aqip update n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
AQIP Update PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
AQIP Update

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

AQIP Update - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 123 Views
  • Uploaded on

AQIP Update. Prepared for DSU’s Planning Council August 2013. Today’s Presentation. DSU’s AQIP History and Web Site Systems Portfolio Systems Appraisal Feedback Report Next Steps. DSU’s AQIP History. AQIP – Academic Quality Improvement Program

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'AQIP Update' - carminda-ruiz


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
aqip update

AQIP Update

Prepared for DSU’s Planning Council August 2013

today s presentation
Today’s Presentation

DSU’s AQIP History and Web Site

Systems Portfolio

Systems Appraisal Feedback Report

Next Steps

dsu s aqip history
DSU’s AQIP History

AQIP – Academic Quality Improvement Program

  • Accreditation process that helps the institution move forward, rather than look backward (PEAQ)

DSU accepted into AQIP in 2005

Accomplishments since that time:

  • Completed 17 Action Projects
  • Completed 2 Systems Portfolios
  • Attended 2 Strategy Forums
  • Reaccredited with no concerns!
dsu s aqip site
DSU’s AQIP Site

http://www.dsu.edu/about/aqip/index.aspx

Information on AQIP Cycles

All AQIP documents including

  • AQIP Projects: Active and Completed
  • AQIP Annual Updates and Reviewer’s Comments
  • Systems Portfolios
  • Systems Appraisal Feedback Reports
slide5

Reaffirmation

of Accreditation

Anticipated

2018-19

Systems Portfolio

Submitted

Fall 2012 & Fall 2016

Quality

Check-Up Visit

Anticipated

2017-18

Systems Appraisal

Feedback

Received

Spr 2013 & Spr 2017

Strategy Forum

Participate

2013-14 & 2017-18

systems portfolio components
Systems Portfolio: Components

Institutional Overview: 2-page summary of mission, values, enrollment data, programs

Report in the following areas for each of the 9 AQIP categories

Category Overview

Processes: Activities, tasks, procedures, methods

Results: Results aligned to processess

Improvement: How we are improving and what specific improvements are targeted

systems portfolio purposes
Systems Portfolio: Purposes
  • A means to obtain actionable feedback
  • Body of evidence to show HLC we are meeting Criteria for Accreditation
  • Credible, ready-to-use accountability report
  • A planning tool that helps shape future agendas and concentrate attention on areas that should be the focus of scrutiny for improvement
  • Public information and relations tool

Excerpt from HLC Systems Portfolio Guide

systems appraisal feedback report components
Systems Appraisal Feedback Report: Components

Reflective Intro and Executive Summary (pages 3-5)-not covered in this PP

Strategic Challenges Analysis

AQIP Category Feedback

Accreditation Issues Analysis

Quality of Report and Its Uses

systems appraisal feedback report using the report
Systems Appraisal Feedback Report: Using the Report

How do the team’s findings challenge our assumptions?

Given our mission and goals, which issues should we focus on?

How will we employ results to innovate, grow and encourage a positive culture of improvement?

How will we incorporate lessons learned from the review in our planning and operational processes?

How we interpret, use and communicate the feedback should support AQIP’s core values, encouraging involvement, learning, collaboration and integrity.

From DSU’s AQIP systems appraisal report – page 35-36

systems appraisal strategic challenges
Systems Appraisal: Strategic Challenges

Action projects and CQI projects not necessarily moving toward sustainable, systematic processes aligned to strategic priorities

Need to develop direct measures for all student learning outcomes

Planning processes in reaction to events rather than systematic and strategic (e.g. succession planning)

Long time horizons for action plans and surveys

Paraphrased from page 6 of Systems Appraisal Feedback Report

systems appraisal category feedback
Systems Appraisal: Category Feedback

Next series of slides cover each of the 9 categories and a summary of the reviewer’s responses for Super Strengths and Outstanding Opportunities

Full report includes all ratings (SS,S,O and OO)

Reviewers may not respond to each area and may respond more than once in some areas!

