Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX A: Job Descriptions
GU Job Description
Job Title: Director of Institutional Research
Reports To: Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness
Work Schedule: Monday - Friday
Prepared By: VPIE
Approved By:
President Sellars
Departments: Institutional Effectiveness
FLSA Status: _X_Exempt __Non-Exempt
Amount of Travel Required: monthly
Date Prepared: 1.15.2014
Approved Date:
SUMMARY: The Director of Institutional Research is responsible for directing and coordinating institutional research services with various
university leaders and units, as well as off-campus constituents, including state/federal regulatory agencies, to ensure the integrity and
validity of institution-wide data provided in support of policy and decision–making for all areas of the University. Develop and administer
systematic, broad-based, and interrelated planning and assessment of processes for the educational, administrative and support activities
of the University, in addition to researching, identifying, and providing information on potential assessment, outcome measures, and
benchmarking tools. The director will also provide support for annual and strategic planning. The director will also take responsibility for all
state approvals and compliance, ensuring the University has both the right to offer programs and the right to do business in designated
states.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: This section is for functions that are essential to the successful completion of this
position. If these functions aren’t done, then the job isn’t being done. Please be as specific as possible about the task and the manner in
which it is to be done. For example: if working with the public is part of this position, then specifically state, “working with the public in a
prompt and friendly way”. This covers the task and the manner. Please include everything that is applicable even though it may be
assumed or common sense like staying within budget, being punctual for work, acting professionally, and good customer service.
Including these things up front helps alleviate problems later.
Overview of a Potential Job Description/Expectations:
 Masters Degree (ability to identify, create, & use data for decision-making; assess risk level re: legal complications & poor
decision-making & vulnerability to legal and accreditation sanctions, to problem-solve)
 Provide relevant, timely, & accurate reports/information to college administrators, college community, external community &
external agencies.
 Understand both qualitative & quantitative research processes & ability to perform statistical data analysis
 Collaborate across the University to develop and utilize a data dictionary.
 Collaborate with online programs to research and develop a protocol/annual calendar for state approval.
 Work with Academic Affairs in designing & maintaining course/program enrollment & FTE projections.
 Liaison with the offices of the registrar, admissions, financial aid, programs
 Promote the Office of Institutional Research as the primary source of data for all departments; Respond to and manage requests
for data from all university departments.
 Work with Information Technology Services (ITS) to create a user-friendly database & dashboard system
 Conceptualize what data can support arguments and decisions and what surveys are necessary to gather usable indirect data.
 Computer and system skills (especially report creation)
 Stay abreast of Institutional Research best practices and trends
 Stay abreast of federal and state compliance and accreditation standards and reciprocity activities.
When possible, lobby for institutional independence.
 Stay abreast of, and, when appropriate, recommend changes in Graceland programs in response to changing environments.
(Membership on PSC & other relevant committees)
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES: Institutional Research Administrative Assistant/Research Analyst
QUALIFICATIONS: This section should outline the minimum requirements that should be held by the person, like education, experience,
certifications, knowledge, skills and abilities. This will assist in writing ads for open positions. Please make sure that these are job-related
qualifications. Again, make sure that you include everything, like holding a valid driver’s license. This will help screen potential candidates
should this position become vacant.
Education: __None __High School __Bachelors _X _Masters __ Doctorate
Professional Certifications:
28
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Valid Driver’s License Required: _X_Yes __No
Experience Required:
__None
__Three to five years
__Less than one year
_X_Five to ten years
__One to three years
__More than ten years
KEY COMPETENCIES: Select those that apply to this position.
_X_Accountability
_X_Accurate
__Adaptable
__Ambition
_X_Analytical Skills
_X_Assertive
_X_Autonomy
__Business Acumen
_X_Communication, Oral
_X_Communication, Written
__Competitive
_X_Conceptual Thinking
_X_Consensus Building
_X_Constituent Focus
__Creative
_X_Decision Making
_X_Detail Oriented
__Diversity Oriented
__Empathetic
__Energetic
__Enthusiastic
_X_Ethical
_X_Friendly
_X_Goal Oriented
_X_Honesty/Integrity
_X_Initiative
_X_Innovative
_X_Interpersonal
_X_Judgement
__Loyal
__Motivated
_X_Organized
__Patient
__Persistent
__Persuasive
_X_Presentation Skills
_X_Problem Solving
_X_Project Management
__Relationship Building
_X_Reliable
__Resilient
_X_Responsible
__Risk Taker
__Self-Confident
__Self-Motivated
__Tactful
_X_Team Building
__XTechnical Aptitude
__Tenacious
_X_Time Management
__Tolerant
_X_Work Under Pressure
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Lift/Carry:
10 lbs or less: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
11 lbs – 20 lbs: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
21 lbs – 50 lbs: _x_N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
51 lbs – 100 lbs: x__ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Over 100 lbs: _x_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Standard office environment, frequent work interruptions.
Physical demands:
Stand: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Walk: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Sit: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Handling/Fingering: __N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently
__Constantly
Reaching: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Climbing: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Crawling: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Squat/Kneel: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Bend: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
29
Push/Pull:
12 lbs or less: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
13 lbs – 25 lbs: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
26 lbs – 40 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
41 lbs – 100 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
Institutional Research PR Appendices
GU Job Description
Job Title:
Reports To:
Work Schedule:
Prepared By:
Approved By:
Director of Assessment
Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness
.5 FTE; 20 hours/week
VPIE
Departments: Institutional Effectiveness
FLSA Status: _X_Exempt __Non-Exempt
Amount of Travel Required: Occasional
Date Prepared: 1.15.2014
Approved Date:
SUMMARY: The Director of Institutional Research is responsible for directing and coordinating institutional research services with various
university leaders and units, as well as off-campus constituents, including state/federal regulatory agencies, to ensure the integrity and
validity of institution-wide data provided in support of policy and decision–making for all areas of the University. Develop and administer
systematic, broad-based, and interrelated planning and assessment of processes for the educational, administrative and support activities
of the University, in addition to researching, identifying, and providing information on potential assessment, outcome measures, and
benchmarking tools. The director will also provide support for annual and strategic planning. The director will also take responsibility for all
state approvals and compliance, ensuring the University has both the right to offer programs and the right to do business in designated
states.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: This section is for functions that are essential to the successful completion of this
position. If these functions aren’t done, then the job isn’t being done. Please be as specific as possible about the task and the manner in
which it is to be done. For example: if working with the public is part of this position, then specifically state, “working with the public in a
prompt and friendly way”. This covers the task and the manner. Please include everything that is applicable even though it may be
assumed or common sense like staying within budget, being punctual for work, acting professionally, and good customer service.
Including these things up front helps alleviate problems later.
Overview of a Potential Job Description/Expectations:
 Masters Degree (ability to identify, create, & use data for decision-making; assess risk level re: legal complications & poor
decision-making & vulnerability to legal and accreditation sanctions, to problem-solve)
 Provide relevant, timely, & accurate reports/information to college administrators, college community, external community &
external agencies.
 Understand both qualitative & quantitative research processes & ability to perform statistical data analysis
 Assist Director of Inst’l Research with collaborating across the University to develop and utilize a data dictionary.
 Collaborate with all academic and co-curricular programs to assess student learning outcomes
 Liaison with …
 Promote the Office of Institutional Research as the primary source of data for all departments; Respond to and manage requests
for data from all university departments.
 Computer and system skills (especially report creation)
 Stay abreast of best practices and trends in university assessment
 Stay abreast of federal and state compliance and accreditation standards.
 Chair Student learning Improvement Committee. Membership on … and other relevant committees)
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES: None.
QUALIFICATIONS: This section should outline the minimum requirements that should be held by the person, like education, experience,
certifications, knowledge, skills and abilities. This will assist in writing ads for open positions. Please make sure that these are job-related
qualifications. Again, make sure that you include everything, like holding a valid driver’s license. This will help screen potential candidates
should this position become vacant.
Education: __None __High School __Bachelors _X_Masters __ Doctorate
Professional Certifications:
Valid Driver’s License Required: __Yes _X_No
Experience Required:
__None
__Less than one year
__One to three years
_X_Three to five years
__Five to ten years
__More than ten years
KEY COMPETENCIES: Select those that apply to this position.
_X_Accountability
_X_Accurate
_X_Empathetic
__Energetic
_X_Problem Solving
_X_Project Management
30
Institutional Research PR Appendices
_X_Adaptable
__Ambition
_X_Analytical Skills
_X_Assertive
_X_Autonomy
__Business Acumen
_X_Communication, Oral
_X_Communication, Written
__Competitive
_X_Conceptual Thinking
_X_Consensus Building
_X_Constituent Focus
_X_Creative
_X_Decision Making
_X_Detail Oriented
__Diversity Oriented
_X_Enthusiastic
_X_Ethical
_X_Friendly
_X_Goal Oriented
_X_Honesty/Integrity
_X_Initiative
_X_Innovative
_X_Interpersonal
_X_Judgement
__Loyal
__Motivated
_X_Organized
_X_Patient
_X_Persistent
_X_Persuasive
_X_Presentation Skills
_X_Relationship Building
_X_Reliable
__Resilient
_X_Responsible
__Risk Taker
__Self-Confident
__Self-Motivated
_X_Tactful
_X_Team Building
_X_Technical Aptitude
__Tenacious
_X_Time Management
__Tolerant
__Work Under Pressure
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Lift/Carry:
10 lbs or less: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
11 lbs – 20 lbs: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
21 lbs – 50 lbs: _x_N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
51 lbs – 100 lbs: x__ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
Over 100 lbs: _x_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Standard office environment, frequent work interruptions.
Physical demands:
Stand: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Walk: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Sit: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Handling/Fingering: __N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently
__Constantly
Reaching: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Climbing: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Crawling: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Squat/Kneel: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Bend: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
31
Push/Pull:
12 lbs or less: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
13 lbs – 25 lbs: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
26 lbs – 40 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
41 lbs – 100 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
Institutional Research PR Appendices
GU Job Description
Institutional Research Administrative Assistant/Research Analyst
Job Title:
Reports To:
Work Schedule:
Prepared By:
Approved By:
Departments:
FLSA Status: __Exempt _X_Non-Exempt
Amount of Travel Required:
Date Prepared:
Approved Date:
SUMMARY:
Under limited supervision, the Research Analyst/Administrative Assistant will support the Director of Institutional Research and the Vice
President for Institutional Effectiveness with data collection, management, and analysis and publication of data pertaining to Graceland and
its various administrative and academic units. Responsible for various mandated reports, surveys, and ad hoc external and internal
requests, and maintaining the institutional effectiveness document room.
The individual in this position will be experienced in handling a broad range of administrative tasks.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: This section is for functions that are essential to the successful completion of this
position. If these functions aren’t done, then the job isn’t being done. Please be as specific as possible about the task and the manner in
which it is to be done. For example: if working with the public is part of this position, then specifically state, “working with the public in a
prompt and friendly way”. This covers the task and the manner. Please include everything that is applicable even thought it may be
assumed or common sense like staying within budget, being punctual for work, acting professionally, and good customer service.
Including these things up front helps alleviate problems later.
Overview of a Potential Job Description/Expectations: Administrative Assistant/Research Analyst
 Coordinate relevant, timely, & accurate reports/information to college administrators, college community, external community &
external agencies.
 Build & maintain relational databases to house the institutional data for external & internal data requests
 Maintain the storage of institutional effectiveness documents.
 Handle a broad range of administrative tasks; support Director of Institutional Research in all of the above.
 Computer and system skills (especially report design)
 Manage internal online and print communication of institutional research image, mission, and services
•Work cooperatively with various college constituencies to optimize the quality, availability, and flow of relevant data and •Collect
information and design newsletters, reports and web materials for the Fast Facts, retention, institutional research and effectiveness
•Help maintain Graceland’s state compliance in order for GU to offer programs and do business in other states. Be aware of when rules
and regulations change for state compliance.
•Compose and edit general correspondence, coordinate visits and meetings, and make travel arrangements as needed
•Keep calendars of deadlines and completion dates for reports and retention activities
•Prepare minutes and materials for the Enrollment and Persistence Committee
•Handle office duties including: answering phone calls, creating and maintaining files, e-mailing, copying, faxing, etc.
•Process invoices and requisitions for the unit personnel, including subscriptions and periodicals; process expense reports for the unit team
as needed, order supplies as needed
•Perform other duties as assigned
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES: None.
QUALIFICATIONS: This section should outline the minimum requirements that should be held by the person, like education, experience,
certifications, knowledge, skills and abilities. This will assist in writing ads for open positions. Please make sure that these are job-related
qualifications. Again, make sure that you include everything, like holding a valid driver’s license. This will help screen potential candidates
should this position become vacant.
Education: __None __High School _X_Bachelors Preferred __Masters __ Doctorate
Professional Certifications: None
Valid Driver’s License Required: __Yes _X_No
Experience Required:
__None
__Less than one year
__One to three years
__Three to five years
_X_Five to ten years
__More than ten years
32
Institutional Research PR Appendices
KEY COMPETENCIES: Select those that apply to this position.
_X_Accountability
_X_Accurate
__Adaptable
__Ambition
__Analytical Skills
__Assertive
_X_Autonomy
__Business Acumen
_X_Communication, Oral
__Communication, Written
__Competitive
__Conceptual Thinking
__Consensus Building
_X_Constituent Focus
__Creative
__Decision Making
_X_Detail Oriented
__Diversity Oriented
_X_Empathetic
__Energetic
__Enthusiastic
__Ethical
_X_Friendly
_X_Goal Oriented
__Honesty/Integrity
_X_Initiative
_X_Innovative
_X Interpersonal
__Judgement
__Loyal
__Motivated
_X_Organized
__Patient
__Persistent
__Persuasive
__Presentation Skills
_X_Problem Solving
_X_Project Management
_X_Relationship Building
_X_Reliable
__Resilient
_X_Responsible
__Risk Taker
__Self-Confident
__Self-Motivated
__Tactful
_X_Team Building
__Technical Aptitude
__Tenacious
_X_Time Management
__Tolerant
_X_Work Under Pressure
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Lift/Carry:
10 lbs or less: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
11 lbs – 20 lbs: __N/A _x_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
21 lbs – 50 lbs: _x_N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
51 lbs – 100 lbs: x__ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
Over 100 lbs: _x_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Standard office environment, frequent work interruptions.
Physical demands:
Stand: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Walk: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Sit: __ N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently __Constantly
Handling/Fingering: __N/A __ Occasionally _X_Frequently
__Constantly
Reaching: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Climbing: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Crawling: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Squat/Kneel: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
Bend: __ N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
33
Push/Pull:
12 lbs or less: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently __Constantly
13 lbs – 25 lbs: __N/A _X_ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
26 lbs – 40 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
41 lbs – 100 lbs: _X_ N/A __ Occasionally __Frequently
__Constantly
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX B: Data Dictionary
Graceland University Data Dictionary
Academic Advising: Plan under which each student is assigned to a faculty member or a trained adviser, who, through regular meetings,
helps the student plan and implement immediate and long-term academic and vocational goals.
Accelerated program: Completion of a college program of study in fewer than the usual number of years, most often by attending
summer sessions and carrying extra courses during the regular academic term.
Admitted student: Applicant who is offered admission to a degree-granting program at your institution. (Accepted Status)
American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America) and maintaining tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Applicant: An individual who has fulfilled the institution’s requirements to be considered for admission (including payment or waiving of the
application fee, if any) and who has been notified of one of the following actions: admission, nonadmission, placement on waiting list, or
application withdrawn (by applicant or institution).
Application fee: Amount of money that an institution charges for processing a student’s application for acceptance, not creditable toward
tuition and required fees, nor is it refundable if the student is not admitted to the institution. (Not applicable to the LC Traditional Program)
Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Associate degree: An award that normally requires at least two but less than four years of full-time equivalent college work.
Bachelor’s degree: An award (baccalaureate or equivalent degree, as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education)
that normally requires at least four years but not more than five years of full-time equivalent college-level work. This includes ALL
bachelor’s degrees conferred in a five-year cooperative (work-study plan) program. (A cooperative plan provides for alternate class
attendance and employment in business, industry, or government; thus, it allows students to combine actual work experience with their
college studies.) Also, it includes bachelor’s degrees in which the normal four years of work are completed in three years.
Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Board (charges): Assume average cost for 19 meals per week on the Lamoni Campus. (Applicable only to Lamoni Campus students).
Books and supplies (costs): Average cost of books and supplies. Does not include unusual costs for special groups (engineering or art
majors), unless they constitute the majority of students at the institution. Some GU programs have book costs included in total tuition/fees.
Calendar system: The method by which an institution structures most of its courses for the academic year.
Campus Ministry: Religious student organizations (denominat’l or nondenominat’l) devoted to fostering religious life on college campuses.
Career and placement services: A range of services, including: coordination of visits of employers to campus; aptitude and vocational
testing; interest inventories, personal counseling; help in resume writing, interviewing, launching the job search; listings for those students
desiring employment and those seeking permanent positions; establishment of a permanent reference folder; career resource materials.
Certificate: See Postsecondary award.
Class rank: The relative numerical position of a student in his or her graduating class, calculated by the high school on the basis of gradepoint average, whether weighted or unweighted.
College-preparatory program: Courses in academic subjects (English, history and social studies, foreign languages, mathematics,
science, and the arts) that stress preparation for college or university study.
Common Application: The standard application form distributed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals for a large
number of private colleges who are members of the Common Application Group.
Community service program: Referral center for students wishing to perform volunteer work in the community or participate in volunteer
activities coordinated by academic departments.
Commuter: A student who lives off campus in housing that is not owned by, operated by, or affiliated with the college. This category
includes students who commute from home and students who have moved to the area to attend college.
Contact hour: A unit of measure that represents an hour of scheduled instruction given to students. Also referred to as clock hour.
34
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Cooperative education program: A program that provides for alternate class attendance and employment in business, industry, or gov’t.
Counseling service: Activities designed to assist students in making plans and decisions related to their education, career, or personal
development.
Credit: Recognition of attendance or performance in an instructional activity (course or program) that can be applied by a recipient toward
the requirements for a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award.
Credit course: A course that, if successfully completed, can be applied toward the number of courses required for achieving a degree,
diploma, certificate, or other formal award.
Credit hour: A unit of measure representing an hour (50 minutes) of instruction over a 15-week period in a semester or trimester system
or a 10-week period in a quarter system. It is applied toward the total number of hours needed for completing the requirements of a
degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award. (See also Semester Hour)
Cross-registration: A system whereby students enrolled at one institution may take courses at another institution without having to apply
to the second institution.
Deferred admission: Practice of permitting admitted students to postpone enrollment, usually for a period of 1 academic term or 1 year.
Degree: An award conferred by a college, university, or other postsecondary education institution as official recognition for the successful
completion of a program of studies.
Degree-seeking students: Students enrolled in credit courses who are recognized by the institution as seeking a degree or formal award.
Developmental Courses: Instructional courses designed for students deficient in the general competencies necessary for a regular
postsecondary curriculum and educational setting.
Diploma: See Postsecondary award.
Distance learning: An option for earning course credit at off-campus locations via cable television, internet, satellite classes, videotapes,
correspondence courses, or other means.
Doctor’s degree-research/scholarship: A Ph.D. or other doctor's degree that requires advanced work beyond the master’s level,
including the preparation and defense of a dissertation based on original research, or the planning and execution of an original project
demonstrating substantial artistic or scholarly achievement. Some examples of this type of degree may include Ed.D., D.M.A., D.B.A.,
D.Sc., D.A., or D.M, and others, as designated by the awarding institution.
Double major: Program in which students may complete 2 undergraduate programs of study simultaneously.
Dual enrollment: A program through which high school students may enroll in college courses while still enrolled in high school. Students
are not required to apply for admission to the college in order to participate.
English as a Second Language (ESL): A course of study designed specifically for students whose native language is not English.
Exchange student program-domestic: Any arrangement between a student and a college that permits study for a semester or more at
another college in the United States without extending the amount of time required for a degree. See also Study abroad.
Extracurricular activities (as admission factor): Special consideration in the admissions process given for participation in both school
and nonschool-related activities of interest to the college, such as clubs, hobbies, student government, athletics, performing arts, etc.
Financial Aid: All definitions related to the financial aid section appear at the end of this document.
First-time student: A student attending any institution for the first time at the level enrolled. Includes students enrolled in the fall term who
attended a postsecondary institution for the first time at the same level in the prior summer term. Also includes students who entered with
advanced standing (college credit earned before graduation from high school).
First-time, first-year (freshman) student: A student attending any institution for the first time at the undergraduate level. Includes
students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the prior summer term. Also includes students who entered with
advanced standing (college credits earned before graduation from high school).
First-year student: A student who has completed less than the equivalent of 1 full year of undergraduate work; that is, less than 30
semester hours (in a 120-hour degree program) or less than 900 contact hours.
Freshman: A first-year undergraduate student.
Freshman/new student orientation: Orientation addressing the academic, social, emotional, and intellectual issues involved in beginning
college. May be a few hours or a few days in length; at some colleges, there is a fee.
35
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Full-time student (undergraduate): A student enrolled for 12 or more semester credits, 12 or more quarter credits, or 24 or more contact
hours a week each term.
Grade-point average (academic high school GPA): The sum of grade points a student has earned in secondary school divided by the
number of courses taken. The most common system of assigning numbers to grades counts A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0 point. Unweighted
GPA’s assign the same weight to each course. Weighting gives students additional points for grades in advanced or honors courses.
Graduate student: A student who holds a bachelor’s or equivalent, and is taking courses at the post-baccalaureate level.
Health services: Free or low cost on-campus primary and preventive health care available to students.
High school diploma or recognized equivalent: A document certifying the successful completion of a prescribed secondary school
program of studies, or the attainment of satisfactory scores on the Tests of General Educational Development (GED), or another statespecified examination.
Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, So/Central American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
Honors program: Any special program for very able students offering the opportunity for educational enrichment, independent study,
acceleration, or some combination of these.
Independent study/Individual Study: Academic work chosen or designed by the student with the approval of the department concerned,
under an instructor’s supervision, and usually undertaken outside of the regular classroom structure.
International student: See Nonresident alien.
International student group: Student groups that facilitate cultural dialogue, support a diverse campus, assist international students in
acclimation and creating a social network.
Internship: Any short-term, supervised work experience usually related to a student’s major field, for which the student earns academic
credit. The work can be full- or part-time, on- or off-campus, paid or unpaid.
Learning center: Center offering assistance through tutors, workshops, computer programs, or audiovisual equipment in reading, writing,
math, and skills such as taking notes, managing time, taking tests. (TRiO)
Master's degree: An award that requires the successful completion of a program of study of generally one or two full-time equivalent
academic years of work beyond the bachelor's degree. Some of these degrees, such as those in Theology (M.Div., M.H.L./Rav) that were
formerly classified as "first-professional", may require more than two full-time equivalent academic years of work.
Minority student center: Center with programs, activities, services intended to enhance the college experience of students of color.
Model United Nations: A simulation activity focusing on conflict resolution, globalization, diplomacy. Assuming roles as foreign ambassadors and “delegates,” students conduct research, engage in debate, draft resolutions, may participate in a national Model UN conference.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other
Pacific Islands.
Nonresident alien: A person who is not a citizen or national of the US and who is in this country on a visa or temporary basis and does
not have the right to remain indefinitely.
Open admission: Admission policy under which virtually all secondary school graduates or students with GED equivalency diplomas are
admitted without regard to academic record, test scores, or other qualifications.
Other expenses (costs): Include average costs for clothing, laundry, entertainment, medical (if not a required fee), and furnishings.
Part-time student (undergraduate): A student enrolled for fewer than 12 credits per semester or quarter, or fewer than 24 contact hours
