470 likes | 593 Views
Richland College. Creating a Comprehensive Institutional Measurement System. Texas Association for Institutional Research March 1, 2007. Fonda Vera, Dean, Planning and Research For Institutional Effectiveness. Gloria Washington, Director, Institutional Effectiveness. Bao Huynh,
E N D
Richland College Creating a Comprehensive Institutional Measurement System Texas Association for Institutional Research March 1, 2007 Fonda Vera, Dean,Planning and Research For Institutional Effectiveness Gloria Washington, Director, Institutional Effectiveness Bao Huynh, Director, Institutional Research Teaching, Learning, Community Building 1
Session Overview • Performance Excellence Model • Approaches • Deployment of Approaches • Results and Key Learnings • Integrating and Sharing Key Learnings 2
Approach Deploy Integrate Learn Richland CollegeCycles of Improvement 4
Richland CollegeCycles of Improvement APPROACHES Teaching, Learning, Community Building 5
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% 2008-2009 Target Range 90% - 100% 2010-2011 Target Range 90% - 100% 207,000 – 230,000 360,000 – 400,000 450,000 – 500,000 Goals, KPIs, Measures, Targets 1.1.1 Contact hours from dual credit and tech-prep 10
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% 2008-2009 Target Range 90% - 100% 2010-2011 Target Range 90% - 100% 1,071,000 – 1,190,000 1,178,100 – 1,309,000 1,295,100 – 1,439,000 Goals, KPIs, Measures, Targets 1.5.1 # of on-line contact hours 11
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% 2008-2009 Target Range 90% - 100% 2010-2011 Target Range 90% - 100% 75.60 – 84.00 76.05 – 84.50 76.95 – 85.50 Goals, KPIs, Measures, Targets 2.1.2 % retained through semester in credit classes 12
Information Management • Major Surveys • Community College Survey of Student Engagement • Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory • Campus Quality Survey • Assessment of ThunderValues • Other Departmental Surveys 13
Major Surveys Approaches • Administer one major survey every year • Segment and Analyze • Themes across Surveys • Action Plans to Improve • User-friendly Reports • Distribute Widely • Other Departmental Surveys 14
Richland CollegeCycles of Improvement DEPLOYMENT OF APPROACHES Teaching, Learning, Community Building 15
OrganizationalActions • Organizational Actions are those actions developed by the senior leadership of the college and are broad in scope. • ThunderTeam initiates Organizational Actions because of • performance gaps from the End of Year Report, national surveys, or benchmarking • state, district-wide, or DCCCD Board initiatives • strategic college-wide initiatives • All Organizational Actions have supporting Departmental Actions • Organizational Actions are those actions developed by the senior leadership of the college and are broad in scope. • ThunderTeam initiates Organizational Actions because of • performance gaps from the End of Year Report, national surveys, or benchmarking • state, district-wide, or DCCCD Board initiatives • strategic college-wide initiatives • All Organizational Actions have supporting Departmental Actions • Organizational Actions are those actions developed by the senior leadership of the college and are broad in scope. • ThunderTeam initiates Organizational Actions because of • performance gaps from the End of Year Report, national surveys, or benchmarking • state, district-wide, or DCCCD Board initiatives • strategic college-wide initiatives • All Organizational Actions have supporting Departmental Actions • Organizational Actions are those actions developed by the senior leadership of the college and are broad in scope. • ThunderTeam initiates Organizational Actions because of • performance gaps from the End of Year Report, national surveys, or benchmarking • state, district-wide, or DCCCD Board initiatives • strategic college-wide initiatives • All Organizational Actions have supporting Departmental Actions 16
Departments or work units initiate Departmental Actions in support of: an Organizational Action or a department-specific performance gap or initiative. Departmental Actions respond only to those Organizational Actions that are relevant for their work area. Departmental Actions are not required if one of these conditions does not exist. Departmental Actions • Departments or work units initiate Departmental Actionsin support of: • an Organizational Action or • a department-specific performance gap or initiative. • Departmental Actions respond only to those Organizational Actions that are relevant for their work area. • Departmental Actions are not required if one of these conditions does not exist. • Departments or work units initiate Departmental Actions in support of: • an Organizational Action or • a department-specific performance gap or initiative. • Departmental Actions respond only to those Organizational Actions that are relevant for their work area. • Departmental Actions are not required if one of these conditions does not exist. • Departments or work units initiate Departmental Actions in support of: • an Organizational Action or • a department-specific performance gap or initiative. • Departmental Actions respond only to those Organizational Actions that are relevant for their work area. • Departmental Actions are not required if one of these conditions does not exist. 19
Process Improvement/Implementation Plan (PIIP) 8-step process to: document implementation of new processes/programs improve existing processes/programs Process Improvement /Implementation Plan 24
Identify Improvement Need Assign Ownership Evaluate the Process 1 8 2 RLC Evaluation & Improvement Approach Identify Root Cause Disseminate Results 7 3 Measure Impact Develop Solution Pilot/ Implement Approach 6 4 5 Process Improvement Approach Integrate Learn Deploy 25
Develop Solution Assign Ownership Identify Root Cause Identify Improvement Need 26
The Benchmarking Process provides a standardized institutional process for investigating best/better practices. Through this system, best/better practices are: Proposed Accepted for further research and review Assigned to a process owner Adopted, revised or rejected Benchmarking Process 27
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% Performance as of December 2006 Score Adjusted Score 207,000 – 230,000 85,216 9.26 9.26 Thunion Report - Raw Data 1.1.1 Contact hours from dual credit and tech-prep 33
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% Performance as of December 2006 Score Adjusted Score 1,071,000 – 1,190,000 303,280 6.37 6.37 Thunion Report - Raw Data 1.5.1 # of on-line contact hours 34
2006-2007 Target Range 90% – 100% Performance as of December 2006 Score Adjusted Score 75.60 – 84.00 83.78 9.97 9.97 Thunion Report - Raw Data 2.1.2 % retained through semester in credit classes 35
Richland CollegeCycles of Improvement RESULTS AND KEY LEARNINGS Teaching, Learning, Community Building 36
Comparative Information Outside Higher Education: 40
Types of Analysis • Enrollment Projections • Daily Registration Comparative Reports • Facility Use for Class Scheduling Effectiveness • Discipline and Program Review • Market Share Analysis • Trended Grade Distribution Reports • Survey Results with Themes & Next Steps • Monthly Employee Diversity Reports 41
Richland CollegeCycles of Improvement INTEGRATING AND SHARING KEY LEARNINGS Teaching, Learning, Community Building 44
Posting of: PIIP documents Benchmarking reports QEP activities and reports Executive summaries and next steps for all major surveys Monthly Thunion Report Card Annual End of Year Report Richland College Shared Learnings Teaching, Learning, Community Building 45
ADLI for Continuous Improvement Data Informed - Not data-driven Measure what is key Segment for greater understanding User-friendly Strategies and Reports Benchmark Best Practices Take action Evaluate The Richland CollegeMeasurement System Philosophy 46
Richland College Creating a Comprehensive Institutional Measurement System Texas Association for Institutional Research March 1, 2007 Fonda Vera, Dean,Planning and Research For Institutional Effectiveness Gloria Washington, Director, Institutional Effectiveness Bao Huynh, Director, Institutional Research Teaching, Learning, Community Building 47