1 helping students learning
#1: Helping Students Learning

Focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses and on the processes required to support them.

Largest and longest category relative to number of questions and length of responses

Reported: 18 Process, 6 Results and 2 Improvements--26

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 12; O – 11; OO – 3

1 helping students learning1
#1: Helping Students Learning

From Feedback Report: General comments

Assessment appears to be well integrated and defined from DSU’s Coordinating Committee and includes both general education and discipline-specific student learning outcomes. Persistence continues to challenge DSU. From 2004-2009 the university used funds from a Title III Grant to develop a more robust retention plan. Three years after the grant ended, however, retention rates are lower than pre-grant levels.

1 helping students learning2
#1: Helping Students Learning

Outstanding Opportunities (total of 3):

Declining retention provides opportunity to analyze impact of initiatives and create ongoing systematic analysis; also create integrated approaches across multiple units (housing, mentoring, advising) to connect efforts

While the university has undertaken a series of AQIP and PIED projects focused on student learning support systems, declining retention offers opportunity to ensure that our current and future initiatives are aligned and integrated; Opportunity to delineate how Retention Committee work aligns with other bodies- Student Development / Early Alert

1 helping students learning3
#1: Helping Students Learning

Outstanding Opportunities:

Impetus for our AQIP / PIED projects is event-based rather than process oriented; VP Council approves PIED projects; it is unclear what criteria it uses and how it ensures that projects align with the university’s strategic priorities or how they ensure the interconnectedness of related projects

2 accomplishing other objectives
#2: Accomplishing Other Objectives

Focuses on distinctive objectives that complement student learning and institutional mission

Portfolio narrative focused on

  • Outreach Centers and K-12 Data Center
  • Information Assurance, Training and Research
  • Barrier-Free Learning

Reported: 6 Processes, 4 Results, 2 Improvements--12

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 4; O – 8; OO – 0

2 accomplishing other objectives1
#2: Accomplishing Other Objectives

From Feedback Report: General comments

DSU’s institutional focus is on using information technology to enhance not only the university’s operations, but also the region’s economy and education and healthcare systems. They have established two outreach centers – Center for Advancement of Health Information Technology and the K-12 Data Center. They are also working with Homeland Security and have a funded National Center for protection of the financial infrastructure, a funded Center of Academic Excellence in Cyber Operations which is one of only four in the nation, and a funded Center for Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education.

3 understanding students and stakeholders needs
#3: Understanding Students’ and Stakeholders’ Needs

Examines how the institution works actively to understand student and other stakeholder needs.

Reported: 6 Processes, 6 Results, 2 Improvements—14

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 6; O – 6; OO – 0

3 understanding students and stakeholders needs1
#3: Understanding Students’ and Stakeholders’ Needs

From Feedback Report: General comments

While DSU has an extensive list of stakeholders indicating mature partnerships, they acknowledge that their current capital campaign has struggled to meet its goals and speculate these partnerships need to be enhanced. DSU appears to be doing well in measuring, understanding, and responding to its traditional students’ needs. However, it is unclear how it is measuring and responding to the needs of its online and University Center students.

Main campus enrollment has remained somewhat level over

the past five years, while that of the University Center

has declined, and, as previously noted, the number of

online students has doubled.

4 valuing people
#4: Valuing People

Explores the institution’s commitment to the development of your faculty, staff, and administrators

Reported: 12 Processes, 4 Results, 2 Improvements—18

Ratings: SS – 1; S – 7; O – 8; OO – 0

4 valuing people1
#4: Valuing People

From feedback report: general comments

DSU recently created a Human Resource plan in response to results of employee satisfaction surveys indicating dissatisfaction with communication and recognition.

4 valuing people2
#4: Valuing People

One Super Strength:

DSU has demonstrated its commitment to CQI by investing in CQI employee training, empowering faculty and staff to identify and address areas needing quality improvement

5 leading and communicating
#5: Leading and Communicating

Addresses how leadership and communication processes, structures, and networks guide the institution in setting directions, making decisions, seeking future opportunities, and communicating decisions and actions to internal and external stakeholders.

