Unit Level Strategic Planning: Action Plans & Indicators – Progress and Next Steps

Unit Level Strategic Planning: Action Plans & Indicators –

Progress and Next Steps

May 6, 2009Pat Hulsebosch, Executive Director -

Office of Academic Quality and Planning

http://quality.gallaudet.edu

Strategic Planning Background Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness

◦Examples from GU Indicators Unit Level Planning and Assessment

◦Examples from other universities Cross Unit Share and Tell Next Steps

Action Plans & Indicators – Progress and Next Steps

Gallaudet had a history of creating strategic plan documents, with limited implementation focus

The current process was initiated by the Academic Quality and Planning Committee of AQP early in 2008: GU Strategic Plan: 2007-2011

The goal in 2008-2009 was to pilot a process of planning and tracking progress of GU SP 2007-2011 at the institutional and unit levels

Meanwhile, the Goals of 2007-2011 are being sharpened in Vision 2015

Strategic Planning Background

MSCHE: Standard 7 The institution has developed and implemented an

assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.

Monitoring Report (March 1, 2010) must document: …Ongoing implementation of a comprehensive,

organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness (Standard 7)

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Sharpened Strategic Planning: Comparison

Strategic Plan 2007-2011Strategic Plan: 2010-2015 (Proposed)

1) ASL/English Bilingual Environment

2) Rigorous programs for enrollment, retention, and graduation

3) Climate of respect for diversity

4) Research, development and outreach

5) Efficient and effective use of resources

1. Grow GU’s enrollment2. Improve 6-yr graduation rate3. Identify a core set of

programs

4. Research, development and outreach

5. Sustainable resource base

Cross-cutting Influences: Deaf-Gain/Bilingual, Diversity, Partnerships, International, Virtual

Gallaudet’s MISSION

Institutional Effectiveness includes…

Program Effectiveness:how well the unit/program is achieving its goals of supporting the institutional priorities.

• Student Learning:what students are able to do as a result of completing your program or as a result of using your services

It’s a subcomponent of overall program effectiveness assessment

Institutional Effectiveness Indicators

•GU Campus Climate Survey•Diversity Intergroup Dialogues Assessment

National Survey Student EngagementGU ASL and Writing Rubrics

1.1 Raise levels of fluency and literacy in ASL and English that will permit direct communication in academic settings.

1.2 Build community consensus on the meaning and implementation of bilingual education at Gallaudet.

2.1 Enroll, retain, and graduate a diverse and talented student population.

2.2 Provide an academically challenging general studies, major and graduate level curriculum with both academic and co-curricular support.

2.4 Link classroom and experiential learning by leveraging Gallaudet’s location in Washington, DC

3.3 Construct institutional systems designed to promote the free exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives.

Strategic Plan 2007-2011- Focus Objectives

The 2009 replicates the GUCC Survey piloted and administered in 2007 and 2008.

The GU CC Survey consists of 40 items, each describing a climate characteristic. The GUCC Survey items were on the 2003 consultant report, and can be grouped into six subscales. The survey also includes three open-ended questions.

The 2009 GU CC Survey response rate was 27%, which is a 43% decrease from 2008. Highest response was from faculty and professional staff (50-60% of total). Though this year’s response rate was lower, it was not unusual for surveys.

GU Institutional Strategic Plan Indicator: Campus Climate Survey (GUCCS) 2009

GU CCS Institutional Data: Campus Climate Survey


Q14 – There is access to meetings and events for all of the diverse language users at Gallaudet 64%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q22 - There are appropriate and adequate means of evaluating ASL proficiency within my unit 41% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree

Q19 - There are appropriate and adequate means of evaluating English proficiency within my unit 38% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree

NOTE: Responses were grouped by Positive (Agree/Strongly Agree), Negative (Disagree/Strongly Disagree), and Neutral. Response % shown indicates one of these three groupings.