a week each term.
Personal counseling: One-on-one or group counseling with trained professionals for students who want to explore personal, educational,
or vocational issues.
Post-baccalaureate certificate: An award that requires completion of an organized program of study requiring 18 credit hours beyond the
bachelor’s; designed for persons who have completed a baccalaureate degree but do not meet the requirements of academic degrees
carrying the title of master.
Post-master’s certificate: An award that requires completion of an organized program of study of 24 credit hours beyond the master’s
degree but does not meet the requirements of academic degrees at the doctoral level.
Postsecondary award, certificate, or diploma: Includes the following three IPEDS definitions for postsecondary awards, certificates, and
diplomas of varying durations and credit/contact hour requirements—
36
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Less Than 1 Academic Year: Requires completion of an organized program of study at the postsecondary level (below the bacc.
degree) in less than 1 academic year (2 semesters or 3 quarters) or in less than 900 contact hours by a student enrolled full-time.
At Least 1 But Less Than 2 Academic Years: Requires completion of an organized program of study at the postsecondary level
(below the baccalaureate degree) in at least 1 but less than 2 full-time equivalent academic years, or designed for completion in
at least 30 but less than 60 credit hours, or in at least 900 but less than 1,800 contact hours.
At Least 2 But Less Than 4 Academic Years: Requires completion of an organized program of study at the postsecondary level
(below the baccalaureate degree) in at least 2 but less than 4 full-time equivalent academic years, or designed for completion in
at least 60 but less than 120 credit hours, or in at least 1,800 but less than 3,600 contact hours.
Private institution: An educational institution controlled by a private individual(s) or by a nongovernmental agency, usually supported
primarily by other than public funds, and operated by other than publicly elected or appointed officials.
Private for-profit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives compensation, other than wages,
rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk. Also referred to as Proprietary Institution.
Private nonprofit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives no compensation, other than
wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk. These include both independent nonprofit schools and those affiliated with a
religious organization.
Public institution: An educational institution whose programs and activities are operated by publicly elected or appointed school officials,
and which is supported primarily by public funds.
Race/ethnicity: Category used to describe groups to which individuals belong, identify with, or belong in the eyes of the community. The
categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins. A person may be counted in only one group.
Race/ethnicity unknown: Category used to classify students or employees whose race/ethnicity is not known and whom institutions are
unable to place in one of the specified racial/ethnic categories.
Religious affiliation/commitment: Affiliation with a certain church or faith/religion, commitment to a religious vocation, or observance of
certain religious tenets/lifestyle requested but not required on application.
Religious counseling: 1-on-1 or group counseling with trained professionals for students who want to explore religious issues.
Required fees: Fixed sum charged to students for items not covered by tuition and required of such a large proportion of all students that
the student who does NOT pay is the exception. Do not include application fees or optional fees such as lab fees or parking fees.
Resident alien or other eligible non-citizen: A person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who has been admitted as
a legal immigrant for the purpose of obtaining permanent resident alien status (and who holds either an alien registration card [Form I-551
or I-151], a Temporary Resident Card [Form I-688], or an Arrival-Departure Record [Form I-94] with a notation that conveys legal immigrant
status, such as Section 207 Refugee, Section 208 Asylee, Conditional Entrant Parolee or Cuban-Haitian).
Room and board (charges)—on campus: Assume double occupancy in institutional housing and 19 meals per week (or max meal plan).
Secondary school record (as admission factor): Information maintained by the secondary school that may include such things as the
student’s high school transcript, class rank, GPA, and teacher and counselor recommendations.
Semester calendar system: A calendar system that consists of two semesters during the academic year with about 16 weeks for each
semester of instruction. There may be an additional summer session.
Semester hour: See Credit Hour
Student-designed major: A program of study based on individual interests, designed with the assistance of an adviser. (Liberal Studies)
Study abroad: Any arrangement by which a student completes part of the college program studying in another country. Can be at a
campus abroad or through a cooperative agreement with some other U.S. college or an institution of another country.
Summer session: A summer session is shorter than a regular semester and not considered part of the academic year. It is not the third
term of an institution operating on a trimester system or the fourth term of an institution operating on a quarter calendar system. The
institution may have 2 or more sessions occurring in the summer months. Some schools, such as vocational and beauty schools, have
year-round classes with no separate summer session.
Talent/ability (as admission factor): Special consideration given to students with demonstrated talent/abilities in areas of interest to the
institution (e.g., sports, the arts, languages, etc.).
Teacher certification program: Program designed to prepare students to meet the requirements for certification as teachers in
elementary, middle/junior high, and secondary schools.
37
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Transfer applicant: An individual who has fulfilled the institution’s requirements to be considered for admission (including payment or
waiving of the application fee, if any) and who has previously attended another college or university and earned college-level credit.
Transfer student: A student entering the institution for the first time but known to have previously attended a postsecondary institution at
the same level (e.g., undergraduate). The student may transfer with or without credit.
Transportation (costs): Assume 2 round trips to student’s hometown per year for students in institutional housing or daily travel to and
from your institution for commuter students.
Trimester calendar system: An academic year consisting of 3 terms of about 15 weeks each.
Tuition: Amount of money charged to students for instructional services. Tuition may be charged per term, per course, or per credit.
Tutoring: May range from one-on-one tutoring in specific subjects to tutoring in an area such as math, reading, or writing. Most tutors are
college students; at some colleges, they are specially trained and certified.
Unit: Standard of measurement representing hours of academic participation (semester credit, quarter credit, contact hour, semester hour)
Undergraduate: A student enrolled in a four- or five-year bachelor’s degree program, an associate degree program, or a vocational or
technical program below the baccalaureate.
Veteran’s counseling: Helps veterans and their dependents obtain benefits for their selected program and provides certifications to the
Veteran’s Administration. May also provide personal counseling on the transition from the military to a civilian life.
Visually impaired: Any person whose sight loss is not correctable and sufficiently severe as to adversely affect educational performance.
Volunteer work (as admission factor): Special consideration given to students for activity done on a volunteer basis (e.g., tutoring,
hospital care, working with the elderly or disabled) as a service to the community or the public in general.
Wait list: List of students who meet the requirements to enter a course but due to limits are not permitted to register. Typically they will
only be offered a place in the course if space becomes available prior to the first day of classes.
White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Work experience (as admission factor): Special consideration given to students who have been employed prior to application, whether
for relevance to major, demonstration of employment-related skills, or as explanation of student’s academic and extracurricular record.
Financial Aid Definitions
External scholarships and grants: Scholarships and grants received from outside (private) sources that students bring with them
(Kiwanis, National Merit scholarships).The institution may process paperwork to receive the dollars, but has no role in determining the
recipient or the dollar amount awarded.
Financial aid applicant: Any applicant who submits any of the institutionally required financial aid applications/forms, such as the FAFSA.
Indebtedness: Aggregate dollar amount borrowed through any loan program (federal, state, subsidized, unsubsidized, private, etc.;
excluding parent loans) while the student was enrolled at an institution. Student loans co-signed by a parent are assumed to be the
responsibility of the student and should be included.
Institutional scholarships and grants: Endowed scholarships, annual gifts and tuition funded grants for which the institution determines
the recipient.
Financial need: As determined by your institution using the federal methodology and/or your institution's own standards.
Need-based aid: College-funded or college-administered award from institutional, state, federal, or other sources for which a student must
have financial need to qualify. This includes both institutional and non-institutional student aid (grants, jobs, and loans).
Need-based scholarship or grant aid: Scholarships and grants from institutional, state, federal, or other sources for which a student
must have financial need to qualify.
Need-based self-help aid: Loans and jobs from institutional, state, federal, or other sources for which a student must demonstrate
financial need to qualify.
Non-need-based scholarship or grant aid: Scholarships & grants, gifts or merit-based aid from institutional, state, federal, or other
sources (including unrestricted funds or gifts/endowment income) awarded solely on the basis of academic achievement, merit, or other
non-need-based reason. When reporting H1 & H2, non-need-based aid that is used to meet need should be counted as need-based aid.
Non-need-based self-help aid: Loans and jobs from institutional, state, or other sources for which a student need not demonstrate
financial need to qualify.
Work study and employment: Federal/state work study aid, and any employment packaged by your institution in financial aid awards.
38
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX C: 57 Essential Annual Reports
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
August
1
August
August
August
August
August
Sept
Sept
Sept
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Nov
Dec
Dec
Dec
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Feb
Feb
Feb
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
March
April
April
April
April
Higher Education Directory
IPEDS Institutional Characteristics
Military Times Edge Best for Vets Colleges
Petersons Expense Update Undergrad Institutions
CIC Key Indicators Toolkit Data Review
US News Best Online Degrees Survey
MGA Green Jobs Survey
On Campus Population Estimates
Campus Security and Crime Report
ACE - Mapping Internationalization Survey
NAFSA International Student Enrollment Survey
IPEDS Fall Collection
Online Learning Survey
Iowa College and University Enrollment Report
Duel Enrollment Programs Survey
Iowa College Foundation Enrollment Report
NAGB Developmental/Remedial Course Survey
Student Retention Policies Survey
Equity in Athletics
ACT National Curriculum Survey 2011
Immigration & Naturalization/International Report
IAICU Salary Survey
Noel-Levitz Second Year Student Assessment
Iowa College Student Aid Financial Aid Report
Iowa College Student Aid Ethnic Diversity Report
College Board Annual Survey
Common Data Set
Community College Linkage Project Survey
Peterson's Survey of Undergraduate Institutions
Princeton Review Common/Review Data Sets
Survey of Programs & Services for Veterans
IPEDs Winter Collection
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 1
Iowa College Student Aid Commission Budget
Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange
ACT IDQ
Wintergreen Orchard House Survey
Peterson's Survey of Financial Aid
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2
Open Doors (Study Abroad)
IPEDS Spring (Fall Enrollment/Graduation Rates)
ACT's Graduate/Professional Questionnaire
IPEDs Spring Collection (Finance)
US News Financial Aid Survey
Higher Learning Commission's Annual Upate
Capital Expenditures Survey
39
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
April
April
May
May
May12
June
June
June
June
June
June
US News Finance Survey
US News Main Survey
Open Doors (International Students)
College Scope Profile
Princeton Entrepreneurship Survey
HED-Connect 2013 Higher Ed Directory
RFI - Strategies for Postsecondary Success
Bureau of Labor Statistics Green Survey
Peterson's Distance Learning Survey
Princeton Review Data Sets Updates
U-CAN University Accountability Network
Source: Office of the Registrar, Spring 2013
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX D: Memo to UBC re: University Needs per PR
To
University Budget Committee
From
Katie Bash, Chair, Program Review Committee
Date
January 2013
As requested, following is a summary of the needs identified in program review documents collected between 2009 and 2012.
Executive Summary:
In Program Review reports received by the Program Review Committee thus far:
 43 units identified technology needs
 39 units identified professional development needs
 29 units identified need for additional marketing support
 17 units identified need for additional staff or reduced workload, 7 units noted inadequate compensation levels
 13 units identified facilities concerns or needs, 5 units identified a need for greater visibility (relocation and/or signage)
 7 units identified need for a common database/better/more consistent data
 6 units identified communication needs
 5 units discussed inadequate preparation of students
 4 units identified concerns related to upcoming retirements
 4 units identified special equipment needs
 3 units identified reasons for adapting how load is calculated (labs and lessons should be taken into consideration)
Units identified potential collaborative opportunities to develop efficiency or synergy:
 Chem/Fine Arts
 Secondary Ed/All Units
 SOE Marketing and faculty development
 WPM/Wellness Efforts
 LC & IC/Marketing and SSOB
 ISSS ID/LC
 SOC SCI & HUM
 Business alumni/Econ/Math,
 VPA/Humanities
 InfoCentral/Switchboard/Registrar
 Student Health Services/Athletic Training
Business, C.H. Sandage School of (SSOB) 2008
In one of the oldest buildings on campus, not easily accessible to students with disabilities; in need of remodeling; unreliable.
Professional development funds
EDUCATION, GLEAZER SCHOOL OF(GSOE) 2008-09
Technology is the key to balancing efficiency & effectiveness & suggest all units collaborate to develop an academic technology plan that will
take advantage of upcoming technological developments.
Health & Movement Science: ATHLETIC TRAINING, FITNESS LEADERSHIP, HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, REC, WELLNESS
AT respectfully describes “inconvenient” sharing (multi-purpose room is 2/3 size it was) & should be commended for their stewardship.
AT concern: cap on low enrollment classes, a concern shared by others, b/c high initial interest typically ebbs.
HLTH: current staffing & loads will make finding effective personnel more difficult.
FL, PE: Identify needs for support & improvements in facilities.
Humanities: ENGLISH (Engl)
Most equipment needs lie in the CS & Writing Ctr, until this year, sufficiently funded. ↑ funding may spur the growth of CS. If larger, we could
offer wider/deeper range of courses in comp, lit, & lang as benchmark institutions’ do, & could expand the # of majors.
Humanities: FOREIGH LANGUAGE (FLang)
According to social researcher D.Yankelovich, for higher ed to remain relevant beyond 2015, it must respond to 5 imperative needs—the
40
Institutional Research PR Appendices
most urgent, perhaps (given the contexts of the globalization era, the knowledge society, & the post-9/11 environment)—“the need to
understand other cultures & languages…Our whole culture must become less ethnocentric, less patronizing, less ignorant of others, less
Manichaean in judging other cultures, & more at home with the rest of the world. Higher ed can do a lot to meet that important challenge.”1
Humanities: WRITING CENTER (WC)
Visibility, Signage
Science & Mathematics: BIOLOGY
Nat’l Assoc of BIOL Teachers (NABT) Guidelines for Eval of 4-Yr Undergrad BIOL (http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=118)
recommends "a minimum of 4 FT faculty in the dept offering BIOL." We are meeting current need but unable to add sections/courses w/o
overloads. Several classes/labs far exceed GU’s target 15:1 student teacher ratio. 2 hr lab = 1 SH & 2/3 credit for teaching load, eg: BIOL
3440 Hum Phys: 3 hrs lecture & 2 2-hr labs/wk = 4 SH; prof spends 3 hrs/wk in lecture & 4 hrs/we in lab for 5.67 load (not includING prep time).
--Student teacher ratios are determined by # students in a section but courses with labs calculated using lecture portion only.
Course
Sp ’11 BIOL1430
Fa ‘10BIOL2300
Title
Fund Animal BIOL/Lab
A&P/Lab
Section
0
1
2
3
# / Section
14
15
15
13
Ratio by Section
14 to 1
15 to 1
15 to 1
13 to 1
#/ Lecture
26
43
Ratio by Lecture
26 to 1
43 to 1
--BIOL requires 1 yr Physics. FTE physics & physics electives cut fall ’09; student can no longer can elect calc-based Physics
Add’l bandwidth for reliable internet access; training on the many uses of classroom reader/projectors; Skype, etc..
--BIOL, the study of live organisms, requires continual purchase of live organisms, some of which only live a few days/wks. Also need organs
for dissection, probes to monitor physiological functions, & enzymes for biological assays.
--Have secured equipment with restricted funds & grants from AHEC, plan to continue but grants are competitive & cannot be relied upon.
--We try to do routine maintenance & repair ourselves.
Science & Mathematics: CHEMISTRY
--Imperative: Hire a FT physics prof. Biol students need algebra-based & Chem majors need calculus-based physics.
--A lab manager could maintain equipment & set up all of the labs.
--We need a committed partner in Development who can help us connect with someone with the wherewithal to make ideas into realities.
--Need Gas Chromatogram w/Mass Spectrometer detector (GCMS) to be competitive ($65,000).
Science & Mathematics: MATHEMATICS (MATH)
Technology: We mostly have what we need but software upgrade schedules seem to unnecessarily make our job more difficult, eg: being
denied by policy to spend $20 on OS upgrades. Math & CS/IT require state-of-the-art tech but policy requires that we use OS's that "are at
least 2 yrs old." Access to Mathematica thru consortium subscription has been sporadic.
Facilities: Resch has excessive air-handling noise in some classrooms.
Students: GU's "open enrollment" makes it problematic to set SLO normative goals based on comparison's to selective nat’l schools but we
do it anyway. We aim hi with the motto "a dept’s reach should always exceed its grasp."
Social Science: HISTORY, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, POLITICAL SCIENCE (Hx, et al)
Next: 2016-17
--Reduced 4.0 FTE to 2.5 to 2.25 FTE, Competitors use 6.5+ faculty to provide the coursework that GU provides with 2.25.
--Briggs classrooms: ancient Smart Carts/overheads, outdated maps, primitive climate control systems detract from learning & work.
Visual & Performing Arts (VPA): ART, MUSIC, THEATRE, SHAW
Art Efficiency: Has demonstrated good stewardship; need for aggressive, targeted marketing is established.
Music Efficiency: From 6 to 3 faculty in 3 years. Satisfaction survey: 90% music majors/minors are satisfied
Shaw Efficiency: Consideration needs to be given to a fee structure for facility rental/labor, especially for non-GU events.
Academic Affairs: EDUCATION ABROAD (EA) February 2010
Designated space on campus; more attention & support from faculty & fin aid, grant or other scholarship funding
Academic Affairs: INDEPENDENCE STUDENT SUPPORT TEAM (ISST)
IT Maintaining good tech support is challenging b/c of rapid change & cost. IC building is 10 yrs old & equipment needs upgrading.
ID Iincreased bandwidth, email for all students, software development tools.
Lib Stagnant budget ↓SON subscriptions Dir earns 87% nat’l ave for new MLS grads (’06 Am Lib Assoc-APA); asst librarian earns 87% nat’l
ave rate for techs despite long tenure (US DOL, Nat’l Occup’l Empl/Wage Estimates,’ 07).
--Better IT support & server maint →less time dealing with tech/server issues & students who cannot access articles & databases.
Mkt Potential revenue if we create a mkt budget based on 6.5% of gross (6.5% is still below recommended amts):
SOE
SON
Bus
Total
Enrollment Goals
225
165
40
Gross Revenue
$2,666,250**
$4,125,000***
$ 800,000
Mkt Budget*
$173,306
$268,125
$ 52,000
$493,431
Per Enr Cost
$ 770
$1625
$1300
41
Hx Per Enr Cost
$ 893
$ 787
$2800
* Based on 6.5% of gross revenue
** Based on tuition rate of $395 for 30 hrs
*** Based on program cost of $25,000
Institutional Research PR Appendices
--Mktg needs ↑ for IC F2F programs & SOE’s Ctrs w/o ↑ resources. J Thompson leads ↓. Competitors budgets ↑. Need to ↑ budget by 10%,
attract & retain professionals (other schools pay ~$7-$8,000 more/yr.)
OGE Low enr, per-student compensation plan→difficult to maintain adjuncts. Undertulitze eCollege. Min ID support available for gen ed.
SSC Personnel needs add’l skillsets (st interfacing, sales, analytical). Salary structure & ltd mobility make it difficult to attract & retain
--Tech, our cornerstone, needs to be dependable. We are often inhibited by systems that are not tested, difficult to use, or unavailable;
--Summary dashboards or scorecards would enable informed decision-making.
Lib Purchasing an article online from any publisher costs ~$30 * # articles downloaded, borrowed & loaned/yr, total cost = $188,310.
Reference questions, group Lib instruction & student services would cost ~ $233,310 compared to Lib budget of $131,000.
OGE # students ↓, considerable capacity exists. Taught by Fac Assoc @ $50/ st/SH if ↓ 10 students; $700/SH if 10+ st. Tuition ranges
$295-$310 /SH + tech fee to cover e-College cost. 8 st @ $915 for = $7320, instructor cost = $1200, gross profit = $6120/class + textbook
revenue. Course rotation revamp reduced frequency of many offerings.
Year
04/05
05.06
06.07
0708
08/09*
SSC A # of administrative functions have been insourced &
consolidated over the past yrs, saving 30 - 60% of tuition.
Despite ↑ programs, budget has been reduced over 5 yrs due to
enhanced efficiency & the use of automated tools & systems.
SSC Exp
$ 548,232
510,502
533,753
490,809
480,801
IC Bookstore
-6,029
14,645
12,609
25,542
28,884
DL Bookstore
40,212
52,576
31,333
50,243
62,000
Academic Affairs: REGISTRAR’S OFFICE (Reg Off)
Tech: Enhanced document or content mgmt system, including workflow, needed ASAP. Document scanning stations need to be improved &
expanded to key locations on campus so the system is accessible by any office. We also need to look at “cloud” computing.
Deficiency in transfer articulations: Transfer Evaluation System (TES) is used to expedite the dev’t of equivalencies with other institutions
but human resource time is needed. We have not had the resources to update all equivalencies implemented in ‘07, a serious weakness. It is
for this reason, an entry-level position to manage routine office procedures, including answering main Reg Off phone & monitoring
Reg’s Inbox to provide routine answers to questions, opening & distributing mail, supervision of student employees & the tasks for
which they are responsible, & coordination of routine communications to students & faculty. This new position would enable the current
Reg Assistant to reclaim those responsibilities that were passed on with loss of 1.0 FTE.
Academic Affairs: WINTER TERM May 2011 (Next Review 2016-17)
Needs were not identified; instead alternatives were presented.
VPBS: ACCOUNTING SERVICES/STUDENT ACCOUNTS
--Add’l desktop screen would ease the challenge of working with spreadsheets. --Software development to enhance available tools to account
for endowment funds. --Consistent computer replacement policy so personnel can run different versions of universal software, eg: Word, Excel
VPBS: HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) June 2011
According to ‘09-10 CUPA-HR survey results, median HR dept FTE = 3.3 for 13 pvt schools in IA, KS, NE & MO, suggesting GU HR is
under-staffed by 1.3 FTE. Median HR budget = $365,545 compared to GU’s HR budget = $179,030. Some outsource, GU does not.
Technology: HR is one of a few offices on campus that is a high database user but has no assigned database specialist.
VPBS: INFO CENTRAL (IC)
Improved facilities/location; Fax machine (students often request the opportunity to use a fax)
computer station(s) for training students in finding information & performing administrative tasks independently
VPBS: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ITS) 6.10.11
IT Review Team strategic planning expected to provide estimates for yr/yr need to meet 2015 goals.
--According to BusinessEdge, GU needs to invest + $500K in yr 1 to improve bandwidth (160 Mbps LC, 20 Mbps IC) & wireless internet.
--Expect on-going annual expenditures & upgrades to ↑w/more tech, maintenance, support, telecom, video, desktops, laptops, smartphones, printers, etc, including technically competent staff, annual training for IT staff & users
--Consider a scheduled leasing program to balance cost & labor to support equipment replacement over 4 yrs. Existing hardware life cycle
cost at both campuses is about $2.5+M, requires replacement every 3-5 yrs
VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS SERVICES (BuS) June 2011 Next review: 2016-17
Training: We could benefit by initial & ongoing training for the multi-function printer.
Tech: AssocTreas had 2 recent computer crashes & continually struggles with MFP. Aggregate disruption is costly.
Membership: Reinstate NACUBO membership for a focused access to best practices
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT (IA), Kelly Everett, VPIA, Spring 2012
95% of last yr’s campaign amt was received from <5% of GU’s donor database. With TA providing info about individuals’ wealth & giving
potential, new assignments better allocate significant givers (Categories A, B & C) to DOs for personal contact & those in Categories D & E to
mailings & phone calls (Annual Fund). Time & resource-consuming visits to people who do not have ability or interest in giving will be reduced,
fewer donors will fall thru the cracks. Over the past yr all members of IA have aligned work assignments with GU’s strategic plan for maximum
efficiency. Budget lines have been reallocated for ↑ travel, mailing, & phone contact; travel is better targeted. Persons with the ability to help
close gifts (President, Deans) will also travel. Funds reallocated to acknowledge gifts properly. Experimenting with charging reunion attendees
for meals & activities suggest it is important to ↑ hospitality, provide support/incentives, & ↑ personal thanks from staff & students of depts that
42
Institutional Research PR Appendices
receive funds. After experimenting with the Directors of PR & Affiliate Relations reporting to IA, it has been determined that, for both positions,
reporting to Enrollment Management creates the most productive synergies for GU. Both have been reassigned to EM.
COMMUNICATIONS TEAM (CTeam): Mktg, Public Relations (PR), Creative Media Center (CMC), Printshop (PShop) Summer 2008
MACs, consistant usage of our service by all who promote GU services &/or programs.
Student Life: CAMPUS MINISTRIES (CM)
Budget is adequate but the time commitment and demands on personnel creates a concern that burnout may result in turnover or a reduction
in efficiency; no budget to support expansion.
Student Life: COUNSELING, ACADEMIC PERSONAL(CAP) CENTER, Michele Maguire Beck, Director, Spring 2009
Professional development funds & Patroness building technology issues: Ongoing problems with speed, printing, etc.; No budget line for
repair/updates. A current national job-search trend is for applicants to be able to “be found” on the Internet; we train students to submit
online resumes & increase their chances for ‘being found’. Tech support is crucial to match peers & what employers want. We could use
better ongoing training and communication regarding GU technology.
Student Life: INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (IP)
IP Dir honor: Selected by US Bureau of Ed & Cult Affirst for honor of being a US representative to interview students for the Global Undergrad
Exchange Program in Caucasus Region (Armenia, Repub of Georgia, & Azerbaijan).
Staffing is sufficient for the current # Internat’l Students. Growth or continued immigration changes may require adjustments.
Technology & physical resources are adequate; however, there have been problems with fax machine connections not operating correctly.
Prof Dev: only budget for 1 to attend regional conference for training & updates with immigration. It would be better if both the PSDO & DSO
could attend the regional conferences together & for the PDSO to attend the national conference every other year.
Needs: With ↑Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black, Polynesians/Asian & other minority students, there is a need for a minority programs
position. No other sponsor has been available or willing to support the Latino club, Dir of IP taken on this position + the Internat’l Club. It is
difficult to manage the needs & time commitment for both organizations.
Student Life: STUDENT ACTIVITIES and CONFERENCES & EVENTS (SA and C&E)
SA: $17/student/year Student Activity Fee = $150/weekend for programming (food, drink, prizes). This fall, average # students attending
Choices ↑ from long-time ave of 300/weekend to 350-400/weekend (50/nite). A healthy option for GU students for 25 yrs, Lamoni Police
appreciate. Equipment good but not great (pool tables, foosball, sound/lights). Hours limited by Coliseum Theatre (noise). Concessions cost
could be raised to generate revenue but at the students’ expense.
Final Fling budget has decreased from a routine $16,000/year to $8,300 in 2010; $8,455 budgeted for 2011.
C&E : $34,684 in revenue in 2010-11.
Student Life: STUDENT HEALTH SERVICES (SHS)
--Due to budget cuts, fewer staff than any other time in the known history of SHS. Could be more efficient & save with medical assistance.
--Lab tests & X-rays done at local clinic. No ability to conduct CBC panel (determine if infection is viral or bacterial)→Director’s main concern
--Student workers file records, deliver items, distribute stall door fliers to the bathrooms around campus, do cleaning chores and many other
helpful tasks. H&W interns create bulletin boards and stall door fliers (newsletters) and help prepare for the annual spring health fair.
Athletics
Staff : AT is staffed at a level that requires that we consciously forgo coverage in trng & contest situations, a liability issue for GU. Men &
wmn Tennis & Golf use PT coaches. Both compete fall & spring, consider adding PT asst to ea. Recruiting staff is compounded by PT
employment base of most positions (head football is the exception). GA model could provide a viable answer for some assist coaches.
Facilities: 1.No designated Cheer Dance space; 2. Football locker rm space critical to operations & recruiting; 3. Tennis courts poor; 4.
Weight facilities poor; 5. Cost to fix Closson = $3M (K Remmenga to UBC spg ‘10) compared to replacement cost ≥ $25M.
Equipment: Fundraising supports equipment updates, football may fall behind with need to transition colors. Most programs require
students to pay a “gear charge” ($75 - $400), often free at peer institutions.
Travel concerns: Most travel in 15 passenger cruisers or 12 passenger vans. Concern: Driving when fatigue is hi.
43
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX E: QI Strategic Plan
Quality Initiative Strategic Plan
Purpose:

To focus the work of Gracelanders on student learning and development inside and outside of the classroom using a
platform that respects collaboration, lifelong learning, inclusiveness, and the teacher-learners themselves.
Four-Year Goals:





To develop and enhance skills that advance learning and state-of-the-art methodologies for education and
scholarship across the university (in and out of the classroom).
To take advantage of Graceland’s strengths and special expertise.
To build on staff willingness to learn and share together.
To thoroughly explore and assess at least 1 topic that is relevant to all learning communities, eg: Critical Thinking.
Create a suggestion forum.
Annual Objectives:


The first year will be mostly exploratory, engaging faculty, administrators, and professional staff in offering and
assessing the value of in-house efforts and the committee expects that the initiative will become more inclusive
and sophisticated as we proceed to year four.
The focus of topics and the expectation for application and strategic use of learning will gradually increase in each
of years two, three, and four. Targeted audiences and participation expectations will expand to include students
and support staff and perhaps other audiences, such as the Board of Trustees.
Year 1 Strategies 2013-14
During year one, the committee will also work through university protocols to:










Negotiate allocations for professional development ‘convocation time’ and dedicate space
Work with the University Budget Committee to secure an annual funding allocation
Work with Institutional Advancement to access donor and/or grant funds
Consult colleagues at peer institutions to consider sharing expertise
Promote active physical and web presences
Develop a timeline of activities and expectations for the first four years of the initiative.
Develop a proposal process for encouraging internal development of learning sessions
Interface with Board of Trustees and Great Graceland Committee.
Implement Chronicle’s “Great Colleges to Work For” survey.
Create Critical Thinking… or other …Assessment Plan.
Year 2 Strategies, 2014-15






Apply again to the University Budget Committee to secure an annual funding allocation,
Work more directly with Institutional Advancement to access donor and/or grant funds,
Promote the proposal process for encouraging internal development of learning sessions
o Develop reporting form/request outcomes reports post-event.
o Review and track outcomes reports for assessment purposes.
Enhance physical and web presences to better engage all target audiences
o Prepare regular newsletters
o Promote internal and external learning events
Subscribe to Magna Publications, use web presence to encourage use of Magna resources.
o Assess for continuation.
Disseminate popular books on learning:
o Collect titles of books that Gracelanders want to read.
o Create library & checkout system.
44
Institutional Research PR Appendices








o Purchase books, request free books from publishers, develop drop-off for donor books
o Give away books to promote QI and to enhance events
o Create a written note-sharing system to accompany books that are given away
Bring a regionally or nationally know speaker to GU, eg: Stephen Brookfield, whose presentations could be paired with
scholars Showcase, INTD1100 supersession, FYE or May faculty meeting. Include students.
Develop a theme such as Hunger Odyssey or Passion Odyssey which could be used to encourage common reading
sessions and to encourage more committees/departments to incorporate learning into routine meetings and gatherings.
Create at least one student professional development group.
Create a “speaker’s bureau” publication that identifies internal experts, their areas of expertise, and their availability.
o Survey faculty and staff about their willingness to present/topics/availability
Consult colleagues at peer institutions to explore sharing expertise across institutions
Create video testimonials of individual students explaining how they were helped by a Graceland faculty or staff
member to share via the website and/or standing meetings.
Assess environment by using the Chronicle’s “Great Colleges to Work For” survey.
Assess Critical Thinking… or ?
Year 3 Strategies, 2015-16






Promote the proposal process for encouraging internal development of learning sessions.
Begin to revitalize policies that allocate GU resources to professional development, eg: release time, sabbaticals
Begin to develop supporting endowment
Assess environment by using the Chronicle’s “Great Colleges to Work For” survey.
Assess Critical Thinking… or ?
Create and Fund a Professional Development Award for ?????
Year 4 Strategies, 2016-17





Promote the proposal process for encouraging internal development of learning sessions.
Finalize and fund policies that allocate GU resources to professional development, eg: release time, sabbaticals
Develop a recommendation for a permanent professional development function at Graceland.
Assess environment by using the Chronicle’s “Great Colleges to Work For” survey.
Assess Critical Thinking… or ?
45
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX F: QI Expenditures & Effectiveness, 2013-14
Quality Initiative Expenditures & Effectiveness, 2013-14
EXPENDITURES: $4,610 TOTAL
$2500
QI offered $500 grants to community members and received 6 applications; 5 were funded, the last one was actually a request for software
and the committee explained to Neal that the fund would too easily disappear if we started to accept those kinds of requests. The
Residence Life effort has been postponed until next year. See Assessment data and analysis below.*
The New Science of Learning, Todd Zakrajsek.
Eight members of faculty and staff traveled to Simpson College for presentation.
Zakrajsek Follow Up Book Discussion Group. QI purchased Zakrajsek’s newest book The New Science of Learning: How to
Learn in Harmony with your Brain, for everyone who participated in monthly discussions.
3 Lunch & Learn Sessions. Each included free lunch for all attendees.
---2.26.14, Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About: 10 Tips for Enhancing Classroom Discussion,
G. Heisserer
---3.25.14, Become a Designer of Learning, Diane Bartholomew
---4.8.14, Testing as Learning, Sharing the Testing Affect with Students, B. Smith
Enhancing Student Learning through a Joint Enterprise, Mutual Engagement, and a Shared Repertoire. GSOE, book study
groups using Schools can Change: A Step-by-Step Change Creation System for Building Innovative Schools and Increasing Student
Learning, Lick, Clauset, & Murphy (2012).
How to Deal with Difficult People, Residence Life, March.
Articulate and Powerpoint, Neal Tyson
$1700 Magna Publications one-year subscription (2014-15) to Magna Commons, a cloud-based faculty development website by Magna
Online Seminars that will enable all Gracelanders to view any Magna Seminar anytime, anwhere (www.magnapubs.com/magna-commons
$310 Thirteen popular professional development books (eg: Mary Ellen Weimer’s, Teaching Naked, Why are all the Black Kids Sitting
Together in the Cafeteria, etc) given away at Spring Staff Appreciation luncheon. (Fall 2014 Survey with 77% response rate indicated that
5 read their book, 2 did not (1 returned), and 2 responded “not yet”. Comments from readers were positive.)
$200 Special request: Health & Movement Science needed to send a faculty member to a conference but did not have the funds.
EFFECTIVENESS: *ASSESSMENT DATA & ANALYSIS
1.
The New Science of Learning: How to Learn in Harmony with Your Brain, Doyle & Zakrajsek
Completed by Diane Bartholomew 5.12.14
Vision of project:
Since the pervasive theme of this effort is improving student learning across the university, faculty, student life and other teaching
professionals are the target groups for the project. A planned series of experiences include an initial meeting to identify the goals and
anticipated outcomes and use of a common reader, “The New Science of Learning: How Research is Revolutionizing the Way We Learn
(and Teach) by Todd Zakrajsek, and attendance at a forum by the author, and followed up by regular meetings with colleagues to discuss
the book. At the end of the project, participants will report on their experiences with each part of the seminar. Each group will be
encouraged to include at least one student in their discussions regarding change and implementation, as we look for ways to implement
some additional service learning opportunities for students. After implementing changes, each participant will share with others their
assessment of the impact from the change.
Actual project:
 Announcements were made via My Graceland to all employees re: opportunities for the field trip and/or acquisition of the book.
 A “field trip” in January to a forum by the author was attended by 8 persons.
 Following the field trip, a second announcement and request regarding books was sent to all employees. After 2 weeks, books
were ordered.
46
Institutional Research PR Appendices