Reported: 10 Processes, 3 Results, 2 Improvements—15

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 8; O – 6; OO – 1

5 leading and communicating1
#5: Leading and Communicating

From Feedback Report: General comments

Planning at the institutional level seems to have stalled while the new president takes office and provides necessary leadership. The previous strategic plan was extended.

5 leading and communicating2
#5: Leading and Communicating

One Outstanding Opportunity:

Although DSU’s strategic planning goals are directly linked to the needs of some of the stakeholders, they do not link to the needs of all key stakeholder groups identified by the university, such as parents/ family, donors, Madison area residents and merchants or employers. Given the emphasis on and challenges with the capital campaign, tying strategic planning goals to the needs of donors, for example, may help the university make progress on this strategic priority.

6 supporting institutional operations
#6: Supporting Institutional Operations

Focuses on institutional support processes that help to providing an environment where learning can thrive.

Reported: 5 Processes, 3 Results, 2 Improvements: 10

Ratings: SS – 1; S – 4; O – 2; OO – 0

6 supporting institutional operations1
#6: Supporting Institutional Operations

Feedback from reviewers: general comments

DSU uses a number of tools by which to gather data on its various institutional operations such as NSSE and Noel-Levitz along with internally generated data. The university is re-dedicating itself to student success with the goal of increasing persistence, retention, and graduation.

6 supporting institutional operations2
#6: Supporting Institutional Operations

One Super Strength:

DSU has made a significant commitment to continuous quality improvement through its CQI process, which includes a CQI training schedule and support materials. This empowers faculty and staff at all levels to revise and improve support programs

7 measuring institutional effectiveness
#7: Measuring Institutional Effectiveness

Examines how the institution collects, analyzes, distributes, and uses data, information, and knowledge to manage itself and to drive performance improvement.

Reported: 6 Processes, 3 Results, 2 Improvements: 11

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 6; O – 2; OO – 0

7 measuring institutional effectiveness1
#7: Measuring Institutional Effectiveness

Feedback from reviewers: general comments

DSU has established a CQI task force to sustain university-wide continuous quality improvement initiatives such as the Plan, Implement, Evaluate, Decide (PIED) process. The university noted that CQI training of faculty and staff is now widespread, and they have a part-time CQI coordinator and a CQI Leadership Committee

8 planning continuous improvement
#8: Planning Continuous Improvement

Examines the institution’s planning processes and how its strategies and action plans help it achieve its mission and vision.

Reported: 7 Processes, 5 Results, 2 Improvements: 14

Ratings: SS – 1; S – 5; O – 6; OO – 2

8 planning continuous improvement1
#8: Planning Continuous Improvement

Feedback from reviewers: general comments

DSU’s current strategic plan appears to match the university’s initiatives and to drive institution discussions and decisions. It also has an Institutional Effectiveness Committee, which evaluates progress. According to DSU, “Academic rigor and the infusion of information technology into teaching, research, and creative activity are at the heart of the university’s work.”

8 planning continuous improvement2
#8: Planning Continuous Improvement

One Super Strength:

DSU develops key action plans to support organizational strategies and reinforces them through its CQI techniques, which support broad-scale and complex PIED projects. These projects are posted on a public website. DSU reinforces progress toward organizational strategies through its annual CQI Day for project recognition. Individual units annually develop strategic initiatives and action plans aligned with the university’s 7 strategic goals in a process overseen by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.

8 planning continuous improvement3
#8: Planning Continuous Improvement

Two Outstanding Opportunities:

The concerns raised in the previous Systems Appraisal still seem to be challenging DSU. Of particular concern is the fact that its strategic plan has been given an extended timeframe for completion and that several of the goals have not yet been achieved. Rather than creating new CQI and AQIP action projects in reaction to particular survey results or other data, a systems approach to planning and to key processes could ensure that time, resources, and attention are being directed to the university’s most pressing strategic objectives (e.g. retention rates, student learning outcomes). Similarly, DSU collects much more data than it seems able to effectively use in its assessment and decision-making. A more concerted effort to analyze and use data in a more holistic and systematic fashion can help DSU to focus on key issues so that it can make progress on achieving its goals.

