

Literacy, Learning Strategies) Leadership skills enhancements sessions offered Learning strategies sessions offered

Success Program – First year experience program for students not meeting traditional admission criteria and who successfully complete the Summer Bridge Program Academic support Mentoring (between student and coordinator) Peer mentoring (between student and peer-mentor)

Information about these services is communicated to students and others through the website, undergraduate and graduate Catalogs, and Student Handbooks, including locations, phone numbers, and hours of availability. All services are available online for students at all instructional locations and enrolled in distance learning. Service offices send timely emails to all students such as shortly after the semester begins and about a month before the end, and in coordination with writing assignments in general education courses. We also connect to students through Lewis social media accounts. (3.D.2)

Faculty members are required to hold office hours and include those hours in their syllabus. They are also required to be available for student inquiries and academic support and are encouraged to schedule mutually convenient appointments if their office hours are at times when students have other responsibilities. (3.C.5)

LARC uses surveys and other data to determine learning support needs, and works collaboratively with other units, such as Enrollment Management, Veteran’s Affairs Office, Library, School for Professional and Continuing Education (SPCE), and faculty members to identify needed support for student learning. LARC has created a process and form for the Academic Intervention Measures (AIM) program. Faculty use the form early in the semester to identify concerns with students regarding problems such as excessive absenteeism, difficulty with technology, etc. LARC follows up with the student. This program is

http://www.lewisu.edu/resources/larc/tutorialservices.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/resources/larc/writinglab.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/resources/larc/studentathlete.htm

http://lewisu.smartcatalogiq.com/en/Undergrad-2016-2017/Undergraduate-Catalog

http://lewisu.smartcatalogiq.com/en/Graduate-2016-2017/Graduate-Catalog

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/studenthandbook.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/news/socialmedia.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/larc/larcform.htm

June 1, 2016


particularly helpful to support at-risk and first generation college students who may have difficulty adjusting to the demands of a college level education. (3.D.1, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5)

Eleven library professionals have direct responsibility to assist students in person, by phone, or email, with effective research and information sources such as using databases, evaluating credibility of sources, and proper citations. An additional five staff members are capable of assisting undergraduate and graduate students with research concerns. (3.D.5)

LARC also holds responsibility for ensuring that academic support services staff are qualified, trained, and supported as noted in Category 3P3.(3.C.6, 5.A.4)

Consulting with LARC, the Office of Technology, and faculty, the Library Director and staff use data to determine and address the learning needs that the Library supports. Faculty in programs that use labs review course enrollments, condition of equipment, innovations in the field to determine needs and work with deans and other administrators to obtain the resources they need to support student learning. The Office of Graduate Studies analyzes and seeks what support is needed for graduate research. (3.D.4)

Directors and administrators of support services consult with OIRP to identify tools to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of support services. During their first semester, as part of the Introduction to the College Experience (ICE) course, all first-year students participate in the Ruffalo Noel Levitz College Student Inventory (CSI). The CSI is an online tool designed to identify variables indicating a student’s propensity to drop out of college. The tool also helps identify where the University can intervene to solve a problem, provide information and resources, or offer pastoral support for students who are finding their first few weeks in college difficult. First Year Mentors (instructors of the ICE course) meet with students personally to review the report summary and data is also reviewed by academic support and retention personnel so interventions can occur where necessary.

For continuous improvement the University utilizes surveys such as the Noel-Levitz SSI (Student Satisfaction Survey targeting undergraduates) and Noel-Levitz ASPS (Adult Student Priorities Survey targeting adult and graduate students) and NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) to identify learning needs. This information is reviewed by various administrators (e. g. Academic Support, Student Services) and shared with advisory committees to the Leckrone Academic Resources Center (LARC), the Library, ATS, and others for discussion and recommendations regarding improvements to be made. Other needs are determined and addressed through analysis of student complaints across the University to determine trends and needs, as well as usage logs for the various services.

The OIRP has developed a dashboard of several measures to demonstrate the performance of support services.

1R5 What are the results for determining the quality of academic support services? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible) (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks (4.C.4) Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained (4.C.2)

June 1, 2016


Academic Services regularly tracks the following measures to determine the quality of academic support services:

1. Success Program participants on the Dean's List 2. Number of students on Academic Probation 3. Number of students removed from Academic Probation 4. Number of students Academically Dismissed after appeals 5. Number of students eligible for Learning Accommodations 6. Students classified as veterans

We have begun to assess the effectiveness of the Summer Bridge Program using a pre- and post-test methodology. Baseline measures were taken in 2014. Students reported their confidence in their abilities related to the following subject areas increased as a result of participating in the Bridge program: Writing, Math, Computer Software, and Study Strategies. Student confidence decreased in Reading and Library Research/Information Literacy. In 2015, confidence increased in Writing and Library Research/Information Literacy, but decreased in Reading, Math, Computer Software and Study Strategies. Other comparisons were made in three variables that indicate program effectiveness.

Figure 1.15 Summer Bridge Program Student Assessment (4.C.4)

2014 (N=58) 2015 (N=63)

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

College Preparedness College Preparedness

Prepared 64% 89% Prepared 68% 91%

Not prepared 7% 0% Not prepared 5% 0%

Not sure 29% 11% Not sure 27% 9%

Satisfaction Satisfaction

Positive experience 100% Positive experience 98%

Worth two weeks 96% Worth two weeks 88%

Would recommend 100% Would recommend 97%

Met/exceed expectations Not asked Met/exceed expectations 91%

Awareness of University Resources for Success

100% 100%

Review of Writing Center usage between Fall Semester 2009 and Fall Semester 2012 showed a 215% increase in tutoring sessions. These results were the primary factor leading LARC and the University administration to look for an alternative location for this increasingly utilized student service.

Another area of student support services - students eligible for learning accommodations - showed a 42% increase between 2009 and 2015: from 193 eligible students in the 2009-10 academic year to 274 students in the 2014-15 year. Historically, 75% of students who are eligible access these services. The Student Accommodations Working Group (SAWG), a four-person collaborative team (Disability Services Specialist, Director of Academic Support Services, Student Success and Technology Specialist, and Vice President for Mission and Academic Services) was established in 2013 to address the significant increase in students who require documented learning accommodations, including analysis of these results. Improvements made in response are discussed in the next section.

http://www.lewisu.edu/studentservices/health/swagteam.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/studentservices/health/swagteam.htm

June 1, 2016


Figure 1.16 Students Eligible for Learning Accommodations 2009-2016

Term Year Fall Spring

2008-09 NA 89

2009-10 100 93

2010-11 108 107

2011-12 119 115

2012-13 122 115

2013-14 136 122

2014-15 144 130

2015-16 157


Based on the results above, three student groups were targeted for additional support: sophomores, those with learning disabilities and special needs, and underprepared admitted students. Retention data over ten years revealed that sophomore year was the one with the lowest retention rate. Lewis applied for a Title III grant to help fund a Sophomore Success Initiative, and while we missed receiving the grant we decided to go ahead with some aspects of the initiative. In fall 2015, Lewis opened a recently purchased property on the main campus and designated the residence space for sophomore students. Housing approximately one third of these students together and offering special programs to assist them with particular topics to meet their needs in selecting a major and potential career provides a supportive atmosphere to stay connected and persevere. Resident assistants are trained to address these needs in formal programs as well as private interactions. This initiative is a partnership of Residence Life, Academic Support, and Student Services. In addition, a new “DSCVR Retreat” for sophomores was created in the department of University Ministry to assist sophomores in their exploration of purpose and meaning in college.

In 2015 the duties of our Student Success and Technology Specialist were redistributed to give .25 FTE to students needing academic accommodations, with a special focus on assistive technology resources.

Lewis University has provided a Summer Bridge program for admitted students who are underprepared. An improved process was developed to ensure the quality of this program. The program itself is now assessed with an online pre- and post-test to continuously improve the program and better understand the students’ experience. The assessment adds quantitative evidence to the qualitative feedback from student anecdotes. Improvements in the program have included activities that join academic skills improvement with interactive methods such as group projects, team-building, and field experiences.

During the summer of 2013, the University’s Writing Center was relocated to a centralized, expanded space on the main floor of the Library. This relocation and expansion of the Writing Center was in response to increased student usage of a variety of Writing Center services, especially in-person tutoring. The Center also added writing tutors qualified to work with graduate students. Additional improvements include exploration and implementation of new services, such as e-mail response appointments, real online response sessions, and a variety of new workshops. Since the 2013 relocation, usage of Writing Center services has increased an additional 42%.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/AcademicDashboardRetentionbyCollegeandMajor.pdf

https://lewisu.edu/resources/larc/writinglab.htm

June 1, 2016


Another significant improvement sprang from the Lewis University 2017 Strategic Plan which encouraged restructuring to foster integrated activities for more efficient use of resources. We have plans to replace LARC, which has served as the primary office for academic support with the Center for Academic Success and Enrichment (CASE). This restructuring plan was achieved through the involvement of a variety of stakeholders in the decision-making process, including professional staff from the Academic Services Division, University Administrative Council, the University Policy and Budget Advisory Council (a representative body of administration, faculty, staff, and students), the University Academic Affairs Committee and the Board of Trustees. Our goal is to co-locate all academic support services (Library, Writing Center, Veterans/Active Military, Tutoring, Scholars, Office of Service Learning, Study Abroad, Disability Services, Bridge Program) so they are truly centralized, aligned, and integrated. A first step has been moving both the Writing Center and Study Abroad to the Library building.

We have remained mindful of our students at additional locations in the Chicagoland area and Albuquerque, with regular, rotating meetings of all directors to review and improve services to adult undergraduate and graduate students taking courses at these locations. The Albuquerque director attends these meetings electronically. We ensure that all students at those sites have access to support services either online or in person.

Finally, the Office of Service Learning has begun using a new web-based “Get Connected” software application which is a portal that allows students to learn more about service opportunities and sign up for service experiences. Its “back end” database provides the University better tracking of students’ service locations. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

1P6 Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice (2.D., 2.E.1, 2.E.3) Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students (2.E.2, 2.E.3) Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty (2.E.2, 2.E.3) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness

of supporting academic integrity

Academic freedom is addressed in Article IV: Section 1 of the Lewis University Faculty By-Laws. (2.D)

The University ensures ethical learning and research practices of students through its Academic Honesty Policy that appears in the Student Handbook and course syllabi and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). (2E1) The IRB communicates through the IRB website the review process in the IRB Policies and Procedures Manual and the functions of college (local) and University IRBs. Faculty are responsible for ensuring their students’ research abides by these guidelines, including certification of ethical training through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) at the University of Miami. (2.E.2, 2.E.3) This certification and IRB policies also ensure the ethical teaching and research practices of faculty. Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism, false representation of research, scholarship or credentials or serious breach of professional ethics/standards is adequate cause for termination. (2.E.1, 2.E.2, 2.E.3)

http://www.lewisu.edu/campuses/albuquerque/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/servicelearning/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/UniversityFacultyByLawsFinal.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/provost/irb/index.htm

June 1, 2016


The University holds students to the academic honesty standard stated in the student handbooks, graduate and undergraduate catalogs, and multiple locations on the website:

ACADEMIC HONESTY Scholastic integrity lies at the heart of Lewis University. Plagiarism, collusion and other forms of cheating or scholastic dishonesty are incompatible with the principles of the University. Students engaging in such activities are subject to loss of credit and expulsion from the University. Cases involving academic dishonesty are initially considered and determined at the instructor level. If the student is not satisfied with the instructor’s explanation, the student may appeal at the department/program level. Appeal of the department /program decision must be made to the Dean of the college/school. The Dean reviews the appeal and makes the final decision in all cases except those in which suspension or expulsion is recommended, and in these cases the Provost makes the final decision. (2.E.3)

The University’s subscription to Turnitin is both a deterrent for plagiarism and a support for our culture of academic integrity. Many faculty members utilize Turnitin in their courses as a tool to support student learning regarding plagiarism and accurate citing of sources. It is also the primary tool for tracking cases of academic dishonesty in student writing. The originality report and similarity index available through Turnitin provide an opportunity for increased student learning regarding appropriately using outside sources for both our undergraduates who are in the process of learning how to properly utilize and cite sources in their own work, and our graduate students who need a refresher. 1R6 What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures where appropriate) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

With a target to use best practices for certification of research ethics, the University IRB and the University Graduate Affairs Committee (UGAC) periodically review certification tools used by other institutions. Their review found that most institutions use the online CITI training originally out of the University of Miami because it is a multi-purpose service, providing general ethical as well as discipline specific training. The IRB and UGAC determined that CITI provided a broader range of services than our current provider. The IRB also reviewed its own research policies and procedures and discovered a gap in a policy regarding external researchers that could result in inadequate IRB review of research involving human subjects on our campus, and harm Lewis’ eligibility for certain kinds of funding that requires Federal Assurance as an external benchmark.

UGAC reviewed the Student Handbook academic honesty policy and determined that it was too general in its description of penalties for policy violations. UGAC noted a gap in addressing levels of violations and appropriate penalties at the graduate level. They also noted that we had no policy for tracking and managing subsequent violations of academic honesty.

Academic Technology Solutions (ATS) periodically reviews both instructor and student use of Turnitin. Used as a learning tool, a high similarity score may not indicate dishonesty. Students whose written work contains a similarity index of 25-50% may actually be unclear about how to use quotation marks or believe an in-text citation for a quote is sufficient. Students whose similarity index is above 50% have most likely deliberately represented the writing of other authors as their own.

June 1, 2016


The specificity of the report enables an instructor to demonstrate how and where outside sources were used improperly. This provides the student with an opportunity to explain why the similarity index is high, or understand how they might improve their appropriate use of sources. Data for the last three years indicates an increasing number of instructors are using this learning tool, resulting in a greater number of students whose understanding of appropriate use of sources has increased. Of note is a significant increase in the current academic year of submissions with a 75-100% similarity.

Figure 1.17 Lewis University Instructor and Student Use of Turnitin for Increasing Student Learning 2013-2016

Academic Year

Instructor Use

Student Use

Total Submissions

Originality Reports

Similarity Index

75-100% 50-74% 25-49% 0-24% No Matches

2013-2014 258 4,770 17,770 17,562 160 354 1,868 11,406 3,774

2014-2015 297 5,010 24,210 24,012 226 514 2,449 15,545 5,278

2015-2016* 284 5,255 21,918 21,733 707 531 2,513 14,067 3,915

*Current academic year data through April 30, 2016 does not include end of Spring Semester or Summer Session as do previous years. We project the 2015-16 numbers will be higher than the previous two years.


The IRB used information from their review of the benefits of CITI certification to select it as the only acceptable research ethics training for Lewis University IRB approval. They communicated this to all faculty through the Lewis website and provided guidelines with directions for determining which modules would be required by faculty and students.

Graduate faculty and UGAC have already begun a more detailed academic honesty policy for graduate students with a ranking system of violations and appropriate penalties. The policy is working its way through the four colleges for input to the Committee. They expect the policy to be implemented for Fall 2017 with publication in the 2017-2019 Graduate Catalog.

Each college has its own practices and policies for enforcing and tracking academic integrity violations, although all provide faculty members with the first opportunity to address problems in their courses. The Deans Committee has identified the absence of a university-wide set of practices and policies for enforcement and tracking as a gap. In the summer and fall of 2016 they will work to develop a centralized tracking system as well as a university-wide enforcement policy. In the future this will provide institutional data for analysis, and upon which we can implement improvements for our students and faculty.

June 1, 2016

Category Two: Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs | 33

Category Two: Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs

Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of current and prospective students’ and other key stakeholders such as alumni and community partners.

CATEGORY TWO OVERVIEW

Our overall processes and results for Category Two are strong points for Lewis University. Overall we rate the systems maturity of this category as aligned for processes, and systematic but moving toward aligned for results.

Our processes and results for Sub-category One, Current and Prospective Student Needs, are aligned: they are explicit, repeatable, and evaluated for improvement. They are coordinated across multiple units of the University that also share and act upon results.

Lewis’ Sub-category Two, Retention, Persistence, and Completion, processes are aligned. There are units assigned to implement our processes in collaboration with the faculty, staff, and administration across divisions. The maturity of our results are integrated with data collected, interpreted, shared, and used across the institution in decision-making leading to improvements.

Within Sub-category Three, Key Stakeholder Needs, the maturity of our processes and results is reacting. The Alumni Survey is one systematic data collection, however, focusing on stakeholders other than our students has historically been a gap.

The maturity of our processes within Sub-category Four, Complaint Processes, are aligned, while results are systematic. Results are analyzed internally with improvements made. External benchmarking is an area for growth.

Our processes for Collaborative Partnerships, Sub-category Five, are at an integrated level of maturity, while our results are primarily aligned with some leaning to systematic.

CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENT NEED

2P1 Current and Prospective Student Need focuses on determining, understanding and meeting the non-academic needs of current and prospective students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Identifying key student groups Determining new student groups to target for education offerings and services Meeting changing student needs Identifying and supporting student subgroups with distinctive needs (e.g., seniors, commuters,

distance learners, military veterans) (3.D.1) Deploying non-academic support services to help students be successful (3.D.2) Ensuring staff members who provide non-academic student support services are qualified, trained,

and supported (3.C.6) Communicating the availability of non-academic support services (3.D.2) Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess student needs Assessing the degree to which student needs are met

June 1, 2016

34 | Category Two: Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs

The University identifies key student groups through the collaborative efforts of the Performance Indicators Review Committee (PIRC), a group of administrators representing academic and non-academic divisions across the University. PIRC members include our Vice Presidents in Enrollment Management, Student Services, and Mission and Academic Support Services, the AQIP Director, representatives of the Office of the Provost, a College Dean representative, the Dean of Student Services, Associate Vice President for Institutional Research, and the Associate Vice President for Retention. PIRC regularly reviews profile reports supplied by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) for traditional first-year undergraduate, transfer, adult undergraduate, and graduate students. This review also clarifies where Lewis may have gaps in support for specific student groups. When action is suggested, PIRC either initiates more in-depth study or forwards the data to appropriate groups such as the Division of Student Services and Deans Committee to provide feedback and take action.

Learning more about these key student groups begins with the First-year and Transfer Student Profile reports that highlight incoming student information related to gender, ethnicity, major, academic ability based on prior grade point average, ACT scores for First-years, religion, and residency.

To supplement this information, OIRP administers nationally normed surveys specifically to incoming and first-year students. These include the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), CIRP First-Year Survey, Rufffalo Noel-Levitz College Student Inventory (CSI), and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). OIRP analyzes results, which are discussed by PIRC and used by various administrators and staff members to improve student services.

Under the guidance of the Office of Enrollment Management, the University has a thorough process for determining whether we should target new student groups for educational offerings and services as detailed in the figure below:

Figure 2.1 Process for Determining New Student Groups

Office of Enrollment Management, Office of Institutional Research & Planning, colleges, the Enrollment Growth Committee, and other advisory boards continually monitor changes and trends in the external environment; using census data and student projection data to identify potential targets for recruitment.

Determine if new student targets align with Mission, Values, and Strategic Plan

Determine level of competition, if any

Meet with potential stakeholders/partners

Determine our readiness with resources for needs of these students; discussions with academic programs that might be attractive to them

After the internal vetting, outside groups such as the Educational Advisory Board (EAB) prepares an analysis to support or challenge our assumptions

University Administrative Council considers feedback and makes recommendations to the President

This process for determining new student groups is consistent with our continual review of current student groups. Ongoing review of demographic and other institutional data by the Office of the Provost, OIRP, and other campus offices helps us identify the changing needs of current students and assess if their needs are met. This process led to targeting and serving Hispanic and Latino students as noted in the Improvement section. Formal feedback is collected through a regular cycle of external surveys administered under the guidance of the OIRP and a regular cycle of institutionally prepared analyses.

In addition to these assessments of students’ needs, we take advantage of other tools made available to the University. For example, in 2015 Lewis administered and analyzed the Education Advisory Board (EAB) Campus Climate Survey to assess perceptions, behaviors, attitudes and experiences of sexual violence on campus, and community attitudes towards sexual violence.

https://www.lewisu.edu/library/newsletter/wordpress/?p=273

June 1, 2016


Student needs are also identified through faculty, staff, and administration interactions with student groups including debriefs, focus groups, task forces, and the Student Senate. Typically, the analysis/action of these needs is delegated to the appropriate department(s)/person(s)/group(s) with follow up conversations to be certain that student needs are being met. Student advisory boards are another means by which student needs are conveyed and addressed. There are Student Advisory Boards in the College of Business and the College of Education; the Student Athlete Advisory Council; the Media Advisory Board; and the President’s Student Advisory Board. These groups regularly convene throughout the year, with involvement from a faculty or staff advisor serving as a liaison to University administration to ensure student needs are conveyed and addressed. Additionally, several student satisfaction assessments are administered, including an annual Quality of Life survey.

Because our Lasallian Mission calls us to provide educational opportunities for the underserved, we are always mindful of the needs of first generation college students. Lewis uses a number of metrics to identify subgroups with distinctive needs. Administrators and staff in the Offices of Enrollment Management, Student Services, and Mission review retention data and various internal dashboards and results of national surveys provided by OIRP. These include Ruffalo Noel Levitz’ Surveys: College Student Inventory (CSI), Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), and Adult Students Priority Survey (ASPS) as well as the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), the National Survey of Student Engagement and CIRP First Year Survey. (3.D.1)

From this information, Lewis has continued to identify veterans as a subgroup with distinctive needs and has added sophomores (lowest retention rate), Hispanic and Latino students, students needing learning accommodations (rising enrollment with eligibility for accommodations), and international students (rising enrollment rates, Peer Review by Center for Internationalization and Global Engagement (CIGE) Model from the American Council on Education (ACE) and the new ELS language Center) to the subgroups. (3.D.1) We have actively continued to support athletes, a previously identified group, with an NCAA Grant in which Counseling and Athletics collaborate for Alcohol and Bystander educational programs.

Many units within the Student Services Division such as the Student Health and Counseling Center, Commuter Student Council, Student Development and Leadership, International Student Services, Multicultural Student Services, Office of Veterans Affairs and Recruitment, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, work with other units providing retention services, Academic Support Services, and Financial Aid to deploy non-academic support services for all student stakeholders. For example, the Office of Veterans Affairs and Recruitment works closely with Enrollment Management to bring veterans to Lewis, with Financial Aid to determine what monetary support is available, Retention Services to keep veterans enrolled, and the Student Health and Counseling Center and/or University Ministry for counseling services that might be needed. (3.D.2)

Other units may collaborate to deploy services related to aspects of one salient student issue such as student safety and wellness. For example, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Committee’s charge is to guide and coordinate activities and initiatives related to alcohol and drug use. The University Assessment & Care Team (ACT) extends these wellness efforts by providing support, resources, referrals and responses as appropriate with regard to potential or actual threats to the University community. Membership of this team includes representatives from Student Services, Academic Affairs, Human Resources, Campus Police, Residence Life, Health & Counseling Services, Student Conduct and faculty.

The Senior Vice-President for Student Services is responsible for ensuring that knowledge about student needs and support services remains current and relevant and that staff members routinely participate in webinars, training, professional conferences, and other professional development opportunities. Staff

http://www.lewisu.edu/emergencyplanning/personsinterest.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/emergencyplanning/personsinterest.htm

June 1, 2016


requiring specific qualifications and training frequently participate in regional and national professional conferences, increasing their knowledge of current standards. The University supports this by covering conference expenses, granting leave time, and funding annual membership in national and state organizations, including the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), Association for Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and University (ASACCU), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and Illinois Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators: leading organizations for professional development, research to inform practice, and policy advocacy. (3.C.6)

A Student Affairs division-wide assembly introduced as part of a previous AQIP Action Project is now an institutionalized mechanism for disseminating information related to student affairs, practices within the field, and assessment of services to students. Each semester webinars provide additional training for student support staff on topics such as serving undocumented students, residence life, and student conduct. Training on topics related to emergency preparedness and campus safety, such as the ALICE active shooter training, are offered to the entire University community. (3.C.6, 5.A.4)

Students have multiple opportunities for learning about available support services beginning with recruitment visits, the Summer Bridge Program, SOAR, and then Welcome Days in the first week of the semester. This information is always available online and in the University Catalogs and the Student Handbook. (3.D.2)

OIRP takes the lead in selecting and coordinating our tools, methods, and instruments to assess student needs. PIRC, whose members include the Senior VP for Student Services, reviews, discusses interpretations, and shares the results with relevant units for action. The division of Student Services recently hired an Assistant Dean of Student Affairs for Assessment, Student Development, and Leadership. This role coordinates the assessment of student needs through satisfaction surveys, climate surveys, and other evaluation tools.

