1 / 13

Colorado State University’s Plan for Researching Improvement and Supporting Mission PRISM

Colorado State University’s Plan for Researching Improvement and Supporting Mission PRISM

emlyn
Download Presentation

Colorado State University’s Plan for Researching Improvement and Supporting Mission PRISM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Colorado State University’s Plan for Researching Improvement and Supporting Mission PRISM Beginning in June 1998, CSU’s governing board placed the institution on a “learner centered” paradigm. This new commitment involved developing a formal, comprehensive, and effective institutional assessment program. The University’s strategic planning for FY03 identified periodic assessment with subsequent programmatic modification as an essential component of enhancement for both academic and service/support programs at CSU (Annual Update of the USP, FY03). In early October 2002, CSU’s Academic Programs Assessment and Improvement Committee (APAIC) endorsed a University-wide Plan for Researching Improvement and Supporting Mission (PRISM). The following concept model communicates this assessment planning process to the University community. PRISM is a comprehensive, systematic process for continuously improving academic programs in three areas: 1) student learning (including undergraduate, and graduate education), 2) faculty research/scholarship, and 3) faculty service/outreach. The process also includes improvement planning for student affairs and academic support areas. It helps programs coordinate multiple improvement reporting requirements—regional accreditation, specialized accreditation, and CSU program review—while informing CSU strategic planning. Its central theme is that faculty/staff learn about themselves and act on what they learn. It is an organizational learning infrastructure. Use of direct assessment methods, faculty evaluation of data to identify program strengths and weaknesses, and formative improvements based on systematic performance research are characteristics of the process. Online access to program assessment plans, to planning best practices, and to units’ evaluation instruments, enables faculty and staff to improve program performance through the use of these shared resources. [Concept Model Follows]

  2. Plan for Researching Improvement & Supporting Mission PlanningProcess PRISM Phase 2 Refining INPUT Intended Quality Improvements 1. CSU Strategic Plan Goals 2. Faculty Expertise 3. External & Internal Constituencies’ Needs 4. Available Resources Phase 3 Sharing OUTPUT 1. Program Improvements 2. Research Methodologies 3. Strategies to Achieve Outcomes 4. Planning Process Best Practices Phase 1 Collecting HLC 10 Yrs. Program Review 5-7 Yrs Special Accredit. 4-8 Yrs. CSU annual operational planning MISSION CSU Strategic Plan Continuous Improvement Objectives Formative Assessment Student Learning Faculty Research Faculty Outreach Support Programs Special Accreditation Program Review HLC Accreditation Agriculture Summative Data Institutional Research Applied Human Sci. Business Engineering Student & Administrative Support Divisional Improvement Goals College Improvement Goals Liberal Arts Formative Data Library Natural Resources Natural Sciences Veterinary Sciences

  3. PRISM’S 10 OPERATING COMPONENTS & TIME LINE Phase 2: Refining Planning & Research Effectiveness (January-May) 5) Integration of Annual Assessment & Evaluative Six-Year Program Review 6) Multiple Peer-Review Levels (short- & long-term planning) 7) Documentation of Planning Changes and Improvement Dialogues PlanningProcess Phase 2 Refining Phase 3 Sharing Phase 1 Collecting Phase 3: Sharing the System’s Planning Output (June-August) 8) Resources for Improving Planning & Evaluation 9) Transparency Website for External Constituents a. regional and special accreditation teams b. state accountability staff or legislators c. constituencies, students, parents, alumni, others d. faculty access to plans and their strategies 10) Reports Generated on Planning Process Output and Quality of Performance Research Using a Classification Process and Planning Taxonomy Phase 1: Collecting & Configuring Data (September-December) 1) University Plan Concept Model 2) Annual On-Line Plan Building Platform 3) Descriptive Time Lines Monitor Participation & Organize Activity 4) Data Management Tools Configure Evidence To Satisfy Multiple Accrediting Criteria

  4. PRISM’S 3 THREE OPERATING THEMES Theme 2: Planning Context and Integration 7) Annual assessment plans are formally linked to six-year program review self-studies in a database permitting University review of annual planning effectiveness over time. 8) Six-Year action plan goals use annual assessment planning to support long term objectives 9) Action plan goals of program review link in a database to university strategic plan goals SystemThemes Context &Integration Organizational Learning Sustainability Theme 1: Sustainability & Visibility 1) Concept model expands recognition 2) Annual Plan Platform develops behavior 3) Peer-Review sustains quality self-evaluation 4) Visible on-line time lines track program assessment progress and participation 5) Embedding assessment into on-line program review self-studies gives learning visibility 6) Expanding faculty dialogues adds buy-in Theme 3: Organizational Learning Environment 10) Best practice pool of items instruct better process 11) On-Line viewing of all assessment instruments informs better ways to measure performance 12) Multiple peer-review groups learn from their on-line interactive dialogues about quality 13) On-line viewing of all departmental goals and strategies—annual and six-year—informs means 14) Transparency site expands learning to constituents