When books arrived, they were delivered to participants.
Participants asked for book groups; at least 3 formed: Friday mornings, Tuesday afternoons, and online.
Additional interested persons were provided books even though they chose not to add late to a book group.
Due to the actual nature of the book, instead of implementing something as a teaching technique, identify at least one way you
have or plan to positively impact student learning and your teaching based on something from the book
Due to the nature of the book, some ways that information from this book might be integrated institutionally was brainstormed.
Assessment:
 Bring colleagues together to learn.
Evidence = 8 at a forum off campus; 16 people in book groups.
1. The Tuesday afternoon group met 3 times to discuss Doyle and Zakrajsek’s The New Science of Learning.
2. SOTL1000-0 Science of T&L was set up in My Graceland as a “class” & used as an online meeting group.
3. Another group met about every other Friday morning throughout the semester.
 Increase knowledge about how people learn.
Evidence = groups’ feedback (informal)
“The book reinforces concepts that we've been teaching in the GSOE for nearly a decade. That's not bragging, but perhaps indicates we
have been out toward the cutting edge? It nearly mirrored many of the concepts found in the text from our Ed Psych book. This is a good
thing! Very affirming.” “The Tuesday afternoon group met 3 times to discuss Doyle and Zakrajsek’s The New Science of Learning. While
much of what they write was not new information to us, we were glad to learn the scientific basis for it. “
 Each member will identify at least one way you have or plan to positively impact student learning and your teaching based on
something from the book.
Evidence = Examples from participants.
“At the start of each class session, I’ll be asking a randomly-selected student to give a brief review of the previous class session.”
“One of my students is using the book as a resource for her physiology honors project to create a one page handout for students
to improve their study skills. Her overall project is to determine the best way to study for the MCAT.”
“I have shared information from this book with each of my student teachers. Even though their “official” learning is near the end,
their life-learning is only beginning. Educators are notorious for putting their needs behind their students’ needs and I want them to be
aware of why this isn’t always wise practice.”
“I plan to include the handout in my fall classes to the freshman.”
“ I have used concepts from the text informally when I talk with the students about preparing for exams.”
“I plan to identify the concepts to students in INTD1100 next year. For example, early in the semester when we do some time
management and prioritization activities, I’ll share the information on sleep and exercise. Also, as I share the information, I’ll ask them to
question the assumptions … and then share the research evidence.”
 BONUS: some ways that information from this book might be integrated institutionally was brainstormed.
Evidence =
 Ask Admissions to send a copy to each new admission when that person sends in their deposit reserving their space in the
entering class. Ideally this gift would be accompanied by a letter of welcome from the Academic Dean.
 Ask the Registrar’s office to reconfigure class times to allow for 30 min. of “down time” between classes -- for example, 50-min.
MWF courses scheduled 8am, 9:30am, 10am, 11:30am, 1pm, 2:30pm, 4pm, etc., or all afternoon classes to have breathing
space built in between classes, or some other experimental configuration -- AND prohibit faculty from
 Ask Student Life to incorporate a presentation on the information in this book into new student orientation sessions, and to take it
into consideration in planning student activities.
 Give a copy of the book to all of the coaches and ask that they make use of it with their student-athletes.
 The book could serve as a beginning to discussion/actions to create a truly effective learning environment. We all agreed that it
would take buy in by everyone on campus...faculty, registrar, student life, etc.
2.
Lunch & Learn Final Evaluation, Completed by Gary Heisserer, 4.21.14
Three sessions were conducted during the spring 2014 semester. Presentations and their facilitators were as follows:
 Dr. Gary Heisserer: “Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About: Ten Techniques for Enhancing Classroom Discussion.”
 Dr. Diane Bartholomew: “Become a Designer of Learning.”
 Dr. Brian Smith: “Testing as Learning: Sharing the Testing Effect with Students.”
Each event was held in the Gold Room in the Commons, and lunch was provided for the participants. There were 15 participants at the
first session, 10? participants at the second, and 10 participants at the third.
A brief, informal evaluation was distributed to participants at the conclusion of each session. Responses to each were favorable.
A total of 27 evaluations were completed. Mean scores are as follows (5 pt. scale where 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither
Agree nor Disagree, 4=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree:
47
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4
This was a good topic for a Lunch and Learn Presentation. Mean:4.6
The facilitator did a good job leading the session. Mean:4.7
The material shared by the facilitator was worthwhile. Mean: 4.7
I believe I will be able to incorporate something from the session in my teaching or work with others. Mean: 4.5
Participants were also asked, “Would you recommend that this session be included in the group of faculty development sessions that will
be made available at Spring Faculty Conference?” All participants who responded to this question answered “yes.”
Participants also were allowed to write additional comments regarding what they thought was the best part of the presentation and what
might have been done to improve the presentation. While most of the comments related to the individual presentation, one common
theme was that participants enjoyed the opportunity to get together as colleagues and share information with each other.
Participants also were invited to recommend topics for future sessions. Those suggestions were:
 Motivation
 Understanding and relating to students of poverty
 Working with students with physical and learning challenges
 Teaching students to learn
 Practical session on technology in the classroom
 Classroom management
 Using my Graceland
3. Quality Education Ideas from Spring 2014 Social Marketing Class, Submitted by Jeff McElroy, 5.11.14
Plan
Incentive
Pros
Cons
Incentivise by giving
Free lunch!
free meal from
Wide range of Accuracy
Survey Students
commons or swarm
feedback
could be poor
Facebook page with blog - students can go on as much as
Weekly topic
possible to respond - use Twitter to promote Facebook for students to
regular Tweets with links to Facebook - use Instagram for
Twitter, Facebook &
discuss visual students and drive them to Facebook - Form "The
Instagram all driving
constant
May be
Future of Quality Educators" club - start regular meetings
students to the
information
difficult to
promoted on social media to continue to get student input
Facebook blog
coming in
keep up
Use 5 key mediums (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, ask.fm,
email). Start with ask.fm & receive anonymous answers.
Questions: What is a quality education? Does GU offer a
quality education? What can GU do to improve the
education it offers? Post short Instagram video inviting
students to answer in a quick & entertaining way (they
Would require
would post videos & use #GUQualityEducation.tag@GU to
a team to
spread the word: Post links on Facebook groups(GU &
Drawing for 1 large
collect,
Twitter) & get people to share, email links, use GU
gift at the end - offer
Should
analyze and
announcements. Need a team to collect responses &
gift card for most
receive many summarize
summarize. Announce gift card winners by creating a video creative Instagram
various types the various
displaying the 3 most creative Instagram videos.
video etc.
of responses
responses
Requires incentives,
Students
social media & group Good
need to see a
effort - give.50 credit
information
short term
Survey students - could also use focus groups
to printing accounts
from students benefit
Survey linked through Facebook - send out through GU
GU can see
Requires
Facebook page or GU announcements - set up in Internet
what is
someone to
Café and ask students to complete the survey - gave a list
Candy in the Internet important to
summarize
of questions for a quantitative survey Café
students
the data
Surveyed house members, found that 1-on-1 time with
professors is #1. Use Loop to create/send survey - Use
Most concise answer Loop gives all
Facebook & Twitter to announce survey using a # in Twitter (140
the
Question: What is included in a quality education? Use
characters) - free
demographics
social media, encourage students to take advantage of
pizza at Shack or
for the survey
professors' office hours & tutoring sessions
drink at Coffee Shop
takers
48
Team Members
Matt Hullinger,
Taran Tani, Chase
Stolld, Jon Mueller
Brandon McNeal,
Rodrigo Tostado,
Deontae Brown
Jessica Edwards,
Rebecca Easton,
Jeremy Suyeyoshi,
Alex Carr, Jay
Radloff, Anthony
Marrash, Irina
Ageeva, Carvel
Claggett
Justin Kaminski
Natalie Sherer,
Bryan Tidwell, Greg
Ekong ,Lina Barriga
Angie Delk & Zoe
Harmon
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Hand out questionnaires in classes - use social media to
advertise a survey on line or in the Internet Café - Start a
student/faculty on line forum & post weekly topics
Survey on Facebook followed by discussion forums where
students can post & discuss opinions in a positive
conversation. could use Pinterest for more creative forum:
Ceate a shared board where others could "pin" pictures,
articles, etc. of what they think a quality education is
Engage students in their classes through social media
Use Twitter & Instagram - #GUQuality Ask students to
share their opinion of quality education on Twitter, use the
hashtag. Separate photo campaign on Instagram with the
slogan "What does a quality education look like to you?
#GU Quality" will incorporate photos, short videos - use
hearsay & student leaders to promote. Create a short
youtube video that shows students around campus,
mention hashtag - put video on all TVs. Use standard
email & myGraceland. Once students start using hashtag,
data analysis tools: Tweet Binder & Hashtracking. Once
analyzed put results on Facebook, Youtube,monitors
Survey needs to be anonymous but could include
demographic information, etc. - information gathering
process should be simple, anonymous and easy to access
- analyze information: break down by demographics
Drawing for $5 or $10
gift cards to local
businesses
Students spend a lot
of time on social
media
Facebook or Twitter
accounts for each
class for student/
student & student/
professor discussion.
Students may answer
each other's ?s;
Teachers available
anytime to students
Important to put
results of study out
where students can
see that we did
something with it
Offer a gift card or
special event for
participants
49
Students just
want to be
heard
Find out what
quality
education is
to current
students
Prepare for
negative
comments
Hannah Krueger
Justin Pontier
Kylie Perkins & Matt
Miller
Data –
TweetBinder
organizes
tweet pics,
links, text &
retweets TweetBinder
& Hashtrack’g
offer impact &
reach stats Honest info &
students just
want to be
heard
Brooke Lavery
Chris Clark
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX G: Program Review Summary
GU Program Review Summary
2008 - 2014
Recommendations, External Consultant, Dates of Review
Key Column 1: # of Unit Recommendations: F = Fully Implemented, P = Partially Implemented; N = Not Implemented
Column 3: University Recommendation*: E = Enhance; M = Maintain; R = Review; A=Audit
Rating
Program
Rec
External Advisor/Consultant
Year
Next
3P
4 F, 7 P
1 P, 4 N
1P, 2N
4N
1F, 2P, 2N
3F
1 F, 1 N
1F, 1P, 4N
4 F, 1 P
1P
6 F, 1 P
2F, 2P, 1N
2F, 5P, 3N
3F
1F, 1P
2 P, 2 N
N/A
2 F, 1P
2F, 5P, 1N
SSofB Accouting
SSofB AgBusiness
SSofB BusAdmin
SSofB Economics
SSofB Sport Mgmt
SSofB Sandage Ctr
SSofB IT
CLAS.HMS AT
CLAS.HMS Fit Lead
CLAS.HMS Health
CLAS.HMS Rec
CLAS.HMS PE
CLAS.HMS Well
CLAS.Hum English
CLAS.Hum Comm
CLAS.Hum FLang
CLAS.Hum R&P
CLAS.Hum WrCtr
CLAS.Hum P/Wr/D
CLAS.S&M Biol
CLAS.S&M Chem
CLAS.S&M Math
CLAS.SS Hx,IS,PS
CLAS.SS Psychol
CLAS.SS Sociol
CLAS.VPA Art
CLAS.VPA Music
CLAS.VPA Theatre
CLAS.VPA Shaw
CLAS.PAS
GSOE Initial
GSOEAdv
BSN
SON.RN→BSN
SON.MSN
SON.DNP
SON.HCMP
AA EdAbrd
AA ACE
AA Chance
AA St. Dis Services
AA FYE
AA FMS Library
AA ESL
AA Lib Studies
AA Registrar
AA Winter Term
AA ISSS IT
AA ISS ID
AA ISS IC Library
M
AICPA
New
M
M
New
M
American Economic Association
Merged with CS, moved to Science & Math Division
M
CAATE
R
Discontinued
M
R
M
M
M
See Bibliography
09-10
14-15
09-10
14-15
08-09
14-15
Discontinued
Merged into a single major
M
National Council of Teachers of English
08-09
08-09
08-09
M
Nat’I Institute of Health, Nat’l Sci Found, Nat’l Academy of Sci
M
American Chemical Society
M
National Teachers of Math
M
American History Association
E
American Psychological Association
Reorganized to Criminal Justice & Human Services
M
College Art Assoc, National Assoc of Schools of Art & Design
M&R
Nat’l Assoc for Schools of Music, Nat’l Assoc for Music Ed
Audit
Educational Theatre Assoc, Theatre Communications Group
M&R
11-12
17-18
11-12
11-12
15-16
09-10
15-16
M&R
NCATE, State of Iowa, Gary Howard, Carl Ashbaugh, Dale Lick, Nancy
Tanner Edwards, Lee Bash
M&R
M
CCNE, State of Iowa, State of Missouri
M
M
E
M
M
See Bibliography
A
Iowa Peer Institutions
A
Lindamood Bell
Next time: Review separately from Chance
08-09
10-11
10-11
M
R
M&R
M
M
M
M
M
10-11
16-17
See Bibliography
Discontinued program
10-11
15-16
16-17
16-17
16-17
14-15
15-16
UMACRAO, AACRAO, AVECO, CSRDE
Registrar’s ListServe
See Bibliography
11-12
10-11
08-09
16-17
16-17
?
14-15
50
11-12
12-13
12-13
14-15
16-17
Institutional Research PR Appendices
2F, 1P
3F
3F, 1P
1F
5F
5F
3F, 1P
5F, 1P, 1N
2 F, 1 P
3F, 2P
1F, 1P, 1N
3F
1F, 1P, 1N
20F, 4P, 1N
AA ISS Mktg.
AA ISS OGE
AA ISS SSC
VPBS
VPBS AS.SA
VPBS.HR
VPBS.InfoCentral
CIFO.ITS
CIFO.Facilities Serv
VPIA
VPIE
VPIE Comm Team
SL CMinistries
SL CAP
SL Int’l Pr
SL Res Life
SL Student Act
SL St Health
VPEM Enr.Mgmt
Athletic Teams
E
M
M
M
M
M
M&R
E
NACUBO, CIC, NAICU, IAICU, Mike Keeble, UMKC
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Mike Keeble, UMKC
Mike Keeble, UMKC
Mike Keeble, UMKC, CAS Standards
Business Edge Turnaround Consulting
11-12
17-18
11-12
M
E
M
M
M
M&R
M
M
M
Target Analytics, Matt Beem, Norm Swails, Bill Higdon
NCA Higher Learning Commission, Carl Ashbaugh
Sandy Mulconry, Alan McIvor, White Whale Web Design
See Bibliography
NACADA, ICORN, AAEE, NACE
SEVIS, NAFSA Association of International Educators
CAS Standards, Iowa Peer Institutions
Iowa Peer Institutions
American College Health Association
11-12
09-10
08-09
08-09
09-10
11-12
13-14
10-11
09-10
M&R
Joe Worlund, Washington University Assistant AD; HAAC, NAIA
09-10
16--17
14-15
17-18
14-15
15-16
14-15
15-16
17-18
19-20
16-17
15-16
15-16
14-15
Unit Recommendations Survey Response, Summer 2014
Total # Fully implemented:
109
52%
Total # Partially implemented:
68
33%
Total # Not implemented:
31
15%
Total unit recommendations:
208
*Response Rate: 86% of 63 units responded (9 did not)
Details are provided in Appendix: Survey Summary: Reported Progress in
Achieving Program Review Recommendations, Spring/Summer 2014
University Recommendations - Key
5
E
ENHANCE
The program needs significant additional resources.
38
M
MAINTAIN
The program should be continued. This recommendation should not be misconstrued to mean that such
programs have sufficient resources to maintain quality or should be maintained “as is”. Many programs in
this category make strong appeals for specific types of additional support, usually staffing &/or equipment.
8
M&R MAINTAIN & The program should be continued but its review has raised questions or concerns about specific aspects of
REVIEW
the program that should be further investigated and addressed by appropriate administrators/faculty/staff.
1
M&A MAINTAIN & Created to emphasize the fact that the WT program needs to assess learning outcomes
ASSESS
4
R
REVIEW
Some pressing issues or concerns need immediate investigation by appropriate administrators, faculty,
&/or staff.
AUDIT TO
3
A
An in-depth investigation of the program should be carried out as soon as possible by appropriate
DETERMINE
administrators/faculty/staff to determine if the program should be maintained, revised, or phased out.
CONTINUANCE
0
PO
PHASE OUT
The program should be eliminated.
University Recommendations – Outcomes
5 ENHANCE ITS (Direct reporting to President, overall budget), IE (Add IR function), DNP (Market
1st doctoral program), ISSS (↑ marketing), Psych (Add faculty)
8 M&R
InfoCentral (collaborate to consolidate); Athletics (review by team), International
Programs (assess new ESL component), GSOE Initial & Advanced (repeated PR),
Shaw (funding), Music (recruiting), Liberal Studies (move to AA, ensure rigor)
1 M&A
4 Review
3 Audit
Winter Term
ESL, Foreign Language, Fitness Leadership, Recreation
Chance (Review Lindamood Bell, separate SDS review), ACE, Theatre/Perf Studies
51
Outcome
All 5 were enhanced as
recommended.
7 reviewed or scheduled; 2 ?:
InfoCentral √, Teams 14-15√,
Int’l Prog ?, GSOE √,
Shaw ?, Music √, Lib St 14-15√
Decision in process
ESL & Rec 14-15, others suspended
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Themes
36 PR Documents (15 academic; 21 admin/support) were completed by 58 units (29 academic; 29 admin/support)
8 units did not complete program review, most because of changes so a new baseline needs to be established:
6 Academic: FYE, Criminal Justice, Human Services, Religion & Philosophy, CS/IT, Communications
2 Admin/Support: Admissions & Financial Aid, Facilities Services
All but 1 (Hx): President/Executive Council agreed with PSC Recommendation
5 programs changed reporting structure (Communications Team, Athletics, ITS, ACE, InfoCentral)
3 divisions moved staff members to other divisions (IA, IE, EM)
4 programs conducted follow-up reviews (GSOE, Info Central, Athletics/Athletic Training Services, HMS)
President conducted 4 follow-up discussion sessions with programs (GSOE, SSofB, HMS, IE)
56 units identified technology needs
52 units identified professional development needs
31 units identified need for additional marketing support
17 units identified need for additional staff or reduced workload; 7 units noted inadequate compensation levels
15 units identified facilities concerns, 5 units identified a need for greater campus visibility (relocation &/or signage)
10 units identified need for a common database/better/more consistent data
6 units identified communication concerns
5 units discussed inadequate preparation of students
4 units identified concerns related to upcoming retirements
3 units identified reasons for reconsidering how load is calculated (labs and lessons should be taken into consideration)
4 units that no longer exist conducted a program review:
Theatre (Audit), Foreign Language (canceled before PRC recommendation), Cinema Studies (Maintain), ESL (Review)
11 units identified potential collaborative opportunities to develop efficiency or synergy:
Chem/Fine Arts, Secondary Ed/All Units, WPM/Wellness Efforts, LC & IC/ Marketing and SSSOB, GSOE/ Marketing, ISSS
ID/AA, SSofB/SOC SCI & HUM, business alumni, Econ/Math, VPA/Humanities, InfoCentral/Switchboard/Registrar
Schools most often cited as benchmark institutions:
From GU’s benchmark list: Simpson, Central, Wartburg, Buena Vista, Grand View, Coe, Luther
Not on PR list but cited at least twice: Drake, UOP and other for-profits
Program Review Committee (PRC) Process Recommendations
1.
Engage Executive Council members in the Program Review processes for their respective units. VPs and Deans should present
their units’ final reports & recommendations to EC.
2.
Incorporate Cost Analysis into PR: Accounting Services/UBC will provide data to each unit at commencement of review process.
3.
Incorporate consistent data analysis into PR: Office of Institutional Research will provide data to each unit at commencement of
review process.
4.
Incorporate assessment trends into PR: Assessment Coordinator will provide assessment trends to each unit at commencement
of review process.
5.
Incorporate Strategic Planning into PR: Conclude each unit’s Program Review with a unit strategic plan - in place of or in addition
to recommendations.
6.
Provide a mentor/coach to each unit undergoing program review and to encourage units to review and analyze programs as
opposed to describing programs. Respond to units during and after Program Review more quickly and meaningfully. Provide an
avenue for mid-cycle updates and communications.
Changes as a Result of Program Review include but are not limited to…
52
Institutional Research PR Appendices

Information Technology Services (ITS) was able to use PR data from other academic and administrative units when conducting
its own PR. The PR process helped the ITS team recognize the scope of concerns being articulated across Graceland.

A review of all PRs indicates that the most frequently mentioned concerns relate to technology so a more intense level of review
was planned for ITS, engaging a task force of internal constituents and contracting an external consultant (most programs
utilized volunteer consultants). As a result of this PR, analyzed in conjunction with the library’s PR, describing changing library
trends and the upcoming retirement of the Librarian, funds were reallocated to implement the recommendation to hire a Chief
Information Officer reporting directly to the President. ITS began reporting directly through the president through a new CIFO
position. ITS has since been retooled and now emphasizes great customer service.

The most common 2 concerns were related to technology and professional development, so the four-year Quality Intiative
project, now approved by HLC and beginning its second year, was designed to address professional development that will
promote teaching and learning in and out of the classroom.

