VINCENNES UNIVERSITY Quality Highlights Report December 2017 Quality Highlights Report
Introduction:
Vincennes University has chosen to focus the content of its Quality Highlights Report on the screening feedback and comments offered by the Systems Appraisal team in Section C of the Feedback Report, “Criteria for Accreditation and Core Component Evidence Screening.” VU received its Systems Appraisal on September 14th, 2017, leaving VU little more than three months to complete its Quality Highlights Report. Given both the short timeframe for response and Report page limitations, VU determined that it can best facilitate the Comprehensive Quality Review process and results by focusing on the Criteria for Accreditation and less on AQIP processes. VU is confident that, while focused on the Criteria, the document does, at least to some degree, speak to AQIP issues as well. VU has addressed both “Unclear and incomplete” and “Adequate, but could be improved” issues, organized in the order of presentation in Appendix C of the Systems Appraisal. VU looks forward to the opportunity during the upcoming visit to answering questions about the issues covered below and any other questions about VU that the visiting team might have.
Additional Evidence for Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components:
1.A.2 (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile are consistent with its stated mission. • “The university reports that it uses its Institutional Functions and Objectives to ensure institutional actions reflect commitment to its values. A number of activities were cited as examples of how VU aligns its academic programs and student support services with its mission; however, the linkage between the activities and the mission was not well articulated.”
Vincennes University offers the programs of study and complementary student services necessary to achieve its mission: “Vincennes University develops people…through accessible educational programs...” As an open door institution, VU’s mission is to offer education to students of all levels of preparation and need. VU offers degrees and certificates to a student body that, according to VU’s Fall 2016 IPEDS data, is 73% White, 11% Black, and 8% Hispanic. VU’s main campus is located in Knox County, which is, according to U.S. Census data, 94.2% White, 3.2% Black, and 1.9% Hispanic. VU’s racial mix is closer to the State’s, which is 85.6% White, 9.7% Black, and 6.8% Hispanic, but VU’s racial mix is closer still to the national averages: 76.9% White and 13.3% Black. (US Census data lists Hispanics as 17.8% of US population, but notes Hispanics may be of any race.) Male students make up 54% of VU’s student population; 46% are female. VU, like most colleges in the US, is finding the number of female students is going up significantly in recent years. Historically, VU’s gender mix was only about 40% female. VU programs, like “Women in STEM,” are attracting more female students to VU, especially young women who are taking advantage of special scholarships, a women’s residence hall floor in the Technology Building, housing grants, a developing “Women in STEM” club, and faculty mentors.
VU offers a wide variety of educational opportunities to students. VU reports 172 programs of study to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education; counting all concentrations and certificates, VU offers 260 programs of study. For the Fall 2017 semester on the Vincennes Campus, 36% of the students are seeking a Career/Tech associate’s degree; 50.7% are enrolled in transfer degrees, another 7.7% of students are enrolled in baccalaureate degrees, and 2.1% are seeking certificates. On the Jasper
1
Campus, 95% of students are seeking an associate’s degree, with 21.9% of students enrolled in career/tech programs and 72.9% enrolled in transfer associate’s programs. In 2004, VU was granted permission to offer baccalaureate degrees in order to address specific local and state employment needs, especially in career/tech disciplines. With both transfer associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees, VU is helping to meet a baccalaureate shortfall in the local area. According to US Census statistics, Vincennes community and Knox county citizens age 25+ have baccalaureate degrees at roughly 10% less than the Indiana state average (24.6% for all Indiana residents vs. 15.2% for Knox County and 14.8% for Vincennes residents).
