Action
Project
|
|
Institution:
|
University of Saint
Mary
|
|
Submitted:
|
2007-01-15
|
|
| Timeline: |
Planned
project kickoff date: 2007-01-20
Target completion date: 2008-01-01
Actual completion date: |
| A.
Give this Action Project a short title in 10 words or fewer: |
| Data-based
Decision Making--Phase II |
| |
| B.
Describe this Action Project's goal in 100 words or fewer: |
| Successful
completion of this project will allow us to move toward a closed
loop system for ongoing improvement university-wide by establishing
leading indicators, aligning assessment tools and describing
procedures for measuring institutional effectiveness. A systems
approach will allow us to access and use relevant data/information
and processes for institutional decision-making. This project
will be Phase 2 of a multi-phased approach -- we will establish
leading indicators for institutional measures of effectiveness;
align existing, relevant assessment tools; identify/develop new
tools; and describe the process for data-based decision making. |
|
C. Identify the single AQIP Category
which the Action Project will most affect or impact:
|
|
Primary Category: Planning Continuous
Improvement
|
|
D. Describe
briefly your institution's reasons for taking on this Action
Project now -- why the project and its goals are high among your
current priorities:
|
|
The need to create more systemic
and systematic processes for data based decision-making has been
voiced at many levels, including recent feedback from employees
asked to help identify Action Projects for AQIP. The need for
this project has been stressed as a result of two initiatives:
1) a 3-year academic assessment initiative, driven by faculty
and staff, highlighted the need for systematic integration of
academic data with a university-wide comprehensive system for
data collection, analysis, and decision-making; and 2) our self
assessment and feedback through Kansas Award for Excellence reinforced
our need for formalized processes that ensure institutional effectiveness
through data-based decision making. The Summer 2005 conversion
to an integrated information system allows us to create and manage
a clearinghouse of data collection activities and processes for
reports that are easily accessible and that ensure relevant data
are used for informed decisions.
E. List the organizational areas - -institutional departments, programs,
divisions, or units -- most affected by or involved in this Action Project:
All stakeholders will benefit from a comprehensive system that enables
sound rationales for institutional decisions as evidenced by supporting
data, including formal student and stakeholder input. Our primary stakeholders,
SCLs and Alumnae, will be able to track how strategic initiatives are
decided based on trend analysis and to monitor the impact of their financial
support in light of mission driven priorities. Additionally, student
learning will be enhanced by the identification, analysis, and integration
of trend data from both academic and student life. Students will benefit
because they will be able to monitor their progress on learning outcomes
throughout their programs and their advisors will become more effective
in recommending learning experiences that address their development needs.
F. Name and describe briefly the key organizational process(es)
that you expect this Action Project to change or improve:
This project will result in enhanced employee input in decisions leading
to improvements and change. Because we intend an integrated, systemic
process for decision-making, all employees will have a (routine) level
of involvement. Employees will have access to relevant information for
analyzing progress and determining their priorities. Their efficiency
and effectiveness will be increased because redundant paperwork will
be reduced and scheduled and timely report information for assessing
progress and outcomes will be provided. This will increase buy-in and
morale and mitigate anxiety toward institutional change. Clearer expectations
and rationale for priorities will be possible, thus unifying and mobilizing
staff efforts. Employee satisfaction will also be evaluated and shared.
G. Explain the rationale for the length of time planned for this Action
Project (from kickoff to target completion):
In Phase I we evaluated and prioritized existing tools that measure institutional
effectiveness. We will build upon and extend this work in Phase II as
we finalize the leading indicators for university-wide assessment and
develop additional tools to ensure a comprehensive, yet streamlined data-based
system for decision making. It is anticipated that we can complete this
within 12 months, with the first 3 months dedicated to collaborative
identification of leading indicators. The remaining 9 months will be
devoted to identification and/or development of additional tools and
the alignment of all assessment tools to the leading indicators.