Without incurring new costs, the offices of Institutional Effectiveness, Registrar, and Enrollment Management collaborated to
reallocate resources in order to create an Office of Institutional Research (IR). IR will develop a more sophisticated database to
enable better and more user-friendly data collection and benchmarking. More effective reporting is undoubtedly part of the
reason that GU moved up 16 levels (to 91) in the US News and World Report ranking. IR has also taken responsibility for
centralizing the management of state requirements, relieving all departments with online programs of this burden.

A School of Nursing attrition study, triggered by assessment data, was conducted using the academic and advising records of
853 online graduate nursing students enrolled between 2005 through 2010. Three student cohorts were examined and findings
were presented at two national conferences.

After implementing the InfoCentral task force recommendation, InfoCentral was relocated and reformulated as a combined,
centralized information/technology help desk in the MSC (Memorial Student Center).

In Spring 2010, a university-wide task force provided recommendations to the Athletics Departments’ PR efforts. Together, they
identified 13 recommendations that were all addressed by GU’s new Athletic Director (AD) and the Athletic Department during
the 2010-11 academic year. This includes a revitalized academic advisory committee that now meets regularly as a welcome
discussion and support group for the AD and coaches.

The impact of this PR went beyond GU. The PR report recommended that President Sellars take two issues to the Heart of
America Athletics Conference (HAAC) Council of Presidents (COP). In response, the COP established a HAAC Strategic
Planning Task Force, initial invitation thanks Graceland and President Sellars, “whose work on creating a strategic vision and
plan for athletics at GU was an inspiration and focus of our efforts.” GU’s AD is a member along with representatives from all
HAAC institutions

Fine Arts changed its name to Visual and Performing Arts.