The Dean of the School for Professional and Continuing Education (SPCE) and the Dean of Graduate Studies work with the OIRP to select tools and complete assessment of our adult undergraduate and graduate students using tools such as the Noel-Levitz ASPS and the Graduate Student Quality of Life Survey.

2R1 What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’ needs are being met? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Lewis has built a mature data system integrating a variety of assessment results to gain insights into our students’ needs and satisfaction with Lewis. The measurement outcomes, tools, process, timeline, and target stakeholder groups are described in detail in Figure 2.2.

http://www.lewisu.edu/studentservices/security/programrequest/index.htm

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.2 Assessment Matrix to Track Current and Prospective Student Needs

Assessment Matrix: Identifying Student Needs

Student Groups

Outcomes Measures

Instruments/ Tools

Reporting Cycle

Internal Targets

External Benchmarks

Undergraduate Students (Traditional and Adult)

Assess students with college transition to improve student retention and completion rates.

College Student Inventory (Noel Levitz CSI)

Annual Year to Year Comparison

National norms

Assess incoming students preparedness

CIRP First-Year Survey (UCLA-HERI)

Rotate with BCSSE

Year to Year Improvement

National norms

Assess undergraduate students' priorities

Student Satisfaction Inventory (Noel Levitz - SSI)

Every three years


National norms

Monitor Adult students' satisfaction

Adult Student Priorities Survey (Noel Levitz - ASPS)

Every three years


National norms

Measure student engagement

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

Every Three years


National norms

Measure student success and outcomes

Graduating Student Survey Annual Year to Year Comparison


Graduating Student Exit Survey on iPads

Annual Year to Year Improvement

Graduate Students

Assess graduate students' priorities

Adult Student Priorities Survey (Noel Levitz - ASPS)

Every three years


National norms


Graduating Student Survey Annual Year to Year Comparison

Alumni Measure alumni student success and satisfaction.

One-Year-Out Survey Twice a year Year to Year Comparison

Measure alumni student success and satisfaction.

Alumni Survey Every two years Year to Year Improvement

All Students

Disaggregate enrollments by different subgroups

Weekly Report Weekly Week-to-Week & Same Day Comparison

Disaggregate credit hours by campus site or department

Data Warehouse Weekly Report

On-going Week-to-Week & Same Day Comparisons

To meet the needs of all student groups we rely on data found within this diverse set of measurement tools. Figure 2. 3 shows the tools we use to gain data regarding our traditional undergraduate, adult undergraduate, and graduate students and interpret the results to decide where we should focus our attention for improvements.

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.3 Institutional Survey Item Matrix

Undergraduate Adult & Grad

Grad Alumni

BCSSE CIRP CSI NSSE SSI ASPS GSS One- Year-Out

AS

Personal Traits

Age, ethnicity, gender • • • • • •

Parents education and income • • •

Precollege Characteristics

Standardized test scores (ACT or SAT) • •

High School Achievement • •

Educational and Career Aspirations •

College Experiences

Academic Integration

Classroom experiences • • • • • •

Faculty relations/interactions • • • • • • •

Academic motivation • • • • • • • •

Social Integration

Social Involvement/extracurricular activities • • • • • •

Employment-on and off campus • • • • • •

Perceptions of diversity/cultural and campus climate • • •

Leadership involvement/Community services • • • • •

Career development • • • • •

Student life • • • •

Commitment to campus spiritual/religious life • • • • • •

Institutional Integration

Supporting Services • • • • • • •

Financial Aid • • • •

Educational Outcomes

Academic Outcomes

Intellectual growth • • • • • •

Basic skills • • • • •

Preparation for Career/Employment/Grad School • • • • •

June 1, 2016


Personal Growth

Interpersonal Skills • • •

Diversity and Openness • • • • • •

Responsibility/Self-discipline • • • • •

Knowledge building skills (Library, Study & computer) • • • • • • •

Satisfaction

Total Satisfaction • • • • •

Satisfaction of majors • • •

Career preparation satisfaction • • • •

Job/Employment Satisfaction

Overall College Experience Satisfaction • • • •

Alumni Outcomes

Current Occupation Status • •

Advanced Degree Attainment • • •

Career Attainment

Income • •

Employment •

Time to find a job • •

We use satisfaction surveys to ensure we are meeting the needs that drove students’ decisions to enroll at Lewis University. For our undergraduate students, financial aid, cost, and the University’s academic reputation were the top three reasons for their decision to enroll at Lewis.

Figure 2.4 Factors Influencing Traditional Undergraduate Enrollment

2009 2009 Rank 2015 2015 Rank

Financial aid 6.47 1 6.60 1

Cost 6.32 2 6.49 2

Academic reputation 6.24 3 6.28 3

Personalized attention 5.82 5 5.83 4

Geographic location 5.90 4 5.72 5

Size of the University 5.80 6 5.71 6

Campus appearance 5.59 7 5.61 7

Family/friends' recommendations 4.87 8 4.99 8

Opportunity to play sports 3.66 9 3.52 9

Source: Student Satisfaction Index (SSI) 2009 & 2015

We use the College Student Inventory (CSI) to alert us to needs specific to incoming first-year students. We use trend data to decide resource allocations to the areas. The most recent CSI identified the top recommendations to help our First-year students make a smooth transition were the broad areas of academic assistance, career assistance, social enrichment, and financial assistance.

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.5 Areas of Traditional Undergraduate Student Need

College Student Inventory (CSI) Questions

Mean Priority Scores Ranking

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

(N = 663)

(N = 614)

(N = 606)

(N = 716)

Response Rates 90.0% 91.0% 87.0% 96.0%

Academic Assistance

Get help in selecting an academic program

6.38 6.44 6.25 6.47 3 3 3 1

Get help with exam skills 6.47 6.51 6.28 6.37 1 1 2 3

Get help with study habits 6.00 5.98 5.82 5.98 5 6 6 5

Career Assistance

Discuss qualifications for occupations

6.30 6.46 6.30 6.41 2 2 1 2

Discuss job market for college graduates

6.15 6.18 6.07 6.20 4 4 4 4

Discuss advantages/ disadvantages of occupations

5.96 6.02 5.81 5.98 6 5 7 5

Get help in selecting an occupation 5.81 5.85 5.74 5.86 7 9 8 8

Social Enrichment

Get information about clubs and social organizations

5.74 5.86 5.72 5.91 8 8 9 6

Financial Assistance

Get help in obtaining a scholarship 6.00 5.87 5.83 5.87 5 7 5 7

Source: College Student Inventory (CSI) 2011-14

In contrast to incoming traditional undergraduates, the top three pre-enrollment factors for graduate and adult undergraduate students were flexible course schedules, convenient locations, and good academic reputation.

Figure 2.6 Factors Influencing Adult Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment

Adult Undergraduate Graduate

2011 2013 2013 Rank 2011 2013 2013 Rank

Evening/weekend courses 6.62 6.70 1 6.39 6.52 1

Academic reputation 6.26 6.40 3 6.20 6.42 2

Geographic location 6.34 6.46 2 6.31 6.29 3

Future employment opportunities 5.73 6.02 6 5.84 6.12 4

Cost 5.82 6.03 5 5.90 6.06 5

Personalized attention 5.86 6.18 4 5.65 5.99 6

Financial aid 5.52 5.95 7 5.55 5.80 7

Family/friends' recommendations 5.31 5.63 8 5.37 5.55 8

Size of the University 5.17 5.28 9 5.09 5.36 9

Source: Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS) 2011 & 2013

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.7 Student Satisfaction 2009-2014 with National Benchmarks

Gap between Student Importance and Student Satisfaction Score

SSI: Traditional Undergraduate Students LU 2009 (n=727) LU 2015 (n=487) National 4-Yr Private

Safety and Security 1.59 1.16 1.15

Registration Effectiveness 1.11 1.08 0.98

Concern for the Individual 0.93 0.87 0.83

Instructional Effectiveness 0.90 0.84 0.84

Academic Advising 0.76 0.83 0.79

Student Centeredness 0.83 0.83 0.81

Campus Life 0.84 0.81 0.80

Campus Climate 0.85 0.78 0.84

Service Excellence 0.82 0.74 0.80

Campus Support Services 0.61 0.44 0.55

ASPS: Adult Undergraduate Students LU 2010 (n=619) LU 2013 (n=440) National 4-Yr Private

Recruitment and Financial Aid 0.86 0.57 0.92




Academic Services 0.58 0.35 0.8




ASPS: Graduate Students LU 2010 (n=884) LU 2013 (n=333) National 4-Yr Private

Recruitment and Financial Aid 0.85 0.60 0.92






Academic Services 0.53 0.35 0.80


Source: Student Satisfaction Inventory & Adult Student Priorities Survey

To better understand and improve services to meet students’ needs, the University conducts comparisons of survey results across multiple groups, between survey years, and against national peer groups (see Figure 2.7). Tracking our performance over time and against benchmarking groups allowed the University to effectively implement strategies for improvement. Results from recent student surveys (SSI and ASPS) provide evidence of the University’s successful use of previous survey data to improve quality of student services. Using a performance gap score (the difference between the student ratings of importance and satisfaction) from traditional undergraduate 2009 SSI responses, we identified safety

June 1, 2016


and security as the area with the greatest gap. After four years of significant improvements to safety and security (discussed in the next section), the 2013 results indicate we have closed this gap.

Overall, compared to their traditional undergraduate peers, our adult undergraduate and graduate students expressed higher levels of satisfaction in the areas of quality of major, career planning, and total college experiences. In 2013, graduate and adult undergraduate students expressed significantly higher level of satisfaction in all eight broad areas than did their counterparts did in 2010. The survey item analysis reports further indicated that areas of financial aid and billing continued to be challenging areas identified by the adult undergraduate and graduate students. However, compared with results from national benchmarks and previous survey administration, our results from the 2013 ASPS survey showed a smaller performance gap in the area of financial aid.

In addition to survey data, the OIRP, in collaboration with student services, disaggregated enrollment trends by various student populations, such as minority students, adult undergraduate students, and military connected students. Our Hispanic and veteran student population enrollments increased by 36.1% and 6.4%, respectively, between Fall 2011 and Fall 2015.

We also explore student satisfaction among the adult undergraduates taking courses at locations other than on our main campus.

Figure 2.8 Adult Undergraduate Student Gap Scores by Instructional Site

2013 ASPS Adult Students Gap Scores by Sites

Lewis Adult Students National Peers

Category Question 2010 (n=619)

2013 (n=457)

Romeo ville (n=56)

Oak Brook (n=65)

Albu querque (n=99)

Other Loca tions (n=168)

Online (n=31)

2010 2013

Academic Advising

My advisor helps me apply my academic major to specific career goals.

0.97 0.64 1.08 0.93 0.15 0.67 0.85 1.16 1.18

Admissions & Financial Aid

Adequate financial aid is available for most adult students.

1.28 0.95* 1.19 1.11 0.46 1.09 1.23 1.18 1.21

Instructional Effectiveness

The content of the courses within my major is valuable.

0.63 0.48 0.52 0.80 0.18 0.58 0.32 0.80 0.83

Faculty provide timely feedback about my progress.

0.55 0.49 0.80 0.67 0.04 0.58 0.51 0.93 0.99

There are sufficient options within my program of study.

0.82 0.65* 0.83 0.76 0.23 0.77 1.04 1.05 1.05

June 1, 2016


Service Excellence

I seldom get the “run-around” when seeking information at this institution.

0.72 0.38 0.58 0.40 0.21 0.38 0.64 1.15 1.16

I am aware of whom to contact for questions about programs and services.

0.76 0.58 1.08 0.65 0.10 0.66 0.74 0.97 0.95

Registration Effectiveness

Classes are scheduled at times that are convenient for me.

0.74 0.59 0.52 0.81 0.16 0.75 0.87 0.89 0.91

Billing policies are reasonable for adult students.

0.89 0.49 0.25 0.68 0.01 0.61 1.07 1.04 0.98

I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.

0.69 0.68 0.77 0.87 0.08 0.87 1.20 1.02 0.42

This institution offers a variety of payment plans for adult students.

0.93 0.61 0.82 0.83 0.28 0.67 0.58 0.89 0.91

Campus Climate

Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.

0.96 0.67 1.00 0.79 0.30 0.73 0.83 1.25 1.33

*p-value <. 05 Source: Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS) 2010 and 2013

The CSI survey has been used for years by our retention office to identify for early intervention our at-risk, traditional undergraduate first-year students. The individual CSI report provided crucial information for strengthening retention efforts based on participants’ completed survey responses in three main categories: academic motivation, general coping skills, and receptivity to institutional assistance. The high response rates and valid information for each item response have proven useful in personalizing retention strategies for at-risk students.

Mapping survey results across various student groups and multiple years has provided a comprehensive view of current engagement, needs, and priorities of Lewis students in relation to academic and student support areas. To assist the University’s ongoing quest for improvement at all levels and programs, OIRP has conducted analysis of disaggregated data to identify strength and weakness in specific areas and assisted with follow-up focus group studies to explore issues in depth. This data has driven improvements over time in financial aid and billing, registration processes, campus security, and health and counseling services.

Concerns over low survey response rates have affected confidence in responding to survey results and disaggregating data to conduct subgroup analysis. For example, the extremely low response rates of the recent 2014 NSSE survey (1st year=10%, 4th year=13%) has limited our ability to monitor progress over time. As a result, concerted efforts were made to increase students’ participation in the 2015 SSI survey. Using representative data, the University was able to examine differences of students’ unmet needs between 2009 and 2015. The broad areas of instructional effectiveness, financial aid, academic support, safety and security, and service excellence have experienced significant improvement over a six-year

June 1, 2016


period, whereas areas of student centeredness and campus life remained as areas for continuous improvement.

Tracking the University’s performance over time and against benchmarking groups allowed the University to effectively implement strategies for improvement to better serve our students. For example, inadequate financial aid was identified by adult undergraduate students at all instructional sites as a challenging area with highest performance gap scores from the 2010 and 2013 ASPS surveys. However, compared to the results from national benchmarks and previous survey administration, the results from 2013 ASPS survey showed a smaller performance gap in the area of financial aid (see Figure 2.8).

We have results for our student groups designated with distinctive needs. Two recent benchmarks confirmed that Lewis is successfully meeting the needs of veterans. We were named a military friendly school by G. I. Jobs and “Best for Vets” in Illinois by Military Times and second among private universities in the nation. Data for retention and persistence (see 2R2) revealed that we were most likely to lose students after their sophomore year. Enrollment results revealed a steady increase in students who need learning accommodations over five years from just over 100 in 2010 to nearly 160 in 2015 (see Figure 1.17). Compared to our local peer institutions, Lewis has a substantial increase in its Hispanic student population, up 36% over a five-year span. We also increased enrollment for international students from a total headcount of 71 in 2011 to 104 in 2015.

Results from the 2015 Campus Climate Survey provide a baseline set of data to help us understand the scope and nature of attitudes toward safety and sexual violence at Lewis. EAB invited 6,500 students to complete the online survey over a three-week period in November 2015, with 714 valid responses.

Figure 2.9 Climate Survey respondents who agreed/strongly agreed with the following statements about Lewis University

Overall, results suggest our students feel safe and are confident the institution and faculty act in their best interests (Figure 2.9). On the other hand, student knowledge of available support resources and the school’s complaint process leave room for improvement, and over half of the respondents believe rape and sexual violence can happen unintentionally, particularly when alcohol is involved (Figure 2.10).

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/Internationalenrollment.pdf



June 1, 2016


Analysis of these results was completed by Student Services staff, and in response to this analysis led to development of new student programming that is discussed in the next section.

Figure 2.10 Climate Survey respondents who agreed/strongly agreed with the following statements about Sexual Assault


Results from 2009 SSI led to significant improvements in our system and processes for safety and security. This included transitioning from a Campus Safety office to a University Police Department; improvements in campus video surveillance to assure safety; and the use of card access for building security. As identified in the previous section, for our traditional undergraduates, the impact of these improvements closed the gap between student ratings of importance and their satisfaction with Lewis safety and security.

We also take great care to meet the needs of adult undergraduate and graduate students at our instructional locations beyond the main campus. After reviewing enrollment trends, we determined the Oak Brook facility was no longer adequate to meet anticipated growth. We selected a new location with greater square footage to meet both academic needs and student concerns. For example, faculty and college administrators collaborated with the Business Office and Facilities to develop the state-of-the-art Nurse Practitioner Lab in one section of the space. Appropriate instructional technology was purchased for the remaining academic spaces. Students, attending four-hour long classes after a day of work, expressed a primary need for comfortable chairs. Samples of chairs were brought in and students were given time to try out each chair. Students then cast their vote for their preferred chair and the one with the most votes was purchased for the new location.

A second improvement for adult undergraduate students responds to four gaps found in the ASPS results. For tuition concerns, we have held tuition steady or slightly reduced, provided scholarships, bookstore vouchers, first course free for online programs, a textbook rental program, and use of open-source educational resources instead of purchased texts. We have also developed a “Frequent Flyer Scholarship” providing a significant tuition discount for returning students and established partnerships with various organizations to offer tuition discounts to their employees. To answer the need for sufficient options within a program of study, Lewis faculty have worked with SPCE and ATS to increase

June 1, 2016


the number of adult undergraduate and graduate programs available and with online delivery, as well as offering all general education requirements online. We have also added new interdisciplinary fast-track B.A. to M.A. options as new programs of study.

The third gap from the ASPS was for advising that helps students apply their choice of academic program to specific career goals. SPCE addressed this concern by certifying the professional advising staff in “Appreciative Advising,” an expanded skillset that includes coaching and career counseling. Similarly, SPCE worked with the Financial Aid Office to create a new position for a Financial Aid Counselor to focus on assisting Adult and Graduate students with their financial aid concerns, which was the fourth gap.

Lewis includes military and veteran current and prospective students for additional services. In addition to the Veterans Affairs Office, we have an online veterans’ resource website, a Veterans Affairs Advisory Committee of deans, administrators, faculty members, and veteran students who meet once a quarter to address veterans’ issues at Lewis. Faculty, staff, and students developed a version of the Introduction to College Experience course specifically for veterans with a focus on issues surrounding their transitions from military to civilian life. We also offer the Military Student Success Seminar to assist in the transition from service to the classroom in an effort to enhance GPAs and increase retention and graduation rates for military students. The Lewis University VET Ally Program is a network of faculty, staff, and administrators educated about issues concerning veterans and committed to creating a welcoming and open environment for student veterans and military service members. The Director of the Office of Veterans Affairs and Recruitment offers training to all faculty and staff in all of our locations including a personal visit to Albuquerque each semester. In response to ASPS results, the Business Office has enhanced all billing practices for veterans.

Since the adoption of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to gauge institutional performance in 2011, the University has continually met its enrollment goals each year. Compared to our local peer institutions, Lewis has the highest total enrollment, with a substantial headcount increase of 282 (36%) in our Hispanic student population over a five-year span. Hispanic students make up over 15% of the Lewis student population, which is higher than those of our peer institutions. We have created a Hispanic support position and begun a focused study for best practices for serving Hispanic students. This will be an immediate focus for the institution to increase our understanding and improving services for this population.

Desiring to attract more international students, Lewis found that hosting an ELS Language Center would be an element to enhance the service to and recruitment of international students. Results from inquiries found a 160% growth in such programs from AY 2003-04 to AY 2011-12 and that 11% of students in these programs apply to member institutions for associate degrees, 41% for bachelor degrees, and 48% for post-graduate degrees. Our aviation department offers all three degree levels that are attractive to international students. Opened in Fall 2014, ELS can provide quality assurance evaluation and data supporting student preparedness.

For students needing learning accommodations, we have hired a Disability Services Specialist to coordinate services as noted in Category 1.5.

Moving forward, results of the Campus Climate Survey will be used by all Student Services staff to develop additional programming, including panel presentations with faculty members about sexual assault and consent, the development of a Peer Educator program, and introduction of a social media based “consent” campaign to educate students about consent and assist them to identify and locate campus resources for support and reporting. Student focus groups will be conducted to gather feedback and insights about how students would like information from the Climate Survey shared with them and the types of programming they prefer. Peer Minister and Resident Advisor training will be developed so

http://www.lewisu.edu/els/

June 1, 2016


they are better able to assist students who disclose they have been victimized. Concomitant with the analysis of the EAB Campus Climate Survey, Haven, an interactive online module that addressed sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking and harassment in terms of value based decisions, bystander intervention and campus resources was infused into the first-year ICE class curriculum. First year and transfer students were introduced to bystander intervention at SOAR. First year SOAR students engaged in peer led small group discussions about alcohol, sexual assault and bystander intervention. And each individual athletic team received interactive and motivational interviewing based sessions around alcohol and sexual assault.

RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND COMPLETION

2P2 Retention, Persistence, and Completion focus on the approach to collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion to stakeholders for decision-making. This includes, but is not limited to, description of key processes for:

Collecting student retention, persistence, and completion data (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Determining targets for student retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.1., 4.C.4) Analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion Meeting targets for retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.1) Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.4)

We set targets for student retention, persistence, and completion by benchmarking Lewis University results with our peer and aspirant institutions identified in U. S. News & World Reports and CSRDE. Our current targets are discussed in the results section. Adjustments to targets are based on this external benchmarking and subsequent internal discussions with institutional constituents such as University Administrative Council (UAC) and PIRC. (4.C.1, 4.C.4)

Analysis of student retention, persistence, and completion information occurs with various University groups. Ruffalo Noel Levitz data is analyzed in consultation with senior University leadership including the Provost, Senior Vice President for Student Services, Senior Vice President for Enrollment Management, Marketing, and Planning, as well as the Dean of Undergraduate Admission/Director of Transfer Admission, Director of Freshman Admission, Director of Financial Aid Services, and Office of Financial Aid Services staff. (4.C.3)

PIRC, with its representative membership from across the University, annually reviews retention, persistence, and completion reports from OIRP. These reports are then presented to groups represented by members of PIRC including leadership in Student Services, colleges, Enrollment Management, and Academic Support Services. Discussions then move to more focused attention on specialized groups with further discussion in departments to set goals and develop strategies to improve in underperforming areas. (4.C.2, 4.C.3)

The University Policy Budget Review Advisory Council (UPBRAC), which has representation from across the University and includes student members, also periodically reviews and provides feedback and recommendations on retention, persistence, and completion data.

Retention and graduation rates are included in the student success outcome measures within academic program reviews completed by individual academic programs. Measures of student retention, persistence, and completion are also part of college and Program Dashboards available to academic deans and program heads.

Each fall OIRP completes a benchmarking report that includes a comparison of retention and graduation rates for Lewis to our peer and aspirant institutions. Other external rate targets are selected for sub-

June 1, 2016


groups based on institution type and level of academic selectivity. From these reports the University seeks to understand where improvements can be made and which campus groups, such as Multicultural Student Services, Academic Resource Center, Career Services, Veterans Affairs, Financial Aid Services, Health and Counseling Services, can assist in contributing to student success for various sub-populations. Measures from instruments such as the College Student Inventory, Adult Student Priorities Survey, Student Satisfaction Inventory, National Survey of Student Engagement, and Graduating Student Survey are used to determine areas of focus with a goal of improving our retention, persistence, graduation and completion rates over time. Overall, our rates have gradually improved and meet or exceed our peer and comparable institutions. (4.C.4)

Lewis leadership selected the following tools and instruments to assess retention, persistence, and completion:

IPEDS Graduation Rates Survey Graduation Rates 200 Survey Outcomes Measures Survey Completion Survey

Consortium for Student Retention and Data Exchange (CSRDE)

Council of Graduate Schools and the Graduate Records Examinations (CGS/GRE) Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees

VA-Once (Veterans enrollment and program completion)

U. S. News & World Report

Lewis Data Warehouse (retention and graduation rates for various combinations of entry type, gender, ethnicity, time status, and academic program)

Lewis Academic Program Review

Data for specific grants and initiatives (4.C.4)

2R2 What are the results for student retention, persistence, and completion? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

We track and compare retention and graduation rates by sub-groups for internal trends and compare them to external measures when available. Sub-groups that are tracked and analyzed by OIRP for retention and graduation rates include:

Traditional Undergraduate First-Year, Transfer, Adult Undergraduate, Graduate

Full-time and Part-time

By academic program for retention in same major or any Lewis major

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Instructional location

Veterans

STEM programs

Resident vs. Commuter

Campus employment vs. non-campus employment

Success Program and undeclared vs. declared majors

June 1, 2016


Student retention and graduation of students are arguably the best simple measures of student success in postsecondary education. However, calculating meaningful and useful retention and graduation rates requires careful review and decisions made across the functional units. For example, the OIRP worked closely with units such as the Registrar, Admissions, Academic Support, Academic Deans, and program chairs to establish meaningful ways to track full-time first-year (FTFY) students’ retention and graduation rates by major. OIRP also expanded cohort analysis to identify at-risk students and factors that affected their persistence and completion.

