21 April 2009
Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment, and
Research
1.
ECU Fifth- Year Interim Report to the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sacs/report.cfm)
ECU’s Fifth-Year Interim Report
was submitted to SACS on 15 April 2009. The document provides a brief history
of the university and reports on the ECU’s compliance status regarding 14 of
the SACS core requirements and standards. The Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is one of only a few accrediting
commissions that conducts a comprehensive review of its institutions every ten
years. Most accrediting agencies conduct such reviews every 5 to 7
years. The U.S. Department of Education requires accrediting agencies
that it recognizes to monitor its institutions more often to ensure that
institutions having access to federal funds continue to meet accreditation
standards. To that end, the Commission developed a Fifth-Year Interim
Report s
SACS-COC
Standards for the Fifth-Year Interim Report
|
Number |
Core Requirement
or Standard |
|
2.8 |
The number of
full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the
institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. |
|
3.2.8 |
The institution
has qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience,
competence, and capacity to lead the institution. |
|
3.4.3 |
The institution
publishes admissions policies that are consistent with its mission. |
|
3.4.11 |
For each major
in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program
coordination, as well as for curriculum development and review, to persons
academically qualified in the field. In those degree programs for which the
institution does not indentify a major, this requirement applies to a
curricular area or concentration. |
|
2.10 |
The institution
provides student support programs, services, and activities consistent with
its mission. |
|
3.11.3 |
The institution operates
and maintains physical facilities, both on and off campus, that appropriately
serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services,
and other mission-related activities. |
|
3.3.1.1 |
The institution
identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these
outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the
results in the following area: educational programs, to include student
learning outcomes. |
|
4.1 |
The institution
evaluates success with respect to student achievement including, as
appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examination,
and job placement rates. |
|
4.2 |
The
institution’s curriculum is directly related and appropriate to the purpose
and goals of the institution and the diplomas, certificates, or degrees
awarded. |
|
4.3 |
The institution
makes available to the students and the public current academic calendars,
grading policies, and refund policies. |
|
4.4 |
Program length
is appropriate for each of the institution’s educational programs. |
|
4.5 |
The institution
has adequate procedures for addressing written student complaints and is
responsible for demonstrating that it follows those procedures when resolving
student complaints. |
|
4.6 |
Recruitment
materials and presentations accurately represent the institution’s practices
and policies. |
|
4.7 and 3.10.3 |
The institution
is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments. The
institution audits financial aid programs as required by federal and state
regulations. |
The
interim report is a launching pad for ECU’s full compliance certification due
in 2012. Our plan is to move forward and continue building on the work done
over the past four months. We are in compliance with all 14 requirements and
standards on which we are asked to report. Subject matter experts from across
our campus contributed significant time writing and collecting artifacts in
support of our compliance. The Fifth-Year Interim Report Council led this incredible
effort: Rita Reaves (Chair), Michael Poteat, Jan Tovey, Brenda Killingsworth,
Michael Brown, George Bailey, Fiona Baxter, and David Weismiller. Superb administrative
and technical support was provided by Lisa Brown, David Higdon, and Marcie
Rouse.
2.
Performance Management System and Electronic
Portfolio
In fall 2008, ECU selected a web-based enterprise
solution that provides the essential framework for institutional assessment,
strategic planning, accreditation, and quality improvement processes from the
student to university level. After careful examination of 13 systems and
piloting three systems on campus last summer (2008), a committee of faculty and
administrators recommended to the Provost that we proceed with the use of
Nuventive TracDat. Such a system offers a complete process application for
managing continuous improvement throughout academic and non-academic areas of
our institution. The higher education literature supports that web-based
assessment enables broad-based participation which in turn maximizes results
and helps sustain and grow a culture of assessment and a culture of evidence.
·
Outcomes
Assessment – TracDat enables us to increase the understanding of and commitment
to ongoing planning and evaluation from the level of individual programs up
through the entire university.
·
Integrated
Strategic Planning – TracDat assists us in closing the loop between planning
and action, a connection that is traditionally difficult to complete and
measure in higher education institutions. Such a system helps to provide a
structure and process definition to strategic planning initiatives.