Other Indicators: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), GU Writing Rubric score summaries, GU ASL Rubric score summaries


1.2 Build community consensus on the meaning and implementation of bilingual education at Gallaudet

Q 4 - The concept of bilingualism is clearly articulated at Gallaudet 42% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree



Q5 – Students are taught and encouraged to observe standards of academic integrity: 53%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q10 – Faculty model appropriate standards of academic integrityo 51%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q37 – Individual faculty set clear standards for academic performance, and challenge students to meet themo 51%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q15 – Students are held to consistent but reasonable standards of academic performanceo 44%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q27 – Academic depts are working together to establish consistent standards for academic performanceo 42%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Other Indicators: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Internship #’s and Location, Student-Faculty Research Outcomes

GU CCS Institutional Data: Campus Climate Survey 3.3 Construct institutional systems designed to promote the free exchange of

information, ideas, and perspectives. Q21 – Mutual respect is encouraged and practiced among my peers (students, staff,

faculty, administration) --60%= Agree or Strongly Agree Q 24- Mutual respect is encouraged and practiced between and among groups

o 47%= Agree or Strongly Agree Q2 – The university actively demonstrates multiculturalism and social

justice..throughout the university communityo 46%= Agree or Strongly Agree

Q31- Decision making at all levels is inclusive and transparento 59% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree

Q33- Transparent and informed communication is practiced throughout the university communityo 49% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree

Q30- Information flows upward and is recognized at higher levels of the administrationo 45% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree

Q16- There is a sense of security and freedom to express diverse perspectiveso 43% = Disagree or Strongly Disagree Other Indicators: National Survey of

Student Engagement (NSSE), Intergroup Dialogue Surveys

GU CCS Institutional Data: Intergroup Dialogue Outcomes

3.3 Construct institutional systems designed to promote the free exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives. Learning Outcomes: Campus-Wide Dialogue on Sexual Orientation (Spring) N=58

As a result of the dialogue group I learned more about oppression and privilege.

As a result of the dialogue group I positively changed my opinion of others.

As a result of the dialogue group I strengthened my pride in who I am. i.e., accepting my life experiences, family, background, race, ethnicity, gender, social economic status, religion, sexual orientation.

As a result of the dialogue group I learned to communicate and express myself better.

0 10 20 30 40 50

5

9

3

8

4

5

4

5

49

42

50

44

Strongly Agree + Agree

Disagree

Not sure

3.3 Construct institutional systems designed to promote the free exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives. Learning Outcomes: Intergroup Dialogues (Spring) N=36

As a result of the dialogue group I learned more about oppression and privilege.

As a result of the dialogue group I positively changed my opinion of others.

As a result of the dialogue group I strenghtened my pride in who I am. i.e., accepting my life experiences, family, background, race, ethnicity, gender, social economic status, religion, sexual orientation.

As a result of the dialogue group I learned to communicate and express myself better.

0 10 20 30 40

1

1

4

3

0

1

1

1

35

34

31

19

Strongly Agree + Agree

Disagree

Not sure

17

Institutional to Unit Level Assessment of Effectiveness

Campus’Strategic

Goals

Academic RigorIn support of Recruitment, Retention, and Graduation

ASL- English Bilingualism

Research, Creative Activity and Outreach

A Climate of Respect for Diverse of Perspectives

Efficient Use of Resources

• Goal 1College/ Unit Action Plans

• Goal 2 • Goal 3 • Goal 4 • Goal 5

College/ Unit Metrics

College/ Unit specific metrics aligned to priorities(progress and impact indicators)

Relevant core/ shared metrics(e.g., graduation rates, diversity indicators, etc.)

Examples: University of Eastern Kentucky &University of Illinois at Chicago

UIC: International Programs and Studies

Goals• Facilitate Internationalization of campus

units’ research, teaching, and engagement missions

• Double Study Abroad participation rate while enhancing quality of Experiences

• Increase number of Title VI NRCs and expand and diversify funding

• Develop Strategic International Partnerships which complement Illinois’ strengths

• Continue to recruit the strongest international students and access new regions

Key Success Factors• International programming must be integral

to all campus units’ strategic plans• Study Abroad participation rate doubles,

quality of experiences and faculty participation increase

• Title VI Centers expand programs, promote campus-wide interdisciplinary initiatives, fill gaps in critical subjects and languages

• Establish deep and wide partnerships with true international peers

Key Initiatives• Establish working groups within

International Advisory Council (IAC) on Study Abroad (2), Strategic International Partnerships, International Advancement, International Students & Scholars

• IAC will share best practices on internationalization initiatives and APIA will work with Deans and Directors on implementation

