Updates on Indepth Phase IV Effectiveness and Safety Studies (INESS)- Kintampo HDSS
NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11.
-
Upload
jasmin-powers -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of NEASC Phase I Assessment of Effectiveness Standards 1 - 11.
NEASC
Phase I
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standards 1 - 11
Goals for Today’s Meeting
Identify Key Issues or Concerns cited by NEASC over last 10 years
State the 3-5 Key Elements that CCRI feels it needs to address in each Standard
Assign a Self-Rating to our Effectiveness; Identify Priority Level
Identify “source of information” for rating/evaluating
Role of Collective Participation
Using the comment sheet provided, we ask that everyone provide feedback regarding each Standard, using the framework outlined in today’s goals!
Your comments will be submitted anonymously
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose #1
Strengths/successes since 2004 NEASC visit:We have a mission developed by a comprehensive, diverse college committee. “New” comprehensive mission approved 2006. Traits within the mission are accurate.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #2
Challenges/Areas for improvementRemaining challenges: Lack of acknowledgement, publicity, visibility and usage college-wide.Increasing all of these would increase the overall importance of the mission within the everyday workings of the college community
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #3
New challenges/Areas of improvement: An institutional vision is mentioned in the standard. CCRI does not have an approved one. Changing times may lead to reviewing and “tweaking” the mission as needed. Should the tweaking include simplifying the message? Re-evaluation committee is needed.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1: Mission & Purpose #4
Self-ratings: Priority 1.1 B A 1.2 B A 1.3 B+ B 1.4 C A 1.5 C A
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 1 : Mission & Purpose #5
Evidence:Above based on the fact we have a mission.Inferred some information.Of the 132 Web pages and print materials reviewed, only 14% or our “public image” pieces include some mention or a link to the CCRI mission statement. Making it tough for the community to know the elements of the mission.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #1
Strategic Plan (SP) Mgt. Ltr. Tracking
objectives Inclusive President’s
Council Improved personnel
evaluation systems MyCCRI communications True relational database Acad. Program Review
Student Learning Outcomes
Strengthening enterprise reporting & analytics
More Transparent data-driven budget process
Peer group to gauge performance (SP)
Key performance indicators to track progress
Others……
Some of what we have been doing:
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2
Standards of greatest concern (3-C’s; also 4-B’s)
*WASC worksheet ratings
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2
Key Issues
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 2 : Planning & Evaluation #2
Name & Brief Description of
Planning Document/Process
Dept/Name/Tel of Contact/Coordinator
for this plan
Electronic link (if any) to Plan document.
(URL, Web site, etc)
Frequency Participants/Contributors Is there a budget
associated with this
plan?
Scope of Plan
Dept Div CCRI
Sample: Facilities Div John Doe/(825-xxxx)
http://www.ccri.edu/fac/stratplan/
Annual
All department section heads and supervisors in the Facilities Div.
Yes
X
Facilities Plan A three year look forward to Division goals, projects, and issues
Survey Objective: To prepare an inventory of planning processes that are extant within
CCRI in order to determine extent of planning overlap and redundancy, if any, which may exist.
Planning Survey
An important part of our “NEASC 2014” preparation process.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #1
Board of Governors New Board Future? Legislative /Administration Plans
President & Council President is also the Commissioner Faculty union president now on council
Administration Physically decentralized; administratively
centralized No full-time administrator on each campus Two vacant dean positions
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #2 Governance, What we did well:
Wrote, vetted, and passed governance system (May 2008) Completed survey of all College committees Conducted successful elections for two years(2008-2010) Sponsored several activities
“Got Issues?” campaign Issues of Concern form developed, process established Forum on Open Door Admissions at Professional Development Day Facilities Survey
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 3:Organization & Governance #3
Governance, What we did not do so well: Website not functional
Lengthy, confusing process over construction Meaningful institutional support lacking
No budget, no incentive to participants System lacks full scale participation
Community does not understand system Misperception about nature and scope of system
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #1
The Academic Program in 2004Many programs had not articulated formal learning outcomesLearning outcomes were not included or were not consistent throughout all sections of each courseNo definition of an educated personNo required general education coreNo consistent assessment process for courses or programs
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #2
The Academic Program 2011All academic programs have learning outcomes except oneMany more courses include learning outcomes and it is unknown if they are the same for all sections of courses offeredWe have a definition of an educated personWe have a required general education core for all programsWe have a formal program assessment process and a formal faculty evaluation process
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #3
Activities in Progress 2011Determine if all courses include learning outcomes which are consistent for all sections of each courseDetermine how the learning outcomes are assessed for each courseDetermine how the definition of an educated person and general education core are communicated and understood by faculty and studentsDetermine how we know that graduates demonstrate competence in communication, reasoning/critical thinking, and the ability to access the resources for continued development
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 4: The Academic Program #4
Activities in Progress 2011Determine improvements that have been made within programs as a result of the assessment processIdentify the rationale (mission) for each programDetermine the extent to which resources available on the 4 campuses are made available to students at satellite locations and in distance learningDetermine the difference in the approval and assessment processes for the credit bearing and non-credit bearing certificate programsDetermine the method(s) used to insure academic integrity in distance learning courses
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #1
Instructional technology: Ensuring faculty competent in use of technology to support teaching responsibilities. New resources include:
Distance learning/Blackboard resources Centers for Instructional Technology Instructional Support Team Interactive Video Conferencing Classroom and Event Technology Electronic Classrooms New Employee Orientation to Information Technology
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #2
Evaluation Review and implementation of student
evaluation instrument Adopted a more consistent approach to
evaluate Adjuncts
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #3
College Governance Structure Adopted new model which ensures
faculty understanding and participation in committee system processes
Improved communication via college wide events, meetings, etc.