Targets for student retention, persistence, and completion were set in the strategic planning KPI process. First-time, first-year freshman retention and graduation rates at the institutional level were set at 82% and 62%, respectively, for the 2014-15 academic year. External benchmarks were calculated in accordance with the average of retention and graduation rates reported by our peer and aspirant institutions to the IPEDS.

Comparison of FTFY student fall-to-fall retention rates by different subgroups has been conducted annually by OIRP. The most recently reported retention rates of 82.6% for the Fall 2014 cohort were slightly higher than the previous year, and exceeded the annual target goal of 82%. Our FTFY retention rates for the Fall 2014 cohort were above our 10 local-peer benchmarks.

Figure 2.11 Lewis University First and Second-Year Retention Rates 2010-2014

In 2014-15, the University exceed its annual target and achieved its highest 6-year graduation rates to date, at 66.7% for the fall 2009 FTFY cohort. As illustrated in Figure 2.12, graduation rates for first year minority and part-time undergraduate students were slightly higher than the previous year, whereas full-time transfer students showed a decline in their graduation rates. The graduation rates for first-year Success program and graduate level students remained similar to the previous year.

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.12 Lewis University Graduation Rates 2011-2015 (2005-2009 Cohorts)

A longitudinal study that examined student success outcomes for the combined FTFY cohorts of 2006 to 2014, following their enrollment patterns up to six years after their term of entry, was loaded into the Student Academic Success dashboard in 2015. These results showed a sophomore to junior retention rate considerably lower than first-year to sophomore: 71% vs. 83% for the Fall 2013 cohort (Figure 2.11). Analyses of subgroups within the sophomore class revealed several groups were at even greater risk of attrition. Black or African-American students had even lower second-year retention, a trend also shared by Lewis’ Hispanic or Latino student population. . High-risk students, those enrolled in the 2012 first-year Success program, also showed a lower second-year retention rate at 65%.

Using the 2013 CSRDE cohort data, further analysis was conducted by OIRP to identify student persistence risk factors as being Hispanic/Latino students, low cumulative GPAs, and borrowing more than $20,000 in student loan. These findings have helped to initiate second-year retention programs to transform our academic support services to support student retention beyond the freshmen year and six-year graduation rates across all racial/ethnic groups.

The 2015 longitudinal retention study suggests that increased support should be targeted to underrepresented, undecided, and academically at-risk students. These second year trends are consistent with a nationwide problem known as the “sophomore slump,” a period of time when students can become discouraged by the stress of choosing a major and defining a path for their collegiate experience and future professional life.


As discussed previously, when retention rates revealed that students are most likely to leave in their sophomore year, Lewis initiated a Sophomore Initiative in Fall 2015. A residence hall has been designated for sophomore students. Housing them together is expected to enhance their connectedness

June 1, 2016


to the University and to each other. Programs will be initiated to focus on an investigation of career goals and then aligning those goals with academic majors from a Lasallian perspective of career as vocation. (4.C.3)

We exceeded our targets for FTFY student retention for the 2014-15 academic year. This puts us on a positive trajectory to continuous improvement to reach the strategic goal of 83% by 2016-17. We also exceeded our 2014-15 graduation target, and will now work on maintaining those levels as we have already exceeded our 2016-17 graduation target of 63%.

KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

2P3 Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of key stakeholder groups including alumni and community partners. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Determining key external stakeholder groups (e. g. , alumni, employers, community) Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess key stakeholder needs Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met

Lewis’ Lasallian Mission is the key factor for determining key stakeholder groups. These include alumni who carry the Mission values into their communities and the communities themselves.

We meet the changing needs of these stakeholders by maintaining quality communication with them and using data systems where appropriate. The University’s use of an Alumni Engagement Metrics system allows staff to identify trends within alumni population subsets and then strategically target constituent groups for enhanced engagement efforts and resource distribution. This Metrics system is a compilation of multiple pieces of data that are tracked internally, assigned a score, and then totaled within the Raiser’s Edge database to provide integer values that can be used individually or as aggregate scores. The composite metric score is produced by a simple summation of a score in five different categories – giving; events; volunteerism; communications; and other. To assess alumni stakeholders, Lewis conducts a biennial survey of all alumni. In 2011 this survey was distributed only to alumni who graduated within the last ten years, but in December 2013 this was expanded to include all alumni. This survey is conducted to evaluate the student experience – how well did being a student at Lewis University prepare the alumnus for his/her post-collegiate life, as well as the alumni experience – does the University continue to provide enriching opportunities for engagement? Most recently we have asked alumni their preferences for receiving news and information from us and what kinds of events they find beneficial.

The Office of Service Learning (OSL) is a primary link with the community that benefits our students and organizations in the area. OSL solicits evaluations from active community (not-for-profit) partners regarding their experiences with service-learning students and student volunteers. This survey collects data on the projects completed at an organization, the partners’ experiences with Lewis students, and their overall satisfaction with the partnership between Lewis and the OSL. The information collected as part of this assessment is then used to inform decisions made in future course/not-for-profit partnerships. Additionally, the OSL asks community partners to complete evaluations of their experiences at service fairs held once a semester at Lewis. This feedback has been used to inform changes made to future service fair events that have included new marketing strategies and timing and location of the event. Student, faculty, and community partners link with each other via Get Connected, a volunteer management software program. Since this is a recent tool, the OSL will use it a few more months before evaluating its effectiveness. The Office also monitors engagement of students by

June 1, 2016


numbers of participants, hours served, and assessment of after-service reflections; engagement of faculty by numbers of participants and by college; and engagement of community organizations by breadth of categories and their evaluations of student volunteers.

Another key stakeholder is the Institute for the Advancement of Catholic & Lasallian Education, discussed in greater detail in Category 2P5.

2R3 What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Results for our community partner stakeholders are included in Category 2R5.

In general, Lewis alumni were satisfied with their overall Lewis experience. A large majority (77%) of the 2013 Alumni Survey respondents would likely (‘very likely’ or ‘likely’) re-enroll at Lewis, which was a significant 10 percentage points higher than 2010 survey respondents (p<. 01). In addition, 2013 survey respondents reported a higher percentage of individuals who were satisfied with the preparation they received for their current job or occupation (74% vs. 53%).

Figure 2.13 Alumni Overall Satisfaction with Lewis Education

1Total Ns may not be equal due to missing data. *p<. 05; **p<01; ***p<. 001.

When asked about the type of information they wanted to receive from Lewis, alumni most frequently selected information about “events” and “university news”. Recent graduates (2010-2013), on the other hand, preferred to receive information about “professional development opportunities” rather than “university news. ” As a group, alumni most frequently selected email, traditional print, and Facebook as their top three modes of communication. These three modes of communication were consistently cited across the groups by year of graduation. However, among most recent graduates (2010-2013), Facebook and LinkedIn were tied as a third selection. The 2013 alumni respondents also indicated that they were likely to obtain information about Lewis via email or the Lewis website. Graduates from 2010 to 2013 more frequently indicated using Twitter and the Lewis website as their two main sources of information, compared to graduates of earlier years.

June 1, 2016


Figure 2.14 Alumni Survey Results

How do you prefer to receive information from Lewis University?

Alumni Graduation Year

Total Group (n=676) Prior to 2001 (n=236) 2001-2009 (n=109) 2010-2013 (n=130)

Count Rank Count Rank Count Rank Count Rank

Email 438 1 215 1 102 1 116 1

Traditional print 101 2 58 2 20 2 23 2

Facebook 57 3 21 3 18 3 18 3

LinkedIn 41 4 17 4 6 6 8 3

Text messaging 25 5 3 7 9 4 13 4

Direct phone calls from students or other alumni 21 6 12 5 4 7 5 5

Twitter 13 7 2 8 7 5 4 6

Other 11 8 4 6 4 7 3 7

Total Responses1 707 332 170 200

How do you currently receive information from Lewis University?

Alumni Graduation Year

Total Group (n=676) Prior to 2001 (n=236) 2001-2009 (n=109) 2010-2013 (n=130)

Count Rank Count Rank Count Rank Count Rank

Email 385 1 187 1 7 5 4 5

Lewis website 214 2 96 2 92 1 102 2

Facebook 101 3 31 4 51 3 66 3

Other 72 4 50 3 14 4 8 4

Twitter 14 5 3 5 164 2 180 1

Total Responses1 786 367 328 360

1Count total may exceed total number of respondents due to the option to select more than one response.


Alumni are mutual key stakeholders. They benefit from Lewis maintaining its positive reputation for providing a quality education and we benefit from their service on advisory boards and donations. The Lewis University Alumni Association Board increased the scholarships it provides from two at $1000 to four at $1500. Driven by a survey of alumni needs, Lewis’ Marketing and Communication department now focuses content for alumni communications on upcoming events and general University news. Since alumni prefer communications via email, we have improved the ability to target emails with alumni interests so that they actually receive fewer, but more relevant emails. We have also shifted from Twitter to Facebook and LinkedIn for communicating current University news. We used data to improve programming by focusing on the two most engaged affinity groups: athletes and Golden Flyers (alumni who graduated 50 years ago or more). Finally, more recent graduates (after 2010) expressed a desire for more professional development opportunities. The University now offers “Your Flight Plan: Life Skills Week,” a series of free seminars including “Buying Your First Home,” “Networking Tips and

June 1, 2016


Tricks,” “Interviewing Like a Pro,” and “Investing for Retirement.” These are offered annually in both the Romeoville and Oak Brook instructional locations.

COMPLAINT PROCESSES

2P4 Complaint Processes focuses on collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students or key (nonemployee) stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Collecting complaint information from students Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders Learning from complaint information and determining actions Communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders Selecting tools/methods/instruments to evaluate complaint resolution

The University Complaint Database is where all issues that are received by campus offices are logged, as well as complaints from students and other constituents received directly by the President’s and Provost’s Offices or through the online student complaint form. Our policy defines a formal complaint as “a verbal or written report from a student or other constituent that expresses a serious concern about the quality of any of our programs or the conduct of a faculty member, staff member, administrator or student. ” Complaints express concern or lack of satisfaction with service or processes received by a student or other constituent. This differs from appeals that request reconsideration of a decision that has been made, such as a grade or dismissal from the University. Students are encouraged to seek resolution directly with the individual involved. When other college or university channels have failed to produce a resolution from the point of view of the complainant, the complaint enters the University Complaint process.

Our University Student Complaint Log is managed by the Provost’s Office. All complaints received are reviewed by the Associate Provost for Academic Administration and Accreditation, or in her absence, the Academic Associate to the Provost. When the complaint is related to Title IX, the Title IX Coordinator is immediately brought in. In other cases the complaint is referred for resolution to the appropriate campus office.

All complaints, whether from student or stakeholder, are monitored by the Provost’s Office until a resolution is reached. There is ongoing documentation of the activities taking place to reach resolution. When resolution is reached, all individuals involved are notified of the resolution and the nature of the resolution. All documentation related to the complaint is saved to the database file.

2R4 What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of the following: Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

June 1, 2016


We track the following measures:

Figure 2.15 Complaints by Type and Year

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16*

Academic / Grading Issue 3 6 6 6

Accreditation Compliance Concern 1 0 0 0

Admission Issue 0 0 3 1

Advising Issue 2 3 4 4

Athletic Issue 0 2 0 0

Commencement 3 2 0 0

Discrimination 1 0 0 3

Ethical Conduct 0 0 1 1

Financial Issue 12 11 9 7

Housing 0 1 0 0

Instruction / Faculty Issue 0 14 4 8

Liability / Legal Issue 0 0 1 0

Other 8 4 7 13

Re-admission 0 1 0 0

Student Services 0 9 1 10

Technology 4 0 1 0

TOTAL 34 53 37 53

* Complaints through 5-1-2016

Figure 2.16 University Offices submitting Student Complaints

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16*

President's Office 19 16 9 5

Academic Affairs & Colleges 13 24 21 13

Student Life 1 9 5 9

Business Office 0 2 1 6

Enrollment Management 1 1 1 2

Advancement 0 0 0 0

Student Support Services 0 1 0 15

Student Portal 3

TOTAL 34 53 37 53

* Complaints through 5-1-2016

Each November a review of complaints from the previous academic year is completed. The leadership of Enrollment Management, Student Services, and the Provost’s Office meet to complete an audit of the complaints. If a theme is identified in this audit, the appropriate manager is charged with analyzing the multiple factors of the situation to find a solution. The manager is responsible for reporting successful resolution of the issue back to the unit head and the review team.

June 1, 2016


Following this process, a report is made to the President and his University Administrative Council of both the themes and the actions taken to address the needs of our students and other constituent groups.


The University process for collecting, analyzing, and responding to student and stakeholder complaints has been in place for several years, with improvements made in the process. The growth in our process of responding to the complaints of our students and other constituents is demonstrated in Figure 2.17. These improvements in our process have resulted in an increase in complaints received across the past four years, and an increase in the offices participating in the process (from 4 in 2012-13 to 6 in 2015-16), in addition to students directly submitting complaints through the online form.

Figure 2.17 Results for Improvements to the Student Complaint Process

2012-13 Many departments with "no complaints" for the year. This may be because of the requirement that complaints be submitted in writing. IMPROVEMENT: A pilot of documenting verbal complaints to University administration. Form developed to formally submit verbal complaints received from students in a face-to-face setting.

2013-14 Lack of complaints from departments, and misinterpretation of classifying requests as complaints. IMPROVEMENT: Additional training and information for individuals responsible for entering complaints. Provided August 13, 2015.

2014-15

Ongoing concern with the lack of complaints received from many departments. IMPROVEMENT: Request that University leadership reinforce the need to participate in the process for documenting student complaints. Subsequent presentations to Deans and groups that are not reporting.

Substance of complaint resolution is not adequately identified on the document. IMPROVEMENT: Provost's Office will discuss with appropriate individuals the need to close the loop on resolution.

Concern that complaints that may be Title IX issues be communicated to the Title IX Coordinator. IMPROVEMENT: Provost's Office will collaborate with the Title IX Coordinator to develop communication strategy.

Need for identification of complaints that arise from distance-learning students. IMPROVEMENT: Addition of columns in the log to identify distance-learning students and their state of residency. Directions for students in states other than IL posted on our student complaint web page.

Electronic submission of complaints by students not being utilized. Likely due to difficulty of finding the link for the form. IMPROVEMENT: When the student portal on Banner goes live in 2016, prominently display the submission form in that location to increase usage by students on the main campus, other instructional locations, and online.

The University recently purchased the Maxiant program to consolidate the reporting processes for student concerns, student behavior issues, and tracking Title IX cases. A planned improvement to the student complaint process will be transferring from our current process to the Maxient system beginning in August 2016.

BUILDING COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS

2P5 Building Collaborations and Partnerships focuses on aligning, building, and determining the effectiveness of collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Selecting partners for collaboration (e. g. , other educational institutions, civic organizations,

businesses) Building and maintaining relationships with partners Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess partnership effectiveness Evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective

June 1, 2016


We have identified four key areas where we build partnerships that align with our Mission. Our Institute for the Advancement of Catholic and Lasallian Education; our Office of Service Learning; articulation, contractual, and consortial agreements; and our administrative collaborations.

Lewis University’s Institute for the Advancement of Catholic and Lasallian Education and the Diocese of Joliet schools. Lewis’ Institute for the Advancement of Catholic and Lasallian Education, formalized in 2014 and housed in the Lewis University College of Education (COE), oversees and coordinates the partnership with the Diocese of Joliet and Lasallian schools in the region to assist with meeting six areas of needs in elementary and secondary schools. The director of the Institute serves as liaison between Lewis, the schools, and the Christian Brothers of the Midwest District. For example, if the director learns that a school needs assistance with a concern such as increasing enrollment, a special consultation with a Lewis marketing professor is arranged; or if a school has received Smart Boards and iPads, a Lewis professor will lead a training session for use in the classroom. Other assistance may include directing a Principal search committee or strategic planning initiative. Additionally, the Midwest District provides the Institute with staff support in the area of Lasallian formation. The benefit to Lewis is attracting students to Lewis’ academic programs. The Institute and COE offer a colloquium on the Lasallian charism to better prepare teacher and principal candidates for positions in Lasallian schools. In addition to these schools in the Diocese, we also partner with other Lasallian schools and Lasallian universities worldwide.

Lewis’ Office of Service Learning and Community Partners. The OSL, staffed with a director, community partner liaison, and graduate assistant, determines processes for selecting partners, building and maintaining relationships with them, as well as selecting tools and methods for assessment of partnership effectiveness. The OSL works with community partners to match their needs with service-learning courses, educates agency staff, visits partners and establishes policies to foster excellence in service-learning. OSL collaborates with the Community Engagement Cooperative, whose members include staff from Student Development and Leadership, Career Services, University Ministry, and Multicultural Student Services. Together they share a software system that connects partners, students, and faculty, tracks data, and offers methods of assessment of partnership effectiveness.

Articulation, Consortial, and Contractual Agreements Supporting Transfers. Lewis collaborates with other institutions of higher education through formal partnerships that include articulation, consortial, and contractual agreements supporting transfer from those colleges to Lewis, and supports Lewis students transferring to other institutions. This includes agreements with Joliet Junior College, College of DuPage, and Moraine Valley Community College, three geographically close associates-granting institutions, and our top transfer institutions.

Admissions staff and faculty advisors make weekly and monthly visits to these partner institutions, and attend their transfer fairs to meet prospective students. They also remain in regular contact with academic advisors at these schools to facilitate admissions and transfer processes for the benefit of the students and both institutions.

We are also partners in 22 consortial or contractual agreements that provide Lewis students with 3+1, 3+2, and 3+3 degree programs. Nineteen of these are advanced medical programs that partner with our Biology Department.

Administrative Collaborations. Many other collaborations with higher education partners include those established by the Office of the President or other members of the administration. Lewis is an active member of the Federation of Independent Illinois Colleges and Universities. This organization provides leadership for policy initiatives affecting Illinois private institutions, particularly in regard to state legislation and funding. The collective response to an issue is often far more effective than the response

https://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/mission/institute/

http://www.federationedu.org/

June 1, 2016


of a single institution. Thus, Lewis is an active member of the Federation to assure a clear voice, and our President has served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee.

The South Metropolitan Higher Education Consortium (SMHEC) coordinates the work of twelve collaborating two and four-year public and private colleges and universities on issues of mutual concern. The Provosts of the institutions meet monthly, and the Presidents meet with them on alternating months. SMHEC initiatives include joint purchasing, a Mutual Aid Plan, sustainability initiatives, library resource sharing, and a Writing Across the Institutions initiative.

Lewis is also a member of West Suburban Deans, an organization of academic administrators from 12 private colleges and universities located in the western suburbs of Chicago. This group is an important benchmarking organization, and we regularly benchmark adjunct salary and most recently the percent of credit hours taught by adjunct faculty at our respective institutions. Adjunct salary benchmarking is discussed in Category 3R2.

2R5 What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations and partnerships? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Lewis University’s Institute for the Advancement of Catholic and Lasallian Education and the Diocese of Joliet schools. The Institute’s results are primarily anecdotal in the form of praise and appreciation for services given and being invited back or to other schools in need. Through relationships we recognized a gap in the level of focus on the Lasallian aspect of the program and created the Colloquium on “Becoming Lasallian” mentioned above. Knowing that we need to get and use more results, we have begun with an assessment of the Colloquium. The results supported the effectiveness in explaining what it means to be a Lasallian educator and motivating attendees to embrace these ideals. They also recommended that the Colloquium be an annual event. We have data that 8 of 13 candidates in our principal preparation program have become Catholic school leaders and 30-40 Lewis employees have volunteered their services to schools in the Diocese and region. We realize that more formal methods of assessment can help us make better decisions about our processes.

Lewis’ Office of Service Learning and Community Partners. We have 122 community partners in our database across 14 categories such as Immigration/Refugees, Health, Nutrition, & Medicine, and Abatement of Hunger & Poverty. Active partners provide an anecdotal evaluation of students and the partnership with OSL at the end of each semester. The mostly positive descriptors of students include motivated, conscientious, well-prepared, self-starters and fully committed. However, there is evidence that we need to continue educating students about the purpose of service-learning and preparing them to meet that purpose. We also need to prepare them for presenting themselves in public. At this time we do not collect data to measure the effectiveness of our partners. We do use the Carnegies Elective Classification as a benchmark quality indicator.

Articulation, Consortial, and Contractual Agreements Supporting Transfers. Our articulation agreement relationships are formed with the goal of increasing enrollment and guiding student transfer success. Results from our five-year traditional transfer data indicates both an increase in the number of transfer applications and percentage of applicants subsequently admitted. From 2011 to 2015 traditional transfer applications increased by 11%, from 1,473 to 1,637. The number of these applicants admitted to Lewis also increased: from 650 students (44% of the applicants) to 855 (52% of the applicants).

http://www.southmetroed.org/

June 1, 2016


Additional examination of the results from 2012-2015 points to a high percentage (currently 59%) of traditional transfer applicants from three institutions.

Figure 2.18 Top Transfer Institutions Fall 2012-Fall 2015

Transfer Institution

Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Students Percent Students Percent Students Percent Students Percent

Joliet Junior College 100 24% 127 27% 108 25% 127 27%

College of Du 16% 84 18% 97 22% 93 19%

Moraine Valley Community College

60 14% 74 15% 53 12% 61 13%

TOTAL 228 54% 285 59% 258 59% 281 59%

The OIRP provides weekly enrollment reports, and transfer enrollment is monitored by the Senior Vice President for Enrollment Management and Planning and his staff. The Enrollment Growth Committee regularly reviews our transfer data and makes recommendations and takes action based on that review. The reports are also reviewed by the University Administrative Council and Board of Trustees.

A 2015 review of our consortial and contractual agreements by the Provost’s Office identified 14 of the 22 with an indefinite term. The remaining 8 agreements have 1, 3, or 5-year review and renewal terms. This presents an opportunity for improvement.

Administrative Collaborations. Our active collaboration in the Federation of Illinois Independent Colleges and Universities, consistent with our Justice Mission value, was demonstrated in our recent activism on behalf of low-income Illinois students whose awarded state MAP funding was not released by the state. At Lewis, this impacted more than 1,400 students due more than 6.3 million dollars, a fraction of the 125,000 students across Illinois whose state financial aid was not being released. In collaboration with our Federation partners, the result of our week-long “Stuff the Box” campaign was 1,681 letters sent to the Governor’s Office. Twenty-eight students, faculty, and staff participated in the Federation’s February Chicago rally and five faculty and staff at the State Capitol in April.

In addition to continuous cost savings, our SMHEC partnership resulted in our increased use of green energy. Beginning in 2014, our collaborative contract with our energy provider provides 15% green power (wind power), which is more than twice the 7% mandated by the state. The current Writing Across the Institutions initiative supports our current work on assessment of general education writing courses, which was discussed in Category 1.

Data collection and analysis of adjunct faculty compensation in comparison to the other 11 members of the West Suburban Deans collaborative is discussed in Category 3R2, Figure 3.11. This data indicates that our 2013-14 per credit-hour compensation range for adjunct faculty members ranges from 22-25% higher than our peer average for undergraduate courses; 20-21% higher for adult undergraduate courses; and 12-51% for graduate courses.


Lewis University’s Institute for the Advancement of Catholic and Lasallian Education and the Diocese of Joliet schools. We have instituted the Colloquium to fill the biggest gap in our six areas of service and plan to use this experience to improve our assessment processes overall.

June 1, 2016


Lewis’ Office of Service Learning and Community Partners. We have added a community partner liaison to our OSL staff for the purpose of growing and deepening community relationships. This includes better clarification of expectations for partners prior to the start of the semester and improvements to the Service Fair to meet exhibitor needs such as networking opportunities. We use technology and face to face visits to clarify roles of site supervisors, students, and faculty in addition to enhance understanding of the needs in our community.

Articulation, Consortial, and Contractual Agreements Supporting Transfers. Following our successful Criminal/Social Justice articulation agreement with College of DuPage that has increased the number of traditional transfer students, we entered into an enhanced 2+2 agreement in Criminal/Social Justice in fall 2015 with Moraine Valley Community College. Over the next one to three years we hope to see that partnership grow and benefit Lewis and our student enrollment from Moraine Valley in the same way the agreement with College of DuPage has done.

We also expanded our articulation agreements with College of DuPage, adding a 3+1 in Computer Science in fall 2014, and a 2+2 articulation in Elementary Education, Special Education Early Childhood Education, and Combined Elementary and Special Education in fall 2013.

Administrative Collaborations. The work of our collaboration with other Illinois colleges and institutions played a significant part in putting pressure on the Governor, who released the Fall Semester 2015 MAP grant funding in April 2016. We will continue to work with our partners to ensure the Spring Semester 2016 funding is released, and this important monetary source for our most needy students continues.