H. Describe how you plan to monitor how successfully your efforts on
this Action Project are progressing:
A designated committee will complete Phase II of this Action Project.
Work will be divided among members and monthly meetings will be used
for status reports and problem-solving. The committee chair will monitor
progress toward meeting the established timelines and will report to
the President and AQIP team on progress.
I. Describe the overall "outcome" measures or indicators that
will tell you whether this Action Project has been a success or failure
in achieving its goals:
A report will be produced that describes the leading indicators for institutional
measures of effectiveness; aligns assessment tools to indicators and
to AQIP criteria; specifies the responsible parties for data collection
and analysis; and describes the process for using data and trend analysis
across the university.
J. Other information (e.g., publicity, sponsor or champion, etc.):
Institution: University of Saint Mary
Submitted: 2006-01-18
Timeline:
Planned project kickoff date: 2007-01-16
Target completion date: 2008-01-16
Actual completion date:
A. Give this Action Project a short title in 10 words or fewer:
Data-based Decision Making--Phase II
B. Describe this Action Project's goal in 100 words or fewer:
Successful completion of this project will allow us to move toward a
closed loop system for ongoing improvement university-wide by establishing
leading indicators, aligning assessment tools and describing procedures
for measuring institutional effectiveness. A systems approach will allow
us to access and use relevant data/information and processes for institutional
decision-making. This project will be Phase 2 of a multi-phased approach
-- we will establish leading indicators for institutional measures of
effectiveness; align existing, relevant assessment tools; identify/develop
new tools; and describe the process for data-based decision making.
C. Identify the single AQIP Category which the Action Project will most
affect or impact:
Primary Category: Planning Continuous Improvement
D. Describe briefly your institution's reasons for taking on this Action
Project now -- why the project and its goals are high among your current
priorities:
The need to create more systemic and systematic processes for data based
decision-making has been voiced at many levels, including recent feedback
from employees asked to help identify Action Projects for AQIP. The need
for this project has been stressed as a result of two initiatives: 1)
a 3-year academic assessment initiative, driven by faculty and staff,
highlighted the need for systematic integration of academic data with
a university-wide comprehensive system for data collection, analysis,
and decision-making; and 2) our self assessment and feedback through
Kansas Award for Excellence reinforced our need for formalized processes
that ensure institutional effectiveness through data-based decision making.
The Summer 2005 conversion to an integrated information system allows
us to create and manage a clearinghouse of data collection activities
and processes for reports that are easily accessible and that ensure
relevant data are used for informed decisions.
E. List the organizational areas - -institutional departments, programs,
divisions, or units -- most affected by or involved in this Action Project:
All stakeholders will benefit from a comprehensive system that enables
sound rationales for institutional decisions as evidenced by supporting
data, including formal student and stakeholder input. Our primary stakeholders,
SCLs and Alumnae, will be able to track how strategic initiatives are
decided based on trend analysis and to monitor the impact of their financial
support in light of mission driven priorities. Additionally, student
learning will be enhanced by the identification, analysis, and integration
of trend data from both academic and student life. Students will benefit
because they will be able to monitor their progress on learning outcomes
throughout their programs and their advisors will become more effective
in recommending learning experiences that address their development needs.
F. Name and describe briefly the key organizational process(es)
that you expect this Action Project to change or improve:
This project will result in enhanced employee input in decisions leading
to improvements and change. Because we intend an integrated, systemic
process for decision-making, all employees will have a (routine) level
of involvement. Employees will have access to relevant information for
analyzing progress and determining their priorities. Their efficiency
and effectiveness will be increased because redundant paperwork will
be reduced and scheduled and timely report information for assessing
progress and outcomes will be provided. This will increase buy-in and
morale and mitigate anxiety toward institutional change. Clearer expectations
and rationale for priorities will be possible, thus unifying and mobilizing
staff efforts. Employee satisfaction will also be evaluated and shared.