8 planning continuous improvement4
#8: Planning Continuous Improvement

Two Outstanding Opportunities:

The university does not give information about whether there is a process for selecting short- and long-term strategies at the university or unit level. DSU appears to select its strategies in reaction to events rather than utilizing a more intentional planning process. Additionally, the duration of the current strategic plan had been 5 years, but it was extended to 7 years (based on presidential transition). In formulating its new strategic plan, the university may have an opportunity to evaluate its long-term planning horizon given its mission is focused on technology which is a rapidly changing discipline.

9 building collaborative relationships
#9: Building Collaborative Relationships

Focuses on institution’s relationships (current and potential) to analyze how they contribute to institution’s mission.

Reported: 7 Processes, 1 Result, 1 Improvement: 9

Ratings: SS – 0; S – 6; O – 2; OO – 0

9 building collaborative relationships1
#9: Building Collaborative Relationships

Feedback from reviewers: general comments

DSU’s list of regional collaborations is consistent with its emphasis on information technology. Most of the collaborative relationships have been in place for some time and the monitoring of their success appears to be institutionalized through satisfaction surveys and regular meetings of advisory boards, managing boards, etc. DSU is proud of its strong community ties through its centers and consulting and training opportunities it provides regionally and statewide by its faculty and students. DSU has a 10,000 member alumni association. The university’s capital campaign has raised over $10 million and was started via an AQIP action plan.

systems appraisal accreditation
Systems Appraisal: Accreditation

Celebrate! No Accreditation issues

noted by the team (page 32)

Some areas where we didn’t

provide sufficient evidence OR

we may face difficulty in meeting

criteria in the future

DSU submitted an “error of fact” in one area

systems appraisal accreditation criteria
HLC Core Component 2.D The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.

DSU’s commitment to the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning was not addressed.

Systems Appraisal: Accreditation Criteria
slide44
HLC Core Component 3. B: Institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs

All programs require students to demonstrate mastery through the use of “some” type of major-field assessment activity. There is no listing of what these major-field assessment activities comprise.

DSU response: Table 1-4 on Page 17 of the Portfolio provides examples of the Major-filed activities.......

Systems Appraisal: Accreditation Criteria

slide45
HLC Core Component 3.D: The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching:

Except for its training for faculty on advising, DSU provided little evidence of what is in place to encourage effective teaching.

A process to determine student learning support needs was not described.

Systems Appraisal: Accreditation Criteria

slide46
HLC Core Component 3.E. The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.

DSU’s response to this Core Component focused almost exclusively on its on-campus students. It is unclear how the university creates an enriched educational environment for off-campus and online students.

Systems Appraisal: Accreditation Criteria

next steps process from 2009
Planning Council members assigned to one of 9 categories

Read System Portfolio for that category and read Reviewers’ Feedback Report for that category

Thoughtfully evaluate O’s and OO’s:

Was portfolio misinterpreted / misunderstood by reviewers?

Was narrative poorly presented (writing team blew it!) and therefore feedback is irrelevant?

Were reviewers accurate in their analysis? If yes, is this an issue we need to work on? If yes, then help us identify opportunities for growth / change

Next Steps: Process from 2009
next steps integrating cqi
Celebrate Super Strengths-signifies important achievements

Recommend action projects or individual unit plans to help resolve the issue (develop a process, analyze data, chart results and change) or identify projects already in process that will help address the issue

Is there a new action project / PIED project related to the Opportunities or strategic challenges?

Prepare for Strategy Forum attendance November 2013

Prior to the strategy forum, institution should analyze portfolio feedback

Next Steps: Integrating CQI