200 likes | 336 Views
M&M’s of Institutional Effectiveness Compliance. Ed Rugg Kennesaw State University http://sacs.kennesaw.edu. Has the challenge of satisfying SACS requirements in IE been reduced under the Principles ?. Apparently, NOT !. As Many As 2/3 Tripped Over IE In 2006.
E N D
M&M’s of Institutional Effectiveness Compliance Ed Rugg Kennesaw State University http://sacs.kennesaw.edu
Has the challenge of satisfying SACS requirements in IE been reduced under the Principles ? Apparently, NOT !
As Many As 2/3 Tripped Over IE In 2006
IE Potholes( Ranked by Size ) CS3.3.1 / 3.4.1 CS 3.5.1 CS 2.5
How is IE in CR 2.5 Different from CS 3.3.1 ? Clarified in 2007 2.5 is institutional and mission/goal-driven 3.3.1 is program/service focused and outcomes heavy
Warning ! Respond fully to literal interpretations of all key words and phrases
Outcomes Ambiguityin CS 3.3.1 What are “expected outcomes” ? Are they “program outcomes”? What are “student learning outcomes”? Are they “course objectives”?
Look to the Literature on Student Learning Outcomes CHEA’s statement Standards for other regional's-Middle States, North Central, New England APA Cyber guide
Some Simple Definitions • Program Outcomes: How an educational program is expected to perform on various indicators of quality, productivity, and viability—the focus of program review and program evaluation. • Student Learning Outcomes: What an educational program’s graduating students are expected to know (knowledge), be able to do (skills), and value (attitudes)—the focus of capstone assessments.
M&M’s Led to KSU’s Sweet Success in IE Compliance MULTIPLE METHODS of Planning & Evaluation that led to what MATTERS MOST: MEANINGFUL MAJOR MACRO-LEVEL MULTI-YEAR MISSION-DRIVEN IMPROVEMENTS
KSU’s Multi-Year Focus For CR 2.5 A Decade of KSU’s Transformational Changes Documented For CS 3.3.1 Major Improvements in Programs and Services--Last 5 Yrs
KSU’s Focus on a MajorMembership KSU’s Planning, Evaluation & Improvement Processes Operate Under the Direction of the University System of Georgia’s and its Statewide Governing Board
KSU’s Macro-Level Focus: Meaningful Improvements We documented KSU’s climbs to the summits, the peak experiences of IE. We focused more on the big picture, than on independent trees in the forest.
KSU Recognized its Multiple Methods of Planning & Evaluation * It takes lots of different tools to keep up and improve the IE yard.
KSU’s Mission-Driven Focus 2.5 The University System’s and KSU’s mission and strategic goals were core elements of the case for compliance 3.3.1 Outcomes for programs & services were documented in the context of USG/KSU’s strategic priorities
“The institution” identifies expected outcomes • First-Rate Educational Programs • Leadership in Educational Technology • Facilitating & Improving Student Success • Efficient Expansion of Facilities & Resources • Faculty & Staff Development • Enrollment Growth
KSU’s Dual Focus on Assessing Educational Outcomes CPR for Program Outcomes AOL for Student Learning Outcomes IE
Need Some Bedtime Reading? See KSU’s Complete Story in its Compliance Assurance Report at http://sacs.kennesaw.edu
KSU Believes that Quality Enhancement Matters Most Planning & Evaluation Processes Yielding Improvements that Matter is Quality Enhancement
The Last M… Let’s Move now to your Questions and Evaluations