  5. PRISM’S 10-PART PROCESS & INFORMATION FLOW Strategic Plan Informs Units from Top Down atSteps 2 & 5 1 2 3 Process Steps & Time Lines Monitored Concept Model Annual On-Line Assessment Plan Building Platform University Strategic Plan 5 4 6 Selecting & Configuring Evidence Aligning Assessment Plans with Program Review Self-Studies Multiple Review Levels to Ensure Compliance with Quality Standards FACULTY EXPERTISE OPTIMIZED BY DEPARTMENTS at steps 2 & 5 with other steps done by institution System FEEDBACK (7, 8, 9, 10) Informs Long-Term Planning System FEEDBACK (7, 8, 9, 10) Informs Faculty on Program Improvement & Self-Evaluation (steps 2 & 5) 7 8 9 10 Documentation of Program Changes, Improvement Dialogues, & New Goals Research Tools & Best Practices Shared External Engagement Web Site For Multiple Audiences Reports Generated on Planning Process Performance

  6. PRISM’S Federalism Dynamics of Centralization and Decentralization Source: Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld and J. Kevin Ford, Valuable Disconnects in Organizational Learning Systems : Integrating Bold Visions and Harsh Realities, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005 (p. 86).

  7. CONTEXT OF THE GROWING DEMAND FOR CONTINUOUS, SYSTEMATIC DEPARTMENTAL PLANNING & EVALUATION 1) Faculty as professionals should study themselves and act on what they learn. 2) The Association of Governing Boards encourages boards to “ . . . determine that systematic and rigorous assessments of the quality of all educational programs are conducted periodically, and board members should receive the results of such assessments.” 3) The University Strategic Directions (USD) goals and metrics require measurement of PRISM’s impact on continuous improvement. 4) The USD requires academic programs to present “quality assessments of learning” as part of program reviews. 5) The USD metrics require increased participation in program assessment plans to demonstrate advances in active and experiential learning. 6) The USD metrics request programs to present evidence on international recognition in research and scholarship. 7) University Guidelines for Program Review require evidence of continuous planning and evaluation. 8) Quality monitoring by special and regional accreditation bodies expects continuous planning and evaluation with assessment results informing improvements. 9) The state of Colorado annually reviews CSU students’ knowledge of content taught in AUCC courses. 10) Market forces respond favorably to department-generated evidence of impact and quality. 11) Professionally, the fluid & globally competitive higher education environment requires current data for daily decision making at the department level.

  8. APEC Colorado State University UNIVERSITY CHARGE: The Council operates as a learning group with members experiencing professional development that strengthens departmental planning, self-evaluation and improvement, which is intended to expand unit visibility and impact. At the same time, the Council serves the University by strengthening its planning and evaluation processes and by applying the intent of its strategic plan.

  9. ARSC Colorado State University • DIVISION OF STUDENT AFFAIRS CHARGE: • Conducting an audit of current assessment and research activities in the Division of Student Affairs at Colorado State University. • Assisting the Division of Student Affairs in advancing our commitment to assessment, continuing to develop this as an area of professional competence for our staff, and using the results to continuously improve the quality of programs, services, and facilities for students and the campus community. • Assisting departments within the division with program reviews that departments have incorporated into their work plans and suggest ways to facilitate the program review process. • Identifying assessment and evaluation needs in order to develop and conduct workshops that will increase staff members' knowledge, professional competence, and confidence in using assessment approaches, and integrating assessment and research practice into new programs and services. • Continuing to identify significant studies, publications, or Student Affairs' organizations at our peer institutions pertinent to our work in benchmarking, assessment, and research.

  10. References Supporting The Use of Systematic Processes for Improving Program Performance Berkes, F., J. Colding and C. Folke (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resiliencefor complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunderson, L. and C. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press. Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 7-22. Milam, J. (2006). “Ontologies in higher education.” In A. Metcalfe, Knowledge management and higher education: A critical analysis. (34-62). Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday. Tierney, William G. (1999). Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High Performance Colleges and Universities. London: Sage Publications. Wergin, Jon F. (2003). Departments That Work: Building and Sustaining Cultures of Excellence in Academic Programs. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

  11. END OF PLANNING DESCRIPTION

More Related