Our SMHEC collaboration will continue to expand in the next one to three years. In addition to the many current initiatives that will continue, a meeting of language faculty members from the partner institutions is scheduled for June 2016 to begin conversations regarding collaborative language courses. This will allow each individual institution to offer a greater number of languages and language courses, potentially through a shared distance-learning platform.

Our active collaboration with the West Suburban Deans will provide us with adjunct compensation benchmark data for 2014-15 in the coming months, as well as benchmark data currently being collected on the 2014-15 percentage of credit hours taught by adjunct faculty members for traditional undergraduate, adult undergraduate, online, and graduate courses. This data will continue to inform the work of the academic administration.

June 1, 2016

Category Three: Valuing Employees | 61

Category Three: Valuing Employees

Valuing Employees explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development, and evaluation of faculty, staff, and administrators.

CATEGORY THREE OVERVIEW

The maturity of our processes and results for Category Three are systematic. We have clear goals, repeatable processes, and are working toward collaborating across the University and eliminating remaining silos. We collect and utilize data, and are exploring ways to expand use of external benchmarks.

Our processes in Sub-category One, Hiring, are aligned. We have goals aligned with our Mission, and processes that lead to goal achievement. Our use of results is systematic, and with our ERP system improvement we look forward to increasing use of data from our People Admin system.

Within Sub-category Two, Evaluation and Recognition, we identify different maturity levels for each area. Evaluation processes are at the systematic level of maturity. While faculty members have clear and consistent processes for evaluation, our consistency in evaluation of non-faculty employees is an area for improvement. The maturity of evaluation results are reacting.

On the other hand, our systems for recognizing accomplishments of our faculty and staff members is a strength, are aligned with Mission goals, and are repeatable processes that are assessed for effectiveness. Standards exist and are communicated across the University. The maturity of our results for recognition are systematic. We have results for faculty recognition and need to expand our results for recognition of staff members.

The maturity level for processes and results in Sub-category Three, Development, are systematic. There is room for improving the consistency of employee development across all categories.

HIRING

3P1 Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff, and administrators to ensure that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are provided. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Recruiting, hiring, and orienting employees Designing hiring processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required

qualification, skills, and values (3.C.6) Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual credit,

contractual, and consortia programs (3.C.1, 3.C.2) Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and non-

classroom programs and activities (3.C.1) Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services

Once a position has been approved for hire, Human Resources (HR) assists units with recruiting a qualified employee. Heads of units or academic departments provide a position description that includes minimum education and skill requirements, details about the work expected for the position, required credentials, and an acceptance of Lewis’ Mission and values. HR places recruitment ads on our website and in professional publications. Institutional commitment to expanding diversity provides a healthy advertising budget for placing ads in journals, publications, and websites that target a diverse audience. This regularly includes diverseeducation.com, American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE), and American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE). Networking with

June 1, 2016

62 | Category Three: Valuing Employees

diverse organizations is a common practice at Lewis for establishing relationships with prospective candidates.

When the applicant pool is sufficient, the hiring process continues. A search committee composed of unit/department heads and other stakeholders directs the selection of faculty or professional-level staff. In other cases, the process is led by the hiring manager. Lewis faculty and staff participating in the hiring process hold the discipline or profession-specific expertise to assure those selected possess the required qualifications, skills, and values. (3.C.6)

HR provides guidelines regarding the legal aspect of interviewing and the desire to identify and include diverse candidates. After review of application materials, the search committee/hiring manager selects a slate of candidates for telephone interviews, then, assisted by HR, brings a select number of qualified candidates to on-campus interviews. The interview process assures an opportunity to gain additional information about the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the candidates. The committee evaluates candidates using a position-specific rubric, and identifies for HR the qualified candidates, along with a recommendation for the individual to whom HR should extend the offer. The Associate Vice President or Director of HR contacts this individual, letting them know they are being considered as the finalist and obtains their permission for an external vendor to complete a background check verifying credentials, education, work experience, and criminal history. References are then contacted by the search committee chair or hiring manager. (3.C.6)

Our process for verifying credentials of adjunct instructional staff has historically been unique to each college. In the Colleges of Nursing and Health Professions and Education this is tightly controlled by, respectively, the State of Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, and the Illinois State Board of Education and Illinois State Educator Preparation and Licensure Board. Verification is also a part of their accreditation and reporting to the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. There is, however, no comprehensive University process for verification or tracking of credentials for adjunct faculty instructors. As mentioned in the Overview, this gap will be addressed by enhanced use of PeopleAdmin and the human resources component of the new ERP system. In February, 2016 the academic Deans also began reviewing processes used to determine faculty qualifications as they develop a University policy in this area. (3.C.2, 3.C.6)

Human Resources provides new employees (full, part-time, or adjunct) with the University policies regarding Title IX regulations, non-discrimination, and harassment. New hires also complete various online training modules on diversity, ethics, and responding to sexual harassment.

Orientation for employees is multi-layered. Upon hire, the employee receives an individual orientation with Human Resources. Within their first 90 days of employment employees attend a more in-depth full day orientation that includes Lewis’ history, Mission, department overviews, benefits, legal and technology concerns. Here they are joined by others hired within the same time period. This facilitates employee connections and engagement by traversing departments and levels of employee classification. Additionally, two times each year the Office of Mission and Identity provides a required half-day workshop for new employees that welcomes them to the Lasallian Mission of the University. In this workshop new employees are provided detailed information on the history of the De La Salle Christian Brothers; Lewis University history; the AQIP improvement process as a component of our Mission; and opportunities available to faculty and staff for additional Mission formation at Lewis and as part of larger Lasallian university networks.

Each of the four colleges welcomes new faculty during University Convocation each fall and provides a mentoring process. These units of the University work collaboratively to ensure that new employees have a well-rounded understanding of Lewis. Moreover, each January, the University Faculty

June 1, 2016


Development Committee works with the Office of the Provost to host professional development workshops and a recognition dinner for adjunct faculty.

In order to learn why certain groups of employees leave or if there are workplace issues that need to be addressed, we have an exit interview process through Human Resources. When Human Resources identifies a trend within a unit or area, they share information with that department to provide recommendations or suggestions for improvement.

Part of the formal academic Program Review process described in Category 1 includes an assessment of student enrollment and credit hours to assure a sufficient level of faculty. Departments work with Deans, the Provost, and the Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer to develop a plan and budget for recruiting and hiring for programs that have demonstrated a need for additional faculty or staff. This review process ensures we have sufficient faculty and staff for academic units and their operational efficiency.

Assuring sufficient numbers of staff to provide student services begins with the annual budget process, more fully described in Category 5. The unit head collects personnel budget requests from their directors and evaluates them according to divisional priorities. In Student Services, staffing reflects their strategic planning process. Directors’ requests include justifications of the positions based on data, peer benchmarks, and student to staff ratios, as appropriate. After the Senior Vice President and Dean of Student Services review the justifications, they follow up with the director to discuss viable alternatives to a new hire. The Chief Financial Officer confirms that the budget can support the hire. (3.C.1)

3R1 What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring, and orienting practices assure effective provision for programs and services? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

A key measure of recruiting, hiring and orienting effectively is employee retention rates. Because maintaining a diverse workforce is valuable to Lewis, we track our employee turnover rates by race and ethnicity. The following chart shows a six-year trend of turnover by race and ethnicity.

Figure 3.1 Faculty and Staff Turnover by Race & Ethnicity 2010-2015

June 1, 2016


Benchmarking with our peers is completed informally by HR staff through their professional contacts with HR staff at regional institutions and through their professional list-serves. While we do have a goal of increasing diversity, we have no target percentage for diversity among our employees.

In 2014, the African American employee turnover rate was higher than the turnover rates for other groups of diverse employees. While five African American employees were hired in 2014, eight left. The number of separations for African American employees that year was higher than the 8-year average of 4.6. The number of African American employees hired was also lower than the 8-year average of 6. By the next year, the rate was back to its normal range.

Our current faculty, staff, and student diversity breakdown is as follows:

Figure 3.2 Employee and Student Diversity

Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Race/Ethnicity

Faculty Staff Students

Headcount (N)

Percentage (%)

Headcount (N)

Percentage (%)

Headcount (N)

Percentage (%)

Caucasian 188 85.8 329 82 4,091 61.3

Asian 12 5.5 9 2.3 230 3.4

African American 11 5 17 4.3 581 8.7

Hispanic 4 1.8 40 10.1 1,063 15.9

Multi-racial 2 0.5 163 2.4

Non-resident alien 4 1.8 1 0.5 126 1.9

Hawaiian Pacific Islander 17 0.3

Alaskan Native/American Indian 11 0.2

Not Reported 397 5.9

Lewis has continued to monitor its percentage of minority faculty, which began in 2008 with an AQIP Action Project. By the end of that project in 2010, faculty diversity had increased by more than 2% to just below 12%. This growth continued to 12.3% in 2015. However, the diversity of our students has increased over that same period by 7.3% and we continue to pursue new ways to expand the diversity of our Lewis faculty.

HR also uses analysis of exit interviews to identify frequent complaints that cluster around issues needing attention. While these interviews have not shown an indication that a negative climate is a reason for departure, we have implemented an improvement described in the next section to provide a more comfortable environment for expressing negative information if that is the case.

Our participation in the HERI Faculty Survey provides us with another measure to monitor our campus climate and benchmark against both a national sample and our national Catholic institutions. Our most recent results are in Figure 3.3.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/HiringforFacultyDiversity.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/HiringforFacultyDiversity.pdf

June 1, 2016


Figure 3.3 HERI Survey responses to “There is a lot of campus racial conflict here”

Results suggest that our staff and faculty perceive less campus racial conflict at Lewis than the average at national Catholic colleges and universities. We believe this is due to our Sanctified Zone concept, which is described below as an improvement in the recruitment process.

We analyze our workforce through data from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and other sources such as CUPA-HR to ensure gender equity by rank and salary. We also poll our peers for data such as department size and structure. While this analysis is completed on a regular basis as requested by the administration, it is not formalized and we have no current internal target.

To ensure we have sufficient faculty and staff to provide academic programs and support services, we track the numbers of employees compared to students (Figure 3.4). (3.C.1)

Figure 3.4 Faculty & Staff/Students

Employment Status Faculty Staff Faculty & Staff Students

Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Full-time 219 393 612 4,188

Part-time 407 70 477 2,491

Total 626 468 1,094 6,679

A key measure for determining if our hiring practices effectively provide for our programs and services is the student to faculty ratio. Ours has remained at 13:1 from 2012 to 2016. Our target for the student to faculty ratio is to be in the lower 50% of our group of 10 regional peer institutions. The tables below show we reached that goal in 2013 and have maintained that objective since that time.

Figure 3.5 Student to Faculty Benchmark with Regional Peer Institutions

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Peer Institution Average 14:1 14:1 14:1 13:1 13:1

Lewis University 13:1 13:1 13:1 13:1 13:1

Lewis University rank among peers 5 4 4 4 3

June 1, 2016


Peer Institutions reporting 9 9 9 8 10

Lewis % Among Peers 56% 44% 44% 50% 30%

We also compare ourselves to aspirant institutions to make sure we do not move too far away from their ratios. The chart below shows the most recent comparison of both our regional peers and national aspirants. We believe this data is further evidence of our process of assuring we have enough faculty to carry out both classroom and non-classroom programs and activities. (3.C.1)

Figure 3.6 Student to Faculty Ratio compared to Peer and Aspirant Institutions

Source: US News & World Report 2016 Edition College Rankings


Two components of the hiring process have been improved. Previously, applicants were required to write a brief essay after completing their interview about their understanding of the Mission. This step has been moved to the initial stage of application for a more efficient use of the committees’ and applicants’ time by determining early whether there is a Mission fit between candidates and the University.

Following their review of the processes used across the institution for evaluating faculty credentials, the Academic Deans are working with the Associate Dean for Academic Administration and Accreditation to clarify and document a policy and practices regarding this gap. They have identified the current status of faculty qualifications practices used in their colleges and are in the process of developing a single University policy. The draft policy will be tested in an internal review of Fall Semester 2016 faculty qualifications and formally adopted by January 2017. In addition to other benefits, the adoption of Banner EMS allows us to electronically collect and analyze faculty qualifications information from the point of application. Beginning in fall 2016, all full time and adjunct faculty credentials will be collected through our online employment application system (PeopleAdmin) and housed in the Banner ERP system for institutional review.

June 1, 2016


Based on the data showing slowed growth in the diversity of our faculty, we have improved outreach to minority candidates by advertising in all minority publications and highlighting our commitment to our Sanctified Zone - a public statement that declares Lewis University as a place where people are committed to end racism, bias, and prejudice by valuing diversity in a safe and nurturing environment. Each fall we re-commit to this statement with a public ceremony of reaffirmation of the Sanctified Zone that is led and attended by faculty members, staff, and students. HR also completed a content analysis of the entire Lewis University website for its appeal to diversity candidates. The results showed that topics of diversity, though present, were neither coherent nor obvious. As a result, we plan to revise and reorganize our website content to present a more unified and consistent message of valuing diversity.

In recent years, Human Resources has refined its Hiring for Diversity training process that is recommended for all search committee members as part of Mission clarification. As supported in Human Resources journals, we now survey our separated employees after their departure to identify any additional information they would like to express related to their experiences with us. We believe that with some time and distance from the on-site exit interview, the former employee may be more comfortable expressing criticism, including issues related to race or ethnicity. Thus far, no one has indicated they perceived a negative climate in this regard. We have made an additional improvement by making the survey available electronically in order to streamline this process for respondents and increase responses.

EVALUATION AND RECOGNITION

3P2 Evaluation and Recognition focuses on processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff, and administrators’ contributions to the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff, and administrators Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-

instructional programs and services Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff, and

administrators (3.C.3) Establishing employee recognition, compensation, and benefit systems to promote retention and high

performance Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement

Evaluation. Lewis’ system for evaluating all employees is grounded in two documents: the Mission Statement and the Strategic Plan. Whether faculty, staff, or administrator, every employee works in association with others to help students achieve success and the work of every employee is aligned in some way to these goals.

For the Division of Student Services, this process was enriched through an AQIP Action Project in which all units participated in aligning their work goals with the University Strategic Plan. These expectations, embedded in the Mission and Strategic Plan, are communicated in position advertising and during the hiring processes. Employees are encouraged during the hiring, orientation, and mentoring processes previously described to provide input and pose questions about what is required of them and how their work supports our institutional values and objectives.

Processes for evaluating staff and faculty differ. Under the guidance of Human Resources, administrators and staff leaders evaluate employees who report to them on a periodic basis using a rubric. Thirty, 60, and 90 day reviews are performed with hourly employees to provide feedback on their progress. After this probationary period, we use a developmental approach to evaluation. To assure

http://www.lewisu.edu/sanctifiedzone/

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/mission.htm


http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/StrategicPlan2012-2017BoardApprovedVersion.pdf


June 1, 2016


dialogue between employees and managers, we adopted a new performance appraisal tool in 2013. This goal-setting tool maximizes employees’ potential for helping their units reach institutional goals and reach individual professional goals. Prior to its implementation, over 300 employees were trained on use of the tool and the process. While it is recommended that managers use this tool to set goals with their employees and provide feedback, it is not consistently used. With a transition in institutional leadership, it has been indicated that this will change, resulting in a future improvement. (3.C.3)

Faculty evaluations occur at various intervals. The newly passed University Faculty By-Laws outline the frequency of evaluations. Tenure-track faculty are evaluated once per academic year throughout the period from hiring to the time of the actual or anticipated application for tenure. Temporary faculty are evaluated once per academic year. Non-tenure track faculty are evaluated once per academic year during their first six years of service and at least every third academic year thereafter. Tenured faculty are evaluated at least once every five academic years following their being granted tenure. Criteria for these evaluations are clearly described in the By-Laws. (3.C.3)

Tenure track faculty members receive a summative assessment from their Dean at the midpoint of the probationary period, which indicates perceived strengths and weaknesses in the seven criteria, delineated in the By-Laws. The decision to promote faculty members or award tenure is determined through a process of evaluation that requires each faculty member to demonstrate his or her value to the college and University, including evidence of her/his impact on student learning, scholarship, advancement of the University’s Mission, and service to the respective college, the University, and the greater community. This portfolio is reviewed by the appropriate college committee, by the Dean and by the Provost before the President makes a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. (3.C.3)

All faculty complete an annual self-report of teaching, scholarship, and service activities, goals achieved and goals set for the following year.

Students evaluate each of their instructors and classes at the end of the academic period via an electronic survey. Within a few days, faculty and their chairpersons receive the results electronically. When trends of concerns appear, a faculty member meets with the chair to analyze the results and set up an improvement plan for the next time the course is taught.

Similarly Deans are evaluated every three years by the faculty as provided in the new University Faculty By-Laws. Data from faculty evaluations of Deans are shared with faculty in the respective colleges by the appropriate college committee after receiving the report from the Provost. (3.C.3)

Recognition. Lewis leaders and Human Resources have developed various programs for recognition, compensation, and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance of employees at all locations. The annual Rewards and Recognition Ceremony honors employees for dedicated service and positive impact on and off campus. Awards are separated according to job classification (faculty, administrative, clerical, etc. ) and group service. The Rewards and Recognition Committee selects honorees nominated by employees and students. All nominated employees receive a recognition letter and winners in each category receive a certificate presented by the President and a monetary award at an open ceremony and reception.

We also recognize employment anniversaries in the annual Celebration of Service Ceremony. Employees receive a unique gift for each anniversary level presented by the President. At this same ceremony, the Lasallian Awards are presented, including the De La Salle Medallion for Exemplary Volunteer Service (faculty and staff) and the Distinguished Lasallian Educator Award honoring an educator (not limited to classroom teachers) who exemplifies the ideals of John Baptist de la Salle. The Mission and Heritage Council selects the recipients of these awards from those nominated by any employee. The academic


http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/guidelines-for-rewards.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/CelebrationOfAssociation.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/LaSallianAwards/index.htm

June 1, 2016


year concludes with the President’s Annual Faculty Appreciation Dinner where promotions, tenure, sabbaticals, degrees achieved, scholarship, and retirements are recognized. All faculty are invited to attend.

These celebrations are scheduled throughout the academic year and communicate regularly that all employees are valuable resources in providing our students with a quality education. Students also recognize outstanding service with monthly staff awards. This process and budget are evaluated annually and results are used to make improvements as needed.

After recognizing that Lewis had limited university-wide resources for research support, we created two new processes for faculty recognition. The Lasallian Research Grant Program (LRGP) is an interdisciplinary and collaborative inquiry with other Lasallian institutions around the globe to address issues of justice, especially for underserved populations, with practical solutions. This project aligned well with our Mission to help underserved populations and our Strategic Plan Initiative to Expand Global Connectedness. The topics for all Lasallian institutions for 2013-2018 focus on three topic areas: Food, Nutrition, and Health; Sustainability and the Environment; and Education and Learning Innovations. The Office of Graduate Studies, as oversight for the LRGP Coordinating Committee, informs faculty about the program requirements, submission process, and deadlines as posted on the LRGP website. The Committee Chair reviews submissions to assure that proposals meet requirements and are complete. Requirements include successful completion of the CITI Module on Responsible Conduct of Research and IRB approval. Compliant submissions are then reviewed by a panel of the Lasallian Research Grant Coordinating Committee and representative Lewis University faculty, who use a rubric to determine the merit of the proposals. The Coordinating Committee Chair reviews funding recommendations and submits them to the Provost for final decisions.

The second new process for faculty recognition is the availability of two to three University sabbaticals. Full-time faculty initially follow their college sabbatical application process. Both tenure-track and non-tenure track are eligible for a University Sabbatical regardless of college requirements for status. Most college committees accept applications from tenure-track faculty only and rank order the applications they endorse and forward this information to the Dean for review. Each Dean rank orders her/his recommendations and submits them to the Provost, who recommends to the President the college sabbaticals to be awarded for each college. The President reviews the recommendations and grants college sabbaticals. Here the new process begins for those applications previously recommended, but not awarded. The Provost convenes the University Sabbatical Committee composed of chairs of the appropriate college committees to review the remaining requests using the rubric for University Sabbaticals. If two or more applicants receive the same evaluation points, then the applicant with the greatest length of time in service will receive the higher rank. The committee will rank order the applicants they endorse and submit the list to the Provost, who will review them independently and recommend to the President for review and final selection. This University Sabbatical process, in recognition of the value of faculty research, opens additional opportunities for faculty who are not tenure-track or are in a college with greater numbers of faculty and therefore, more competition for awards.

To ensure fairness, employee salaries are reviewed annually by the Provost, Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer, and the Board of Trustees. If feasible, an across-the-board increase is made for all employees. Human Resources, working with Sibson Consulting, conducted a faculty compensation study in 2014 to evaluate faculty salaries across disciplines; faculty workload; summer stipends; and other compensation variables. Faculty salaries by rank are provided periodically to the Provost for review. Pay rates for adjunct faculty are also reviewed regularly in comparison to peers.

http://www.lewisu.edu/Lasallian-Research/index.htm

https://www.citiprogram.org/index.cfm?pageID=265

June 1, 2016


Our processes for reviewing staff salary adjustments include comparison of CUPA regional data and oftentimes polling our peer institutions. Across the board increases are approved by the Board of Trustees. Recommended salary increases are reviewed at the Board of Trustees’ October meeting as part of the budget approval process.

An equity adjustment is a permanent increase to an employee’s base salary that may be granted under certain circumstances, such as increased duties that do not warrant a reclassification or a significant salary lag to comparable internal positions or the local market. Equity adjustments may be recommended by the Provost or Chief Financial Officer, and are approved by the President after the annual Budget has been accepted. Members of our Secretary’s Union are eligible for one $500 bonus each year based upon the recommendation of their manager and concurrence of their Vice President.

Human Resources collaborates with the University Administrative Council internally and Christian Brothers Services externally (our health benefits provider) to periodically review employee benefits (health, compensation, and pension). We also look at benefits provided at peer institutions.

Despite rising costs in health care, when possible, Christian Brothers Services (CBS) implements a contribution holiday, with savings passed on to all employees. This has been the case for the past four years, providing a significant employee benefit.

When Christian Brothers Services decided to make changes in its defined benefit pension plan in 2014, the President created and charged the Pension Plan Task Force to study the current CBS plan, learn about defined benefit plans in general, compare the current plan with alternatives, and make recommendations based on their review. This process included several sessions for CBS officers to educate employees on the current pension plan, the proposed changes, and the impact. Employees were able to ask questions and express concerns. After this the Task Force provided a discussion forum on Blackboard for employees to share opinions and pose additional questions. The Task Force conducted a formal focused survey to gather data to drive its recommendations to the President. Concurrent with process, HR reviewed data for employee participation in 403b programs since they do not make these contributions to the CBS plan.

Human Resources has a similar process for internal changes and opportunities that arise from their office. They review data to determine if gaps exist in benefits, gather information about best practices for filling the gap and then hold informational discussions with departments at their convenience. This is the process that led to improvement in financial well-being described in the sections below.

All of these processes function to enhance employee satisfaction and engagement.

3R2 What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees’ contributions to the institution? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Seventy-four percent of our non-faculty employees participated in the Performance and Professional Development Plan training when the new evaluation process was implemented in 2013. Lewis has not yet analyzed data from the staff evaluations themselves. This will be re-examined later in the year when the Human Resources module of the new ERP system is launched. We will consider the initial performance results as baseline data for this process and compare benchmarks to set targets for staff performance. It would also be useful to query those who have been evaluated through this process to gain their perspectives of this process.

June 1, 2016


The University tracks the HERI Faculty Survey, faculty compensation benchmarks from our peer institutions, employee exit interviews, and Human Resources journals and professional organizations such as the Society of HR Managers and College and University Professional Association for Human Resources for best practices for evidence of valuing employees.

The evaluation processes that result in the awarding of tenure and promotions serve as evidence of faculty contributions of teaching, scholarship and service to the University.

Figure 3.7 Lewis University Comparison of Applications for Tenure and Promotion vs Granted, 2013-2015

2012-13 2012-13 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2014-15

Applied Granted % Applied Granted % Applied Granted %

Tenure 6 6 100% 5 4 80% 6 5 83%

Assistant Professor

4 4 100% 4 4 100% 0 0

Associate Professor

5 5 100% 9 9 100% 10 9 90%

Professor 6 6 100% 10 7 70% 8 6 75%

Our rigorous evaluation process for tenure-track faculty includes mentoring and progress reviews in the first year and at midpoint. However, the data (figure 3.7) show that we do deny the award when the candidate does not meet the By-Laws criteria. Faculty seeking promotion may be advised to postpone application and devise a plan for improvement before they apply.

