Stas Preczewski Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs

Juliana Lancaster Director, Institutional Effectiveness

Lily Hwang Director, Institutional Research

4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia (1st in over 100 years)

Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005 President hired in September 2005 Leadership team assembled during

Spring 2006

Charge from University System of Georgia

Desires of Gwinnett County Initial Environmental Scan Background research on student

engagement & learning

Continuous review, assessment, change & experimentation

Holistic student focus Partnerships with local constituents Competent, action-oriented, innovative

faculty/staff Innovative and appropriate use of technology Global/Multicultural environment and focus Supportive and collegial work environment

Relatively flat organizational structure Academic & Student Affairs combined Deliberate integration of personnel across

areas Frequent, focused discussion among

decision-makers Careful hiring of faculty/staff who “fit” Leadership efforts to model collegiality, etc

Institutional focus on interdisciplinary/ integrated education

Commitment at every level to student learning and effectiveness

Openness to going “outside the box” – provided there is a plan for assessment

Students:

Enrolled students from Gwinnett County at time of matriculation: 72.7%

Faculty (Fall 2008): Instructional full-time faculty: 105 Instructional part-time faculty: 10

Facilities: Total acreage: >200 5 Occupied Buildings: A, B, C, D (Student Services Ctr), F (Fitness

Ctr) Library, Student Housing under construction Student Center groundbreaking in 2009 Parking Deck: 734 cars 

Semester

Fall 2007 Spring 2008

Fall 2008 Spring 2009

Headcount

788 867 1,563 1,608

FTE 696 753 1,374 1,401

Current Degree Programs BBA, Business; BS, Biology; BS, Information

Technology; BS, Psychology Planned Future Programs (pending accreditation,

system approval, and substantive change approval) Education: Early Childhood, Special Education,

Secondary Nursing & Allied Health areas Spectrum of Liberal Arts & Sciences

Accreditation Status Initial Application to SACS-COC in Fall 2007 Hosted Candidacy Committee in Spring 2008 Admitted to Candidacy in June 2008 Hosted Accreditation Committee in Spring 2009 Awaiting action by Commission in June 2009

Initial Design

The First & Second Years

Lessons Learned

Next Steps

Advantages of starting from scratch Strong executive level support for and understanding of

IE Limited number of programs and offices at start-up Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures

Disadvantages to starting from scratch Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures Each individual brings a different set of assumptions

and expectations Rapid growth and hiring leads to continuous need for

explanation/education

In order to get “…ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes…[SACS]” we needed: Structure and resources Broad buy-in, consensus and agreement

Working “ground rules” Institution-wide and pervasive Integrated with institution’s mission & strategic plan Faculty/staff participation and basic control Interdisciplinary and developmental assessment of

student learning

Program level student learning outcomes and assessment plans

General Education curriculum designed around student learning outcomes

Agreement to develop and assess for institutional student learning outcomes

Agreement to integrate curricular and co-curricular student learning efforts

Leading to: Integrated Educational Experience (IEE) Student Learning Outcome Goals for GGC

Integrated Educational Experience SLO Goals

Institutional Goals

Administrative Unit Outcome Goals

General Education GoalsProgram of Study Goals

Course Goals

Lesson Objectives

Student Affairs Goals

Student Affairs Activity Goals

Conceptual Relationships Among Outcome Goals and Objectives

Organizational Structure to Manage Resulting Flood of Data

IEE Goal Team•Interdisciplinary•Operationally define & plan assessment(s)•Integrated review of program findings

IEE Assessment Review Committee•Communication•Integrated review of IEE assessment results

Assessment Steering Committee•Integrated review of all assessment results•Strategic analysis of results; impact on strategic plans

Administrative Review Committee

General Education CommitteeGeneral Education Goal Teams

Program Goal Teams

Planning All operating units, both academic and administrative

developed assessment plans. Academic units focused on course-level, embedded

assessments. All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing

and planning assessment. Goal teams developed operational definitions of each

institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)

Execution All units attempted to fully execute their assessment plans

Some outcomes were not measurable Some measures called for unobtainable data

All units were able to collect valid data on at least one outcome

Most units were able to identify at least one needed action in response to assessment 60% identified needed changes in curriculum or

operations 34% identified needed changes in assessment plans

Planning Academic and administrative assessment plans improved. Academic units continued course-level, embedded

assessments and began identifying critical program-level assessment points.

All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing and planning assessment.

Goal teams completed operational definitions of each institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)

Execution All units executed their assessment plans All units were able to collect valid data on each outcome Most units were able to identify at least one needed action

in response to assessment

Challenges & Lessons Learned Implementing program-level assessment plans while still

developing the institutional framework Communicating the history of and basis for having both

General Education and IEE student learning outcomes at the institutional level

Articulating the initial task of the Goal Teams: To operationally define each Student Learning Outcome

Managing expectations at multiple levels

Next Steps Review the conceptual and actual relationships

between the two sets of institution-wide student learning outcomes

Initiate a broad-based process to determine what, if any, changes are needed

Continue developing a broad base of informed, skilled individuals across campus to lead assessment efforts.

Continue efforts to establish systematic, manageable assessment at all levels

Unique Setting/Environment

Major Tasks

Major Challenges

IE and IR

Plans

Institutional Environment Banner hosted institution -- technical

environment located at a central location – Office of Information & Instructional Technology (OIIT)

Internal support available for IR: a core data manager (Banner function person, currently vacant), and a programmer (IT).

Major Tasks Learning legacy data system, e.g., Student

Information Reporting System (SIRS) and Curriculum Inventory Reporting (CIR), etc.

Learning USG reports, e.g., Semester Enrollment Report (SER)—State definitions.

Learning new Academic Data Mart (ADM) systems. Producing reports (required, routine, ad hoc,

internally & externally). State reports, IPEDS, common surveys (e.g. CUPA) Institutional information support for accreditation

purposes College Factbook (currently, the 2nd book).

Major Challenges Entering in the transitional period from the

legacy data system to new ADM system; allowing very brief learning curve.

Learning together with other Units, e.g., the Registrar’s Office, Human Resources (e.g., transition form PeopleSoft to ADP); requiring close relationships .

IE and IR IR operates within the college framework that

IE facilitates and monitors.

Specific tasks for IR in support of IE operations: Information generated for assessment projects, e.g.,

NSSE and Course Evaluations

Anticipated tasks for IE in support of IR Collaboration in design of specific studies

Plans Identifying and developing research agenda (for

major studies) in support of institutional decisions on growth Team (committee) required e.g., environmental scanning

Continuous support for Enrollment Management Identifying report items to be routinely supplied; e.g.,

retention/graduation analysis, analysis of fall enrollment, benchmarking analyses

Planning for Program Review. Team (committee) required

Presenters:

Stanley Preczewski Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs

spreczewski@ggc.usg.edu

Juliana Lancaster, Director, Institutional Effectiveness

jlancaster@ggc.usg.edu

Lily Hwang, Director, Institutional Researchlhwang@ggc.usg.edu

AIR Forum 2009, Atlanta GA Session 682 June 2, 2009