• Systematic prioritization of Title VI NRCs’ critical faculty needs and establishment of fully-fledged NRC for South Asia and Masters in European Union Studies

• Develop and implement more research and curriculum-based Study Abroad programs and increase coordination between campus units’ and central office

• Recruitment of Associate Director of International Programs and Studies, International Advancement Officer, and Director of Study Abroad

• Focus group on International Student recruitment led by ISSS and closer collaboration among Enrollment Management, APIA and Graduate College

• Launching of Tsinghua-Illinois 3+2 program and continued support for Illinois-CNRS, Illinois-Singapore, Illinois-Jordan, and Illinois-India initiatives

Key Accomplishments

Illinois leads in International Education• Only school ranked in the top ten

across the three key metrics of Internationalization

International Students – ranked 6th

Study Abroad – ranked 8th

• Averaged 13% growth since 2002

Title VI NRCs & CIBERS – ranked 2nd

• $13.6 Million funding current cycle

Created International Advisory Council (IAC)

• Representative from key campus units• Will assist APIA in developing

international policy

Secured funding for International Advancement Officer

• Campus-wide post will lead international development efforts

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS 2005-06

Rank Institution Int'l

Students

1 University of Southern California 6,881

2 Columbia University 5,575

3 Purdue University, Main Campus 5,540

4 New York University 5,502

5 University of Texas at Austin 5,395

6 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4,904

7 University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 4,649

8 Boston University 4,542

9 The Ohio State University, Main Campus 4,476

10SUNY - University at Buffalo 4,072

STUDY ABROAD 2004-05

Rank Institution Students

1 New York University 2,611

2 Michigan State University 2,385

3 University of Texas at Austin 2,169

4 Penn State University - University Park 2,084

5 University of Minnesota -Twin Cities 1,836

6 University of Florida 1,805

7 University of Pennsylvania 1,744

8 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1,739

9 University of Georgia 1,731

10 University of Virginia, Main Campus 1,684

TITLE VI NRCs & CIBERs

Rank Institution NRCs CIBER Total

*denotes one or more NRCs shared with other institution(s)

1 University of Washington* 8 1 9

1 University of Wisconsin* 8 1 9

2 University of Illinois* 7 1 8

2 University of California, Berkeley* 8 8

2 Columbia University* 7 1 8

2 Indiana University* 7 1 8

3 University of Michigan 6 1 7

3 University of North Carolina* 6 1 7

4 Duke University* 5 1 6

4 University of California, Los Angeles* 5 1 6

4 University of Chicago 6 6

18

UIC: College of Business

Goals• Attract talented and diverse faculty,

students and staff• Provide an excellent educational

experience for students• Contribute to knowledge creation and

economic development• Engage external audiences• Improve physical and technological

infrastructure

Key Success Factors• Reduce student/faculty ratio• Attract and retain top students and faculty• Increase access for non-business students• Develop a broader engagement with external

constituencies including recruiters

Key Initiatives

• Create new faculty positions over time period 2007-2009• Establish 15 new faculty lines • Appoint five new endowed positions

• Launch new research initiatives• Center for Public Policy and Business • Illinois BIO-BEL project

• Increase participation in the Global Immersion Program• Grow participation from 400 to 500

per year• Provide financial resources through

gifts

• Launch new programmatic initiatives• Introduce redesigned James Scholar

Program• Implement new core curriculum• Launch BUS 101• Initiate a campus-wide minor in

entrepreneurship

• Improve student support• Continuous improvement of career

services and academic counseling• Implement a Formal Tutorial Program

for freshmen• Implement a Math Camp for incoming

freshman• Enhance scholarship support for

graduate students

• Enlarge external engagement• Expand lifetime email project• Expand corporate partners program• Increase number of students in

Chicago programs

Key Accomplishments

Students and Faculty• Eight new faculty positions created in last

two years

• Improved quality and diversity of entering freshman

• Achieved high retention and graduation rates

Knowledge Creation• Started Center for Professional

Responsibility• Established Academy for Entrepreneurial

Leadership

Infrastructure• Business Instructional Facility to open in

summer 2008

Generate Financial ResourcesFund raising goal of $75 million reached• Raised $31 million for new facility• Doubled endowment in 5 years• Funded annual scholarships and

fellowships of $1.8 million

2004 2005 2006 2007

Applications 2,139 2,391 2,808 3,138Admitted 1,248 1,306 1,196 1,191Enrolled 556 740 598 tbdSelectivity 58.3 54.6 42.6 37.9Yield 44.7 56.8 50.1 tbd