Moreover, various recognition programs described in the process section also constitute evaluation in that they are competitively awarded. Lewis University has been increasing opportunities for faculty research over the past few years because research contributes to the institution and enhancement of student learning.

Figure 3.8 Faculty Recognition Program Awards

AWARD 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015

Submissions Awards Submissions Awards Submissions Awards Submissions Awards

LU Fac. Scholar 5 2 3 2 9 6 5 5

Caterpillar Scholar 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 0

Doherty Research 7 4 6 6 3 3 2 1

Lasallian Research N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0 5 4

University Sabbatical N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 3 N/A N/A

College and University Faculty Affairs Committees track the numbers of sabbatical applications and awards. Colleges may award a maximum of six sabbaticals with 3 in the College of Arts and Sciences and one in each of the other three colleges. A review of comparable sabbatical programs at peer institutions for benchmarks revealed that each has a unique program for what constitutes a sabbatical, level of completion, if any, and number of available awards. Faculty size did not appear to be a determining factor as some schools with fewer faculty gave more sabbaticals each year. Lewis fell into the median area of this review with 6 sabbaticals available each year. The University Faculty Affairs Committee noticed two problems with the college process. First, the cap on awards meant that good proposals might not receive an award in a year of many applications and second that awards went primarily to senior faculty in the college. The review of data from peers led the committee to collaborate with the

June 1, 2016


Provost to establish the new category of University Sabbatical which adds two to three additional opportunities for faculty.

Lewis uses several tools to track faculty attitudes regarding job satisfaction, including the HERI Faculty Survey, and compensation reviews using consultants and internal task forces. See Category 4 on how these ad hoc bodies fit into the leadership and planning processes. Our most recent HERI Faculty Survey results of job satisfaction indicators suggest our overall employee job satisfaction is 81%. Compared to our national Catholic college and university peers, Lewis faculty were more favorable toward their institution and fewer had considered leaving for another institution.

Figure 3.9 2014 Lewis University Faculty Satisfaction Compared to Catholic Peer Institutions (% satisfied or very satisfied)

Source: HERI Faculty Survey 2014

In 2013-2014 Lewis University faculty members indicated they were less satisfied with their salaries as compared to their 2011 responses, but they are consistent with their 2008 responses.

For decision-making purposes, Lewis administrators compared the HERI Faculty Survey results on salary and teaching load with an external consultant survey of peers. The consultant found that “In aggregate, Lewis University’s pay for instructional faculty is competitive against the external market”. “Based on all ranks, Lewis’ faculty salaries are at:

103% of AAUP peer Institution pay levels

111% of CUPA-HR pay levels

125% of ACBSP pay levels” (Sibson Consulting)

Moreover, the standard of four courses per semester was in line with five of the six peers in our survey.

June 1, 2016


Figure 3.10 Lewis University Faculty Satisfaction Trends 2004-2014 (% satisfied or very satisfied)

Source: HERI Faculty Survey 2004-2014

Lewis also regularly reviews adjunct faculty compensation in comparison to the other 11 West Suburban private colleges and universities. This data is reviewed by the College Deans and administrative leadership with the goal of remaining at the high end of compensation. As the most recent comparison indicates (Figure 3.11), the range of adjunct compensation at Lewis is consistently well above our regional peers. Using the data from 2013-14 as evidence of our competitive position, our adjunct compensation for 2014-15 remained at the same level. We are currently collaborating with our group of West Suburban institutions to benchmark compensation for 2014-15 to inform the process of setting adjunct salaries.

Figure 3.11 Adjunct Faculty Salaries Benchmarked to West Suburban Peers

Lewis University Adjunct Compensation 2013-2014 Benchmarked to West Suburban Peer Institutions

Undergraduate Degree-Completion Graduate

Per Semester Hour Per Semester Hour Per Semester Hour

Range Range Range

Lewis University compensation $ 955-1,216 $ 955-1,216 $ 955-1,630

Average compensation 780-973 799-1,007 851-1,078

Lewis as % of average +22% - +25% +20% - +21% +12% - +51%

Source: 2013-14 West Suburban Deans Survey of Adjunct Compensation

The Lewis Pension Benefits Task Force analyzed the demographics of the employee population, the strengths and weaknesses of the Christian Brothers Employee Retirement Plan (CBERP), comparisons with retirement plans at peer and aspirant institutions and other regional universities, and results of a questionnaire of University employees. All of these factors impacted the recommendations made by the task force. As noted above, at this same time HR examined employee participation rates in the 403b program as an indicator of financial well-being. Results revealed that only 169 of more than 600 eligible employees had enrolled in the available programs.

While we have measured faculty satisfaction with the HERI survey, we have not collected data to reveal the satisfaction and climate for staff. To correct this gap, Human Resources plans to administer a Climate Survey in fall 2016. These results will be used to determine a current baseline, compare benchmarks with our peers, and set targets and action plans as needed.

June 1, 2016



In 2013, Lewis introduced the Performance and Professional Development Plan as an improved process for evaluating staff. The focus is not only on evaluation of the employee’s job performance, but also includes a plan for professional development jointly created by the employee and manager. The plan is consistent with best practices supported by the Society for Human Resource Management. Prior to implementation we provided training to 383 employees, both managers and staff. All new employees receive information on the PPD process upon hire. Our next step is to evaluate the effectiveness of this process.

The establishment of the University sabbatical increased the number available giving a second chance to those who did not receive a college award and opened more research opportunities to junior and non-tenure track faculty, thus increasing the pool of contributions to the institution.

Given that Lewis has successful programs for employee health insurance, and that employee compensation is at or above our peers, we looked for other ways to value employees. In a regular review of the Christian Brothers pension plan, we noted that few employees were taking advantage of a 403b or similar plan available through payroll deduction. We offered a one-time incentive of $500 to all employees enrolled in such a plan from a variety of vendors as of July 1, 2015. Participation increased over the six-month enrollment period from 169 in January, 2015 to 340 in July, 2015.

DEVELOPMENT

3P3 Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating, and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees (3.C.4, 5.A.4) Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical

processes (3.C.4) Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their areas of

expertise (e. g. advising, financial aid, etc. ) (3.C.6) Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives

Both the colleges and the University provide funding for faculty development. The University Faculty Development Committee, comprised of six faculty members representing all of the colleges and school, tracks the funding awards annually and makes adjustments to the amount requested from the Provost each year. Funds are allocated across four application categories: Off-campus Conferences and Workshops, Reading Groups, Professional Learning Community, and Research in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Full and half-time faculty may submit applications for one or more categories between June 1-May 31 of each academic year. Application deadlines are spread throughout this period. Information is always available on the University Faculty Development website and the committee chair emails deadline reminders to faculty. The committee reviews completed applications by a set date and awards funding. Faculty also respond to a survey for the Committee to track the kinds of development and impact that is made. Faculty must use college funds, managed by the Deans, prior to applying for University funds. (3.C.4)

The Faculty Development Committee, in consultation with faculty across the University, plan the May Institute for three or four days each year to keep all faculty members, including adjunct instructors, informed on current topics in higher education. Sometimes an external speaker is brought in for training on topics such as curriculum mapping or flipping the classroom, while some programs are forum

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/hr/pdf/PPD%20Form.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/facdevelopment/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/facdevelopment/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/MayInstituteProgram2016.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/MayInstituteProgram2016.pdf

June 1, 2016


discussions on topics that have included responding to students with special learning needs. Attendees receive a small stipend and a faculty development certificate for use in support of their future requests for promotion and tenure. (3.C.4)

For other employees, Vice Presidents’ budgets provide support for professional development in their respective units. Vice Presidents manage funding for mandatory and recommended memberships for their staff and they or their designated unit heads award funding for professional conferences. Directors of units such as Admissions, Academic Services, and Financial Aid and the Dean of Students are responsible for ensuring that their staff are qualified, trained, and supported. The University supports them by maintaining memberships in their respective professional organizations, funding conference attendance, and internal training. Professional organizations include American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), Association for Student Affairs at Catholic Colleges and Universities (ASACCU), National Association of Student Financial Aid Officers (NASFAO) and NAFSA. We also associate with the state level versions of these organizations. Staff in the Student Health and Counseling Center are required to maintain certification. (3.C.4, 3.C.6, 5. A.4)

Conference attendance may alternate among employees to maintain currency in the field, or managers and directors may attend national conferences while staff may attend similar conferences in the state. Professional journals and list-serves are available for individual development. (5.A.4)

Additional professional development training occurs in-house with report sharing/training by staff who attend conferences. Members of the Leckrone Academic Resources Center (LARC) take responsibility for training our student tutors. The Division of Student Services, with its many distinct units, has developed an overarching internal program of professional development (The Assembly) to emphasize how they all are aligned and collaborate to achieve the divisional goals. This entity grew out of two AQIP Action Projects that brought the division together to learn the processes of aligning unit goals, divisional goals, and institutional goal, developing action plans, and assessing them. These processes encourage sharing and aligning information across units of the divisions and the University. (3.C.4, 3.C.6, 5.A.4)

Monitoring changes in legal issues, benefits, and other topics that arise, Human Resources develops pertinent live and online training opportunities for employees to meet employee needs.

Moreover, the Lunch ’n’ Learn development program, originated in Athletics to address health and wellness topics for all employees, proved to be such a successful format that the STEM faculty adopted it for the faculty development format of their recent NSF grant. Additionally all employees and students have access to Lynda.com’s online training videos covering a variety of training topics such as MS Office.

The University Mission and Strategic Plan define our institutional objectives. As described in more detail in Category 4, all employees are oriented to our Mission to provide a liberal and professional education to diverse students with an emphasis on justice and fidelity. Thus, all employees understand how their position is aligned with our Mission. Tutors know that they help students gain knowledge; grounds workers and police officers know they provide a safe environment for students to learn; secretaries know they support faculty and administrators who teach and manage the institution.

On the other hand, our Strategic Plan is updated every five years (as described in Category 4) to reflect changing priorities. The University Planning Council (UPC), a body of administrative, faculty, and staff members, develops the Plan, which is then shared with all units and colleges. At the unit and department levels, employees determine how their work supports the current plan. Periodic updates on progress toward these objectives by the UPC monitor how individual units are engaged in the broader institutional plan.

June 1, 2016


3R3 What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

The Faculty Development Committee tracks the number of applications and the amount of funds disbursed. Particular attention is paid to how many faculty members reach the maximum award for conference attendance. The Committee also tracks the amount of funds for the other categories to determine whether these continue to be areas of interest or whether new categories are needed. Recent results include the following.

Figure 3.12 Faculty Development Awards AY 2013-AY 2015

Academic Year Total Applicants Conference Reimbursements that exceeded $1000.00

Applicants who reached maximum award

2012 – 2013 152 21 6

2013 – 2014 136 26 10

2014 – 2015 132 26 17

The Committee determined that the increasing trend of faculty reaching the maximum support was due to rising travel and hotel costs. As a result, the Committee presented the data to the Provost as evidence of a need to increase Faculty Development Funds for conference presenters. The Provost increased the budget to make sure that conference funding would be remain available for those attending both distant and less costly local conferences.

Based on feedback received through AQIP Open House forums, HR determined there was a need for professional development opportunities for both faculty and staff. Additionally, in 2013 a survey was administered to all employees regarding their preferences for professional development opportunities. After reviewing the survey results, on ground professional development courses were offered in five workplace topic areas.

In addition, there were three required online modules of important legal compliance topics for completion by employees. Initially, we had a 70% completion rate and that number continues to improve as we now require those modules as training for all new employees.

Between 2013 and 2015, a total of 1,314 attendances were recorded for Lewis employees in various live training sessions. Eighty-seven percent of these attendances (1,142) were recorded at Lewis University locations, and 13% (172) occurred at other places.

The training for financial well-being was particularly successful. At the inception of the financial wellness campaign, only 197 employees contributed toward a retirement plan. In two months’ time at the end of the campaign, a total of 389 employees were actively contributing to a retirement plan, a 97% increase in participation. When comparing our average number of employees saving for retirement to national standards, we see remarkable progress given that industry standards report that only 1 in every 10 employees are saving for retirement. Lewis averages 1 in every 5 employees saving for retirement beyond the employer contribution. From this we learned that educating our employees was an area of need. As the marketplace changes with various rules and regulations, such as the Affordable Care Act, continued education must be an initiative for the overall wellness of our employees.

June 1, 2016


Figure 3.13 Professional Development Courses Offered

Safety Workplace Culture Diversity Skills Team & Personal Development

ALICE – Active Shooter Coaching for Leadership Success

Diversity Works

My Campus Portal and MS E-Learning

Performance and Professional Development

Ergonomics, Health and Safety in the Office

New Employee Orientation

Diversity – NCAA

Employee Assistance Program – Supervisor Training

Seven Habits

Information and Computer Security – Best Practices

Collaborative Workplace

My Campus Portal and MS E-Learning

Team Building

Time Reporting

One Note 2010 Coaching, Mentoring and Team Building

Understanding FMLA

Online/Blended Certification Intersection of service-learning and Social Justice

Hiring for Mission Getting Started with Publisher 2010

SELF Profile

Understanding IEmployee

Mastering AV

Strengthfinders

Building a Better Workbook Understanding your Annual Pension Statement

Office 2010 EQ Edge


Based on the results for development processes, Lewis has made several improvements for employees to enhance their performance skills and awareness of topics that affect the university.

Lewis has made training and development more accessible for employees by utilizing online modules. Topics such as Sexual Harassment, Diversity, and Ethics are required for all employees and another 111 are available for relevant departments. Human Resources has added a new position with a focus on employee development which resulted in the training processes and results described above.

With continuing changes to Title IX legislation, Lewis understands that these are more than issues of compliance for us - they go to the heart of our Mission. We plan to conduct an employee Climate Survey in the fall of 2016 to see how we fare and use this baseline to set targets for improvements.

Members of the Banner ERP task force are collaborating to prepare a system for training all stakeholders on the new ERP system, mentioned in Category Five, as it is implemented.

June 1, 2016

78 | Category Four: Planning and Leading

Category Four: Planning and Leading

Planning and Leading focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and lives its vision through direction setting, goal development, strategic actions, threat mitigation, and capitalizing on opportunities.

CATEGORY FOUR OVERVIEW

We assess our systems maturity for processes across Category Four as aligned, and our results as systematic.

Our highest maturity ratings are integrated for processes in Sub-category One, Mission and Vision, and our processes in Sub-category Two, Strategic Planning. These are two areas of strength at Lewis University, where our Mission, vision, and Strategic Plan are well integrated in other processes. Results in both of these subcategories are at the aligned level due to our mature dashboards for data management and sharing across all divisions of the University.

Within Sub-category Three, Leadership, both our processes and results are at the systematic level. Although some levels of leadership are evaluated regularly, we need more consistency in processes. Similarly, while results are reviewed and disseminated, there is room for more consistency here as well.

Within Sub-category Four, Integrity, our processes are aligned and our results are systematic but leaning to aligned. Processes for assuring integrity are explicit, repeated, with systems in place for improvement. Our results are tracked and examined by institutional units and sometimes shared across the University with relevant stakeholders and institutional decision-makers.

MISSION AND VISION

4P1 Mission and Vision focuses on how the institution develops, communicates, and reviews its mission and vision. Describe the processes for developing, communicating, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Developing, deploying, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values (1.A.1, 1.D.2, 1.D.3) Ensuring that institutional actions reflect a commitment to its values Communicating the mission, vision, and values (1.B.1, 1.B.2, 1.B.3) Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution’s mission (1.A.2) Allocating resources to advance the institution’s mission and vision, while upholding the institution’s

values (1.D.1, 1.A.3)

The foundation of the Lewis University Mission, vision, and values is the heritage and tradition of the De La Salle Christian Brothers, founded by Saint John Baptist de La Salle 336 years ago. The first significant review of the University Mission statement began in 1992 with a multi-year renewal project resulting in a complete rewriting of the Mission statement combining the Lasallian heritage of practical education with liberal learning and the articulation of the five core institutional values. While these values do not change, the vision is reviewed as part of the strategic planning process and changes as Lewis and the socio-economic conditions change. Our first strategic vision focused on creating a positive and well-known identity. That achieved, our current strategic vision is to be recognized as an outstanding, innovative mid-sized Catholic university, offering programs of academic distinction to a diverse population and preparing graduates who are intellectually engaged, ethically grounded, socially responsible and globally connected. (1.A.1, 1.B.1, 1.D.2, 1.D.3)


June 1, 2016

Category Four: Planning and Leading | 79

The effectiveness of the Mission is reviewed through a new (2013) assessment that resulted from our Mission Assessment AQIP Action Project. The Action Project goal was developing the instrument and creating an implementation plan. The purpose of the Mission Assessment was (a) creating a data-driven assessment of faculty and staff understanding of the Lewis University Mission; (b) identifying areas of improvement concerning Mission awareness and understanding; (c) expanding Mission advancement into additional new areas at Lewis University; and (d) creating additional Mission formation opportunities for faculty and staff. The resulting Mission assessment instrument consisted of 44 different dimensions of the Lewis University Mission. Using a Likert scale rating system, those completing this online Assessment were asked to rate their awareness of each of the dimensions; the importance of each of the dimensions to them personally; and the University’s effectiveness at promoting these dimensions of the Mission. (1.A.1)

In its regular self-assessment of its committees and processes, the Board of Trustees discovered the Mission and Planning Committee addressed issues related to planning activities in more depth than those relating to Mission. As a result, the Board of Trustees created a new Board committee focused exclusively on the Mission and Identity of the University effective May 2016.

We communicate the Mission, vision, and values through multiple media and at various contact points. They appear formally in the Mission Statement document, the Strategic Plan, and course syllabi. As noted in Category Three, the Mission and values are identified in job advertising and candidates write an essay to explain their understanding of them as part of the application process. Our new employees and new students grow in their understanding of what it means to live the Mission during their respective orientations. Additional formation experiences are available for employees, including the four-day, local Exploring Lasallian Mission (ELM), the two-week residential summer Buttimer Institute in California, and the International Lasallian University Faculty Leadership Program in Rome. (1.B.1, 1.B.2, 1.B.3)

Lewis ensures our academic programs and services are consistent with the Mission, vision, and values through two processes. Each of our Characteristics of the Baccalaureate Graduate align with one or more of the five Mission values. And our general education plan includes a set of four courses referred to as “Mission” courses. In the process of developing a new course, assuring Mission fit is part of the first step. (1.A.2)

Since the essence of our Mission is to provide a liberal and professional education, and our vision is to offer programs of academic distinction, resource allocation for Mission and vision is subsumed within the regular instructional components of the budget. Because wisdom and justice are two of our values, fiscal responsibility in allocation of resources does uphold our values. (1.D.1, 1.A.3) 4R1 What are the results for developing, communicating, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized (e. g. brand studies, focus groups, community

forums/studies, and employee satisfaction surveys) Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

The Lewis University Mission Assessment instrument was administered online to our faculty and staff in April, 2015. Of the 678 individuals invited to complete the assessment, 302 (45%) participated. Of the 265 participants who chose to categorize themselves, 114 (43%) were full or part-time faculty members and 151 (55.8%) were staff members.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/MissionAssessmentActionProject.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/elm/index.htm

June 1, 2016


The results of the 2015 Mission Assessment were reviewed by the Mission & Ministry Team, comprised of faculty and staff leaders from the Division of Mission and Ministry; faculty and staff who have participated in Lasallian formation programs and who attended the Mission Formation Forum in Spring 2015; members of the Mission and Heritage Council; and the University Administrative Council. Each of these groups contributed to the analysis and development of recommendations and action steps to be taken in response to the assessment.

Awareness

There is broad awareness of the core elements of what it means for Lewis to be a Catholic and Lasallian university. For example, respondents are very aware of the five Mission values, Lasallian salutations and expressions, the role of faculty and staff as Lasallian educators, the University’s focus on human dignity, respect for life, diversity, and ethics and morals, and hospitality/welcoming environment.

There was a significant lack of awareness on the part of faculty and staff concerning interfaith dialogue, programs and activities developed in cooperation with the Diocese of Joliet, the DISCOVER Initiative, Mission-based research, ecumenism, and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition (CIT) as an integral part of the curriculum.

Commentary focused on a range of issues, including: appreciation for Mission formation programs, the level of importance and emphasis placed on Mission at Lewis, and concerns that ecumenism isn’t understood or emphasized as much as it should be.

Importance

Faculty and staff found that the emphasis on human dignity, the concept of a welcoming environment, personalized attention to students, and the role of faculty and staff as mentors to students were the most personally important dimensions of our Mission. They also indicated that four of the five core Mission values (Justice, Knowledge, Wisdom, and Association) were very important along with a focus on ethics and morals and diversity.

The least personally important dimensions of the Mission to faculty and staff were the DISCOVER Initiative, programs and activities developed in cooperation with the Diocese of Joliet, Mission formation programs, the Signum Fidei lecture series, the Center for Ministry and Spirituality, Mission-based research, international and local service opportunities for faculty and staff, and interfaith dialogue. Although not among the least important dimensions, the Mission value of Fidelity was rated significantly less important than the other core values.

Effectiveness

With regard to effectiveness, faculty and staff found that the University is most effective at promoting: the Lasallian invocation/salutation, personalized attention to students, the concept of a welcoming environment, the expression “Let Us Remember…”, four of the five Mission values (excluding Fidelity), and the importance of “mission fit” as a component of the employment process.

Faculty and staff found the University is least effective at promoting the Mission through: programs or activities developed in cooperation with the Diocese of Joliet, the DISCOVER Initiative, interfaith dialogue, international and local service opportunities for faculty and staff, mission-based research, ecumenism, and the spirituality of the Lasallian educator.

Commentary focused on: an appreciation for the ELM Summer Workshop and the good efforts of the Office of Mission and Identity; there were also several comments about the need for strengthening some aspects of our Catholic identity, including more prayer at the start of classes, more effective promotion of social justice issues and more education around serving the economically poor.

http://www.lewisu.edu/discover/

http://www.lewisu.edu/discover/

June 1, 2016


This first set of Mission assessment data serves as a baseline upon which future assessment data can be compared to seek out areas of growth or improvement. The instrument will be administered again in the spring of 2017.

In results from their self-assessment, the Board of Trustees found that matters relating to planning activities were addressed in more depth by the Mission and Planning Committee than those relating to Mission.


Recommendations from analysis of the Mission Assessment were organized into the categories of Formation, Interfaith Dialogue and Ecumenism, Core Mission Values, and Vocation. These recommendations and improvements include:

Formation

Develop greater awareness of formation programs and communicate their importance and relevance. Clarify that staff can participate in programs without using PTO time. Should an HR policy be developed? This could be accomplished through a web page on the Office of Mission and Identity site, as well as new language incorporated into the invitations to faculty and staff to participate in formation programs. Initial action to be taken during the Spring 2016 semester.

If possible, further analyze Mission Assessment data based on years of service to determine if the increase in formation program participation might possibly have had an impact on responses to certain dimensions. Develop a follow-up survey for faculty and staff who have participated in Mission formation programs.

Begin developing Exploring Lasallian Mission (ELM) “II” and other formation programs. Initial conversation is underway.

Interfaith Dialogue and Ecumenism

Define “interfaith dialogue” and why it is important. Establish focus groups to determine why this dimension of the Mission was ranked low in terms of awareness, importance, and effectiveness. An Interfaith Dialogue Working Group is being formed as a committee of the Mission and Heritage Council; a small team of faculty and staff has attended several workshops and conferences focused on understanding and promoting interfaith dialogue; a multi-faith prayer room was constructed during the Spring 2016 semester.

Core Mission Values

Deepen faculty/staff understanding of the Mission value of Fidelity and the purpose/value of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition (CIT). There is also an opportunity to place more emphasis on the theological and spiritual dimensions of the Mission. Faculty and staff discussions centered on exploring various dimensions of our Catholic identity and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition are being planned now for the Fall.

Communicate in a stronger way how the Mission can be embodied in everyday work, especially with those who do not work with students regularly. Faculty and staff are aware of the many dimensions of the Mission, but they don’t rank high in importance. A subcommittee of the Mission and Heritage Council including members of the DISCOVER Core Team will be invited to further explore this topic.

Determine a way to better understand how faculty incorporate the Mission into their teaching and the curriculum.

June 1, 2016


Vocation

Further promote the DISCOVER Initiative among faculty and staff to enhance awareness and relevance to the Mission. A DISCOVER Initiative brochure will be developed during the summer and available during the Fall semester as a way to communicate the multidimensional nature of the program and its relevance to students, faculty, and staff.

Deepen faculty and staff understanding of vocation as an integral element of the Lasallian Mission and explore methods and venues to look at our jobs and professional relationships through a spiritual and vocational lens. Combine this recommendation with item above to explore the topic of stronger communication and incorporate as part of the Mission and Heritage Council/DISCOVER subcommittee discussion.