G. Explain the rationale for the length of time planned for this Action
Project (from kickoff to target completion):
In Phase I we evaluated and prioritized existing tools that measure institutional
effectiveness. We will build upon and extend this work in Phase II as
we finalize the leading indicators for university-wide assessment and
develop additional tools to ensure a comprehensive, yet streamlined data-based
system for decision making. It is anticipated that we can complete this
within 12 months, with the first 3 months dedicated to collaborative
identification of leading indicators. The remaining 9 months will be
devoted to identification and/or development of additional tools and
the alignment of all assessment tools to the leading indicators.
H. Describe how you plan to monitor how successfully your efforts on
this Action Project are progressing:
A designated committee will complete Phase II of this Action Project.
Work will be divided among members and monthly meetings will be used
for status reports and problem-solving. The committee chair will monitor
progress toward meeting the established timelines and will report to
the President and AQIP team on progress.
I. Describe the overall "outcome" measures or indicators that
will tell you whether this Action Project has been a success or failure
in achieving its goals:
A report will be produced that describes the leading indicators for institutional
measures of effectiveness; aligns assessment tools to indicators and
to AQIP criteria; specifies the responsible parties for data collection
and analysis; and describes the process for using data and trend analysis
across the university.
J. Other information (e.g., publicity, sponsor or champion, etc.):
The need to create more systemic and systematic processes for data based
decision-making has been voiced at many levels, including recent feedback
from employees asked to help identify Action Projects for AQIP. The need
for this project has been stressed as a result of two initiatives: 1)
a 3-year academic assessment initiative, driven by faculty and staff,
highlighted the need for systematic integration of academic data with
a university-wide comprehensive system for data collection, analysis,
and decision-making; and 2) our self assessment and feedback through
Kansas Award for Excellence reinforced our need for formalized processes
that ensure institutional effectiveness through data-based decision making.
The Summer 2005 conversion to an integrated information system allows
us to create and manage a clearinghouse of data collection activities
and processes for reports that are easily accessible and that ensure
relevant data are used for informed decisions.
|
|
E.
List the organizational areas - -institutional departments, programs,
divisions, or units -- most affected by or involved in this Action
Project:
|
|
All organizational areas will
be directly involved in this Action Project since they must finalize
the assessment tools and benchmarks by which we assess our overall
effectiveness. The academic and student life divisions will finalize
the processes and benchmarks for achieving student success and
satisfaction. Admissions, marketing, and institutional advancement
departments will finalize reports and processes for increasing
enrollment, recognition, and fundraising goals. The operations
division will align assessment tools, processes, and reports
so that financial and employee satisfaction targets can be monitored.
The Information Services division will be most affected by providing
support to all divisions in establishing reporting protocols.
|
|
F.
Name and describe briefly the key organizational process(es)
that you expect this Action Project to change or improve:
|
|
This project will result in enhanced
employee input in decisions leading to improvements and change.
Because we intend an integrated, systemic process for decision-making,
all employees will have a (routine) level of involvement. Employees
will have access to relevant information for analyzing progress
and determining their priorities. Their efficiency and effectiveness
will be increased because redundant paperwork will be reduced
and scheduled and timely report information for assessing progress
and outcomes will be provided. This will increase buy-in and
morale and mitigate anxiety toward institutional change. Clearer
expectations and rationale for priorities will be possible, thus
unifying and mobilizing staff efforts. Employee satisfaction
will also be evaluated and shared.
|
|
G.
Explain the rationale for the length of time planned for this
Action Project (from kickoff to target completion):
|
|
In Phase I we evaluated and prioritized
existing tools that measure institutional effectiveness. We will
build upon and extend this work in Phase II as we finalize the
leading indicators for university-wide assessment and develop
additional tools to ensure a comprehensive, yet streamlined data-based
system for decision making. It is anticipated that we can complete
this within 12 months, with the first 3 months dedicated to collaborative
identification of leading indicators. The remaining 9 months
will be devoted to identification and/or development of additional
tools and the alignment of all assessment tools to the leading
indicators.
|
|
H.