Assessment of Effectiveness
Standard 5: Faculty #4
Banner system:
a review and standardization of course hours throughout the curriculum.
Addressed inconsistencies in the number of classroom hours.
More systematic approach to enforce standards across the board for faculty load and overload.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 5: Faculty #5
Areas to be addressed: Cultural competence: based upon diversity of
student population, faculty ranks should diversify. Steps to enhance pool of minority applicants.
Strategies to support adjunct faculty (contracts, orientation, faculty mentoring system)
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #1
Generally speaking, the College effectively meets the standards for Admissions, Retention and Graduation, Student Services, and Institutional Effectiveness. Where the College falls short is illustrated below.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #2
Admissions 6.2 Academic Standing Policy
not in catalog 6.3 &6.4 AccuPlacer insufficient
to identify needs at lowest end of necessary supports. Insufficient supports in place for students with academic deficiencies
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #3
Retention and Graduation 6.8 Institutional goals for retention and
graduation non-existent or not well disseminated.
6.9 Data on retention, graduation and other measures of student success may not be reviewed in the context of institutional or departmental planning and improve
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 6: Students #4
Student Services 6.10 Response to student needs is not pro-active.
Mission of Student Affairs not publicly available. 6.11 Availability of services for Distance
Learning students or via electronic means not universally available.
6.17 Training opportunities hampered by staff and budget cuts. Facilities, technology and funding are inadequate for current level of services.
6.18 Ethical standards not publicized. 6.19 Records retention policy unclear 6.20 Co-curricular goals?
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #1
Strengths since last NEASC visit Library renovation Electronic classrooms Wireless infrastructure Blackboard Banner (new implementation) DL growth Institutional and educational planning
helps encourage information resources and technology to be integrated into the student educational experiences
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information
Resources #2
1. “Mission” Grade= B While NEASC suggests inclusion of information
literacy skills in the definition of an educated person, it is not in CCRI's newest definition; strategic plan merely implies acquisition
2. “Support” Grade= C Absence of a comprehensive plan to provide
adequate user support (“services are reactionary rather than proactive”)
Not adequate time for staff to learn new technologies nor time for them to create documentation and train faculty
No time for researching/ supporting appropriate new tools for instructional technology
Key Issues
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #3
2. (“Support” continued) Consistent funds for resources but incongruency
between funding available and people dedicated actually to implement those initiatives.
Under resourced areas, generally IT support services (i.e., Help Desk)
3. “Assessment” Grade= C Lack of measurable criteria of competencies for
teaching online No mechanism in place to gather student
perception about the quality and efficacy of instructional technology
No objective way to measure if technology is promoting better student success
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #4
3. (“Assessment” Continued) No mechanism in place to assess whether
students demonstrate proficiency with information resources and technology….nor for attaining appropriate level of proficiency for their program Not all programs/courses have published
learning outcomes. Learning outcomes do not address
information literacy and technology for all students. (English 1010 and Speech 1100 do.)
Strategic plan mentions “mapping” curriculum to definition of an educated person—no evidence that these maps exist.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 7: Library & Information Resources #5
3. (“Assessment” continued) A lack of measurable course objectives
makes it impossible to determine either levels of competence or levels of growth in a student's ability to assess and use research/reference materials.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #1
Standard 8.4 The institution undertakes physical resource
planning linked to academic and student services, support functions, and financial planning.
Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part of physical resource evaluation and planning, and is consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #2
Standard 8.4 Standard 8.4
Self-Rating: C Priority to Us: s/b A Evidence
X25/R25/S25 Experience
Major Strengths X25/R25/S25
Areas For Improvement Addressing Findings/Experience
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #3
Continuing upgrade and maintenance of the network infrastructure to support existing and future bandwidth requirements for the next decade
Aggressive implementation of highly available, fault tolerant, redundant systems to ensure that essential services are accessible and pervasive always
Virtual desktop initiative to develop a sustainable model for delivering desktop services and information anytime, anywhere to constituents based upon their role
Vigorous creation of an enterprise-wide academic analytics agenda for informed business decision making.
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 8: Physical & Technological Resources #4
Vibrant launch of a convenient, highly-responsive, multimedia streaming service delivering digital content to all learners, both internal and external to the campus
Unwavering pursuit of resource conservation programs, including cooling, print management and power distribution through virtual machines
Cultivation and provisioning of a “warm” site on the Flanagan campus for disaster recovery and business continuity
Measured adoption of those “cloud” services enhancing and improving service delivery for constituents
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #1
10/2004 interim finding = ensure that strategic planning is linked to budgeting
3/25/2009 interim finding = address resource challenges incurred by reduced state $’s; strengthen engagement of faculty & staff in using data for planning & decision making
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #2
BRC implemented & merged w/ SPC Used web to ease availability of fiscal
information & budget process-but is it used? Include in upcoming survey
Answers to the core questions on which SP was based have not been clearly communicated to college at large
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #3
Data collection benchmarks id’d in SP for decision making need to be populated & peer & other external validation measures need to be selected
Need a mechanism by which data standards are agreed upon, universally available & presented
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 9: Financial Resources #4
Use data to address divisional/cultural differences
Use data to better manage resources & align expenditures to missions/goals
Sufficient strategic alignment of institutional goals, resources & divisional actions?
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #1
For our Fifth-Year Report, NEASC raised assessment of student learning and measurement of student success as issues for CCRI, which implicate consideration 10.12 to the extent that we make public statements or promises about them
Key issues are not in order of importance
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #2
Key Issue #1: Delivering accurate and timely
answers to questions Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) Evidence: Largely (and perhaps
inevitably) anecdotal Complicating factors: (i) Dearth of
written policies across the institution; and (ii) the growing importance of social media
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #3
Key Issue #2: Revising, and maintaining the currency
of, OES and financial aid Web resources Self-Rating: B Evidence: Ongoing staff review of present
functionality in light of student inquiries Complicating factor: Seemingly endless
ferment in federal financial aid programs
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #4
Key Issue #3: Organizing and designing CCRI’s
information resources around what we want students to know Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) Evidence: Volume of questions with
answers that (we think) are readily available in print or on the Web, but is higher than one would expect even from a spoon-fed population
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 10: Public Disclosure #5
Key Issue #4: Keeping CCRI’s Web site (ccri.edu) and portal
(MyCCRI) current and user-friendly Self-Rating: A-C (depending on topic) Evidence: Same as Key Issues #1 and #3 Complicating factor: Staffing constraints in
securing the continuous assistance of content, communications and IT experts
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #1
Breadth of policies available from federal, state, BOG, and contractual documents
Print and online materials have been updated Success Centers for students established Access to information about transfer opportunities
and processes readily available to students Organizational structure for governance established Opening Day Convocation, Professional Development
Day, and annual retreats established All job postings for permanent positions are readily
available to the public online
Strengths and Accomplishments
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #2
1. Adjunct Faculty: no standard orientation; no ongoing evaluative review of handbook/website to monitor effectiveness
2. CCRI Code of Ethics not updated or aligned with Mission Statement
3. Perception (in public media) of favoritism in hiring remains; staff diversity has improved, diversity among faculty remains low
4. Key committee agendas and minutes not readily available online
5. Committee system within governance structure not working as designed to strengthen greater communication, input, and accountability; no evaluation of new governance system occurred at end of 2008-2009 academic year
6. Process of solicitation and review of recommendations for fiscal efficiencies is inconsistent and ineffective
From 2004 and 2009 NEASC Reports
Assessment of Effectiveness Standard 11 : Integrity #3
Communications Committee agenda and minutes not readily
available online No standard orientation, handbook, or policies for
adjuncts Policies and Implementation
No college-wide policy manual Governance
Committee structure not working as designed Diversity
Lack of diversity among FT and adjunct faculty Perception of unfair hiring remains
Summary
What Next?
Assemble feedback, distribute to Committees
Participate in individual meetings by Standard to review information available
Discuss how to set institutional priorities for each Standard
Next Meeting: January 12, 2011
Each Committee will identify 3-5 top priorities to improve our effectiveness
Committee-of-the-Whole will discuss and attempt to rank what is most important for the College as a whole
Group will “vote by dots” to identify our top priorities