As a result of the analysis, the Mission Assessment instrument will also be improved before it is administered again in the Spring of 2017. The following enhancements will be made:

Number and categorize the 44 Mission dimensions to make them easier to reference.

Determine if the list of dimensions of the Mission needs to be revised before the next administration of the instrument.

Add additional demographic questions to study specific subgroups of faculty and staff

Consider adding qualitative or essay-based questions.

Reviewers raised a suggestion that a new Mission Assessment instrument be developed and administered for the purpose of better understanding the impact of the University’s Mission on our student population. This recommendation will be taken up by the Mission and Heritage Council for further study and consideration. STRATEGIC PLANNING

4P2 Strategic Planning focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision. Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing, and reviewing the institution’s plans and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Engaging internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning (5.C.3) Aligning operations with the institution’s mission, vision, values (5.C.2) Aligning efforts across departments, divisions, and colleges for optimum effectiveness and efficiency

(5.B.3) Capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of institutional

weaknesses and potential threats (5.C.4, 5.C.5) Creating and implementing strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and meet

future needs (5.C.1, 5.C.4)

Lewis University’s strategic planning process engages internal and external stakeholders, aligns operations with our Mission, vision, and values, aligns efforts across divisions, departments, and colleges for optimum effectiveness, capitalizes on opportunities and institutional strengths while countering the impact of institutional weaknesses and potential threats, and creates and implements strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and meet future needs. The University Planning Council (UPC), comprised of senior leaders, deans, and faculty members, develops and monitors the progress of the plan, with regular reports to the Board of Trustees, which serves as liaison to external stakeholders and approves the plan. Each strategic plan begins with a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threat (SWOT) analysis in key divisional areas, which includes the possible impact on our resources based on enrollment trends, technology, the economy, and other factors such as the situation with Illinois MAP grants. As strategic directions emerge from the SWOT, they are aligned with our Mission values. (5.C.3, 5.C.2, 5.C.4, 5.C.5)

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/2012-2017StrategicPlanUnitInitiativesProgressReport.pdf

June 1, 2016


Figure 4.1 Alignment of Strategic Plan with Values

Mission Values Knowledge Fidelity Wisdom Justice Association

2012-2017 Strategic Plan Directions

I. Foundation for the Future




I. Foundation for the Future


III. Emerging Technologies V. Resource Development

and Stewardship





V. Resource Development and Stewardship

The UPC then progresses to fleshing out each direction for broad initiatives that will lead to achievement of the plan, paying attention to opportunities, addressing weaknesses, and preparing for potential threats. Upon approval of the University Strategic Plan, each division, college, and unit develops specific actions they can contribute to the plan. The Student Services Division engages student input at this stage of the process. Once these are completed, UPC sequences prioritized actions of the composite plan over the five-year period of the Strategic Plan, aligned with resource allocation per the University Budget. (5.B.3, 5.C.1, 5.C.4)

The Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) works with the UPC to develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for assessing achievement of the Plan’s goals. OIRP creates a dashboard of these measures, using Tableau, to provide progress reports at the two UPC meetings per year and to the Board of Trustees. The Tableau format makes gaps obvious, allowing us to adjust priorities and resource allocations as needed.

4R2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing, and reviewing the institution’s operational plans? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized (e. g. achievement of goals and/or satisfaction with

process) Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

We use internal dashboards and status reports to track progress toward achieving the goals of our Strategic Plan. We employ external data from the Educational Advisory Board (EAB), of which we are a member, to inform and support our decisions about specific actions in the unit plans. And we use U. S. News & World Report rankings and IPEDS data to externally compare with nine benchmark regional peer institutions.

Strategic Plan dashboard reports (Figure 4.2) show we have made progress over the previous year having begun 99% of our initiatives. At this point in time 18% have been completed, 66% are in-progress, 7% are still being developed, and 8% have either not begun or are on hold. A few were phased out as they were no longer a priority or feasible. We placed some on hold because they remain a priority, but timing and/or budget concerns do not currently support proceeding. Others are under discussion to determine if they remain feasible or a priority. This is normal at Lewis since we consider the Strategic Plan to be a living document. We also track the same factors for unit initiatives that are aligned with the Strategic Plan Directions. Summaries of these data revealed we are accomplishing some goals of the Strategic Plan, while challenges remain. Many of these are included in other Systems Portfolio Categories as improvements.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/2012-2017StrategicPlanUnitInitiativesProgressReport.pdf

June 1, 2016


Figure 4.2 Strategic Planning Updates

External market research as well as reports from the EAB, College Board and ACT identified STEM programs as an area of growth for Lewis. In fall 2012, we enrolled 432 students in STEM programs at the undergraduate level. By fall 2015 that number grew to 673.

For achievement of the Expand Global Connectedness initiative, in 2013 we were accepted into the American Council on Education (ACE) Internationalization Laboratory. We analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of our present state of university-wide international structures, services, and experiences against ACE’s Comprehensive Internationalization rubric. A peer visit and review responded to our self-study with recommendations for improvements.

EAB reports provided us with data regarding changes in approaches to Career Services. Using their 11-question diagnostic tool and rubric, we identified significant gaps in what we provided to students through Career Services. It was EAB’s recommendation that we implement restructuring and a new approach.

June 1, 2016


Figure 4.3 Summary Results of Strategic Plan 2014-2015

2012-2017 Strategic Plan Directions Sample Accomplishments Remaining Challenges

Foundation for the Future New market-driven graduate programs; restructuring of Career Services

Enrollment growth

Distinctive Learning Experiences STEM programs; service-learning; Study Abroad

Implementation of the ACE Internationalization Recommendations

Emerging Technologies Launch of CRM system; Banner SIS implementation

Developing deeper data analytics; predictive modeling

Strategic Partnerships New agreements with CC partners New revenue modeling for partnerships

Resource Development and Stewardship Research Grants Consistent alternative revenue streams; land development

As the Board of Trustees discussed these results with University administrators, insights regarding changing demographics led to a revision of enrollment projections and revenue goals for 2017. The Board additionally noted that a more in-depth cost analysis will be required for low enrollment programs (fewer than 10 majors) to determine viability and future.


As noted above we have increased enrollment in the STEM disciplines, which was a goal within the Strategic Plan Direction of Distinctive Learning Experiences.

One element of the Foundation for the Future Strategic Plan Direction is restructuring Career Services. Based on EAB’s insights, we expanded the scope of Career Services beyond resume writing and practice interviews. We hired a new executive director with an external employer focus to Career Services that builds relationships among employers, the University, and students. Another new Career Services position, with a specific focus on the College of Business, was established in August 2015. Our approach is expected to be mutually beneficial by helping employers develop recruiting strategies, working with employers to bring about internship, co-op, and externship opportunities, and introducing employers to key faculty and staff members at Lewis University.

Pending resources and endorsement by the incoming President, the University plans to act on the recommendations from the peer visit of the ACE Internationalization Program. This action plan will achieve goals in both the Restructuring and Expand Global Connectedness initiatives that will permeate all divisions of the University.

The Board of Trustees demonstrated its most significant support for leadership during this past year when they led our University search for a new President for the first time in 28 years. The search committee included board, faculty, administrative, and staff members, along with undergraduate and graduate students. They additionally utilized the guidance of a professional search company. The search committee’s recommendation to the Board for our new President was unanimously accepted.

June 1, 2016


LEADERSHIP

4P3 Leadership focuses on governance and leadership of the institution. Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Establishing appropriate board-institutional relationships to support leadership and governance

(2.C.4) Establishing oversight responsibilities and policies of the governing board (2.C.3, 5.B.1, 5.B.2) Maintaining board oversight, while delegating management responsibilities to administrators, and

academic matters to faculty (2.C.4) Ensuring open communication between and among all colleges, divisions, and departments Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards (5.B.3) Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders (2.C.1, 2.C.2) Developing leaders at all levels within the institution Ensuring the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision (2.C.3)

Strongly committed to the Mission of Lewis University, the Board of Trustees consists of nearly 40 men and women who bring to the University a wide range of experience in diverse fields, including corporate leadership, law, higher education, volunteer work, healthcare, finance, government and industry. Board membership includes nine members of the De La Salle Christian Brothers, sponsors of Lewis University. At the current time, 22 Trustees are alumni of Lewis University. The Board of Trustees provides significant support and advocacy for the Catholic and Lasallian Mission of Lewis University. The Trustees help ensure that the University will be directed in accord with the moral, spiritual and religious inspiration and values of the Catholic Church and guided by the spiritual, intellectual and educational ideals of the Christian Brothers. Lewis University Board of Trustees meets three times annually, usually in February, May and October in Romeoville. Every other February the Board meets in a two-day off campus retreat. Information about the meeting dates and times are posted on the University website several years in advance. A summary of updates and major decisions from each Board meeting is posted in University News. The Mission and Planning Committees of the Board of Trustees also process all feedback and recommendations from each Board meeting for ongoing follow-up. Each Trustee is invited to serve on at least one of the Board Committees, including those for Academic Affairs, Audit, Development, Finance, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Mission & Planning, Student Services, Trusteeship and Governance, and Property, Plant and Equipment. Chairs of these committees serve along with the Board officers on the Executive Committee. Each of these committees considers a variety of relevant topics in depth, and presents its recommendations to the full Board. Committee reports are scheduled at each Board meeting. The Board Committees meet in Romeoville to hear and discuss updates from members of the Lewis faculty, staff, and administration on initiatives relevant to the Committee. Each Board Committee has a non-voting faculty and student member. (2.C.1, 2.C.4, 2.C.3, 5.B.1, 5.B.2)

Following a change in Board leadership in Fall 2015, the Board engaged in a self-study process via a confidential online survey and follow-up discussion. As a result, the Committee structure was changed (as noted in the Mission section) to focus more intently on matters related to our Catholic and Lasallian identity and the Board’s deepening understanding of the Mission. The Mission is part of each Committee charter and each new Board member receives a comprehensive orientation program involving senior administration. This ensures that the Board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of our internal and external stakeholders as well as ensuring the University’s ability to act in accordance with our Mission and values. (2.C.1, 2.C.2, 2.C.3)

http://www.lasalle.org/

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/mission.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/welcome/offices/mission.htm

June 1, 2016


Leadership processes for academics and operations are led by the faculty and administration. An important recent process change is our new faculty governance system, which is more fully detailed in the improvement section. The President chairs the University Administrative Council, whose members include the Provost, Senior Vice President/CFO, Senior Vice President for Enrollment Management, Marketing and Planning, Vice President of Student Services, Vice President for Mission and Academic Services, Vice President for Advancement, and the Academic Associate to the Provost. The UAC meets at least twice monthly to ensure our operations function effectively. (2.C.4)

In addition to these processes, Lewis has always used special Task Forces to drive improvements that need research and time for development or to address complex cross-functional concerns. During the last four years the following task forces have been active.

Figure 4.4 Lewis Task Forces (5.B.3)

Task Force Topic Status Outcome (or expectation)

Retirement Completed University Committee on Retirement appointed for ongoing review of retirement concerns

Intellectual Property Rights Completed Policy created

Civic Engagement Soon to be complete Assessment Plan

Internationalization Completed ACE provided recommendations for implementation

General Education Ongoing Revised General Education Plan

Interdisciplinary Programs Ongoing Review best practices and recommend policies and processes

ELS Welcome Completed Planning for the arrival of the program

Writing Across the Curriculum Completed Plan for establishing a WAC initiative

Campus Master Plan Completed Plan for land development and building construction, repair, demolition

Pension Plan Completed Recommendation to continue and raise contribution rate; monitor the plan

STEM Completed 20 recommendations

Residence Life Ongoing Identify improvement strategies for residential and campus life (transportation, dining, cleaning, etc.)

Thesis Completed Minimum Standards Policy created

The University Policy and Budget Review Advisory Council (UPBRAC), in four meetings during the academic year, provides opportunities for open communication across colleges, divisions, and departments. This is an opportunity for collaboration, to gain information, and offer feedback regarding various initiatives such as progress toward comprehensive internationalization, the working budget, and responding to the state financial crisis. In addition to membership on UPBRAC, students are also involved in leadership through our Student Senate. (5.B.3)

Lewis ensures high academic standards through the joint efforts of the Dean’s Committee, through the new program development process, specialized accreditation standards, and faculty development program through the May Institute for Faculty. (5.B.3)

June 1, 2016


Succession planning is occurring at some levels of the University, although there are no formal programs to develop leaders at all levels of the institution. However, developing faculty and staff understanding and appreciation for our Catholic and Lasallian Mission is a priority. This formal professional development for Mission contributes to the ability of our employees to serve in leadership positions at a variety of levels throughout the University. Approximately 50 faculty and staff participate in local, national, and international Mission formation programs each year. In addition, all Vice Presidents, Associate Vice Presidents, and Deans are required to participate in a local, national or regional Mission formation program as part of their leadership role.

4R3 What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

The Board of Trustees instituted an internal self-assessment as a pilot project to measure the effectiveness of its own processes. Faculty assess the leadership effectiveness of their college deans and department chairs.

After significant internal conversation and consultation, the University approved new University Faculty By-Laws this academic year. This included faculty input, and a faculty vote with overwhelming support.

Figure 4.5 Faculty By-Laws Vote

Lewis University Revised (Sept. 15, 2015) Faculty By-Law Vote Results (Vote Conducted 9/25/15 to 10/2/15)

College Represented (#) % Voter Turnout (#) % Approved By-Laws (#)

CAS (161) 80.1% (129) 97.7% (126)

COB (24) 75% (18) 33.3% (6)

COE(25) 72% (18) 100% (18)

CONHP (46) 71.7% (33) 97% (32)

Overall Faculty Vote (256) 77.3% (198) 91.9% (182)

% Voter Turnout = Number of faculty votes/Number of faculty members per College % Approved By-Laws = Number of faculty members voting YES/Number of faculty members voting


Encouraged by the recommendations of our most recent HLC visit and reaffirmation of accreditation February 6, 2012, Lewis has instituted a Faculty Senate model of faculty governance that begins its first year in Fall 2016. This improvement comes from the passage of the University Faculty By-Laws. The Lewis University Faculty Senate is comprised by a proportional membership from the four colleges. Faculty are elected to either a 1-year or 2-year term.

June 1, 2016


INTEGRITY

4P4 Integrity focuses on how the institution ensures legal and ethical behavior and fulfills its societal responsibilities. Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards, monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met, and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Developing and communicating standards Training employees and modeling for ethical and legal behavior across all levels of the institution Operating financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions with integrity, including following

fair and ethical policies and adhering to processes for the governing board, administration, faculty, and staff (2.A)

Making information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships readily and clearly available to all constituents (2.B)

Standards for legal and ethical behavior are coordinated through the UAC and the various Vice Presidents in collaboration with their colleagues. Each of their divisions monitors the currency and updates pertinent processes and policies, making recommendations to various constituencies and the UAC regarding these standards. This process ensures continuous feedback and improvement through dialogue between the UAC and the rest of the University. The President also meets bi-weekly with the Provost, Senior Vice President/CFO and Senior Vice President for Strategic Enrollment Management, Marketing and Planning, where the agenda always begins with the item: I. Standard Topics, A. Update on Compliance Issues, Title IX and Risk Management.

The Office of Human Resources monitors all changes in legal standards in concert with the University’s legal counsel (a higher education specialist). As governmental or other key regulations are modified or instituted, new policies are prepared and reviewed by the UAC and approved as needed by the Board of Trustees. Once approved, they are disseminated to all employees, and when applicable, students also receive a copy.

In 2013, Human Resources issued a training module to all employees specific to Ethics in the Workplace. This is now completed by all new hires in addition to modules on sexual harassment and discrimination. To date, 72.6% of all employees have completed the Ethics in the Workplace module. An annual email is sent to all University community members regarding Lewis’ commitment to institutional compliance matters.

Issues of ethical and legal behavior are addressed by the faculty and staff through ongoing training on treatment of human subjects in research (CITI); discipline focused training including updates in health care, aviation, and education; and topical training provided in areas such as FERPA. Targeted training also occurs through the University’s legal counsel when state and federal updates occur in areas such as Title IX and employment law.

Following our last Strategy Forum, and in light of the strategic plan focus on “Advancing Ethical Grounding,” the University initiated a series of speakers offering perspectives on ethics. For example, the 2013 opening Convocation, attended by members of the faculty, administration, and staff, featured Rev. Stephen Katsouras, SJ, Director of the Institute for Catholic Educational Leadership at the University of San Francisco. His address, “Our Call to be Priest, Prophet, Leader: Sustaining the Mission, Advancing the Mission,” included a focus on the ethical dimensions of Catholic higher education.

Various methods are used to operate financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including use of policy and process manuals, our University Faculty By-Laws, and athletic and ADA compliance guidelines and committees. In most cases and as appropriate, these methods are

June 1, 2016


aligned to the Board of Trustees. For example, the University Budget is approved by the Board. All expenditures occur in accord to this approved budget and are processed within guidelines in the University Purchasing Policy Manual. This Manual adheres to the best not-for-profit business practices and federal and state regulations. (2.A)

Board of Trustees members and senior administrators sign annual conflict of interest statements that assure no personal or professional interests co-mingle with University business. Our auditors, Selden Fox, annually interview senior administrators regarding awareness of unethical behavior in the workplace, practices of concern, or situations that could provide opportunities for employees to behave unethically. This audit is part of the senior administrative team’s process to provide checks and balances across the University. (2.A)

Online Whistleblower information is available through the University website at all times. This site is monitored by the President, Chair of the Board of Trustees Audit Committee, and the Senior Vice President/CFO.

The Christian Brothers Trust assists the University in proactively addressing liability issues through regular consultation with the Senior Vice President/CFO and the President.

Information is disseminated to our constituencies through various means, and most information can be accessed through the University website. Official information about programs, requirements, and faculty are kept current in the University undergraduate catalog which is updated every year and the graduate catalog which is updated every other year. The cost to students is located on the Business Office website and accreditation information is located on the Academic site and in each of the appropriate college sites. Higher Learning Commission accreditation information is prominently displayed on the University home page in accordance with required standards. (2.B)

4R4 What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Major institutional outcomes are monitored by the Board of Trustees for areas such as Whistleblower reports, lawsuits, and audits. Other outcomes are reported to the President and selected Vice Presidents such as NCAA violations. Human Resources coordinates all Title IX issues. In many cases, individual divisions track outcomes. For example, ADA standards in facilities are monitored and addressed through the Office of the Senior Vice President/CFO. Complaint logs are monitored and addressed by the Office of the Provost with significant outcomes shared with the UAC (see Category Two).

In November, 2014, the University was randomly selected for an extensive review of legal, ethical and compliance standards through a United States Department of Education Financial Aid Program Review as part of their quality processes. Because administration of DOE Title IV, HEA programs is an institution-wide effort, nearly all divisions and departments were involved in the review and preparation of this massive self-study, including Financial Aid Services, Registrar, Academic Programs, Admission, Student Services and Fiscal/Business Offices. The full report is available upon request.

While there were “no significant findings,” there were suggestions for improvement in four areas: how we disseminate information to the Lewis Community (students, staff and faculty) related to Part 86, maintaining Fire Drill documentation, defining unofficial and official withdrawal, and adjustment of Summer and Spring Semester crossover dates. Upon receipt of these suggestions, the unit heads and Vice Presidents reviewed and took action on several improvements.

http://www.lewisu.edu/

June 1, 2016


IMPROVEMENTS

4I4 Based on 4R4, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years

The Final Program Review Determination Letter from the Department of Education subsequent to their review at Lewis revealed no significant findings and only minor one-time errors that did not result in fines or fees. This included R2T4 calculations based on rounding rules; releasing Title IV credit balances; and the naming on our Title IV bank accounts. Lewis University has taken corrective actions and updated our procedures and policies for these items. In addition, unit heads made the following improvements to our processes.

Part 86 information is now being sent electronically to the Lewis Community, including students, staff and faculty.

Fire Drill Documentation is now being documented in the Student Services Offices.

The definitions for withdrawing have been updated and are now included in the university catalog.

Starting with the summer term 2016 there is no longer a crossover of terms.

A major University improvement in the area of Integrity is also planned that came out of our work on the DOE review. As a result of improving our processes and through what turned out to be the very positive experience of compiling, analyzing and responding to the requirements for the DOE Financial Aid Program Review, the University is now establishing a permanent “University Risk Assessment and Compliance Committee.” The Committee, co-chaired by the CFO and Provost, will meet quarterly and include leaders of risk and compliance from across the University. During these meetings, a review of pertinent Federal and State regulations will be conducted to ensure appropriate and timely compliance. This new Committee is a permanent structure to share data, updates, communications, and improvements in any areas pertaining to the legal, ethical, regulatory, and compliance aspects of the University. The first meeting is targeted for fall 2016.

June 1, 2016

92 | Category Five: Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

Category Five: Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship addresses management of the fiscal, physical, technological, and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive.

CATEGORY OVERVIEW

We identify the overall systems maturity of our processes and results across Category Five as systematic, with improvements moving us toward increased maturity.

Our processes and results within Sub-category One, Knowledge Management have reached the aligned level of maturity. After our Quality Checkup confirmed the need to improve our Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, we used a collaborative and data-driven process to select a new vendor and system. This provides us with the necessary tools to improve the systems maturity of our results across all AQIP Categories.

In both Sub-category Two, Resource Management, and Sub-category Three, Operational Effectiveness, our processes and results are at the systematic level of maturity. We are working to improve the transparency of our current processes and results. For example, while our budget process is clear and shared following development, we have room for improving the transparency of criteria used for budget decisions.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

5P1 Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information, and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution. Describe the processes for knowledge management and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing data and performance information to support planning,

process improvement, and decision-making Determining data, information, and performance results that units and departments need to plan and

manage effectively Making data, information, and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and

departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning, and improvements

Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and security of the institution’s knowledge management system(s) and related processes

Since our last Systems Portfolio, Lewis has made great strides in building an infrastructure to support improvement for knowledge management in budgeting, operations, strategic initiatives, and planning. Both Strategy Forums identified data and data-based improvements as areas for growth. In our Quality Checkup, visitors confirmed that our existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems were not adequate to support our information management needs. Thus, our first process changes were directed to the task of selecting a new ERP vendor. (5.D.2)

The University leadership’s search for a new ERP solution included members of various constituencies: faculty, staff, students, and third-party consultants. That search ended with the selection of Banner® as the university’s new ERP system. The new Banner ERP system is being installed in phases. Throughout the 2016 calendar year, the University will be introducing the various functions (student information,

June 1, 2016

Category Five: Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship | 93

human resources, finance, and financial aid) of the system. Training and ongoing support is being provided as part of the transition to the new system.

The implementation of a new ERP system and web portal helps improve processes university-wide. This integrated information system brings full automation to the academic and business processes of the University, and brings together the University’s student information, human resources, finance, and financial aid functions in a single integrated system. Users will have real-time access to the integrated system via the web portal and new business intelligence tools, which will be installed as part of the new ERP system. The single integrated system is being connected to over 40 data systems currently used by the University. This will allow all members of the Lewis University community to have real-time access to data and information through a single platform.

The new ERP system will help improve business processes in the departments and across the University, helping Lewis University serve more students. The combination of increased constituent self-service and improved business processes will help us address efficiency and innovation challenges by empowering faculty and staff members to serve more students, and student self-service, including:

24-hour on-demand access to course and registration information, academic records, student accounts, and human resources & payroll information

Better support for academic advisors

Real-time course integration and data sharing between Banner and Blackboard

Concurrent with this substantial investment in our solutions, we aligned processes for selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing data and performance evaluation to support planning, process improvement, and decision-making. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) is the central data office on campus for reviewing performance measures, managing data, mapping out units for disseminating information, and adjusting priorities to meet frequently changing stakeholder needs. (5.D.1)

OIRP has incorporated tools for managing data in this system. They created dashboards of performance indicators that both drill down and aggregate data from various surveys and metrics to provide a comprehensive overview for decision-making and showing evidence of institutional effectiveness and student outcomes. These dashboards are designed for various constituents that range from the Board of Trustees to individual colleges, programs, and units. OIRP uses Tableau to communicate the measures as progress toward goals. (5.D.2) Through the Strategic Planning process (described in Category 4), we identified five strategic priorities with Key Performance Indicators for each that serve as a performance measurement framework. The OIRP monitors, gathers, and interprets this data, communicating information to stakeholders through a series of dashboards for decision-making. To effectively collect and communicate the University’s critical success data, Lewis has adopted a unified-multi-tiered process in its data management system, as illustrated in Figure 5.1 below.