PRC worked with PSC to align New Program Implementation and Program review processes.
53
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX H: PR Survey Detail
Survey Detail: Reported Progress in Achieving Program Review Unit Recommendations
Spring/Summer 2014
F = Fully Implemented, P = Partially Implemented; N = Not Implemented
ACCOUNTING
Recommendation
* Outcome, Completed by Carrie Melcher, 2.5.14
Major continues to integrate with the strategic direction of
The major as a whole addresses global & ethical issues. The major does
the SSOB
P not, as a whole, address environmental issues.
Each accounting class addresses the strategic direction of
Similar to A1, every accounting class addresses global & ethical issues;
the SSOB
P not every class addresses environm’l issues.
Dean, make it a priority to address the facilities situation
P Dean included as member of Briggs Renovation Task Force.
ATHLETICS
Recommendation
Budget Review: Complete cost-benefit analysis for each
team & support unit to standards such as):
1. benchmark & standard template identifying the net
contribution expected from each performance area…
2. Annual target discount rate(s);
3. The optimal % of retainable student athletes
Vision: EC will respond to the concern that “coaches have
…been left to their own visioning…” by providing strategic
direction: standards identified in Outcome 1, ensuring that
strategic planning processes engage the new AD & athletics
staff in developing a vision that is grounded in the lib arts
experience & that affirms the value of athletic competition
Assessment: SLIC will meet with AD & staff fall 2010 to
develop assessment plan, complete no later than March
2011 so t assignments can be made & the plan
implemented (data collected & analyzed) during 2011-012
Academic Interface: IAFAC: Expand committee responsibility to include communication. 1. Monitor interface
between academic objectives & athletic policies;
2. Recommend actions &/or policies which enable & help
ensure the academic success of student athletes.
Outcome, Completed by AD Jeff Falkner, 1.29.14
F
F
F
This has been fully implemented & is ongoing.
We have exceeded Noel Levitz enrollment & revenue targets every year
Identified 500 as the best # for more competitive teams & better retention
& persistence rates. Fall 2014: ~725-750 student athletes.
I believe the message is clear that winning is not a priority & that our folks
understand the responsibility they have to not overspend their budgets &
to make sure their roster targets are hit. I think of this as doing what we
need to do to "weather the storm" we're in financially with the hopes that
in better financial times we'll have the budgets to be competitive in
scholarship, operating expenses & coaching staff salaries.
SLIC Chair met with coaches; AD created assessment plan; implemented
year-end program evals. Now tracking team GPAs, retention rates, not
sure those provide the best measure. Created budget-neutral academic
success coach & compliance/eligibility,1/2 time positions
Fully implemented & on-going. This group still meets & has turned into a
supportive group of faculty more than the watch-dog that it could have
been.
F
I'd say fully implemented but I could see where some would say partially*
F
P
F
*IAFAC came to the conclusion that limiting hours during the season was impossible to track. So we settled on making sure we stay within the NAIA limit of 24 weeks & that we
always had at least 1 day/wk with no team activity. For the off-season the recommended amount of hours was too low or too vague & would have had unintended harmful
consequences to the recruitment & retention of our students. We decided it was also vague in the sense that it didn't properly address the set-up/takedown/field maintenance that
is required of most of our teams or the time spent in conditioning or weight training. One faculty suggestion was made to have the students do that without the coaches present &
I argued that our focus should be on time spent, not on time with the coach. It made sense to have a coach in the weight room for liability purposes monitoring the weight training
more that to have them in there without a coach. We ended up on 18 hrs/week within the 24 week NAIA guidelines. It’s worked well. Every so often I get a complaint about a team
practicing too much & when I look into it it's false. It’s generally a student trying to cover his/her tracks for not turning in as assignment or for showing up late.... Another change
was that we don't miss any 1 class more than 4 times for regular season competition. We check this as we're making schedules & sending out contracts each year. Exceptions
are always baseball & softball, where sometimes due to weather we have little control over make-up games - & golf, where it's hard for colleges to get courses on weekends so
the vast majority of the college tournaments are Mon-Tues. We also send travel notices to faculty & I personally feel we communicate probably as well or better than we ever
have between athletics & faculty.
3. Report annually: i. Admissions profiles of athletes & nonathletes; ii. Grad rates of athletes & non-athletes; & iii.
Grad rates of athletes by sport & non-athletes over 6 yrs.
5: Recruiting should demonstrate, by reporting thru IAFAC,
that admissions criteria take priority in acceptance decisions
& are made without consideration of likely performance.
F
I'd say fully implemented & on-going. Noel-Levitz & enrollment have the
profile numbers & DKM would have the retention & persistence numbers.
F
Done. Admissions handles all of this. As recommended, athletics has no
say in admissions decisions.
54
Institutional Research PR Appendices
6: In the spirit of collaborative lib arts education, maximize
Athletics + contribution & minimize disruption of academic
preparation. 1. Freshman may not miss class for athletic
activities during new student orientation or 1st week of class
2. Aavoid requiring student athletes to miss class. Multiple
day trips for non-conference play will be discouraged if not
prohibited.
3. Students may not miss class to attend practice, team
meetings, optional workouts, appointments with athletic
trainers or prep for departure.
4. A student may not miss a given class more than 4x/sem
for regular season athletic activities. HAAC allows 5.
5. Academic, athletics & student life administrators will
examine creative scheduling options that will minimize the
likelihood of required absences.
6. Faculty should expect ample advance notice of pending
absence, honor requested absences, work with students to
minimize learning impact & notify students in advance of
repercussions if regular season requires ↑4 missed classes
7. Allow 5 wks of out of season practice. HAAC & NAIA
guidelines currently allow 24 wks of practice over the
academic yr split between “in season” & “out of season”
reducing many sports into the range of 18-20 wks.
8. Coach’s organized & required contact with players while
classes are in session ≤ a. Allowable contact hrs offseason: 8 hrs/wk max; b. Allowable contact hrs in-season
18 hrs/wk, incl. practices, team meetings & competitions.
Long, single-day competitions = 3 hrs.
9. Allowable contact days per wk: max 6 days
10. Students who participate in a sport during WT must be
concurrently enrolled in a WT course.
11. Pres Sellars will influence HAAC policy: a. Redirect
HAAC toward greater compatibility with lib arts objectives;
b. Eliminate adherence to NAIA 24-wk rule in favor of a
moderate model; c. Reduce fall preseason practice;
d. ↓ # of competitions; e. Reconsider Div 1 basketball
7: 1. Financial Aid & admission policy should be public to
the limit of privacy laws & administered with a high degree
of transparency & uniformity.
2. Every effort should be made to support performancebased financial aid through endowments
3. Financial aid strategies should enable improvement of
the student academic profile.
4. IAFAC routinely should report to campus stakeholders re:
the university response to these recommendations.
Rec. 8: Funding: 14 funding ideas should be explored by
the appropriate person/committee. New expenses would
need to meet budget standards.
F
See also response to rec #4 but also the second part is true. We abide by
the welcome week & first week of classes recommendations.
Done. Schedules submitted to the Asst AD for approval if over 300 mi.
This has helped avoid simultaneous varsity games & split event staff &
increased effectiveness with corporate sponsorships & promotion efforts.
F
Done.
F
Done.
P
Partial. Difference course scheduling could dramatically affect many
things we say we want to improve.
F
Done.
F
P
F
F
See earlier answer addressing this.
Done, outside of preseason.
F
Done. Few slip through the cracks or find loopholes
F
President Sellars visited with HAAC; HAAC established a task force; GU
AD serves on task force.
F
Done.
P
I haven't seen much improvement in this area.
N
F
Not implemented. Discount rate & enrollment goals have taken priority
Happens yearly at spring faculty meetings + a "complaint box” on My
Graceland.
F
Part of our on-going budget processes
CAMPUS MINISTRIES
Recommendation
Outcomes, Kt met with CM Matt Frizzell 2.7.14
Next 5 Years: CM recognized the need to be more inclusive, and that the first step in
P New CM took office 2012-13 and will renew
achieving this is to revise the vision statement and philosophies of CM as well as the tools to
vision during Spring 2014 during the next round
which these give birth. Vocational discernment, endowment opportunities, and the reworking
of CM Program Review.
of the House Chaplain program are major projects for the CM program.
VPIA will meet with CM to discuss needs (Recs 4, 6, 7) & incorporate them into the new
F
campaign (expected to begin late 2010)
55
Institutional Research PR Appendices
We suggest working with the AD to further develop an athletics ministry recommendation & F D. Lilly worked full-time with student athletes
cost/benefit analysis. Utilizing student chaplains enhances the value of the program by
2009 - 2012. Discontinued
providing leadership & opportunities for students. Altho no funds are available at this time,
VPIA may be able to help in this area.
COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Recommendation
Change Organizational Structure Since the team’s work is critical to enrollment efforts,
we recommend that Kirk Bjorland become the team leader and that Kirk report to the
VPEM. This transfer has two important advantages: 1) It provides a cost savings in the
elimination of the VPIE position; and 2) It allows for the development of synergies
between admissions, marketing, and public relations.
Adopt Identity Standards/Protocols Image promotion must be consistent. We
recommend this policy be embraced by the entire community, communicated through the
updated GU Identity Guide & made available conveniently online & in hard copy. The
guide includes the policy, specific visual/verbal identity standards, U E-mail guidelines
Adopt the Integrated Marketing & Communications Plan The team worked with
consultants, the offices of admissions and marketing on both campuses, and with staff
across the university who are increasingly involved in promoting GU through participation
on the Integrated Marketing Committee. Goals and strategies have been prioritized, from
1, which identifies immediate implementation, to 5, which indicates which aspects of
marketing will suffer if staffing recommendations are not achievable.
Call to Action to include frank summary of internal & external financial dynamics; a
reminder that we face these challenges together, supported by GU’s transformational
mission & hx that has served our personnel & students even as it comes from within our
personnel; an affirmation of GU’s potential & potential of each Gracelander
Outsourcing and Printers. Maintain current level of outsourcing for the next 2 years
until the printer contract is fulfilled. Work with ITS to consider cost/impact of variable
printers on a combined marketing/admissions budget. ↑ convenience for users, eg:
delivery; IC visits, monitor deadlines, enhancing CMC lobby to ↑ customer service.
Macs vs IBMs ITS & MAC users collaborate to: 1) Identify MAC & windows standards;
2) establish policy guidelines for when each is the most appropriate acquisition;
3) collaborate to share skills for maintenance & repair of both types of machines. This
would allow for economies of scale to be developed for each type of computer.
Integrated Communications Committee should continue as an advisory bodyMeetings
need not be frequent & can be supplemented with e-mail communication.
F.M. SMITH LIBRARY
Recommendation
1. Add another professional librarian
2. Utilize advances in Technology to Facilitate student learning
experiences.
Enhance physical environment to meet needs of modern-day learners
4. Provide additional materials to improve the academic experience.
N
P
P
N
F Newest Edition recently posted in
MyGraceland per Jeanie Davis, 1.30.14
P Committee discontinued with changes in
Enr.Mgmt staffing, work continues
F GU Matter campaign
F 2009: Purchased a new printer with a
company that bought out the old contract;
2014 outsourced to Ricoh.
F
N
Outcomes By Alisha Linam, new director, 1.31.14
Staffing has changed significantly; currently only 1 LC
professional librarian on staff.
New computer workstation on main level which includes 12
computers, relocated reference desk to a central location.
Painted 2014, Budgeted for 2014-15 furniture upgrades
Acquisitions budget has decreased.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Recommendation
1. Hire more foreign language teachers. (1 FTE Spanish, 1 FTE French/German).
2. Explore MLA model for “a coherent curriculum in which lang, culture, & lit are taught
as a continuous whole, supported by alliances with other depts & expressed thru
interdisciplinary courses
3. Develop Media Labs by expanding & centralizing learning resources.
4. Develop Community Alliances with area K-12 schools.
5. Explore links & partnerships between GU & businesses in the US & overseas,
including internships.
56
Outcomes, Completed by K Bash, 1/30/14
F Moved to Enrollment Management when new
VPEM took office
Outcomes Per discussion with C. Karmas 2.4.14
N None implemented – Major reduced to minor before
P PR recommendations could be assessed and
implemented. Fall 2009, President Maxwell from
Drake did attend a faculty gathering to discuss how
N Drake approaches foreign language instruction (see
N #2)
N
Institutional Research PR Appendices
HEALTH & MOVEMENT SCIENCE
Subunit Recommendation
Athletic.
1. Maintain the program & grow student #s (e.g.,
Training transfer agreements, liberal studies) & related
clinical sites. Should student interest grow, keep
course & lab separated & add lab sections to keep
student:teacher ratio 8:1.
2. Continue to look for ways to improve program
(e.g., prof’l socialization of students, online testing
exposure) & efficiency. Review assessment tools &
data & look for trends. Use upcoming CAATE visit
to help identify opportunities.
FL
Feasibility study needed; look for targets & sites to
suspend serve as growth hubs.
Health
1. Continue the major.
Physical
Ed.
Recreation
Wellness
Management
2. Continue to offer certifications. Promote First
Aid/CPR/AED to staff & students. Lifeguard training
is a health/safety promo course & this certification
has equipped many students to staff the pool safely.
1.Continue to review to make sure we are providing
curriculum students need.
2. Carefully monitor load & personnel, now minimal.
C consistent problem: balancing educat’l & coaching
needs. If we continue split positions, we must hire
teachers who coach rather than coaches who teach.
Review to determine institutional priority & support.
A lean yet viable major, it relies on a single faculty
member.
1. Explore collaboration & cost savings of integrating
WPM into GU outside academics (eg: Wellness
screenings/center, rehabilitation & personal trng,)
2. Consider facility needs for more storage &
dedicated movement space
3 Consider offering students an opportunity to earn
personal training (or similar) certification.
Outcome Completed By, HMS Chair,11.13.13
P 1.CAATE visit completed, 2010. New Ed’l Compe-tencies, 2011.
New CAATE standards, 2012.
2. Added clinical sites. 3. Small ↑ #s; looking for ways to
attract/keep students
P 1.CAATE visit completed, 2010. New Educa’l Competencies, 2011.
New CAATE standards, 2012. 2. Assessment plan updated 2012-13
based on above & new data. 3. Unique opportunities: Graston
Technique, KinesioTape (in progress, CEPE (CES & PES
certification prep) minor or PHED4500 align.
F NPIP process repeated. Curriculum reviewed in division. Major
eliminated; minor still exists.
F 37 majors (20 declared), 30 minors. Comparing to standards, best
practices in health & contemporary health ed programs) →
curricular revisions expected 2014-15.
F HLTH1100 is offered. Emerita faculty still offer lifeguarding; 2 other
faculty qualified to offer the course. Currently all certifications are
via ARC; investigation is on-going to provide AHA certification, as
needed for nursing.
P Currently revising curriculum & aligning with NCATE/NASPE
standards (& required SPA, specific prof’l accreditation, report)
P Last 2 retirements of split positions have been reconfigured so that
refilling the position occurred with non-split positions. On-going
issue.
P Cursory review of other RECR majors (benchmarks). Curricular
reform to mesh with WPM was to occur by fall 2013; not done.
Implementation of RECR1100 during WTRM 4 of last 5 years to help
students "find the major." Enr: 20 in 2010, ↓ 10 other yrs. 11/13/13
list of majors = 11 (6 in Sept ’13)
P Explored with Fitz Center. Funding denied. 2.Explored with Wellness
Committee; instead hired separate wellness director - not funded.
P Storage cove built in Closson. Grants used to build outside storage;
alleviated shared space. 2.Movement space still needed
F Revised curriculum after comparing to NASM competencies.
Contract with NASM gives students exam discounts; no cost
HISTORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Recommendation
Outcome Completed by Steve Glazer 2.7.14
1. Hire a political scientist who can teach
Partially implemented in Fall 2012 with hiring of Dr. Adam Martin, but administration only
POLS1300 US Gov’t every semester
allowed the hire as a "visiting assistant professor." That decision was later revised by
(now fall only) & Intern’l Pol & Compar
administration, placing Dr. Martin on a tenure track, fully implementing the
Pol which should be regularly offered .
recommendation. Martin's 2-year rotation offers 3 sections of POLS 1300/yr, yearly offering
Demand is hi enough to add an OL
of Comparative Politics & International Politics, as proposed in the strategic plan, as well as
section; changes to IA el ed requirements
yearly offering of Intro to Peace Studies & Intro to International Studies, & upper division
make this a critical need.
F offerings in Political Science & Peace Studies.
Long-term goal remains 4 FTE faculty, as from mid-1980s - 2009, following retirement of
2. Hire a historian for service courses &
B.Russell & B.Juhnke & failure of administration to replace their lines. As noted in the
to allow new minors. At current staffing
strategic recommendation, with only 2 historians the dept cannot offer new programs. Half
levels we cannot offer new programs.
N the load of both --every sem, every year--consists of survey courses World Civ & US Hx.
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Recommendation
1.40 report coord. An essential function, Registrar already
Outcome Completed by K. Bash, VPIE, 1.29.14
F PRC suggested developing a function that would ensure consistency in
57
Institutional Research PR Appendices
participates in reporting & participated in the focus group that
using, reporting, & marketing data & information across GU. First, a 2-year
recommended “There absolutely needs to be a single person
pilot with an Assistant Registrar doing most of the reporting & some data
responsible for coordinating & tracking univ-wide reporting…to
management - reporting took most of her time. In Jan 2014, the Registrar,
work closely with a technology expert to develop an electronic
VPEM, & VPIE pooled resources to establish the Office of Institutional
method of sharing info that will keep the community informed
Research with D. Kepple Mamros as Director & S. Shields her assistant.
& encourage consistent use of data…also enhance
Because D.K-M was the Asst. Registrar & Stephanie was with admissions
coordination with adm/marketing to ensure GU is well15 years, the connections between IR, IE, the Registrar remain strong. New
represented in higher ed's many key publications.”
office created with no impact to the university budget.
2. Placement rates for employment & continuing ed are
P Altho PRC liked ACT Traditional Alumni Survey, cost is prohibitive; decided
increasingly important to accreditors & regulators yet are the
to work with Alumni Services’ database & with SON & GSOE, who do more
most difficult to gather because grads naturally disengage.
robust alumni/employer surveys, to create an electronic survey process.
ACT trad’l Alumni Survey assesses alumni perceptions &
CAP Center does a graduate survey; but a broad survey of 5 &d 10 year
employment/ed’l progress.1,000 surveys/yr would enable GU
alumni continues to seem important. Alumni Services changed staffing;
to get bulk discount & survey 2 cohorts/yr for $1,000.
follow up did not occur.
3. SLIC developed an assessment policy & recommends
F SLIC created a recommended policy and published an assessment
adoption.
handbook. The committee does not believe the “recommends adoption” as
a policy is necessary although the handbook needs to be updated and
posted in a user-friendly electronic location.
4. a) All assmt tools used by GU should be reviewed for cost & F a) Few standard tools have been used, altho faculty members (math &
usefulness. If data collected is not shared & used for
CS/IT) who utilize ETS area tests say they appreciate their objectivity &
improvement, cost should not be incurred. Review should
reliability.Math documented ETS test trends in their PR. SSI has not been
explore correlation between the surveys we conduct and the
utilized in the past 2 yrs, not because we doubt its value but because of
reports we submit so GU can maximize effectiveness &
cost. It or NSSE should be reinstated next year. b) SLIC reviewed several
efficiency. b) Survey products & tech related to inst’l research
products at conferences, via webinars & with salespersons. HLC
should be explored to determine whether opportunities exist
Assessment Academy advisor suggested that since we are small we stay
that would allow Gracelanders to work smarter, not harder, at
with what we are doing because we are engaging faculty/staff in analysis
self-improvement.
rather than relying on software.
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
Recommendations
1. ISP will create & implement Extended Orientation Class, INTD1000,
Transition, 1 hr/wk for 1st semester. Description: Required, designed to
support non-native English speakers or non-North Am internat’l students
transitioning to university life; an extended orientation to help students
integrate & navigate through cultural adjustment while learning
US/State/Local/GU cultures & procedures.
2. All DSO’s & PDSO’s should attend annual regional conferences to
maintain & update immigration regulation knowledge & resources.
3. It is strongly recommended that a Minority Programs Specialist
consistently support GU’s minority students who have different needs than
Internat’l students to act as a program specialist, liaison, advisor, advocate
& support to minority organizations & their leaders.
MUSIC
Recommendation
Identify marketing/recruiting strategies specific to Music.
Work with Admission Counselors & Fin’l Aid to ensure that
student candidates can take full advantage of opportunities
Establish a specialist devoted to working closely with Music
Dept to grow program enrollment using multi-faceted
approach & focused, ongoing set of strategies & activities
Create systems to efficiently & productively support
recruiting initiatives to achieve the exponential growth
expected to take place with Music majors & ensemble
members
To ↑ visibility, faculty will present clinics & master classes at
regional locations & attend important music conferences
Outcome –Diana Jones, Director of Inter’l Services, 1.29.14
F
Fully implemented
P
N
The PDSO and one DSO have been able to go
but there is not budget for all
No budget - needs to fall under the Dean of
Students
Outcomes Completed by L. Bash 2.13.14
F
Yet still a work in progress. Part of the challenge is sharing
Marketing/Music knowledge
With this person's (L. Bash) input & guidance, the # Majors & in
ensembles has ↑ with many long-range plans & activities still to be
implemented.
Starting with no comparable systems on campus, Music has
continued to develop a procedures & forms to better monitor
progress & create comparative data that allow stakeholders to
recruit a growing # of students. Ongoing & gradually improving.
The # of events continues to expand & the potential number of
students impacted grows
F
F
F
58
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Concert Outreach & Touring: Music Ensembles will seek to
expand the number & magnitude of performances beyond
the Graceland campus
SHAW CENTER
Recommendation
Fund repairs & replacement via fees/service charges &/or
fundraising. Needs list forwarded to IA.
SCHOOL OF NURSING (SON)
Recommendation
The SON plans to expand all programs except the
undergrad F2F program, which is at capacity.
‘12-13: most ensembles performed in Independence, MO at CofC
World Conference. ‘13-14: All ensembles traveled to Chariton
Christmas Concert, Bands & Drumline toured Branson, MO.
P
Outcome, J. Whatley, Shaw Center Dir, 1.30.14
We continue to work with development to fund facility needs. With the
exception of SPEC we need to reassess how we charge for summer
camps as they do not pay the current fee established by EC & BOT.
P
Outcomes, C Horton, Dean, SON, 2.11.14
Increased enrollment in graduate programs, and Healthcare
Management, but not in RN-BSN program (see below).
Implemented a lockdown system on students' own computers to
use during exams. Would still like to purchase more GU computers
because of the glitches experienced when students use their
different operating systems
Even with additional marketing - hired AllCampus - competion is
growing. AllCampus is conducting a research analysis to determine
the best steps moving forward.
MSN program continues to be the most sought-after.The profession
has not set a date to end MSNs. 3rd DNP cohort this fall. Hoping to
increase #s via NursingCAS, a centralized application system that
allows students across the country to apply to nursing programs
through one system.
P
Consider requiring students to purchase laptops which
would decrease the expense of providing laptops for online
testing.
Online RN-BSN program has the potential to ↑ enrollment
because more states are pressuring nurses to earn BSN.
P
N
F
Continue offering the MSN program ~5 yrs; add DNP in
2011 (DNP will increase enrollment & need for additional
resources);
Online Nurse Practitioner Tracking System will be
implemented Summer ‘10 to streamline grad processes
F
STUDENT HEALTH SERVICES
Recommendation
1. Routinely provide a semester-long internship for Health &
Wellness majors to assist with campus-wide health education.
This would also allow the Director to focus on patient care. HMS
Chair agrees; Interns have worked out well for all.
2. Use electronic record-keeping to control storage issues &
keep current with upcoming health care requirements. Lost info
thru CARS so returned to paper records. Appropriate electronic
system is costly so we are working with ITS to resolve.
3. In addition to the bi-annual survey, establish a committee of
students to consult with annually or biannually.
STUDY ABROAD (SA)
Recommendation
Allocate space in a student traffic area large
enough to accommodate multiple students with
book shelves for EA material, a safe place for
students to go who have just returned from EA &
internat’l students experiencing culture shock.
It should be staffed at least 1 hr/day (preferably
more) by someone working with EA (student
internship or student worker).
A small fund needs to be set up through alumni
donations to offer scholarships to EA students:
Scholarships should be offered at the $500 &
P
N
P
P
The "Thyphon" system was implemented, working smoothly.
Outcome B.Easter, ARNP, Director of Student Health Services, 1.29.14
P
We have not had an intern this year.
Maybe there is no need.
All daily documentation is done in
Uniface.
F
N
SHS WILL BE
OUTSOURCED
I have not had time to follow-up on this
goal.
Outcomes D. Kepple-Mamros, 2-25-14
No space or lounge for students but a book shelf in a Briggs
hallway.Students regularly use the materials placed there but there is no
space where any student who has been abroad can decompress or be
with others who understand what its like to live in a different culture. D.
Jones helps by reaching out to SA students when they return. OI does
something similar but just for the students who travelled on their WT trips.
Again, there is no space and no staff for this. An International Lounge in
the MSC or some other place on campus that is attractive to students
would be the best spot.
There is a scholarship fund available thru a program provider but only
students who use ISA can access it. (ISA puts $250 into the fund for each
student from GU who uses ISA as a provider)
See above. Typically give $300-$500 scholarships to ensure we do not
59
Institutional Research PR Appendices
$1000 levels
Only 1-3 scholarships should be offered/year
A faculty committee will read scholarship
materials/determine scholarship winners.
EA Applications need to be available online
The EA Coordinator should work with faculty to
understand how curriculum of each
division/program fits with EA.
P
N
F
P
This will help when advising students
F
This will help faculty see possible conflicts & plan
accordingly.
N
BUSINESS SERVICES
Recommendation
1. Reinstate NACUBO membership for focused
access to best practices.
2. Move ITS report directly to Pres; free VPBS to
focus on other issues & emphasize critical nature &
inst’l impact of technology for all
3. Continue to: a) Support institution-wide efforts to
streamline processes & communication by utilizing
MyGraceland; & b) Commit to defining & following
policies/procedures to save time & avoid frustration
for all offices.
WRITING CENTER
Recommendation
1) Maintain or ↑ funding to meet challenges, ↑
persistence & better match benchmarks.
2) Move to NW View Rm or swap with help desk to
improve visibility
3) Continue to pursue signage & directory listing
F
F
P
deplete our funds. Not all students who study abroad apply so we
typically have more income than expenses.
As above, we are currently giving 2 scholarships per year but it is limited
to those who use ISA
Not sure we need to implement this yet. The scholarship is such a small
amount and we have had enough to give everyone some, so far.
Online app in 2 parts allowing students to begin with part 1 & progress to
part 2 after placement
Attempts were made. Some faculty resisted because students would be
disadvantaged by taking a semester off, gettingout of sequence with
infrequent courses, delaying graduation.
It certainly did help with advising students. Some students were advised
to go in the summer; 1student, when he found out study abroad for a
semester would delay his graduation by a year, decided to spend the
whole year abroad. Students can make better decisions.
While it may have helped some faculty see conflicts, most do not perceive
study abroad as a big enough or important enough program to cause
them to make changes to their majors or courses.
Outcome Completed by Janice Tiffany, VPBS, 2.4.14
Added membership at the time of the recommendation & have used the
conference & materials discounts many times; I need to do a better job of
reviewing the magazine & website information, to keep more current
Not only ITS, but Facility Services too. I do spend time supporting both
areas, but not nearly as much as I did when they were in my area.
Goal for all not just BusServ. a) Several offices worked thru changes that
have/will result in fantastic things (so the thinking is in place!). My Gr is
now the tool of choice for most departments, & b) EC seems to be more
aware of policies and a process for policies. I hope to make lots of
progress on this in the coming year (now that the debt will be done).
N
Outcome F.Acland 2.4.14 took over as Director in February 2012
The Writing Center lost a 1/2 time worker, down to a 1/2 time director
plus student tutors
P
N
Task force has been assigned to review use of Library space
I wasn't aware of this goal until now, but we could certainly work on it.
HUMAN RESOURCES, Ondrea Dory, 7.28.14
1. Hire a third HR person ASAP. Anticipated budget: $28,000 salary + benefits at $10,000 annually. (Consultant Keeble agreed verbally)
F – Hired Andrea Stuck
2. With a 3rd staff member, Director could focus on neglected strategic issues (supervisor training, ministerial housing allowance revamping, ADAA policy/forms, FLSA compliance audits.) Issues 1 & 2 are tied; one can’t be solved independent of the other.
P – Andrea has been here one year. Many strategic issues addressed.
3. Enforce Payroll Advance policy (1/ student/semester) or pay students bi-monthly. F – bi-monthly payroll started June 1, 2013
4. An institution-wide issue, lack of training was mentioned 20 times on the May 2011 Staff Satisfaction survey suggesting a need for
centralized job-specific & general training (eg: customer service & supervisory). HR would be responsible for a training needs assessment.
F – training needs assessment completed and $40,000 in funds allocated during 1112 fiscal year
60
Institutional Research PR Appendices
INDEPENDENCE STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES, Paul Binnicker, 7.28.14
IT Rec 1: IC should have a separate budget line for IT N
IT Rec 2: GU should increase internet bandwidth. F
IT Rec 3: Upgrade aging equipment as resources become available F
ID Rec: 1 Upgrade Technical Infrastructure F
ID Rec 2: Implement a Centralized ID Model for Online Course Development F
ID Rec 3: Restructure F
Lib Rec 1: Ordering, receiving & cataloging Grabske materials will be facilitated & initiated by Grabske F
Lib Rec 2: Lib budget & invoice approvals should be done on the IC. F
Lib Rec 3: Charge libraries that will not reciprocate on interlibrary loan & investigate dropping out of OCLC F
Lib Rec 4: Charge students a Lib fee for courses that require intensive amounts of Lib service. F
Lib Rec 5: Purchase add’l databases & online journals, discontinue free ILLs, utilize student workers. P
Mkt Rec 1: Develop synergy between the LC & IC mkt by doing more cooperative advertising. P
Mkt Rec 2: Form a permanent IC Website Cmte to review Website monthly N
Mkt Rec 3: Work closely with the SOE & SSOB to find new programs with mass appeal & adjust existing programs. P
Mkt Rec 4: Hire a search engine optimization consultant. F
Mkt Rec 5: Further increase market research initiatives. P
Mk Rec 6: Continue to improve the availability of admissions reps to our prospective students F
Mkt Rec 7: Provide more “value” to current & prospective students. P
Mkt Rec 8: Analyze whether to integrate admissions & consulting functions F
Mkt Rec 9: Implement a formal cross-training plan. P
Mkt Rec 10: Develop Pay & Promotion Plan”. P
Mkt Rec 11: Authorize a mkt budget equivalent to benchmarks. F
Mkt Rec 12: Use unpaid interns to enhance mkt & admissions. N
OGE Rec 1: Advocate fiscally responsible enhancements to tech infrastructure (eg: e-mail for all GU students). P
OGE Rec 2: Work with other GU depts to finalize adoption of GU guidelines for online learning. F
OGERec 3: In collaboration with ID personnel, develop & implement an oversight procedure to assure compliance. F
OGE Rec 4: Collaborate with ID & Exc in Online Prog Cmte to develop/promote training to enhance online courses/instruction. F
OGERec 5: Adopt textbooks that contain high quality learning materials & are conducive to online teaching & lrng. F
OGE Rec 6: Continue careful monitoring of course offerings in terms of courses, enr, size, & frequency of offerings. F
OGERec 7: Develop initiative to enhance knowledge & perception of GU’s online programs. F
SSC Rec 1: Promote enhancements to tech infrastructure (eg: system redundancies, e-mail for all GU students, product testing). P
SSC Rec 2: Expand use of student “self-service” tech (eg: course registration & payment) for selected programs P
SSC Rec 3: Enhance summary-level reporting thru dashboards & dedicated reporting P
SSC Rec 4: Examine restructuring of positions to promote add’l efficiencies (See Mkt Rec 8). P
SSC Rec 5: Promote cross training to create efficiencies, provide stability & promote prof’l growth for our team members. P
SSC Rec 6: Leverage the Program Registration System to achieve additional efficiencies in selected programs P
SSC Rec 7: Develop a “Pay & Promotion Plan”. P
SSC Rec 8: Enhance skillsets within SSC thru additional training & targeted hiring. P
SSC Rec 9: Pursue bookstore efficiencies in ordering, inventory analysis & shipment/return processes F
61
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX I: PR Schedule 2014-2020
Program Review Schedule
2014 - 2020
2014-15
VPAA/Deans:
VPAA & VPSL:
VPSL:
VPEM:
CIFO:
VPIE:
Humanities, Writing Center
Health & Movement Sciences
Independence Campus Student Support Team (Marketing, ITS, Library)
Performing Arts Series (PAS)
Liberal Studies
General Education (may take more than 1 year)
Chance
Student Disability Services
First Year Experience
Campus Ministries
Athletics – All Teams
Facilities Services
Inst’l Effectiveness, Inst’l Research, PR &Assessment, Accreditation, Retention
2015-16
VPAA/Deans:
VPEM:
VPSL:
CIFO:
Visual & Performing Arts, Shaw Center
Social Science (including Criminal Justice, Human Services)
Honors
Study Abroad
Admissions, Student Financial Services, Work Study, Communications
CAP Center
Student Health Services
FM Smith Library
2016-17
VPAA/Deans:
VPSL:
CIFO:
Gleazer School of Education, ACE
Sandage School of Business
School of Nursing
Registrar
Student Activities, Choices, Coliseum, C&E
ITS, InfoCentral/Help Desk
VPAA/Deans:
VPIA:
VPBS:
VPSL:
* FALL HLC REACCREDITATION PROCESS *
Science & Math
Institutional Advancement
Accounting Services, Business Services, Human Resources
International Student Services
VPAA:
VPSL:
Chance
Residence Life
2017-18
2018-19
Prior Review
2008-2009
Communications Team:
Mktg, PR, CMC, Print Shop
Education, GSOE
Humanities: English
Humanities: Foreign Language
Humanities: Writing Center
IC Student Support Team:
Library, Mktg, Support, ID, IT
StLife: Campus Ministries
2009-2010
Athletic Task Force
Business SSOB:
Acctg, BusAd, Econ
VPA: Art, Music, Theatre
HMS: AT, Health, PE,
Wellness, Recreation
Institutional Effectiveness
StLife: CAP Center
StLife: Student Health
2010-2011
FM Smith Library
GSOE Revisited
School of Nursing
VPA: Shaw Center
StLife: Student Activities,
Choices,Coliseum,
Conferences & Events;
Winter Term Task Force
62
2011-2012
VPBS, AS, SA, IC, HR
Info Tech Services
Institutional Advancement
Registrar
S&M: Biology, Chem, Math
Soc Sci: Psychology
Soc Sci: Hx, Pol Sci, Int’l St.
Study Abroad
StLife: International St Serv
2012-13
FYE
ACE
Liberal Studies
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX J: Quality Initiative Proposal to HLC
Overview of the Quality Initiative
1. Provide a title and brief description of the Quality Initiative. Explain whether the initiative will begin and be
completed during the Quality Initiative period or if it is part of work already in progress or will achieve a key
milestone in the work of a longer initiative.
Title:
Professional Development Odyssey
Odyssey: An intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest.
After completing HLC’s assessment academy and a five-year commitment to developing and connecting
assessment, program review, budget and strategic planning processes, Graceland has created an integrated
system for planning and decision-making that now needs community awareness, maturity and refinement. As we
embark upon the next phase of this journey in institutional effectiveness, community members will be asked to
participate in routine and new ways and it is important to affirm their many past and future contributions. There is
much evidence to suggest that focusing on professional development will provide opportunities to engage faculty
and staff in a way that enables them to enjoy the learning and sharing of both input and outcomes and that benefits
all who participate.
For the four year project, a newly formed professional development committee (See details in Response #7) will
encourage experimentation and innovation in cultivating a variety of community learning opportunities. Every event
will introduce new information related to learning in order to foster dialogue; the dialogue will be captured for the
committee to review and pass on to relevant individuals, groups (departments, councils, committees) for use at
various levels of planning and development.
With these minimal criteria, the committee can, in the spirit of a true odyssey, invite and support creative proposals
from all areas of the University. The committee will establish some offerings and invite proposals from others so that
anyone at Graceland will be able to take the lead in a learning effort. Allowing individuals to select their topics, to
lead, or to participate in other ways will allow people to migrate between groups or belong to different groups
concurrently if they want more involvement.
The committee’s role in dialogue review and assessment will enable the committee to end the four-year period with
a recommendation for a permanent, efficient and effective Graceland professional development function.
Sufficiency of the Initiative’s Scope and Significance
2. Explain why the proposed initiative is relevant and significant for the institution.
Scope
Since the pervasive theme of this effort is improving student learning and one of the goals is to enhance shared
decision-making, the responsible committee represents faculty, student life professionals, and administration, the
key target groups for the project. Participation of full- and part-time members of these groups will be encouraged.
This will promote co-curricular collaboration. Because at Graceland all employees, including those from support and
service departments, are aware of their impact on students, they will also be encouraged to participate. As the
initiative progresses, the committee may experiment with developing special topics that will appeal to support staff
and/or to students.
Significance to Graceland
63
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Graceland’s core values have long been “learning, wholeness, and community.” Each of these values implies an
ongoing commitment to personal and professional development.
Learning: While Graceland does provide resources for faculty and staff development and supervisor training, the
absence of an intentional, comprehensive, and substantive professional development program that enables
employees to learn about learning seems inconsistent with this core value.
Wholeness and Community: People have always been recognized as Graceland’s greatest resource. The value of
the resource is diminished without an ongoing commitment to the personal and professional growth of employees.
As at most small private institutions today, Graceland employees find themselves working harder and with fewer
resources, struggling with knowing how to survive in a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world.
The ever-accelerating pace of technological change fosters fear of the unknown future and fosters competition
because no institution can afford to be technologically obsolete. Unexpected economic downturns are causing not
just Graceland to veer unexpectedly from collaboratively-developed strategic paths. The related tensions contribute
to low morale. On annual surveys conducted by human resources, self-ratings of morale have fluctuated between
44 and 69 on a 100-point scale over the past five years.
It is no surprise then that the Program Review Committee’s (PRC) summary of the first five-year round of program
review identified two overlapping needs that were cited by almost every unit:

A need for better technology and/or technology training and support.

