Grand opening of the business: The Perpetual Practice Anew

1. Georgia Gwinnett College Grand opening of the business: The Perpetual Practice Anew Stas Preczewski Vice President, Academic & Student Affairs Juliana Lancaster Director, Institutional Effectiveness Lily Hwang Director, Institutional Research

2. Background • 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

3. Strategic Planning:Starting Point • Charge from University System of Georgia • Desires of Gwinnett County • Initial Environmental Scan • Background research on student engagement & learning

4. Strategic Planning: Core Principles • 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

5. Strategic Planning: Structural Decisions • 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

6. Goal: Reimagining Higher Education for the 21st Century • 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

7. Current Status • 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 

8. Current Status • 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

9. Institutional Effectiveness: • Initial Design • The First & Second Years • Lessons Learned • Next Steps

10. Institutional Effectiveness: Initial Design • 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

11. Institutional Effectiveness:Initial Design (2006-07) • 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

12. Institutional Effectiveness:Initial Design (2006-07) • 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

13. Institutional Effectiveness:Continuing Design (2007-09) Conceptual Relationships Among Outcome Goals and Objectives Institutional Goals Administrative Unit Outcome Goals Integrated Educational Experience SLO Goals General Education Goals Program of Study Goals Student Affairs Goals Course Goals Student Affairs Activity Goals Lesson Objectives

14. Institutional Effectiveness:Continuing Design (2007-09) Organizational Structure to Manage Resulting Flood of Data • Assessment Steering Committee • Integrated review of all assessment results • Strategic analysis of results; impact on strategic plans • IEE Assessment Review Committee • Communication • Integrated review of IEE assessment results Administrative Review Committee General Education Committee General Education Goal Teams • IEE Goal Team • Interdisciplinary • Operationally define & plan assessment(s) • Integrated review of program findings Program Goal Teams

15. Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year • 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)

16. Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year • 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

17. Institutional Effectiveness: The Second Year • 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

18. Institutional Effectiveness: Lessons Learned • 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

19. Institutional Effectiveness: Next Steps • 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

20. Institutional Research: • Unique Setting/Environment • Major Tasks • Major Challenges • IE and IR • Plans

21. 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). Institutional Research

22. Institutional Research • 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).

23. Institutional Research • 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 .

24. Institutional Research • 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

25. Institutional Research • 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

26. Questions & Comments

27. THANK YOU! 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 Research lhwang@ggc.usg.edu AIR Forum 2009, Atlanta GA Session 682 June 2, 2009