June 1, 2016


Figure 5.1 Lewis University Knowledge Management System

June 1, 2016


At the institutional level, the Board of Trustees and the executive leadership team monitor a matrix of indicators. These indicators were developed by the Provost and with input from the committees of the Board of Trustees that correspond to each matrix category. Each indicator is “owned” by a member of the leadership team in partnership with one of the five Board committees.

Figure 5.2 Board of Trustees Indicators

Category BOT Committee Leadership Team Indicators

Students Mission & Planning

Senior VP for Management, Marketing, and Planning

ACT Score Catholic Percentage 3-year Loan Default Rate Retention Rate Graduation Rate

Quality Academic Affairs Provost Faulty Terminal Degrees Student/Faculty Ratio Full Time Percentage Faculty U. S. News Peer Assessment Score U. S. News Rankings

Enrollment Mission & Planning Senior VP for Management, Marketing, and Planning

Total Headcount Traditional Undergraduate Graduate Adult Credit Hours

Housing Student Services Sr. VP for Student Services Capacity Occupancy

Advancement Development VP for Advancement

Total Gift, Grants, & Contacts Alumni Giving Percentage

Financials Finance Sr. VP Business and CFO Operating Margin Unrestricted Cash & Investments Cash Flow/Total Debt Service Freshman Discount Rate

The scorecard is central in Board of Trustee decision-making. Each of the five committees of the Board of Trustees (Mission & Planning; Academic Affairs; Student Services; Development; and Finance) reviews the indicators associated with their work at their meetings, and reports to the larger Board of Trustees. Specifically, in May of each year there is an annual update on all indicators. At their October meeting each year the Board receives a midterm update and specifically focuses on any lagging indicators. In the case of lagging indicators, they ask senior leadership for a plan.

A similar matrix provides key indicators for evaluating achievement of the strategic goals.

Figure 5.3 Strategic Plan Key Performance Indicators

2012-2017 Strategic Plan Key Performance Indicators (KPI)

Foundation for the Future

Distinctive Learning

Experiences

Emerging Technologies


Resource Development

and Stewardship

U.S. News improved peer review score* •

U.S. News improved ranking* •

Job Placement/ Graduate School going rates • •

Enrollment headcount by level* • • •

June 1, 2016


% of programs with Capstones • •

% of student participate in clinical/Guided Internships/ practicum

• •

# of students participating in Undergraduate Research projects

• •

# of STEM students • • •

# of students studying abroad/travel study • •

# of students in service learning courses • • •

Graduation rate* • •

Retention rate* • •

Increase % of online programs • •

# of users of the Library online database • •

Increased % of faculty (full time & adjuncts) who completed online teaching certificate

•

# of new formal partnerships •

# of MOA/MOU for active formal agreements with external organizations

•

# of documented and active advisory groups •

# of applied for sponsored programs/ # awarded for grants/ # size of award received

•

Alumni giving rate* •

% of faculty/staff contribution to annual campaign •

Capital Campaign (% toward goal) • •

Operating margin* • •

Total gifts/grants/ contracts* • •

Endowment* • •

* Aligned with University Board of Trustees-KPI measures

To support student retention and success initiatives on the Lewis campus, OIRP conducts and analyzes a variety of institutional surveys to systematically assess students’ experiences and their satisfaction with Lewis. To increase the utility of the data, OIRP created a survey items matrix to identify measures and various instruments associated with the measurements. The mapping features presented in the matrix help align performance indicators and survey instruments with the University’s strategic priorities, learning outcomes, and accreditation requirements, as described in Figure 5.4. In addition, survey findings are disaggregated by subgroup to identify strengths and weakness in specific areas (see 1P1, 1P5, 2P1). The Performance Review Committee (PIRC) collaborates with OIRP by reviewing survey results to decide if a course of action is needed in response and whether the results should be presented formally to stakeholders. Subsequently PIRC posts results to the OIRP Blackboard shell to share with Lewis community. (4.C.2)

June 1, 2016


Figure 5.4 Surveys Aligned With Mission, Strategic Plan, BCs, and AQIP Categories

Survey Sample or Group

Cycle Mission Values

Knowledge, Wisdom

Knowledge, Fidelity, Wisdom, Justice, Association

Knowledge, Wisdom

Fidelity, Justice, Association

Wisdom, Association

Strategic Directions (2012-17 Strategic Plan)

Foundation for the Future

Distinctive Learning Experience

Emerging Technology


Resource Development & Stewardship

Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE)3


Rotate with CIRP

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2, 5 & 6


CIRP First-Year Survey(UCLA-HERI)3


Rotate with BCSSE

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6


College Student Inventory (Noel Levitz CSI)1


Annual Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1 & 2

Category 2

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)3

1st year & Senior

Every 3 years



Student Satisfaction Inventory (Noel Levitz - SSI)1

Undergraduate (Traditional)

Every 3 years



Adult Student Priorities Survey (Noel Levitz - ASPS)1

Adult/Graduate Students

Every 3 years



Graduating Student Survey

Graduating Students

Annual Category 5 Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristic 2, 5 & 7


Graduating Student Exit Survey

Graduating Students

Annual Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristic 7


One-Year-Out Survey

Alumni Twice a year

Category 1, Baccalaureate Characteristics 1, 2 & 5


Alumni Survey Alumni Every 2 years



1 Nationally normed 2 Comparative data across local peer institutions 3 Nationally normed and data from selective peer institutions

June 1, 2016


These processes are repeated on various levels throughout the University. Enrollment management and executive staff also receive weekly admissions reports with comparison data to monitor recruitment against targets. OIRP developed and provides data in a dashboard format for academic programs in their program review cycle. All academic units are requested to develop and implement assessment plans and document them in the WEAVE assessment management system (as discussed in Category 1). The unit-level outcomes assessment plans stored in WEAVE are tracked and reported by OIRP on a monthly basis to the Deans of the four colleges, the Assessment Office and CASL members. College assessment committees engage their faculty in a focused review of their outcomes performance in order to develop practical implementation plans to “close the loop.” (4.A.1)

The process for determining the data, information, and performance results are embedded within the processes described above. Stakeholders work with the OIRP to receive information in clear and functional formats. For example, since the interests of the Board of Trustees were narrower than all of the KPIs of the Strategic Plan, they evaluate the University by the more concise Board of Trustees Dashboard. Similarly, faculty needs were met by the creation of the Program Review Dashboard. Knowing the value of data-based decision-making, OIRP has created these tools to overcome the deficiencies in the previous ERP system during the Banner implementation process.

As part of the ERP project, the University has purchased the Banner® Operational Data Store (ODS). The Banner ODS (which is fully integrated with the Banner ERP system) provides a consistent view of institutional data for administration, faculty, and staff. The Banner ODS utilizes the University’s established data terms and definitions, thus allowing users to access the information they need easily. All data will be accessible via secure web technologies anywhere in the world. The Banner ODS runs on the IBM® Cognos software platform, which is a leading global business analytics software solution.

Lewis University utilizes several knowledge management systems for the collection, analysis, and sharing of institutional data. The primary knowledge management is the University’s ERP system used to store University data related to students’ enrollment, academic performance, financial status, and matriculation toward degree completion. Moreover, the University’s ERP solution houses data related to the University’s administrative operations, which include academic administration, finance, and human resources. (4.C.2, 4.C.4)

The installation, maintenance, and support of the University’s knowledge management systems are a collaborative effort between functional leaders of the University data systems, OIRP, and the Office of Technology. The functional leaders of the University data systems are responsible for the integrity of the data that their departments collect. Each department ensures that the data is collected in the timeframe required. For example, Financial Aid is responsible for the integrity of financial aid data in the University’s ERP system. The OIRP works with the functional departments in the university to ensure the validity and reliability of the institutional data used in reporting. The Office of Technology is responsible for maintaining the technology that houses the University’s knowledge management systems.

Security is paramount in Lewis’ knowledge management systems. All access to institutional data is controlled through secure authentication methods. The Office of Technology maintains detailed records of user access to the University’s ERP system. The Director of Information Security maintains the aforementioned records. Moreover, the ERP system (and ancillary data systems) is housed behind the University’s network firewalls, all of which adhere to industry standards for network security.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/2015_WEAVEAssessmentAnnualReport.pdf

June 1, 2016


5R1 What are the results for determining how data, information, and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized (including software platforms and/or contracted

services) Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

The figure below describes the various tools in place to measure performance outcomes at Lewis, and the data users reviewing and using the results.

Figure 5.5 Tools Utilized, Results Tracked, and Data Users

Measurement Tools/Methods Results of Data-based Decision-making Process

University KPI Progress Report KPI Results shared two times a year to measure progress toward meeting the annual targets. This self-assessment tool with meaningful benchmarks supports data-informed decisions in resources allocation, program mix, strategic initiatives, and partnerships.

Strategic Plan KPI Progress Report The report is regularly reviewed to measure progress toward meeting the strategic goals.

Units Strategic Initiatives Dashboard

Unit heads document and track progress of initiatives over time. Advanced visualizations allow units to develop clear strategies to implement initiatives and coordinate their efforts around common strategic priorities.

WEAVE Monthly Progress Report The monthly snapshot reports have helped advance assessment at Lewis with the majority of academic programs actively engaged in communicating and assessing student learning. Through the dashboard, further analysis on the visualized assessment data also inspired broad-based discussion for improvement at all levels within the University.

Assessment Dashboard

Program Review Dashboard (Academic Review Dashboard)

The alignment of performance metrics between the University KPIs and this Dashboard further provides program level insights for developing a relevant program mix to continue to drive the University's growth.

Student Academic Success Dashboard

An interactive, dynamic dashboard of retention and graduation rates allowed student support services staff/administrators to develop actionable information that helped improve success and persistence.

New Program Dashboard Report The new program scorecard annual report helps University decision-makers access new program performance to optimize program mix.

Survey Results Summary/Survey Dashboard

The survey items matrix provided a consolidated view of the scattered survey findings in several campus-wide supportive initiatives (e. g. Writing Across Curriculum, Civic Engagement, Sophomore Student Retention program). Aggregate and disaggregate survey results also facilitated improvement efforts on campus, such as tuition payments, billing process, financial support and writing tutorial for graduate students.

The most recent two years of internal and external benchmarking performance of the University KPIs are shown in Figure 5.6. Our use of internal and external benchmarks to measure performance from one year to the next in outcomes assessment, program review, and student satisfaction and success can also be found in Categories 1 and 2. The use of a systematic process of identifying appropriate internal and external benchmarks across all areas has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the University, as described in 1I2, 1I5, and 6I1.

June 1, 2016


Figure 5.6 2012-2017 University Key Performance Indicators Dashboard: AY 2014 & 2015 Results

Actual Data Performance Internal Goals Benchmarks (FY15)

Sub-Indicators FY14 FY15 FY14 FY15 FY14 FY15 FY17 Top 3 Average

(Local Peers)

Bottom 3 Average

(Aspirants)

Faculty Terminal Degrees 74% 74% 71% 71% 72% 89% 79%

Full Time Percentage Faculty 63.05 62% 62% 62% 63% 71% 77%

Student/Faculty Ratio 13:1 13:1

14:1 14:1 14:1 12:1 13:1

ACT Score 23.5 23.2

22.9 23 23.2 23.8 25.5

Alumni Giving Percentage 8% 8.5%

7.7% 8.5% 10%

Total Gifts, Grants and Contracts (in millions) $8.4 $8.4

$6.5 $6.0 $5.0 $9.7 $11.4

Adult 763 760

733 734 771

Graduate 1,927 1,955

1,941 1,932 2,030

Total Headcount 6,525 6,689

6,556 6,663 7,002 5,281 4,349

Traditional Undergraduate 3,891 4,043

3,909 3,997 4,201

U.S. News Peer Assessment Score 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3 3.5

U.S. News Rankings 23 23

34 33 31 15 6

Cash Flow/Total Debt Service 4.5 3.9

4.5 4.5 3.9

Credit Hours 159,741 164,657

161,850 164,250 170,650

Endowment Fund $52.6 $54.3

$49.0 $57.3 $62.0

Freshman Discount Rate 46.3% 46.3%

44.7% 45.3% 46% 45.7%

Operating Margin 2.7% 2.9%

3.2% 3.1% 3.6%

Unrestricted Cash and Investments/Debt 43.9% 39.6%

41% 44% 47%

Catholic Percentage 58.6% 58.8% 57.9% 58.6% 60% 51.2% (Catholic C & U)*

3 Year Loan Default Rate 5.2% 4% 7.1% 7.1% 7% 2.9% 3.3%

Graduation Rate 63% 62% 62% 63% 63% 67% 71%

Retention Rate 82% 82.6%

81% 82% 83% 80% 87%

Capacity 1,308 1,348

1,308 1,308 1,454 1,676 1,800

Occupancy 1,293 1,323

1,320 1,225 1,270

Exceeded goal Met goal Under goal *Source: 2014 CIRP Freshman Survey

Through the incorporation of evidence-informed decision-making practices, Lewis has made significant progress in the data reporting and reviewing process, which led to process improvements in action planning with specified quality measures and performance targets. For example, using a holistic and data-driven approach, academic support units collaboratively created a comprehensive retention plan for at-risk sophomore students as noted in Category 2. This process started with cohort studies to examine factors affecting student retention among certain sub-populations (e. g. under-represented minorities, academically unprepared students). This was followed by an extensive review of retention rates in a Student Academic Success Dashboard, powered by Tableau, as depicted in Figure 1R5. To ensure these programs have maximum impact on student success from the 2nd year on toward graduation, OIRP then updated and presented this data on a regular basis. In addition, OIRP employed a survey items matrix to provide a consolidated view of the scattered survey findings in several campus-wide task forces (e. g. Writing Across the Curriculum, Civic Engagement, and Academic Advising) related to student academic success. The implementation of the matrix provided synthesized and integrated

June 1, 2016


information that helped the University strategically allocate assessment resources to improve helping students learn (see Category 1). The improved analytics and reporting from these studies prompted the development of a Survey Dashboard. Finally, incorporation of benchmarking data across key aspects of planning, budgeting, and management decisions has promoted increased coherence across programming and practices for internal improvement and external accountability.

Regarding the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and security of the knowledge management systems, a team of functional and technical professionals conducts annual reviews of all University knowledge management systems. Systems evaluation consists of ensuring that knowledge management systems meet the following requirements:

The ability of systems to meet the data management and data access needs of the University

The systems’ capacities to perform data analysis

Compatibility of systems with the University’s technology infrastructure

Upon completion of these reviews, Office of Technology, in conjunction with the functional leaders, develops recommendations for either renewing and/or replacing knowledge systems. The recommendations are submitted to the Technology Approval Council, comprised of the President, Provost, Senior Vice President/CFO, Senior Vice President for Enrollment Management, Marketing, and Planning, Associate VP for Technology, Academic Associate to the Provost, and Special Assistant to the Provost, for consideration and approval.


Lewis has made several improvements to provide accurate and user-friendly data. The recent adoption of a business intelligence tool (Tableau) to build, enhance, and manage University data has allowed campus constituents to communicate effectively about information captured from various data sources. The OIRP has created several visually clear dashboards for University stakeholders to help explore data for deep user’s insights. One example is the Program Review Dashboard, which evolved from the earlier Academic Dashboard. Its drill down capability into key metrics (e. g. enrollment, retention and graduation rates) improves informed decision-making, included in the academic program review process. The use of such dashboards helps increase transparency and promotes data sharing in our decision-making processes.

In the next two years, successful implementation of Banner and its integration and analytic tools (such as Operational Data Store/ODS, Cognos Reporting, and Student Retention Performance) should help the Lewis community connect seamlessly and more-easily retrieve data used to inform decisions. The expansion of the Blackboard Learn System to the Outcomes Assessment module to assist integration of course-level assessments into overall program assessment is currently undergoing a pilot project. Once fully implemented, the University will benefit from using course-embedded evidence that connects assessment with teaching and learning to build a strong and sustainable data-driven assessment process.

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/ProgramReviewDashboard.pdf

June 1, 2016


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

5P2 Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational programs and operations. Describe the processes for managing resources and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Maintaining fiscal, physical, and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations (5.A.1) Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities, and emerging needs

(5.A.3) Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that educational

purposes are not adversely affected (5.A.2)

The Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer in the Finance and Facilities Office provides leadership for the fiscal infrastructure and all business operations of the University including budgeting processes, described in 5P3 to ensure that business support services meet the goals and objectives of the University. This Office also oversees the Property, Plant and Equipment Committee, which is responsible for supervising planning for University facilities and making recommendations to the Board of Trustees on matters related to the long-term physical development of the University, the design, construction, and renovation of new and existing facilities and the budgeting and cost control for construction and renovation projects. The Committee reviews policies and makes recommendations with respect to the maintenance and operation of buildings and care of the grounds. For day-to-day concerns employees make use of an electronic trouble ticket system to bring maintenance concerns in their areas to the Director of Physical Plant.

The University’s technology infrastructure is planned, implemented, and evaluated by a multi-level governance structure. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between the various technology governance individuals and organizations. This process shows that final allocation of technology resources culminates through technology and budget processes. The Office of Technology communicates a cycle for replacement technology that manages these costs over time. (5.A.1)

Figure 5.7 Technology Resources Decision-making Processes

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/MissionandPlanningsubcommitteeminutes.pdf

June 1, 2016


Lewis University has implemented an inclusive process for maintaining the University’s technology infrastructure. The various campus constituencies are able to submit requests for technology infrastructure additions and improvements. The Office of Technology staff also initiates requests for infrastructure improvements. Office of Technology staff conducts the first review of technology infrastructure requests. This review is to determine the merit of the request as it relates to technical need and the request’s compatibility to the existing technology infrastructure.

Upon completion of the Office of Technology Review, the request is forwarded to the Technology Steering Committee (TSC) and the Senior Vice President/ Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for consideration. The TSC reviews the request(s) to ensure that it adheres to the Mission of the University. The TSC consists of the University’s vice presidents and deans. The CFO reviews the financial implications of the request(s) to the University’s budget. If the TSC and CFO endorse the request, it is forwarded to the Technology Approval Council for consideration. (5.A.3)

The University Administrative Council (UAC), comprised of the President, Provost, and Division Vice Presidents, ensures that resource management goals are aligned with the Mission (4P1), resources (the annual budget), the Strategic Plan (4P2), and emerging needs. They regularly report decisions regarding allocation of resources to the Board of Trustees. UAC and the Board of Trustees prioritize allocations so Lewis maintains fiscal responsibility, a sound physical and technological infrastructure, and human resources necessary to achieve its educational Mission. (5.A.3) Participation of the Provost in these allocation processes ensures our educational purposes are not adversely affected. (5.A.2) 5R2 What are the results for resource management? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation results and insights gained

Resource management processes include tracking key measures associated with filling gaps and/or taking advantage of opportunities. Effectiveness and efficiency measures of our previous ERP system compared to the costs/benefits of a new system resulted in purchasing a new ERP system. A study of mobile devices on campus, currently averaging 3-5 devices per person, led us to an increase in wireless WAN access.

The combination of a well-developed Campus Master Plan, fiscal soundness, low interest rates, and a need for increased buildings for academic, housing, and other purposes drove the University to fix approximately 50% of its debt resulting in an annual savings of $200,000 – $300,000 per year. In 2014 this was used to add 3 new labs, 4 classrooms, and student gathering space in the College of Nursing and Health Professions Building. This was needed in response to enrollment growth in 2014-15, shown in Figure 5.8. While we experienced a slight downward trend in 2015-16, enrollments remain above the 2013-14 numbers. With only two years of data, we look forward to reviewing additional years to assure our expansion in lab and classroom space is a continued need.

After 30 years of working with the Joliet Diocese to acquire the St. Charles Borromeo property adjacent to our campus, we are now able to provide a new home featuring the latest in technology and pedagogical teaching environments for the College of Business, School for Professional and Continuing Education, and Graduate Studies. The renovated building also includes a convocation hall, dining facility, and housing for sophomores. This is a student subgroup with lower retention rates that we targeted for additional support, as discussed in more detail in Category 2. Additionally, analysis of our housing

http://www.lewisu.edu/masterplan/

June 1, 2016


capacity and room quality compared to actual housing occupancy indicated a need to increase on-campus housing.

Figure 5.8 Growth in Nursing Enrollment 2013-2016

*Of note, includes Summer 2016 enrollment only through 5-1-2016

In comparison to our peers, we have poorer facilitates for our Admissions functions. Our current offices are small and not as welcoming as we would like as we strive to make the best impression on prospective students and their families. The Christian Brothers in residence are currently constructing a new Brother House on our campus, and their current house is well positioned for renovation as a new Admissions/Welcome Center.


In addition to implementation of the new ERP system, additional improvements to technology infrastructure we have begun or completed include:

Institution of a five-year plan to replace the University’s technology infrastructure. This includes network switching gear and cabling infrastructure

The establishment of a four-year replacement cycle of all University computers

Upgrades to the Internet circuits. In the past 3 three years, the University’s Internet has quadrupled in capacity

The establishment of an ITIL-based model to technology support

Expansion of the technology support staff to expand available hours for technical support

As a result, the University wide area network (WAN) capacity has been increased. Network circuits’ capacity that connects regional instructional locations to the main campus has increased twenty-fold. The University wireless network has expanded by 30 percent.

We have expanded academic and residential space and food service and look forward opening the new Admissions/Welcome Center in early 2017.

June 1, 2016


OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

5P3 Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. Describe the processes for operational effectiveness and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets (5.A.5) Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure, and user-friendly Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure, and user-friendly Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness

Strategies and plans are linked to resources and future needs through alignment of the Capital Campaign with the Strategic Plan. Additionally, there is an established budget process initiated by University administration. The budget addresses both regular operating costs and funding needed for strategic initiatives.

Figure 5.9 Lewis University Budget Process

Calendar Budget Activity

August/September Initial projections of needs and enrollment/credit hours established by Business and Finance, Deans, Enrollment Management, University Advancement for next AY budget

September Senior admin working sessions, President/Provost/EVP/VPEM/VPB&F review, UPBRAC meeting for enrollment report and preliminary “in process” budget;

October Final review President/Provost/EVP/VPEM/VPB&F

Board of Trustees presentation

Current AY Budget finalized with enrollment numbers

November Budget requests for next Academic Year (AY) & summary to VPs/Provost

Current AY budget highlights to UPBRAC

December University Administrative Council & President’s Councils review

January University Administrative Council reviews next AY Budget

February President requests Board approval of next AY tuition, fees, room & board

President presents status report of next AY Working Budget to Board;

Next AY Working Budget summary to UPBRAC

March University Administrative Council & President’s Councils review

April Presentation of next AY Working budget highlights to UPBRAC

May

President presents next AY Working Budget to Board of Trustees for approval

Budgetary unit heads/ UPBRAC receive approved document

Just as the process for developing the annual budget is thorough, the SVP/CFO remains vigilant after the “working” budget is approved in May. The Office of Finance & Facilities and the Office of Enrollment Management monitor credit hour reports against the budget on a weekly basis, and use this data to accordingly adjust revenue expectations up or down. Financial Aid is monitored monthly by the Director and AVP of Business for actual dispersed awards against budgeted awards. In October, adjustments are made based on actual revenues against expenses. Although this budget is considered “final,” the SVP monitors the budget quarterly to both forecast revenue projections and make adjustments up or down. In cases of downward adjustments, UAC and Deans discuss a “give-back” of expenditures and institute plans for ensuring that these give-backs do not affect academic quality. (5.A.5)

June 1, 2016


The Property, Plant and Equipment Committee ensures that maintaining the physical infrastructure is reliable, secure, and user-friendly. Annually, the committee prepares and presents to the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees a report on routine maintenance, air conditioning units, road replacement, parking, restroom renovation, door and access control points, fire alarms, and emergency phone stations.

Financial risk is addressed through the budget planning process based on target enrollments. Plans are developed based on three scenarios: low enrollment, near target enrollment, and achieving target enrollment. An actual budget is not released until October when enrollment figures are known. Other processes for addressing risk include leasing rather than buying space for off campus instructional locations. Contingencies and out-clauses minimize risk. Pilot projects are initiated to test feasibility before committing extensive resources to new programs or delivery methods. Risk assessment is a major part of all decision-making and planning. The process for maintaining the technology infrastructure is answered in 5P2.

We have several processes for preparing to deal with the risk of emergency situations. The Campus Emergency Planning Team (CEPT) is a multi-disciplinary team of professionals formed to oversee the planning and coordination of the Campus Emergency Operations Plan (CEOP). The CEOP was developed in accordance with National Incident Management System Standards (NIMSS). The Campus Violence Prevention Committee is an additional resource to provide support, assistance, research and policy review in

regard to violence prevention on campus. The Assessment & Care Team provides support, resources, referrals and response as appropriate with regard to potential or actual threats to the University community. Lewis coordinates a Pandemic influenza Preparedness and Response Plan with the CDC, Will County Health Department, and Will County Emergency Management Agency as well as a Pharmaceutical Distribution Plan with the County.