A need/desire for more and targeted professional development opportunities.
The fact that these related needs have been cited university-wide is of great concern to a university committed to
learning and wholeness. According to Graceland’s Faculty Personnel Policy:
The purpose of faculty development is to foster a community of scholar-teachers. In order to help students
become lifelong learners, faculty members should themselves be lifelong learners of their own discipline, as
well as the art and science of teaching. This policy calls the Graceland faculty to share freely of their
teaching resources and talents, support and encourage each other in the teaching process, and take their
turn at the hard task of educational leadership. Masterful teaching by everyone is the goal.
With a commitment to holistic student development, Graceland’s many student life and support personnel hold a
similar respect for guiding the development and learning of students outside of the classroom. Discussions that led
to selection of professional development for Graceland’s QI included a broad range of community members,
including employees, students and board members; all suggest that GU can use professional development to
explore and address many topics and apply related practices in the classrooms and residence halls, athletic fields,
online - and in planning and decision-making. As a result, the committee’s intention is to foster development not
only in classroom teaching and learning but also in advising, scholarship and administrative acumen.
Three spring semester pilot projects indicate that community members will indeed appreciate expanded
opportunities for shared learning and development.

Each of eight sessions of a critical thinking seminar held during the Lamoni Campus’ January 2013 winter term
attracted more than 20 people, some of who braved winter roads to attend even though their work responsibilities did
not require them to be physically present on campus that day. Responses to end-of-session evaluation questions
64
Institutional Research PR Appendices
were very positive and reinforced the committee’s belief that there is a strong interest in professional development
and a willingness to participate in it.

Two faculty members have now managed, for two years, a first-year faculty group that meets regularly throughout the
first year to orient and help new faculty develop their skills and understand Graceland as they grow in their careers.
Participants have testified to the value of this experience and the founding faculty member has been motivated by its
success to chair this more extensive quality initiative.

Spring faculty conference included an afternoon of breakout and poster sessions presented by faculty and
professional staff. Evaluations of attendees are included as Appendix A and include almost exclusively positive
comments and requests for more professional development. More than twenty participants stayed for a thirty-minute
focus group discussion that will provide additional guidance for the committee.
Institutional affirmation and prioritization of the proposed project has been accomplished by adoption of it as an
initiative of Graceland’s strategic plan related to Strategic Goal 4, Build learning and living communities that respect
the inherent worth of all persons and promote inclusivity in planning and action.
3. Explain the intended impact of the initiative on the institution and its academic quality.
Liberal arts institutions value all forms of learning, including professional development. Increased expectations,
financial stress, and minimal rewards over the past few years have impacted the professionals who are directly or
indirectly responsible for the quality of student learning. The literature suggests that solutions can be found in
innovation and that the culture of resource reduction needs to be replaced with one of carefully evaluated resource
reallocation. Again, Graceland’s greatest asset is its people - who have a demonstrated history of innovation. That
spirit can be revitalized by using their passions, which frequently focus on learning, to provide learning opportunities
to others who teach and guide students. This initiative creates opportunities for hope, optimism, and collegiality.
Examples of forums that the new committee has discussed that would simultaneously foster learning, collaboration,
planning, and action include:





Taking advantage of local expertise by asking technologically-savvy professors to share their experiences utilizing a
new software and/or hardware to communicate and engage faculty, student life professionals, peers and students.
Using a text such as Student Development in College (Evans, 1998) to bring faculty, coaches, and student life
professionals together to study student development holistically and to plant the seeds for collaborative didactic
and/or assessment efforts.
Enabling a faculty member to share his research of an institution that focuses curriculum on service and applied
learning. Such a forum could work to foster ideas for in and out-of-class service opportunities and could go beyond
that to inspire faculty to search for their own elements for distinctive curriculum development.
Giving the institutional researcher a forum for a monthly fact-sharing event that would provide faculty, administrators,
and student life professionals with a specific piece of information or trend and a platform for dialogue. Sharing this
information and analyzing its meaning could inform collaborative policies, procedures, and/or decisions (and that is
assessment).
Invite Sodexho (the company that provides food service to the University) to describe their comprehensive
assessment protocols to other service units in order to inspire other service providers to develop goals for their own
student interactions, simultaneously affirming Sodexho’s excellent assessment practices.
65
Institutional Research PR Appendices

Utilize American Association of Colleges and University’s LEAP Initiative and VALUE rubrics to foster learning and
dialogue about general education assessment efforts among all levels of faculty and professional staff, providing
tools and ideas for program and/or institutional level assessment.
To promote a consistent language and process, dialogue leaders will be encouraged to use Stephen Brookfield’s
(2012) list of discussion factors that foster critical thinking (p. 182).






Structures are in place to ensure everyone is given the floor to make a contribution; power constantly moves around
the group.
Time limits prevent any one person from dominating conversation.
No one feels the need to respond immediately to another person’s contribution; reflective silence is integral to critical
thought.
Group members seek out similarities and differences.
Every time a new idea or concept is added to the conversation, the group strives to supply examples that illustrate its
relevance.
Group members regard active listening to each other as the most important part of good communication.
Brookfield’s paradigm has been the topic of prior faculty development efforts and is used to prepare for the one
course that Graceland requires of all freshmen, Critical Thinking in the Liberal Arts and Sciences. Sharing a critical
thinking lexicon across the university will enhance its power. The committee has been in touch with Brookfield and
is looking for the resources to invite him to campus to help pioneer this initiative.
Other parameters such as the minimum number of learning sessions individuals will be encouraged to attend each
semester and identification of suitable types of learning opportunities (book groups, webinars, peer presentations,
visiting other institutions) will be developed by the new committee in year one and in response to ongoing
assessment findings.
Clarity of the Initiative’s Purpose
4. Describe the purposes and goals for the initiative.
Purpose:
To focus the work of Gracelanders on student learning and development inside and outside of the classroom using
a platform that respects collaboration, lifelong learning, inclusiveness, and the teacher-learners themselves.
Goals:
 To develop and enhance skills that advance learning and state-of-the-art methodologies for education and
scholarship across the university (in and out of the classroom).
 To take advantage of Graceland’s strengths and special expertise.
 To build on staff willingness to learn and share together.
 To thoroughly explore and assess at least one topic that is relevant to all learning communities, eg: Critical
Thinking.
5. Describe how the institution will evaluate progress, make adjustments, and determine what has been
accomplished.
One explicit goal of the initiative (see Response #4) is to thoroughly explore and assess at least one topic that is
relevant to all learning communities, eg: Critical Thinking. Beyond that, the requirement that dialogue is part of each
66
Institutional Research PR Appendices
learning process is intended to promote the expected outcome* that community members will routinely have
shared, ongoing, deliberate conversations that assess student success. In other words, an improved climate of
teaching and learning is best fostered by ongoing assessment.
An assessment tool will be designed for application at the conclusion of individual sessions. In order to create a
formative process, the committee will review these and develop guidance for future learning sessions. Learning
leaders will be encouraged to include surveys and/or survey items that suite their own purposes when appropriate.
For example, spring sessions utilized a simple evaluation tool consisting of four questions:




What part(s) of the seminar did you find most useful?
What part(s) of the seminar did you find least useful?
If this seminar were offered again, what suggestions would you make to improve it?
If you have any other thoughts about the seminar you would like to share, please do so.
As at the spring conference workshops, committee members will also conduct focused interviews of both
presenters and participants in order to assess effectiveness and impact and to provide guidance for the committee.
The most difficult part of the effort to assess will be the impact on campus climate and action. The committee has
adopted and thus needs to assess the following set of community outcomes:
By 2017 Graceland personnel will:
 *Routinely have shared, ongoing, deliberate conversations that assess student success.
 Experience a sense of professional connectedness with colleagues.
 Develop awareness and appreciation of the expertise of University colleagues.
 Collaborate to relate classroom and co-curricular structures to needs of twenty-first century students.
 Feel ownership in the process and content of professional development.
 Feel ownership in addressing and using research, data, and best practices as part of an institution-wide,
organic quality improvement/shared governance model.
The survey used to evaluate community climate for the past ten years consists of eleven items, most of which are
not relevant to the outcomes identified here. The committee will use the first year of the initiative to explore
standard industry surveys and/or to develop a more directly applicable assessment tool. One possibility being
currently discussed is to take advantage of the cost-free The Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual Great
Colleges to Work For survey that covers 12 dimensions of campus climate, six of which are directly relevant to the
purposes of this initiative (Job Satisfaction & Support, Compensation/ Benefits/Work-Life Balance, Professional
Development, Confidence in Senior Leadership, Respect and Appreciation). This particular survey would help
Graceland monitor morale and much more, through items that include:








I am given the responsibility and freedom to do my job.
I am provided the resources I need to be effective in my job.
This institution’s policies and practices give me the flexibility to balance my work and personal life
I am given the opportunities to develop my skills at this institution
I understand the necessary requirements to advance my career
This institution actively contributes to the community.
Faculty, administration and staff are meaningfully involved in institutional planning.
There is regular and open communication among faculty, administration and staff.
67
Institutional Research PR Appendices



I receive feedback from my supervisor/department chair that helps me.
People in my department work well together.
I am regularly recognized for my contributions.
Using this particular survey would enable Graceland to look for and to evaluate improvements in many areas and to
benchmark results against other institutions. The information would also be used to monitor institutional progress
toward strategic goals.
Evidence of Commitment to and Capacity for Accomplishing the Initiative
6. Describe the level of support for the initiative by internal or external stakeholders.
Faculty and staff development is a professional need for the institution and a personal need for each Gracelander.
This need is apparent in Appendix A, a list of responses from attendees at our spring faculty conference pilot
workshop of breakout and poster sessions, where the preponderance of responses are positive and ask for more
and more often. Additionally, this proposal and the leadership committee have been developed as a grass roots
effort. Three potential Quality Initiative topics were tested among various community groups and this was by far the
most popular in all groups. Response to a few experiments with in-house professional development this semester
have been well-received by participants (Twenty attended January critical thinking sessions; 41 are attending five
supervisor training sessions; two spontaneous book clubs have been well-attended).
7. Identify the groups and individuals that will lead or be directly involved in implementing the initiative.
The number of individuals who volunteered for the leadership committee also testifies to the level of community
support for this initiative. When faculty development was identified as the potential QI topic in Fall 2012, volunteers
were invited to take leadership. As a result, the following representative group was developed. Because the
project is designed for four years and will hopefully lead to a formal professional development function or structure,
the committee has been formally adopted as a Graceland University standing committee. At their first meeting, the
group elected Brian Smith, a full professor, faculty member and division chair, to facilitate the committee.
Member
B.Smith, Chair
Chair, Social Science
K. Bash, Secretary
VP Institutional Effectiveness
T. Foster
Professor, Chemistry
J. McElroy
Professor
D. Leialoha
Professor, School of Education
D. Kepple-Mamros
Assistant Registrar
A. Martinez
Hall Director
J. Whitworth
Quality Initiative Leadership Team
Representing
Faculty Chairs and Faculty
University Administration and University Budget Committee
Faculty
Faculty
Graduate Faculty and Independence Campus
Academic Support Professionals, Registrar’s Office
Student Life and Student Government
Independence Campus Professionals and Staff
68
Institutional Research PR Appendices
IC Program Consultant
D. Bartholomew, Advisor
Chair, Health & Movement Science
G. Heisserer, Advisor
Dean, College of Liberal Arts
O. Dory, Advisor
Director, Human Resources
Faculty Chairs, Faculty, and Program Review Committee
(PRC)
University Administration, Deans, Faculty, and
Student Learning Improvement Committee (SLIC)
Human Resources, LC Supervisors , and All Staff
Objective: To build, guide, and monitor a four-year schedule of professional development activities that will engage
all levels of Gracelanders in collaborative exploration of factors relevant to student learning, development, and
support. Each activity will present information or data and will foster dialogue that can be captured to contribute to
the strategic planning/governance process with the ultimate goal of enabling all Gracelanders to directly or indirectly
participate in the institution’s ability to enhance student learning.
Tasks: Build on staff willingness to learn and share together; take advantage of the strengths and special expertise
of Gracelanders; develop a university-wide shared understanding of Critical Thinking theory and relevant aspects of
HLC’s new criteria (to be woven into the 4 year plan); explore and assess at least one topic that is relevant to all
Graceland learning communities, eg: Critical Thinking.
8. List the human, financial, technological and other resources that the institution has committed to this
initiative.
Human Resources
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness (IE) will support the effort. At the present time, the office supports a single
human resource, the vice president for IE. Appropriate to the project’s purposes, the designated leadership team
consists of community volunteers who will receive committee credit for their efforts. Members of the committee
have prepared this proposal with enthusiasm for the potential of the initiative.
Financial Resources
One of the initiative’s goals is to encourage creativity in structuring professional development opportunities.
Naturally, a pool of funds would increase the types of opportunities and incentives that could be made available.
The current financial environment does not guarantee that dollars will be available beyond Graceland’s current
faculty development program and stipends ($500/year is allocated to each faculty member and stipends of up to
$1,000 may be granted upon application) and supervisor training program (which currently offers a series of five 1day workshops for 41 supervisors at a cost of $18,000). Fortunately, there is a great deal of talent among
Graceland’s faculty and staff and we will begin by encouraging groups to use in-house expertise to develop inhouse learning opportunities. At the same time, year 1 objectives include an application for operations budget (with
a good chance of some success since the project is an appropriate initiative for a standing strategic goal) and a
search for grant and/or donor funding. Resources obtained will be used to purchase learning materials, provide
travel reimbursements and speaker stipends, and to provide tools and incentives for those who participate. The
committee does not underestimate the value of food in promoting attendance, and given the busy schedules of
faculty and staff, would like to use a lunchtime format where meals are provided when possible. This format worked
well for a recent professional development effort.
Technological Resources
A webpage has been established on the local My Graceland network that allows the committee to share resources
and conversations amongst themselves and with the entire Graceland community. Technology is available to
enable interactive sessions among representatives from both campuses (Lamoni, Iowa and Independence,
69
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Missouri) and from other locations, even from personal residences. Graceland’s contract with e-College makes eCompanion resources available for use.
Other Resources
A physical location provides a sense of place, permanence, and actuality. A Lamoni Campus room that was
designated for faculty development went unused for two years because, according to reports, the only time faculty
felt they could afford to leave their offices and classrooms was at mealtime and the room was not located near a
food vendor. The committee is working with administration to find a central location where faculty and staff can
comfortably gather to share and discuss resources comfortably and conveniently, as part of their daily routines, is
being sought out.
The Independence Campus has two sizeable rooms for community gatherings that include kitchen, office, and
some classroom tools. Both campuses can connect meeting rooms and auditoriums. Many faculty and staff
routinely use Skype to interact across distances.
Appropriateness of the Timeline for the Initiative
9. Describe the primary activities of the initiative and timeline for implementing them.
The committee intends to start small with a concrete, measurable activity and is in the process of helping to develop
such an activity for the spring 2013 faculty conference (May 20-21). Interested faculty and professional staff have
responded to the request for proposals for breakouts and poster sessions.
During the conference, the committee will promote their website by pointing participants to a new community
webpage that enables the learning and sharing of resources, such as a summer reading list and a suggestion
forum. The first year will be mostly exploratory, engaging faculty, administrators, and professional staff in offering
and assessing the value of in-house efforts and the committee expects that the initiative will become more inclusive
and sophisticated as we proceed to year four.
During year one, the committee will also work through university protocols to:






Negotiate an allocation for professional development ‘convocation time’,
Work with the University Budget Committee to secure an annual funding allocation,
Work with Institutional Advancement to access donor and/or grant funds,
Consult colleagues at peer institutions to consider sharing expertise,
Pomote active physical and web presences, and
Develop a timeline of activities and expectations for the first four years of the initiative.
The focus of topics and the expectation for application and strategic use of learning will gradually increase in each
of years three, four and five. Targeted audiences and participation expectations will expand to include students and
support staff and perhaps other audiences, such as the Board of Trustees. There is evidence that supporting
resources can be found in existing and new donors, through grant efforts and through communication of favorable
impact.
In the true spirit of improving student learning, ongoing assessment of the many discrete learning efforts and of the
impact of the project as a whole on campus climate, is likely to drive other changes in a strategic manner. The
committee is excited about the project and has already begun to share that excitement with colleagues, peers, and
other Gracelanders.
70
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX K: 2012 HLC Paper
A Solution for the “New Normal”:
Linking Strategic Planning, Assessment, Program Review, and Resource Allocation
Kathleen Clauson Bash, Diane Bartholomew, Gary Heisserer
“Organization, with all of its characteristic paraphernalia – committees, departments, hierarchies, codes,
standards – often manages to choke the last bit of life out of an enterprise, frustrate almost every tendency toward
originality and imagination, and militate against decision and responsibility” (Rudolph, 1990). But originality,
imagination, good decision-making, and responsibility may be life-saving qualities for today’s colleges and
universities. The threats in the 21st century’s global, high tech, explosively competitive, economically fragile,
consumerist watchdog higher education environment are pushing colleges and universities to expand their array of
decision-making considerations and demonstrate their value in ways that are meaningful to constituents.
Dissatisfaction is rampant and, with unprecedented consistency, the public, the literature, panels, task forces,
websites, blogs, and other treatises on the condition of higher education begin and end with a call for change. “Popular anger
about universities’ costs is rising just as technology is shaking colleges to their foundation. College costs have trebled in the
past three decades and ex-students have debts approaching $1 trillion” (Schumpeter 2011).
Professionals within the academy are dissatisfied as well. Less than one-half of students who enter college directly
from high school complete even a minimally defined college preparatory program (AACU, 2011). The proportion of
professors at four-year universities who are on track to win tenure fell from 50% in 1997 to 39% ten years later (Schumpeter,
2011). Many faculties have experienced compensation reductions and/or increases that do not keep up with the cost of living;
many have said goodbye to peers and programs that have been dear to their hearts and/or that seemed essential to their
purpose. In April 2011, Garland indicated that, “Googling ‘university no-confidence vote’ yields nearly two million hits”. On
January 5, 2012, searching the same key words yielded over 14 million hits.
The dissatisfaction has attracted federal and state attention so that both are challenging institutions – and the
accreditors that monitor the quality of the institutions – to prove their worth. A new intensity of regulation by the federal
government is occurring while many states are simultaneously increasing their regulatory efforts. Keeping up with rules in an
increasingly adversarial environment has become as difficult as keeping up with technology. Governments are challenging
peer review while the regional accreditors have become the strongest lobbyists for mission-centered, broad learning.
Three core academic values are especially threatened by the watchdog environment – mission-centered learning, the
liberal arts, and shared governance - for the oversimplified reason that, in the minds of a consumer-oriented culture, these
things seem to add unnecessary time and cost to the end goal of career preparation. Value-related outcomes are not easily or
71
Institutional Research PR Appendices
quickly measured or reported and personal, internal growth can even go unnoticed. Thus it can appear to the public and to
students themselves that little or nothing is gained from the arts, humanities, or collaborative institutional spirit. Ironically,
the watchdogs are trying to protect the consumer by ensuring colleges give the students what they want, which often short
circuits what they need to succeed in today’s rapidly-changing workplace.
“For universities the new normal means the budget crunch is not going away…We’re not going to tax our way out
of it. We’re going to have to innovate our way out of it as a country,” said David Gergen, professor of public service at
Harvard’s JFK School of Government and a director of its Center for Public Leadership, in his keynote address at TIAACREF 2009 Institute’s conference, “Smart Leadership in Difficult Times”. At the same conference, Roger W. Ferguson, Jr.,
president and CEO, TIAA-CREF, said, “It’s quite clear that colleges and universities really have just a limited number of
levers that they can pull to work through these kinds of economic crises…layoffs, salary freezes, hiring freezes, even benefit
reductions are really only going to be helpful in the short term. Longer-term solutions involve creativity and changes in the
business model” (TIAA CREF Institute, 2009).
Smart leadership at small private institutions requires leaders, with businesslike objectivity, to actively engage the
rich knowledge, analyses, and critical thinking skills of its many learned and experienced members in ongoing efforts to
make what are increasingly high-risk decisions. Decision-makers need to be informed by expertly evaluated evidence of each
program’s effectiveness and relevance so that they can balance the needs of each unit against the needs of the whole
institution in developing creative solutions.
A Small, Private, Midwestern University’s Home Grown Solution
“Learning to work differently, growing interdependence, and responsive dialogue must inevitably frame the 21st
century academy” (Bash, 2003, p. 213). The Graceland Model of Institutional Effectiveness, developed as a four-year HLC
Assessment Academy project by standing committees at a small private university in the Midwest, aligns quality assurance
and improvement protocols and University-wide timing to: a) integrate assessment with other institutional tasks that require
the engagement of faculty and staff; b) clarify expectations so that no effort is redundant; c) build timelines and routines that
allow faculty and staff findings to be considered during decision-making processes; and d) preserve evidence of progress that
can be shared with the public and the regulators. While this integrated process is relatively new at Graceland, with respectful
communication and good documentation, it is beginning to strengthen the sense of shared governance.
The effort began as the university responded to environmental conditions with a decision to comprehensively
evaluate every program. The responsible committees quickly experienced – and understood - resistance in asking peers to
work on a self-analysis project that seemed similar to various self-study-, assessment-, strategic planning-, and budget-related
72
Institutional Research PR Appendices
tasks that had been completed over time. To minimize the time commitment, program review and assessment committee
members collaborated to design and define the work expected of each unit, mentored unit members one-on-one, redesigned
and redefined and rearticulated expectations, and thanked unit and committee members for their patience and inputs. They
enhanced and streamlined collaboration with other university groups, starting with the executive and leadership teams. The
president added the deans and athletic director to his executive council, appointed the university’s first budget committee to
address resource-related issues, and program review task forces were assigned to assist with review of the programs that
touched everyone.
Institutional Effectiveness
By year four, the responsibilities, activities and outcomes of each function were linked so that no effort would be
redundant, all activities would be meaningful, and all efforts would complement each other. As the systems began to
converge, the president suggested that the system reminded him of the complex, integrated inner workings of his
grandfather’s pocked watch. Committee members developed the illustration in Figure 1 to help communicate how each
discrete task of each function builds upon prior results and advances the next effort, making each both simpler and more
valuable. As illustrated in Figure 1, the mission-based strategic plan powers the gear train, a five-year program review cycle
regulates strategic decision-making, annual input from assessment activities provides balance, and all inform the annual
resource allocation process (Bash & Bash, 2011). The whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.
The model identifies four primary functions of institutional effectiveness that, when well-informed, enable the
college or university to maximize its resources and operations through optimal decision-making. Collectively, these functions
require constant institutional attention but there is no reason that they should deplete institutional resources or impede
academic priorities. The work is well-defined and continuous; no single task is onerous.
The four functions of institution effectiveness are: a) strategic planning, b) resource allocation, c) assessment, and d)
program review. Trends established by annual assessment (function 1, gold) activities are at the heart of institutional
effectiveness, just as the balance spring of a pocket watch is at the heart of the watch’s regulator. Because assessment is
ongoing at the unit and institutional levels, well-considered and documented results can balance the timing, accuracy and
consistency of strategic decision-making. For professional staff as well, preserving and using results through assessment of
goal achievement, community members are able to know that they are building upon their last effort and that the process is
cumulative. The Strategic Plan (function 2, silver), a powerful mainspring, consistently powers the institution over time by
interpreting assessment findings strategically. The time is past when strategic plans could reasonably project the next ten
years, and Graceland’s is an open, flexible, strategic dialogue, reinvigorated as the community members revisit it annually
73
Institutional Research PR Appendices
through committee and department routines. Annual strategic planning efforts are timed to precede the annual budget process
(resource effectiveness and efficiency, function 3, silver) so resources can be allocated according to current priorities.
Program review (function 3, bronze), by creating
a record that preserves comprehensive input as
interpreted by the experts who work within each unit,
is a regulator. Because it is a comprehensive review
with 20% of units completing the process each year
in a five-year cycle, it enables Graceland to consider
relevant aspects of all the qualitative factors that it
finds meaningful when making decisions. In today’s
economic environment, it is easy to let finances
dominate decisions. Many assume that such a review
process, when discussed or assigned by
administration, is about threatening programs with
budget cuts.
Figure One
Indeed, efficiency is a primary consideration of program review, but by carefully allocating responsibility, topics
and process points, the many parts of a comprehensive review can give equal consideration to those things that all members
of the institution deem vital. Every unit can contribute its voice (by gathering data, analyzing it, and offering
recommendations through strategic planning, assessment, budgeting and program review processes) on those things upon
which they have agreed are important to Graceland. Moreover, the program review process can provide crucial comparative
data that can help identify areas where an investment of new resources may be appropriate.
A simple example illustrates how this process works in practice. From November through mid-February, Graceland
undergoes its annual process of budgeting for the upcoming academic year. For the first time this year, the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences (CLAS) could prioritize its budgetary requests using: 1) the program review documents that had been
completed by every academic unit and reviewed by the Program Review Committee and the University’s Executive Council;
2) the assessment matrices completed by each academic unit; and 3) the University’s strategic plan and the ten goals
developed by CLAS to support that plan. When the five division chairs and the dean of the college met to finalize its budget
74
Institutional Research PR Appendices
requests, building a consensus proved to be relatively easy and highly collegial. Moreover, when the dean then met with the
Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA) to present the budget, the VPAA could more easily identify not only the
priorities of the college, but also the data and the strategic thinking supporting them.
Graceland’s faculty are its most experienced and concerned assessors and this structure enables them to have a voice
in planning because strategic decisions will be based, not on data, but on data as interpreted by the faculty – routinely through
the lens of assessment and longitudinally through the many lenses of program review (mission, institutional fit, relevance,
demand, assessment trends, and resource efficiency and effectiveness). It takes time and the deliberate effort of many
community members before faculty can feel confident that their effectiveness is acknowledged and their voices heard. But by
making accountabilities explicit and sharing findings and analyses with those responsible for turning the next gear, Graceland
is able to plan more cohesively and strategically and avoid the frustration of disparate efforts to close a loop or tie up a bunch
of loose ends. If everyone does their fair share according to established timelines, over time, decision-makers should always
have the necessary information to leverage resource allocations deliberately, in a manner that best uses the institution’s
strengths to address the institution’s challenges.
“The most successful institutions will not be those that ride out the economic downturn by returning to the status
quo.” said Madeleine d’Ambrosio in opening the 2009, “Smart Leadership in Difficult Times” conference. Graceland has
addressed the need to be FAIR: flexible, agile, intentional, and responsive (Bash 2008). The Graceland Model allows
Graceland to engage unit voices in creating a new, better informed, institutional voice for decision-making and it keeps
Graceland’s mission, vision, values at the heart of those decisions, preserving the best of the “status quo” while attending to
an environment that changes at 4-G speed. This model provides a foundation for other colleges and universities to expand
their own institutional effectiveness. Most institutions, made up of good critical thinkers, with some kind of strategic
planning, assessment, and budget routines in place, are halfway there and no major expenditure is necessary to start the
process of definition and integration. Each institution will need to make adjustments that serve its own purposes, so the
model enables institutions to redefine themselves, keeping the best of the old and integrating the best of the new. The critical
point is to begin.
75
Institutional Research PR Appendices
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of American Colleges and Universities National Panel Report (2002). Greater Expectations: A New Vision for
Learning as a Nation Goes to College. Washington, DC: American Colleges and Universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2010). The Quality Imperative. Washington, DC: American Colleges
and Universities.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011). What is Liberal Education? Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/leap/what_is_liberal_education.cfm
Bash, L. (2003). Adult Learners in the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Bash, L. (2008). Seeking best practices and benchmark status. Workshop presented at Eastern Nazarene
College, January 19, 2008.
Bash, K. & Bash, L. (2011). Program review: Start where you are. A Collection of Papers on Self-study and Institutional
Improvement, 2011. Higher Learning Commission 2011 Conference, Chicago.
Dickeson, R.C. (1999). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic
Balance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Education Insider News Blog (2010, July 10). Economic downturn casts doubt on the value of higher education. [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved from http://education.portal.com/articles/Economic_Downturn_Casts_Doubt_on_the
Value_of_Higher_Education.html
Garland, J. (2011, April 10). Re: Shared governance: Sacred value or sacred cow? [Web log comment]. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/article/Sacred-Value-or-Sacred-Cow
Isaacs, W. (February 1999). Dialogic leadership. The Systems Thinker. pp. 1-5.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press.
MacTaggart, T. (2011). Leading Change: How Boards and Presidents Build Exceptional Academic Institutions, Washington,
DC: AGB Press and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Oehler, D. & Hubbard D.L. (2006). The Hubbard cycle: Seven steps to improved quality and reduced costs.
Maryville, MO: Prescott Publishing Company.
Rudolph, F. (1990). Rudolph rediscovered and Supplemental bibliography, Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.
Schumpeter. (2011, December 10) University challenge: Slim down, focus and embrace technology: American universities
need to be more businesslike. The Economist, p. 74.
TIAA-CREF (2009). A “new normal: for higher education in the 21 st century announced at the TIAA-CREF Institute 2009
Higher Education Leadership Conference. Retrieved from http://www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org/institute/press/press_
archive/institute_new_normal_highed
76
Institutional Research PR Appendices
APPENDIX L: University Assessment Protocols
Graceland University Assessment Protocols
Assessment Standards: In 2008-2009, Graceland’s Student Learning Improvement Committee adopted the American Association for
Higher Education Assessment’s (AAHEA) Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning.
Nine Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning
American Association for Higher Education Assessment (AAHEA)
1. The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for
educational improvement. Its effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we most value for students
and strive to help them achieve. Educational values should drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where
questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what's easy,
rather than a process of improving what we really care about.
2. Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in
performance over time. Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with what they
know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and
performance beyond the classroom. Assessment should reflect these understandings by employing a diverse array of methods,
including those that call for actual performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing degrees of
integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate picture of learning.
3. Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. Assessment is a goaloriented process. It entails comparing educational performance with educational purposes and expectations -- those derived from the
institution's mission, from faculty intentions in program and course design, and from knowledge of students' own goals. Where program
purposes lack specificity or agreement, assessment as a process pushes a campus toward clarity about where to aim and what
standards to apply; assessment also prompts attention to where and how program goals will be taught and learned. Clear, shared,
implementable goals are the cornerstone for assessment that is focused and useful.
4. Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Information
about outcomes is importnat; where students "end up" matters. But to improve outcomes, we need to know about student experience
along the way, about the curricula, teaching, and the kind of student efforts that lead to particular outcomes. Assessment can help
understand which students learn best under what conditions; providing the capacity to improve the whole of their learning.
5. Assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic. Assessment is a process whose power is cumulative. Though isolated,
"one-shot" assessment can be better than none, improvement is best fostered when assessment entails a linked series of activities
undertaken over time. This may mean tracking the process of individual students, or of cohorts of students; it may mean collecting the
same examples of student performance or using the same instrument semester after semester. The point is to monitor progress toward
intended goals in a spirit of continuous improvement. Along the way, the assessment process itself should be evaluated and refined.
6. Assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the educational community are involved. Student
learning is a campus-wide responsibility, and assessment is a way of enacting that responsibility. Thus, while assessment efforts may
start small, the aim over time is to involve people from across the educational community. Faculty play an especially important role but
assessment's questions can't be fully addressed without participation by student-affairs educators, librarians, administrators, and
students. Assessment may also involve individuals beyond the campus (alumni, trustees, employers) whose experience can enrich the
sense of appropriate aims and standards for learning. Thus understood, assessment is not a task for small groups of experts but a
collaborative activity; its aim is wider, better-informed attention to student learning by all parties with a stake in its improvement.
7. Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people really care about.
Assessment recognizes the value of information in the process of improvement but to be useful, information must be connected to
issues or questions that people care about. This implies assessment approaches that produce evidence that relevant parties will find
credible, suggestive, and applicable to decisions that need to be made. It means thinking in advance about how information will be
used, and by whom. The point of assessment is not to gather data and return "results"; it is a process that starts with the questions of
decision-makers, involves them in the gathering and interpreting of data, and that informs and helps guide continuous improvement.
8. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change.
Assessment alone changes little. Its greatest contribution comes on campuses where the quality of teaching and learning is visibly
valued and worked at, where the push to improve educational performance is a visible and primary goal of leadership; improving the
quality of undergraduate education is central to the institution's planning, budgeting, and personnel decisions. On such campuses,
information about learning outcomes is seen as an integral part of decision making, and avidly sought.
9. Through assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and to the public. As educators, we have a responsibility to
the publics that support or depend on us to provide information about the ways in which our students meet goals and expectations. But
that responsibility goes beyond the reporting of information; our deeper obligation -- to ourselves, our students, and society -- is to
improve. Those to whom educators are accountable have a corresponding obligation to support such attempts at improvement.
77
Institutional Research PR Appendices
Authors: A.W.Astin; T.W.Banta; K.P.Cross; E.El-Khawas; P.T.Ewell; P.Hutchings; T.J.Marchese; K.M.McClenney; M.Mentkowski;
M.A. Miller; E.T. Moran; B.D. Wright, developed under the auspices of AAHE Assessment Forum with support from the Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
Institutional Level Assessment Tools
NSSE: The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is based on a significant body of research led by Georg Kuh. Survey items
on The College Student Report represent empirically confirmed "good practices" in undergraduate education. NSSE does not assess
student learning directly, but results point to areas where universities are performing well and aspects of the undergraduate experience
could be improved. NSSE provides a variety of reports that compare their students' responses with those of students at self-selected
groups of comparison institutions and summarizes responses according to ten Engagement Indicators, six High-Impact Practices, and all
individual survey questions. Approximately 4.5 million students from 1,574 institutions have completed the survey since 2000, providing an
external benchmark for student engagement. NSSE will be administered at GU for the third time at GU this spring (2007, 2010, 2015).
A quantitative tool will be identified before next year, allowing GU to establish a calendar of alternate year, institutional-level qualitative
and quantitative benchmarks to complement the program level assessments that will continue to take place annually. The Council for Aid
to Education’s CLA+ relies on prompts that require students to use an integrated set of critical-thinking and written-communication skills to
perform a task or select a response. CAE stresses the need for students to demonstrate that they have the skills, not just the knowledge,
to succeed. When taking CLA+, students complete both a Performance Task and a series of selected-response questions.
The assessment and program review committees are also considering tool that will help GU address the newer federal and accreditation
standards that demand more information about the performance of college graduates. Assessing alumni is difficult because response rates
are universally low, so the tool must be selected carefully. Available standardized instruments are expensive, but this effort must be
implemented in the upcoming year.
University-Level Student Satisfaction
The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) has been administered periodically since 1994. Results can be summarized
according to 12 factors identified in the table below, all of which indicate that Graceland students are increasingly more satisfied than
students at peer institutions in the Midwest, all at the maximum level of statistical significance (.05).
Factor
Fall
1994
-.22
-.19
-.49
-.49
-.25
-.26
-.32
-.48
-.36
-.20
-.42
-.36
Student Centeredness
Campus Life
Instructional Effectiveness
Recruitment and Financial Aid
Campus Support Services
Academic Advising
Registration Effectiveness
Safety and Security
Concern for the Individual
Service Excellence
Responsive to Diverse Pops.
Campus Climate
*Statistically significant at the .05 level
**Statistically significant at the .01 level
***Statistically significant at the .001 level.
Student Satisfaction Inventory Scale Scores
Mean Difference (GU compared to Midwest 4-Year Privates)
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
.36***
.31***
.24***
.38***
.56*** .65***
.40***
.40***
.39***
.27***
.43***
.56*** .69***
.44***
0
-.05
-.12**
-.03
.16**
.29***
.14**
.04
.18***
.03
-.09
.29*** .54***
.32***
.34***
.23***
.24***
.31***
.42*** .51***
.37***
.01
-.02
-.05
.04
.23**
.28***
.19**
.21***
.15**
.06
.12
.33*** .50***
.20***
.12*
-.08
-.17**
.28***
-.02
.61***
.36***
.22***
.16***
.07
.21***
.44*** .57***
.32***
.33***
.22***
.14**
.26***
.39*** .50***
.30***
.14*
-.11
-.02
.07
.23**
.30***
.24***
.21***
.21***
.13**
.28***
.41*** .58***
.36***
Fall
2009
.43***
.57***
.20***
.38***
.36***
.31***
.34***
.33***
.39***
.36***
.23***
.39***
Fall
2011
.54***
.48***
.28***
.46***
.43***
.36***
.42***
.6***
.56***
.42***
.49***
.48***
Department Level Assessment
Inferential Model: GU is a small, private institution and utilizes an inferential assessment model. We collect data.
We do not, however, define “data” strictly as numbers or reflections of statistical significance, but may include any qualitative or
quantitative information about our students’ learning and development that is sufficient to inform constructive dialogue about
improving our effectiveness.
Tools:
--Matrix and 10 Steps Guide for Assessing Student Learning Outcomes.
78
Institutional Research PR Appendices
--Discrete, annual assessment and five-year, comprehensive program review efforts are equally important. Assessment
activities are continual – each major, general education goal, and administrative/support unit will implement a cycle of
assessment annually and summarize those annual efforts in an assessment matrix*. At five-year intervals, program review will
focus on trends (assessment as well as other trends). A committee is assigned for each effort and membership overlap ensures
that both committees will collaborate on GU’s overall quality improvement efforts (See committee information, p. 4).
Standing Quality Improvement Committees
Student Success Initiatives
Committee
Objective: To serve as the catalyst
for operationalizing GU’s strategic
priority of fostering student success
by encouraging and supporting
university-wide collaborative
exploration, development, and
assessment of strategic initiatives
that are focused on enhancing
student success by incorporating
high-impact practices in and out of
the classroom. This includes helping
units understand High-Impact
Practices (HIPs), how to utilize HIPs
to promote essential learning
outcomes, and how to track and
assess student success.
Tasks: Develop a vision and
prototype with the assistance of
ACE and AAC&U that will serve
both as an inspirational model of
innovative, student-centered
programming and as a platform for
committees and departments to
create their own strategic initiatives;
develop a university-wide shared
understanding of HIPs and a culture
of collaboration in innovation
focused on high-impact learning in
and out of the classroom.
Student Learning
Improvement
(Assessment) Committee
Program Review
Committee
Quality Initiative
Objective: To enhance the
quality of all university
programs by encouraging &
supporting ongoing
assessment of student
outcomes.
Objective: To organize,
preside over and support all
departments through the
process of reviewing
programs.
Objective: To build, guide, and
monitor a 4-year schedule of
professional development
activities that will engage all
levels of Gracelanders in
collaborative exploration of
factors relevant to student
learning, development, and
support. Each activity will
present info or data and will
foster dialogue that can be
captured to contribute to the
strategic planning/governance
process with the ultimate goal of
enabling all Gracelanders to
directly or indirectly participate in
improving student learning.
Tasks: Understand current
best practices in
assessment; educate,
encourage & support faculty
& professional staff in using
best practices; ensure
regular assessment activities
take place (data is collected,
summarized, disseminated &
analyzed) in accordance with
the University Assessment
Plan; encourage use of
assessment results to
improve student learning.
Tasks: Communicate with
all stakeholders, develop
criteria for program review,
manage and oversee the
program review process,
challenge the faculty in
shaping new pedagogies,
receive & analyze program
review reports and make
recommendations to the
president and Executive
Council.
Tasks: Build on staff willingness
to lear/share together; Take
advantage of strengths and
expertise of Gracelanders;
develop a university-wide shared
understanding of Critical
Thinking theory and relevant
aspects of HLC’s new criteria (to
be woven into the 4 year plan);
explore and assess at least one
topic that is relevant to all GU
learning communities, eg:
Critical Thinking.
Program Level Assessment
Each academic unit has identified at least 3 program-level student learning outcomes and measures on an assessment matrix (illustrated
below) and is expected to update it with new data and analysis at least once each year.
NAME OF MAJOR or GENERAL EDUCATION GOAL
Most recent update: ________________________
Contributing Faculty Members: ________________________
Program Mission:
Method of
Standards
Actual
Results after
Learning Outcomes
Measurement
(Expected Results)
Results
Analysis
Recommendation
Changes
Course Level Assessment:
Faculty assess coursework according to the needs of the course.
79