Describe how you plan to monitor how successfully your efforts
on this Action Project are progressing:
|
|
The Administrative Council will
designate committee members to complete Phase II of this Action
Project. Work will be divided among members and monthly meetings
will be used for status reports and problem-solving. The committee
chair will monitor progress toward meeting the established timelines
and will report to the President and AQIP team on progress.
|
|
I. Describe the overall "outcome" measures
or indicators that will tell you whether this Action Project
has been a success or failure in achieving its goals:
|
|
A report will be produced that
describes the leading indicators for institutional measures of
effectiveness; aligns assessment tools to indicators and to AQIP
criteria; specifies the responsible parties for data collection
and analysis; and describes the process for using data and trend
analysis across the university.
|
|
J. Other information (e.g., publicity,
sponsor or champion, etc.):
|
|
|
|
Last Action Project Update: 2007-09-11
|
|
A. Describe the past year's accomplishments
and the current status of this Action Project.
|
|
The assessment team has made
significant progress on this action project. The project now
a) Describes the leading indicators and benchmarks for institutional
effectiveness
Learning Framework Matrix, which identifies indicators and benchmarks
for student learning outcomes, was finalized and distributed May 11,
2007 and identifies specific outcomes to be taught and assessed within
every general education requirement.
b) Aligns assessment tools to indicators and to AQIP criteria
Descriptive University Learning Outcome Rubrics and Rating Scale were
finalized and distributed May 11, 2007. Rating scale describes levels
of competence for rubrics (0-9 scale) to be used regardless of course
level or student year. Rubrics, rating scales, and syllabi guidelines
distributed by e-mail and on eSpire May 11 and August 1, 2007.
The Administrative Council (President and VPs) is overseeing a process
for identifying and distilling key indicators from administrative areas
for the comprehensive (university) assessment piece of
alignment with AQIP Criteria.
c) Specifies the responsible parties for data collection and analysis
Database requirements identified and Jenzabar EX user defined fields
for University Learning Outcomes (ULOs)
established April 07. ULO fields for all General Education requirements/courses
completed. Data collection and entry procedures and personnel requirements
identified—to be finalized October 07 and piloted December 2007.
d) Describes the process for using information and trend analysis across
the university
Reporting requirements have been identified. Reporting will be integrated
within the existing OnGoing Improvement (OGI) process and template. Methodology
and procedures for aggregating, distributing, and showcasing results
will be identified Fall 2007.
|
|
B. Describe how the institution
involved people in work on this Action Project.
|
|
A sub-group of the Assessment
Committee planned the process and did the logistical work. They
sought input, review and approval from the Academic Leadership
Council made up of department chairs and from the Assessment
Committee as a whole. They presented and led discussions with
the faculty as a whole on at least 3 occasions at Faculty Senate,
inservice days, and on the eSpire group site dedicated to the
Learning Framework and Assessing ULOs.
|
|
C. Describe your planned next
steps for this Action Project.
|
|
Field testing of the data collection
process will occur in Fall 2007. The data entry screens will
be finalized and the procedures and personnel for data collection,
entry, and analysis will be written-up and distributed. Training
as needed will occur. After field testing, review of the data
points and procedures, with the possibility for revision, will
occur at the beginning of the Spring 2008 semester. Report of
preliminary results and implications will be prepared.
|
|
D. Describe any "effective
practice(s)" that resulted from your work on this Action
Project.
|
|
To identify appropriate measures
for learning outcomes, faculty need to have the flexibility to
consider, dialogue, and plan for multiple ways of representing
student achievement. Faculty were offered this latitude during
Faculty Fall Institute when they considered a variety of research-based
instructional approaches that would enable students to achieve
and represent the learning outcomes through a variety of modalities.
|
|
E. What challenges, if any, are
you still facing in regards to this Action Project?
|
|
|
|
F. If you would like to discuss
the possibility of AQIP providing you help to stimulate progress
on this action project, explain your need(s) here and tell us
who to contact and when?
|
|
|