VU offers the services required to “develop people” and make its programs “accessible.” A significant number of VU students require developmental education. A five-year study of first-time, full-time Vincennes Campus students shows that 42.9% of students enrolled in developmental English and 49.4% of students enrolled in developmental math. For the 2017 Fall, 58.4% of all first-time freshman on the Vincennes Campus and 56.6% on the Jasper Campus enrolled in developmental education courses. VU’s corequisite developmental program is helping students complete their required basic skills gateway courses at a much faster rate than was accomplished by the previous developmental curriculum. For the four years prior to full implementation of corequisite developmental education (2012-2015 vs. 2016), students completed their gateway English course at an average rate of 20% in their first two semesters; with the implementation of corequisite education in 2016, they are now completing the gateway course at a rate of 39.4% in their first two semesters. The progress in math is even greater. For the four previous years, students completed a gateway math course in their first two semesters at an average rate of 7.65%. With corequisite developmental math, 34.8% of students completed a gateway course in their first two semesters. Also, VU’s newly developing tutoring program is offering online guides, practice tests, and study sessions to help students test into higher levels of math. While the data is preliminary, the average Accuplacer test score for students who worked with the tutors increased by 8.3 vs. 4.2 points for those students who did not work with tutors. The average score of students who attended study sessions increased by 10.9 points vs. 5.5 points for those students who did not attend a session.
A 2016 in-house tutoring survey of students using the services suggests that users feel they are receiving the support they need to succeed. Students reported using tutoring either once a week or more than once a week at a 69% rate. Students also reported that they were certain that tutoring helped them earn a higher grade in the class for which they received tutoring at a 55% rate; another 28% of the students said they were somewhat sure that the tutoring helped them achieve a higher grade. The number of student users who said they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the effectiveness of the tutors was 86%, while 80% were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their overall tutoring experience.
VU also offers a number of other programs and services to help “develop people.” VU currently has 388 students participating in two TRIO programs that help first-generation students, low income students, and students with disabilities. The Collaborative Opportunities for Postsecondary Education (COPE) program, which this year serves 262 students, receives positive marks for its services: on a scale of 5, 4.67 (mean score) of students surveyed would recommend COPE to other students, and 4.60 said participation in the program resulted in self-improvement.
For low-income students needing financial support, VU offers a variety of financial aid services, including PELL grants, state scholarships, and federal student loans. The percentage of Fall 2017 first-time
2 students on the Vincennes campus receiving some sort of financial aid was 87%. For the 2015-16 academic year, 57% of VU students at all locations received some form of financial aid.
These services, especially the academic support services, appear to be having an impact on Fall-to-Fall persistence rates. Rates are rising for associate degree-seeking students: 49% for the Fall 2014 cohort, 50% for the Fall 2015 cohort, and 51% for the 2016 cohort. The 2010 cohort graduated at a 22% rate, and 28% of the same cohort transferred (both percentages measured by 150% of program length for all program types—Bachelor, Associate, and Certificate.) In order to fulfill its mission, VU is using its strategic planning process to find new ways to “develop people” and make higher education “accessible” to both local and state residents.
1.C.1 (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution addresses its role in a multicultural society. • “The institution did not explicitly articulate an understanding of the relationship between its mission and societal diversity. However, it did share some activities that suggest a developing awareness.”
VU’s mission to “develop people and enhance communities” depends on our understanding of a multicultural society. Diversity at VU relates to the following: 1) members of the VU learning community who represent diverse ethnic and cultural groups; 2) curricular and co-curricular opportunities to explore various ethnic, racial, religious, gender, generational, socio-economic perspectives/issues; and 3) specific expectations related to awareness of diverse cultures and global perspectives. In addition to the mission, VU articulates five core Values, including “Cultural enrichment, diversity, and individual freedom” and “An environment that encourages open dialogue and cooperation.”
As a public, open door institution, VU is charged to serve students with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds; specific demographics are cited above, Section 1. A. 2. VU believes that it is an institutional strength to have a multicultural environment. Both the Vincennes and the Jasper campuses are situated in traditionally rural communities; therefore, a majority of our students often have limited or no experience with urban culture or with peers from different cultures. Meeting the challenge to sponsor and support positive ways for all members of this community to interact with each other, University stakeholders seek innovative solutions. For example, the recent revision of the Vigo Residence Hall includes a plan to have both the Director of Multicultural Affairs and the Director of International Student Services to be housed on the main floor, off the main lobby. By moving these offices into Residence Life spaces, VU hopes to generate more synergy with all of our resident students, from international to in-state residents. In addition, we plan to attract commuting students to the lounge for informal gatherings sponsored by student life with attention to multicultural and international themes.