·
Organizational
alignment – Is it possible to demonstrate how outcomes support the mission? How
do program or department objectives support school/college/division goals? Which courses or activities support
departmental activities? Which aspects of the campus support specific
components of the mission? TracDat assists in driving institution-wide
alignment because the system provides complete visibility into how each area of
the institution contributes to meeting goals and objectives.
·
Accreditation –
Assessment plans with outcomes and their measures defined can be easily viewed.
More importantly, observations including findings, results, and conclusions are
linked to strategies or action plans undertaken to improve programs and
learning (feedback loop).
·
Performance
Management – TracDat facilitates more efficient organizational management as it
assists with translating data into coordinated goal-driven action. The program
accepts data from any source and features a complete feedback loop built into
the solution which focuses on the strategic issue of what the institution
actually does with the information.
We
have begun the set-up and training of ECU’s Performance Management System –
TracDat and electronic portfolio – iWebfolio.
Nuventive (SunGard partner) was on campus in March as we began with a
small group of faculty and administrators in establishing the system on campus.
The adoption is being led by the Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment,
and Research under the direction of Matt Long and Kristen Dreyfus. The
3.
Institutional Assessment of Learning
In assuring a high quality education for our
students, ECU is looking purposefully toward developing a culture of evidence.
Such a culture provides an evidence-based framework for improving, revising,
and introducing comprehensive systems for the collection, dissemination, and
utilization of information on meaningful student learning outcomes. Such
information can be used to develop new pedagogies, curricula, and technologies
to improve learning. Embracing such a culture of innovation and quality
improvement has been specifically called for in the report of the National
Commission on Higher Education, otherwise known as the Spellings Commission.
The Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment,
and Research is dedicated to a concept of quality enhancement. The office will
move the university in achieving continuous improvement by re-vitalizing
engagement of faculty in a sound and meaningful process of outcome assessment.
Although evaluation of an institution’s educational quality and its
effectiveness in achieving its mission is a difficult task requiring careful
analysis and professional judgment, we are expected to document the quality and
effectiveness of all our programs and services. Academic units implemented the
outcomes assessment procedures (briefly) detailed below in accord with the
process and stated timeline as provided to deans by the Provost’s office on 3
September 2008.
Assessment is a formative process. IPAR plans to
provide feedback to each academic unit on its outcomes assessment activities
according to a pre-defined rubric. The Outcomes Assessment and Program Review
Council established in preparation for our regional accreditation in 2013 by
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) assists in report
evaluation. The major objective is to provide meaningful, consistent, and
objective information to academic programs and faculty in order to grow a
culture of assessment and foster institution-wide improvement in institutional
effectiveness. A secondary but important objective is to model portfolio
assessment that can be used by academic departments to measure their own
programs’ effectiveness. Model outcome assessment reports have been shared.
Brief overview of the proposed Academic Program
Assessment Reporting 2008-2009
Unit of
Analysis
All academic programs should develop an outcomes
assessment report for each distinct academic program. Bachelor’s, masters and
doctoral degrees in the same field represent three distinct programs. If there
are two degrees at the same level in the same area but with only slight
distinctions, these may be combined at the faculty’s discretion. Examples are:
1) a B.A. and a B.S. degree in the same field in which the difference between
required curricula resides in only one or two courses; 2) two masters’ degrees
in the same area that differ only by requiring a thesis in one case and an
independent project in the other. Programs with both face-to-face and distance
education sections of the same course should employ the same learning
objectives and assessment instruments in order to demonstrate comparable
outcomes.
Required
Components 2009-2010
Each program provides thorough information in these
five areas:
1.
Program
Description
2.
Outcomes
i.
Academic
Program Student Learning Outcomes (3)
ii.
Academic Unit
Strategic Initiative Outcome (1)
iii.
Institutional
(2009-2010) – The Global Perspective Outcome (1) – see attached
3.
Assessment
4.
Assessment
Results
5.
Improvement
Actions
2008-2009
Assessment Results and 2009-2010 Assessment Plans
|
1 October |
Academic unit completes final report including assessment results and
improvement actions based on results for 2008-2009 (Fall and Spring) and
revised program descriptions, outcomes, and assessment plans for 2009-2010 |
Dean’s Office |
|
1 November |
Dean’s approve and forward 2008-2009 reports and 2009-2010 assessment
plans |
IPAR |