AQIP Examiner Feedback Report: Implications for AQIP Data Mining Project Areas
A Report to the AQIP Steering Committee by Kate Peresie
Overview of Examiner Feedback Report
Respondents:
Fall ’04 Employees
Reported for AQIP
Examiner
Employee group

AQIP Examiner Respondents
Total number of your
employees in this group
Employee group
Administrators
Faculty
Staff
28
207
109
Administrators
Faculty
Staff
Others
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
Total employees (includes
employees from Shared
Services)
Longevity (as reported by
HR June 05)
3 or fewer years
4 – 6 years
7 – 9 years
10 or more years
0
193
151
344
Others
Full-time employees
Part-time employees
Total employees (includes
employees from Shared Services)
Total number of
respondents in this
group
23
64
47 Professional Staff, 30
Support Staff
2
136
30
167
Longevity
64
41
21
77
3 or fewer years
4 – 6 years
7 – 9 years
10 or more years
Gender
Male
Female
43
45
7
71
70
96
Since only 2 respondents in “Other,” this category was ignored for this report.
Ratings:
 Ratings are given as means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of a 5 to 1 scale.
Organizational Perspective:
 Is the “big picture,” knowledge of mission/vision/philosophy, competitive environment, goals.
 Support Staff weakest in all 8 areas (p.9).
 For All Employees, Short-range Goals are least understood (p.9).
Effective Processes:
 14 statements on the characteristics of effective processes.
 Greatest difference in rating of importance of statements was for statement: “is designed to
achieve its goals with no unnecessary steps.” Administration 4.39 (0.65), Support Staff 3.77
(0.91), difference of means 0.62 (p.13).
Criteria:
 Items about effectiveness of processes related to each of 9 AQIP Criteria. “Criteria scores offer a
systems profile of your institution.”
 Most effective are Building Collaborative Relationships 3.09 (1.14), Helping Students Learn 2.74
(1.12), Supporting Institutional Operations 2.74 (1.12) (p. 15).
 Least effective are Valuing People 2.19 (1.14), Leading and Communicating 2.21 (1.11), Planning
Continuous Improvement 2.25 (1.13) (p. 15).



Greatest difference in rating for Supporting Institutional Operations. Administration 3.07 (1.04),
Support Staff 2.44 (1.04), difference of means 0.63 (pp. 16-17).
Employees of 7-9 years had lowest rankings for 8 of 9 Criteria (p. 17).
Table with best and worst processes within each criterion:
For the Criterion of:
1: Helping Students Learn (p.
19)
2: Accomplishing Other
Distinctive Objectives (p. 21)
3: Understanding Students’
and Other Stakeholders’
Needs (pp. 22-23)
4: Valuing People
5: Leading and
Communicating (p. 26)
6: Supporting Institutional
Operations (pp. 27-28)
Best Process/Score
Placing students in courses for
which they are appropriately
prepared. 3.05 (1.21)
Aligning our distinctive strategic
initiatives with our institutional
mission, vision, and philosophy.
2.47 (1.05)
Identifying which groups to
serve. 2.90 (1.04)
Hiring people who share our
mission, vision and philosophy.
2.89 (1.10)
Creating opportunities for faculty
and staff to learn and practice
leadership skills. 2.46 (1.10)
Identifying the needs of students
for support services. 3.22 (1.06)
7: Measuring Effectiveness
(p. 29)
Collecting, storing, and
distributing data and information
to those who need it. 2.61 (1.16)
8: Planning Continuous
Improvement (pp. 30-31)
Developing strategies that deal
with institutional challenges and
opportunities. 2.41 (1.09)
Building collaborative
relationships with other
educational organizations,
including those that send us
students and those that receive
our graduates. 3.64 (1.00)
9: Building Collaborative
Relationships (p. 32)
Worst Process/Score
Defining good teaching. 2.49 (1.03)
Agreeing on and regularly analyzing
a set of measures of our other
strategic initiatives. 2.10 (1.02)
Systematically collecting and
analyzing the complaints we receive
in order to improve. 2.43 (1.08)
Addressing faculty, staff and
administrator job satisfaction and
morale. 1.82 (1.08)
Measuring how well our systems for
leading and communicating are
working. 1.87 (0.98)
Regularly evaluating how well our
student and administrative support
services work. 2.31 (1.02)
Analyzing performance data and
sharing results throughout the
institution. 2.23 (1.05)
Measuring and evaluating how well
our data collection, storage, and
distribution system works. 2.23
(1.04)
Evaluating our systems for planning.
2.09 (1.10)
Building internal collaborative
relationships across different
departments and organizational
units. 2.49 (1.04)
Summary:
 The most disenfranchised groups are Support Staff, due to lowest rankings of items, and
employees of 7 to 9 years, due to lowest rankings of items and lowest response rate to the survey.
 Processes related to Valuing People (Criterion 4), Leading and Communicating (Criterion 5), and
Planning Continuous Improvement (Criterion 8) are in the greatest need of improvement.
 Best processes, across the criteria, relate to serving students (placement 3.05, identifying needs for
support services 3.22, collaborating with other educational organizations 3.64).
 Worst processes, across the criteria, relate to measuring, analyzing, evaluating our processes.
Implications for Data Mining and the Six Project Areas



Data supports the need for the Assessment project area since this is all about measuring and
evaluating the attainment of student learning outcomes. Also, the Assessment project area helps
build internal collaborative relationships (in Criterion 9) and directly ties to Criterion 1: Helping
Students Learn.
Data supports the need for the Mission and Vision project area through the need for improvement
in Leading and Communicating (Criterion 5). This project may also help to reach the
disenfranchised groups.
Data supports the need for the Strategic Planning project area due to the need for improvement in
Leading and Communicating (Criterion 5) and Planning Continuous Improvement (Criterion 8)
and the need to measure, analyze and evaluate our processes.