HSPR 88.9 89.8 92.6 tbd% Underrepresented

13.8 15.4 18.1 tbd

Retention and Graduation Rates

83.8%

57.4%

79.6%93.9%

Freshman Retention within college Graduation rate from same college

Business

Campus

7

List Criteria for Success/Key Performance Indicators Action Steps Results

Center of Continuing Education and Academic OutreachGoal 1: “The University shall conduct sustained recruitment operations in a five-state area and internationally to meet the enrollment goals established by the Council on Postsecondary Education and the Board of Regents.”

Fall 05 and Spring 06 Enrollment Reports for Extended Campus and Distance Learning

CEAO will maintain a minimum of five percent enrollment growth in regional campus and distance learning programs each year

Total enrollment at regional campuses and distance learning increased by 5.3% during the 05-06 academic year. Total enrollment from 05-06 was 9438 up from 9438 course enrollments.

Science, Engineering and TechnologyGoal 2: “Quality teaching and learning shall be the pre-eminent activities at the institution.”Maintain and support by budgeting for a full-time director and student support staff.

At least 4000 student visits to the SRC in AY 2005 – 06.

Approximately 4500 students visited the SRC in AY 2005 – 06.

Monitor University retention data on an annual basis.

At least 50% of new freshmen with a major in CSET return to CSET in the following fall.

56.8% of freshmen entering CSET fall 04 returned fall 05.

University of Eastern Kentucky

PRELIMINARY Unit Level Indicator Data: Strategic Plan 2007-2011 Focus Objectives


1.2 Build community consensus on the meaning and implementation of bilingual education at Gallaudet.

2.1 Enroll, retain, and graduate a diverse and talented student population.


2.4 Link classroom and experiential learning by leveraging Gallaudet’s location in Washington, DC

3.3 Construct institutional systems designed to promote the free exchange of information, ideas, and perspectives.

Strategic Plan 2007-2011- Focus Objectives

For each of the Strategic Plan 2007-2011 Focus Objectives (ONE HOUR) :1. Describe key initiatives your Unit took this year (ACTIONS)2. Describe what you know about the impact of those ACTIONS through your

INDICATORS *3. Describe what your NEXT STEPS are– For Example:

Goal is achieved. No immediate change in course of action is needed. Continued actions should sustain momentum (what action?).

Goal is partially achieved. Actions are noted but results are not at the rate/level desired. Strategies and approaches should be reviewed and adjustments made to improve (What approaches?).

Goal is not achieved. Immediate actions should be taken to improve in this area. Action steps will be developed and this area will be given priority attention (What steps?).

Insufficient information for evaluating this goal was available. Additional information will be gathered in the remainder of 2009.

4. At 11:00: Each table shares 2-3 highlights from their discussion5. Complete an evaluation for today

Criteria For Success: Criteria for Success (Key Performance Indicator) How will you know when you have achieved your goal? What types of data, information, facts, measurements, and/or numerical indicators will you use as evidence of goal acquisition?

Cross Unit Share and Tell

…Ongoing implementation of a comprehensive, organized, and sustained process for the assessment of institutional effectiveness (Standard 7)

June 15 -- Summary of Unit Level Actions, Indicators, Progress, Next Steps (see next page)

Fall, 2009 – ◦ Year long calendar for ongoing implement of SP:

Institutional and Unit◦ Sharpened SP Goals and Objectives: 2010-2015

Mid-Semester- Fall -Unit Level Planning and Indicators WEAVE Online- Technological System for Managing Planning

See OAQ – Assessment Website for examples of WEAVE use December Study Day – Cross- Unit Share and Tell

Next Steps


Action StepsIndicators:

Criteria for Success/Key Indicators

Results

1. Inclusive Bilingual Environment

1.1: Raise levels of fluency and literacy in English and ASL that will permit direct communication in academic settings.

Unit Level Strategic Planning: Action Plans & Indicators – Progress and Next Steps

Documents