Lewis is a member of the South Metropolitan Higher Education Consortium (SMHEC) Mutual Aid Agreement begun in 2010 to provide aid in the form of personnel, facilities, and equipment to a member whose needs to address an emergency disaster exceed their own resources. This agreement allows members to continue providing educational programs during these situations. For legal risks, Human Resources includes Title IX training during employee orientation (discussed in more detail in Category 3) and the Lewis University Police Department (LUPD) assures Clery Act compliance.

5R3 What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible) Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks Interpretation of results and insights gained

Lewis regularly tracks enrollment (see Category 2), budget revenues and expenditures, age and condition of facilities, complaint logs (see Category 2), and surveys such as SSI and ASPS (see Category 2) to make decisions regarding resource allocations, business practices, campus improvements, and responding to political and economic exigencies.

For example, the annual review of enrollment reports in (Figure 5.10) indicated a significant decrease of enrollment at the Shorewood location and an increased demand for courses available at Oak Brook.

http://www.lewisu.edu/emergencyplanning/teams.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/emergencyplanning/teams.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/WebPANFLUPlan2016.pdf

http://www.willcountyillinois.com/County-Offices/Public-Health-and-Safety

http://www.willcountyillinois.com/County-Offices/Public-Health-and-Safety

http://www.willcountyema.org/

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/WebPDPBasicPlan2016.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/studentservices/security/index.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/studentservices/security/crimelog.htm

June 1, 2016


Figure 5.10 Enrollment at Oak Brook and Shorewood Sites 2010-2015

Oak Brook Shorewood

Seats Filled Unduplicated Headcount Seats Filled Unduplicated Headcount

Fall 2010 805 564 304 223

Fall 2011 812 589 222 172

Fall 2012 799 559 275 2001

Fall 2013 898 636 292 221

Fall 2014 826 620 218 167

Fall 2015 761 595

Political and economic exigencies in the State of Illinois have caused a $6.4 million shortfall to the Lewis University FY 2016 budget. The state’s failure to pass a budget that includes funds for Monetary Assistance Program (MAP) grants to our students impacts Lewis because 1,397 of our students qualify for those funds. This is the group of Illinois students with the least amount of financial resources, whose enrollment at Lewis is central to our Mission. In response, the UAC decided to give conditional credit on these students’ payment plans for FY 2016. Since the State has subsequently funded only half the FY 2016 MAP payments, the Bursar’s Office is ready to meet with all MAP students to resolve their balances through a monthly payment plan. At June 30, 2016, the University will carry MAP awards as an outstanding student receivable. Where necessary, we anticipate writing off any uncollectible portion over the next five years. If the State of Illinois does not fully fund FY 2016 MAP awards by June 30, 2016, the University’s liquidity ratio will fall to 37% against the required 30% covenant. As a result, the Fiscal 2017 Working Budget takes a conservative approach to reduce expenditures to offset the reduction in income. Our Standard and Poors’ rating of BBB+/Stable was reaffirmed April 2016.


Enrollment reports showed that our Oak Brook site would no longer meet anticipated needs and that the Shorewood site was dropping to the point of not being profitable. By closing the Shorewood site, we were able to free up more fiscal resources to fund relocation to another site in Oak Brook and provide the best technical teaching resources to its new Nurse Practitioner Lab.

We are currently working on ways to address the situation created by MAP grants shortfall.

Regarding risk management, we have made improvements in our emergency disaster plan with the SMHEC Mutual Aid Agreement begun in 2010 to provide aid in the form of personnel, facilities, and equipment to a member whose needs to address an emergency disaster exceed their own resources. The plan has been strengthened in the past year by staging an annual practice drill at a member location to assess the Consortium’s ability to provide aid and make improvements in any shortcomings revealed in the drills.

The following improvements have been made to support technology effectiveness:

The development of a comprehensive business continuity/disaster recovery plan

Establishment of enterprise standards for data access and data quality

Development of a new five-year strategic plan for University technology operations

The hiring of a Director of Information Security to address data security issues

Additionally, in the next one to three years we plan to assign a Director of IT Project Management to ensure all campus improvements include appropriate technology resources.

June 1, 2016

108 | Category Six: Quality Overview

Category Six: Quality Overview

Quality Overview focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated, and how they contribute to improvement of the institution.

CATEGORY SIX OVERVIEW

Overall, the maturity level of our processes and results across Category Six are systematic. We have repeatable processes that move us toward stated goals. We are breaking away from silos, and improving data collection and interpretation. We are also improving our use of data to drive decisions rather than using data to demonstrate we have completed activities.

While our results are systematic, we believe we are reaching the aligned level of systems maturity in our processes for Sub-category One, Quality Improvement Initiatives. Whether AQIP Action Project or University Task Force, the selection process is standardized to focus on key goals and their levels of complexity; the work spans units across the University and results are widely shared; and data is collected, interpreted, and used for decision-making regarding the key goal.

We are at a systematic maturity level in processes and results within Sub-category Two, Culture of Quality, recognizing that in our initial years on the AQIP Pathway we were more integrated in maturity in this area. Currently we are examining our culture of quality through a significant Action Project, and have specific improvements identified to support increased maturity in the coming years.

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES

6P1 Quality Improvement Initiatives focus on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiatives the institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution. Describe the processes for determining, and integrating CQI initiatives, and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Selecting, deploying, and evaluating quality improvement initiatives Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Quality Checkup, and Strategy Forums

Lewis University selects, deploys, and evaluates quality improvement initiatives through the collaboration of the University Administrative Council (UAC), the University Planning Council (UPC described in Category 4), the Performance Indicator Review Committee (PIRC, described in Category 5), Office of the Provost, and the AQIP Coordinating Committee (ACC), a cross-functional team of faculty members, administrators, and student services staff. These and other operational and advisory structures such as the Enrollment Management Office and the University Policies and Budget Review Advisory Council (UPBRAC), described in Category 4, contribute to the work of continuous improvement as a University priority. This process is grounded in the University’s Strategic Plan. Among others, the ACC provides feedback from Action Projects, Systems Appraisals, and Strategic Forums to the UPC for the development of the Strategic Plan. When completed, the new Plan becomes a source for Action Project initiatives.

June 1, 2016

Category Six: Quality Overview | 109

Figure 6.1 AQIP’s Role in Strategic Planning

With input from these councils and offices, the ACC uses criteria of scope, timing, expediency, and impact to select improvement initiatives. These are deployed through an Action Project Team that includes an ACC member liaison. The ACC supports and evaluates the project’s progress with updates at

their monthly meetings. It is the ACC that closes each project when they receive the final report from the project team and concur the stated goals have been met, and shares findings with relevant groups across the University. The ACC discusses lessons learned about the processes involved in deployment of the project to determine if improvements can be made. For example, the Action Project team for Assessment of Ethical Grounding found the scope to be too broad and the amount of work too much for the group. The ACC discussed potential improvements for future projects to be broken into smaller parts with different people involved in subsequent stages.

Figure 6.2 Completed and Ongoing Action Projects Aligned with Strategic Goals

# Lewis University Action Projects 2012-16 Status University Strategic Plan Direction

9 Graduate Capstone Project 05-2012 Complete

Distinctive Learning Experiences

10 Graduate Assessment 06-2012 Complete

Foundations for the Future

11 Mission Assessment Action Project 11-2012 Complete


12 Assessment of Ethical Grounding 08-2013 Complete


13 Student Services Goal Setting 09-2013 Complete


14 Assessing Need for a Teaching Center 03-2014 Complete

Distinctive Learning Experiences

15 Graduate Student Learning Assessment 01-2015 In Progress


16 Student Services Action and Strategic Planning Process 10-2015 In Progress


17 Identifying the Lewis University AQIP System of Practice 01-2016 in Progress

Emerging Technologies

June 1, 2016


Task forces (described in Category 4) also play a central role in analyzing new initiatives and making recommendations for changes and improvements. These are usually broader in scope and timeframe than AQIP Action Projects. A task force is formally deployed by a member of the senior leadership team who writes the specific charge. Each task force follows a process of peer comparisons, internal and external benchmarking, and recommendations for improvements.

Figure 6.3 Lewis Task Force Activity

Lewis University Task Force Activity 2012-16

Name Status Alignment with AQIP Categories

Retirement Task Force completed Valuing Employees

Intellectual Property Rights Task Force completed Valuing Employees

ACE Internationalization Task Force completed Helping Students Learn, Meeting Student & Other Key Stakeholder Needs, Planning & Leading

STEM Initiatives Task Force completed Helping Students Learn, Planning & Leading

Campus Master Plan Task Force completed Knowledge Management & Resource Stewardship

Pension Plan Task Force completed Valuing Employees, Knowledge Management & Resource Stewardship

Civic Engagement Task Force completing soon Helping Students Learn

Writing Across the Curriculum Task Force completing soon Helping Students Learn

General Education Task Force ongoing Helping Students Learn

Interdisciplinary Programs Task Force ongoing Helping Students Learn

Residence Life/Housing Task Force ongoing Meeting Student & Other Key Stakeholder Needs, Knowledge Management & Resource Stewardship

Highest priority initiatives, most often completed as action projects and task forces, conclude with preparation of reports that identify activities completed, results, analysis, conclusions reached, and recommendations for improvement. In the case of action projects, the report is received and reviewed by the ACC. Task force reports are first provided to the Provost or other senior administrator who issued the charge. In both cases, results are next shared with University committees and councils through open forums at the faculty and administrative levels. Recommendations are forwarded to appropriate administrative and faculty governance bodies for consideration and implementation.

Lewis University aligns the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Quality Checkup and Strategy Forums with other continuous improvement initiatives such as strategic planning. The ACC oversees the writing process of the Systems Portfolio that includes input from all levels of knowledge holders from the Administrative Council to unit directors. Near-finished drafts are available to all Lewis personnel for vetting before the final document is completed. This process of reviewing our processes and their results helps us identify new areas for improvement in the next year or so.

Feedback from the 2012 Systems Portfolio prompted regular analysis and discussion at ACC meetings, including prioritization of the feedback. Members of the Committee discussed feedback within the categories with the applicable department head or vice-president. In consultation with the Provost, the opportunities (O) and more significant opportunities (OO) for improvement from the Systems Portfolio feedback were discussed and organized by the framework in the following Figure 6.4.

June 1, 2016


Figure 6.4 Analysis of System Appraisal Feedback

Category Item #

HLC Feedback Applies to Strategic Issue

Needs Clarification

Needs Improvement, less of a priority

Needs Improvement, priority

Responsibility

Using this framework, appraisal feedback opportunities were organized by category with the HLC suggestion for improvement. Opportunities were then prioritized and cross-walked to the Strategic Plan. Each opportunity for improvement was then delegated to the appropriate vice-president, Provost, CEO, or Dean with oversight of that category to address the feedback with their respective team and identify an improvement action plan. Beyond discussions and planning, serious commitment from the University resulted in actions taken to address the feedback. For example, significant financial support for consultation with experts led to approval of new University Faculty By-Laws and our first Faculty Senate. Several new positions were created to improve data collection, assessment of student learning, and institutional effectiveness. Additionally, a commitment to a new ERP system to improve University data effectiveness for decision-making was carefully discussed, vetted and will be completely online by July of this year. These were also areas for improvement that came from our Quality Checkup in 2010.

Other analyses of the 2012 Systems Portfolio feedback led to action projects addressing several opportunities. We have markedly improved our assessment of student services and continually improve student experiences on campus. The most recent Student Services Action and Strategic Planning Process action project is identifying Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across the units of Student Services (e. g. Residence Life, Counseling Services, University Police, and Campus Ministry). A new position, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs for Assessment, Student Development, and Leadership was created to provide support. In many areas, we have gone beyond determining assessment measures and have developed action plans to close the loop. The most recent action project in progress, Determining the Lewis University AQIP System of Practice, will identify our best practices to improve post-action project processes with formalized procedures for dissemination, communication, and faculty/staff involvement.

The final step for aligning our quality initiatives comes through our participation in the Strategy Forum. The ACC reviews the systems appraisal feedback it receives from the form in Figure 6.4. Gaps and/or emerging themes become potential areas for developing action projects at the Strategy Forum. We use this analysis to select members of the Strategy Forum team. Action Projects #12 and #14 (see Figure 6.2) came from our 2013 Strategy Forum.

6R1 What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives?

Consistent with the Lumina Foundation’s recommendation that an integrative, culminating experience is essential in a graduate student’s program, the Office of Graduate Studies and graduate faculty undertook the Graduate Capstone AQIP Project. The project team surveyed graduate program directors and chairs to determine what kind, if any, of capstone experience is included in their programs; analyzed the results; and reviewed external benchmarks and policies. The Graduate Capstone Institutional Standards/Policies document was agreed upon for requiring and developing capstone experiences in each program.

Graduate student learning outcomes (GSLOs) were developed prior to our 2012 Systems Portfolio. Since that time, the Office of Graduate Studies and University Graduate Affairs Committee (UGAC) have developed a process and cycle for assessing these outcomes. The Graduate Assessment AQIP Project focused on GSLO # 3 - ethical and professional behaviors. The project team used the Blackboard Learn™ Outcomes Assessment system for data collection and storage and developed an assessment assignment

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/StudentServicesActionandStrategicPlanningProcess.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/IdentifyingtheLewisAQIPSystemsofPractice.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/IdentifyingtheLewisAQIPSystemsofPractice.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/GraduateCapstoneInstitutionalStandards.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/GraduateCapstoneInstitutionalStandards.pdf

June 1, 2016


and rubric. They also initiated a faculty development program to prepare faculty to use and interpret the rubric, set targets, collect data, and evaluate results. While there was insufficient evidence to make institutional decisions from the assessment data due to a low level of participation, the results of this initial effort revealed areas for refinement of the process. These include fine-tuning the rubric, and making assessment a seamless part of the instructor’s normal grading activity to simultaneously provide helpful feedback to the student and quality data for assessment of this learning outcome. The findings were presented to graduate program directors and UGAC and will inform assessment of the next GLSO in the graduate assessment cycle.

Although Lewis is well known for the emphasis on our Lasallian Mission, we had not assessed its effectiveness. The AQIP Mission Assessment Action Project team identified the specific measures appropriate to mission, defined an effective mission assessment process, reviewed other existing

assessment tools, and then developed a Lewis-specific mission assessment tool. The project team administered the assessment electronically for a week in April 2015. Respondents rated their awareness and importance of 44 dimensions of the Mission and Lewis’ effectiveness at promoting each of them. This assessment resulted in a baseline measure for the three variables in 44 dimensions for comparison, with the next assessment scheduled for spring 2017. Moreover, faculty and staff leaders in the Mission and Ministry Division and the Mission and Heritage Council reviewed the data for potential future improvement initiatives. (See 4.P. 1. and 4.R. 1)

The Assessment of Ethical Grounding AQIP action project was an outcome of our 2013 Strategy Forum. Its purpose was developing an institution-wide plan to assess our Baccalaureate Characteristic of Moral and Ethical Decision-Making. It used a rubric based on the AAC&U Value Rubric and included assessment of non-academic programs using a similar rubric or instrument. The team developed a case study from which students wrote essays to reveal their level of ethical maturity. The assessment was administered in both upper division undergraduate and graduate classes in 32 academic programs. The results provide a baseline measure for future assessment. This Action Project team noted that an assessment tool that meshes seamlessly into regular class assignments would be more useful than an additional assignment. This recommendation was similar to one coming from the assessment of GSLO #3.

As Lewis embarked on a new strategic plan in 2012, this coincided with the beginning of a goal setting endeavor by Student Services. Goal setting had a very positive effect on the managers involved. They decided to create, further develop, and share a standardized goal setting process for non-academic departments and test a means of identifying goals aligned to the University Strategic Plan and other internal and external goals. Prior to this Division’s effort, there was no similar process for goal setting and no goal-related data captured for process and systemic improvement. Nine directors of Student Services departments developed their own goals in alignment with Lewis’ Strategic Plan. This project facilitated creation of a strategic initiative to support both Student Services’ goals and the University Strategic Plan. Maintaining the momentum, Student Services staff followed with a second AQIP Action Project to develop action plans and key performance indicators that demonstrate goal achievement. This project will serve as a template to be shared and potentially adopted in other non-academic divisions where assessment is not as routine or developed as it is in academic areas.

A major result of the Assessing the Need for a Teaching Center Action Project was the broader consideration of faculty development that led to a restructuring of our teaching and learning activities into the Faculty Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (FCATL) described in Category One. This project began as an idea at our last Strategy Forum.

Other key improvement results from task forces include an Intellectual Property Rights policy, recommendations from ACE for achieving comprehensive internationalization at Lewis (which could



http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/AssessingtheNeedforCentralizingTeachingandLearningServices.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/AssessingtheNeedforCentralizingTeachingandLearningServices.pdf

http://www.lewisu.edu/AQIP/IntellectualPropertyRightsPolicy.pdf

June 1, 2016


become an AQIP Action Project), and acquisition, construction, and renovation of buildings for more academic and residential space.

6I1 Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Our success in several action projects led us to subsequent improvements in the same areas, such as the Student Services example in Category 6R1, or prompted new action projects and task forces. As the culture of continuous improvement becomes part of the Lewis culture, there is no shortage of opportunities presented. The ACC coordinates the two-way communication between initiatives proposed by the Lewis leadership, and proposals coming from faculty and staff.

We are currently completing an Action Project identifying practices that align and integrate our AQIP action project activities within other University processes and planning. This will lead to a clear set of expectations for the AQIP Coordinating Team to use with current and future action projects - the “explicit, predictable processes” that demonstrate an integrated stage of systems maturity. This is an important next quality improvement initiative discussed further in the next section.

Beyond this, other quality improvement initiatives that may be implemented in the near future are directed at both distinct populations of students, and broad systemic improvements. For example, new models for adult learning, co-curricular transcript implementation, and new approaches to student advisement are specific initiatives that come from our assessment of student satisfaction (see Category 2). Other action projects that are more systematic in nature include analyzing the integration of liberal learning and professional education, and developing and utilizing more robust predictive analytics for continuous quality improvement. As we look toward the arrival of our new President in July, his involvement will be solicited before final decisions for quality improvement initiatives are determined.

CULTURE OF QUALITY

6P2 Culture of Quality focuses on how the institution integrates continuous quality improvement into its culture. Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for: Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood impact on

institutional culture and operations (5.D.1) Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives (5.D.2) Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the

institution

Lewis has a clear process for developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality. The ACC, coordinated through the Office of the Provost, ensures our Pathway activities are aligned with the Mission and Strategic Plan. With a cross-functional membership of administrators, faculty, and staff, the ACC is linked to all University groups. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) has representation on the ACC to ensure our work is data-driven. The ACC Director (a faculty member) sits on the Performance Indicator Review Committee (PIRC) that reviews and interprets institutional survey results. The Provost and CFO ensure quality improvement initiatives are provided with necessary resources. In 2015, an existing administrative position was realigned with University need, and an Associate Provost for Academic Administration and Accreditation is now charged with supporting accreditation and regulatory compliance. This position is also the liaison between the Provost’s Office and accreditation efforts across the University, including the ACC. The ACC periodically reports to UPBRAC (described in 4P3) regarding quality initiatives. Finally, the ACC has a succession

June 1, 2016


process for the AQIP Directorship that includes a one or two year shadowing period before taking office, with the outgoing Director continuing in a mentor role for two years. The ACC has responsibility to review, reaffirm, and communicate the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the University, and is charged with ensuring that CQI is making an evident and widely understood impact on institutional culture and operations. In addition to presentations to UAC and UPBRAC, ACC explains our CQI processes as part of new employee orientation processes described in Category Three. Another venue for sharing CQI impact is the President’s annual State of the University address. For several years ACC held an AQIP Open House; however this was discontinued when attendance dropped as CQI became embedded in the life of the University. Through our current Action Project we are now investigating other potential approaches to bring CQI into the spotlight. (5.D.1)

Lewis learns from its CQI initiatives, whether successful or not. Several processes are in place to assure this. The ACC debriefs at the closure of all Action Projects to identify the lessons learned, and which University stakeholders can benefit from this knowledge. This is why each project has an ACC liaison as a member. The UAC member of ACC shares what we have learned with that administrative body, and in turn, other divisions. Recent examples include the quality initiatives for assessing ethical grounding. In addition to identifying where students are in their progress to our student learning outcomes in ethics, we also learned that an added-on assessment tool and process is work intensive and less likely to be embraced by the faculty than an assessment embedded within a course assignment. These results have been shared with the Provost, academic deans, faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, and the University Academic Affairs Committee. This knowledge applies to a context broader than this one action project and will help us become more mature about assessment of all learning outcomes. (5.D.2)

6R2 What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality?

Because we know that CQI is not possible without a data system, we have invested in the new ERP system described in Category Five, and OIRP has created a series of dashboards that make data easy to review, interpret, and act on. We have also sent more ACC members to the HLC Conference to gain a broader understanding of the alignment of Action Projects, the Systems Portfolio and Appraisal, Strategy Forum, and the CQR.

In examining our culture of quality, we have found two gaps. Over the last year, the ACC identified a gap in the broader University understanding of how we sustain activities and continue to use the results of work initiated by AQIP action projects. Action projects are viewed by some faculty and staff members as discrete projects rather than part of a sustained and integrated web of practices. As the number of closed action projects increases (currently 15), this becomes increasingly more difficult.

We also observed that we need to reconsider our assumption that most people understand our CQI processes. With increased hiring and limited university-wide training in AQIP CQI processes, not everyone understands the overarching reasons we employ AQIP practices.

6I2 Based on 6R2, what improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

To further advance the sustainability of all action projects, in January 2016, Lewis began the highly comprehensive “meta” action project, Identifying the Lewis University AQIP System of Practice. This will identify the practices that align and integrate our AQIP action project activities within other University processes and planning. A clear set of expectations will be identified for the AQIP Coordinating Team to use with current and future action projects - the “explicit, predictable processes” that demonstrate HLC’s integrated stage of systems maturity. Given the broad, institutional nature of this Action Project, members of the working group represent stakeholder groups from across many areas of the university

June 1, 2016


including academic affairs, student life, and business/finance. This work begin with a self-assessment of our CQI processes, addressing the first gap identified in 6R2.

As we continue to charter and close individual action projects, the activities of this comprehensive initiative will assure the ongoing contributions our action projects make to continuous quality improvement. It will also identify the connections of past and future action projects with our Systems Portfolios, Quality Checkups, and Strategy Forums. Additionally, making more transparent the valuable work of Action Project teams, as they continue to inform and improve institutional practices, will further validate the engagement and recognition of stakeholders from across the University who have been involved in action projects and the larger AQIP pathway. This action project could well become a “best practice” initiative.

Lewis University is well-positioned to move forward with continuous improvements in the future. This will occur as a result of significant institutional changes and resource commitments over the last four years.

As noted in previous AQIP reviews, the absence a robust data management system has inhibited our processes and results. We have clearly improved data collection tools, processes, personnel and analysis over the last four years. However the largest movement forward, will come from our current investment of human and financial capital in selecting and implementing a new ERP system, the associated analysis programs, and the Blackboard student learning assessment module. We are confident this improvement in data efficiency will support data-informed decisions and improve systems maturity across the institution. After many years as an AQIP participant, Lewis has taken the crucial step of implementing this new ERP system. This major initiative culminates years of initiatives to strengthen data-based decision-making. The future impact of this comprehensive systems enhancement will be substantial.

Another significant improvement at Lewis with implications for systems maturity is the development and passage of new University Faculty By-Laws. This marks a move from an organizational structure of individual college initiatives toward greater unification and collaboration across colleges. The new By-Laws provide us with a University faculty governance structure (Senate) and processes to increase transparency, association and integration of processes and results. This improvement will support additional system improvements over the next three years.

The inauguration of a new Lewis University President, our first presidential transition in 28 years, marks a third significant undertaking. His selection was a collaborative effort of the Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, students, and University leadership. This transition comes at a good moment in time as the current strategic plan concludes in 2017, and work on the next University vision and strategic plan will begin in the coming year. This strategic planning process will integrate, as did the current vision and strategic plan, our Mission values and AQIP Pathway categories.

Lewis has made significant strides in moving its culture of quality further forward in the coming years. We are committed, through our Mission, strategic plan and continuous improvement processes, to advance student success, achieve institutional distinction and have a positive impact upon our region.



http://www.lewisu.edu/presidential-search/newpresident.htm

http://www.lewisu.edu/presidential-search/newpresident.htm

aqipsystems portfolio - lewis university university 2016 systems portfolio.pdf · portfolio. june....

Documents