lily hwang, director, institutional research juliana lancaster, director, institutional...
TRANSCRIPT
DESIGNING ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH FOR A
NEW INSTITUTION
Lily Hwang, Director, Institutional ResearchJuliana Lancaster, Director, Institutional
Effectiveness
Georgia Gwinnett College
Origins
4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia
Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005 President hired in September 2005 Campus opened with 118 students and
10 faculty in August 2006 Home of the Grizzlies!
Current Status Students:
Fall 2007 Enrollment: Headcount 787 Spring 2007 Enrollment: Headcount 867 Fall 2008 Enrollment: Headcount 1563
Faculty (Fall 2008): Instructional full-time faculty: 120 Instructional part-time
faculty: 10
Facilities: 6 Buildings: A, B, C, D (Student Services Ctr), E (Valentine
Bldg), F (Fitness Ctr) Building E not occupied yet Total: 474,351 square feet
Parking Deck: 734 cars Total acreage: >200
Four Degree Programs BBA, Business; BS, Biology; BS, Information Technology; BS,
Psychology
Reimagining Higher Education for the 21st Century
Commitment at every level to student learning and effectiveness
Institutional focus on interdisciplinary/ integrated education
Openness to going “outside the box” – provided there is a plan for assessment
Created the opportunity for a ground-up design of an INSTITUTIONAL assessment plan and of well-integrated institutional research functions
Institutional Effectiveness:
Initial Design The First Full Year Lessons Learned Next Steps
Institutional Effectiveness: Initial Design
Advantages of starting from scratch Strong executive level support for and understanding of
IE Limited number of programs and offices at start-up Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures
Disadvantages to starting from scratch Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures Each individual brings a different set of assumptions
and expectations Rapid growth and hiring leads to continuous need for
explanation/education
Institutional Effectiveness:Initial Design (2006-07)
In order to get “…ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes…[SACS]” for we needed: Structure and resources Broad buy-in, consensus and agreement
Working “ground rules” Institution-wide and pervasive Integrated with institution’s mission & strategic plan Faculty/staff participation and basic control Interdisciplinary and developmental assessment of student
learning
Institutional Effectiveness:Initial Design (2006-07)
Program level student learning outcomes and assessment plans General Education curriculum designed around student learning
outcomes Agreement to develop and assess for institutional student
learning outcomes Agreement to integrate curricular and co-curricular student
learning efforts Leading to: Integrated Educational Experience (IEE) Student
Learning Outcome Goals for GGC
Institutional Effectiveness:Continuing Design (2007-08)
Integrated Educational Experience SLO Goals
Institutional Goals
Administrative Unit Outcome Goals
General Education GoalsProgram of Study Goals
Course Goals
Lesson Objectives
Student Affairs Goals
Student Affairs Activity Goals
Conceptual Relationships Among Outcome Goals and Objectives
Institutional Effectiveness:Continuing Design (2007-08)
Organizational Structure to Manage Resulting Flood of Data
IEE Goal Team• Interdisciplinary• Operationally define & plan
assessment(s)• Integrated review of program findings
IEE Assessment Review Committee• Communication• Integrated review of IEE assessment results
Assessment Steering Committee• Integrated review of all assessment results• Strategic analysis of results; impact on strategic plans
Administrative Review Committee
General Education CommitteeGeneral Education Goal Teams
Program Goal Teams
Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year
Planning All operating units, both academic and administrative
developed assessment plans. Academic units focused on course-level, embedded
assessments. All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing
and planning assessment. Goal teams developed operational definitions of each
institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)
Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year
Execution All units attempted to fully execute their assessment
plans Some outcomes were not measurable Some measures called for unobtainable data
All units were able to collect valid data on at least one outcome
Most units were able to identify at least one needed action in response to assessment 60% identified needed changes in curriculum or
operations 34% identified needed changes in assessment plans
Institutional Effectiveness: Lessons Learned
Challenges & Lessons Learned Implementing program-level assessment plans while still developing
the institutional framework Communicating the history of and basis for having both General
Education and IEE student learning outcomes at the institutional level Articulating the initial task of the Goal Teams: To operationally define
each Student Learning Outcome Managing expectations at multiple levels
Institutional Effectiveness: Next Steps
Next Steps Review the conceptual and actual relationships between the two sets
of institution-wide student learning outcomes Initiate a campus-wide discussion about whether or not to make
changes and, what those might be Continue developing a broad base of informed, skilled individuals
across campus to lead assessment efforts. Continue efforts to establish systematic, manageable assessment at
all levels
Institutional Research:
Unique Setting/Environment
Major Tasks
Major Challenges
Institutional Environment Banner hosted institution -- technical
environment located at a central location – Office of Information & Instructional Technology (OIIT)
Internal support available for IR: a core data manager (Banner function person), and a programmer (IT).
Institutional Research
Major Tasks To learn legacy data system, e.g., Student
Information Reporting System (SIRS) and Curriculum Inventory Reporting (CIR), etc.
To learn USG reports, e.g., Semester Enrollment Report (SER)—their definitions.
To learn new Academic Data Mart (ADM) systems.
Producing reports (routines, ad hoc/internal & external).
Producing the College Fact Book.
Institutional Research
New Major Task
Began IPEDS reporting Began many other surveys:
CUPA Faculty Salary Survey (began earlier) National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (did
not have data due to non-Title IV status at the data point)
The Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE), National Student Clearinghouse—supported by USG.
Institutional Research
Major Challenges Entering in the transitional period from the
legacy data system to new ADM system; allowing very brief learning curve.
Learning together with other Units, e.g., the Registrar’s Office, Human Resources; requiring close relationships.
Institutional Research
Example: A collaborative effort on establishing a CIP list
representing GGC’s teaching disciplines/areas.
Why is this important for GGC? GGC does not have departments. School >>Major (program) >>
Tracks/Concentration
Institutional Research
IE and IR As does every unit of GGC, IR operates within
the college framework IE facilitates and monitors.
Specific tasks for IR in support of IE operations: Institutional information request for accreditation
purposes Information support for assessment projects, e.g.,
NSSE and Course Evaluations Anticipated tasks for IE in support of IR
Providing benchmark and assessment data for Fact Book
Collaboration in design of specific studies
Institutional Research
Questions & Comments
Presenters: Juliana Lancaster
Director, Institutional Effectiveness
[email protected] Lily Hwang
Director, Institutional [email protected]
THANK YOU!