The VU community benefits from multicultural activities sponsored by the University, specific academic departments, and student life organizations. These campus events often include community members’ participation along with students, faculty, and staff. A selection of multicultural activities and special events promoted by VU this past year are listed in Appendix A. See also Section 3. B. 4. for related data.
The VU curriculum reflects the institution’s commitment to educating students about our multicultural world through the UCC Liberal Education courses and through various major courses. All associate’s degree students address diversity outcomes in completing their UCC Liberal Education requirements.
3
VU’s University Core Curriculum is required to align with the State’s general education competencies, which are mapped to VU’s Critical Thinking rubric. Humanities CT assignments are responsible for the following State competency: “6.3: Analyze and evaluate texts, objects, events, or ideas in their cultural, intellectual or historical contexts.” Social Science CT assignments are responsible for the following State competency: “5.5: Recognize the extent and impact of diversity among individuals, cultures, or societies in contemporary or historical contexts.” Many of the UCC Humanities and Social Sciences courses also include their own diversity outcomes. The VU catalog includes major courses and competency requirements beyond the UCC to broaden our students’ understanding of the American identity, global perspectives, and trends for future citizens. VU’s Cultural Diversity course is one example, serving as a requirement for students in Social Work, Education, and Law Enforcement. VU’s baccalaureate programs require a Global Issues course in addition to competencies met through the UCC.
2.A. (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff. • “The university cited its State Board of Accounts audit letter and the Department of Education audit letter as evidence it operates with integrity but the findings of these audits were not presented.”
The following statements from audit letters—see Appendix B—sent from the State Board of Accounts for the years ending June 30, 2014-2017, offer a favorable audit opinion of VU’s financial situation:
“In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the business-type activities and the discretely presented component unit of the University, as of June 30, 20** and 20**, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and for the years then ended, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”
Two Department of Education audit letters—see Appendix B—for the years ending June 30, 2015 and 2016, offer favorable opinions of VU’s compliance with Federal requirements:
“In our opinion, the University complied, in all material respects with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ending…”
2.B. (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships. • “VU states that efforts to maintain institutional integrity are driven by a commitment to initiatives coordinated by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) and reported on the VU website. The web page for the OIE is readily available to all faculty, staff, and the general public. The site provides links to learn more about VU’s accreditation/AQIP, Strategic Plan, Assessment, and a wide range of supporting documents.”
4
VU’s “Student Right to Know” page offers students and the public a clear and complete presentation of VU programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to the students, control, and accreditation relationships: https://www.vinu.edu/web/guest/student-right-to-know-and-policies The page also includes outcomes data, demographic data, and much more information that helps make VU transparent.
2.C.2. (Adequate, but could be improved)—The governing board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of the institution’s internal and external constituencies during its decision-making deliberations. • “While the board’s composition ensures broad external representation, it is unclear whether or how the Board reviews and considers the interests of external stakeholders.”
With a residential campus in Vincennes, along with sites and locations throughout Indiana and out-of- state, Vincennes University has a statewide mission. The gubernatorially-appointed members of the VU Board of Trustees reflect that mission. Seven of the ten appointed board members reside and work outside of the Vincennes area and one member resides out-of-state. Like the boards of all of the state- funded higher education institutions in Indiana, the Vincennes University Board of Trustees holds all meetings, including committee meetings, in a public forum. Members of the general public are invited to attend meetings, which are announced in advance through University channels and the media, per state statute. Local and regional media are also invited. Typically, multiple media outlets are represented at each meeting and they produce stories based on meeting content. Per state statute, the Vincennes University board is required to hold public hearings on biennial proposed tuition and fee rates. Each spring members of the VU board and administration, along with those at all other state- funded institutions, are invited to attend the Weldon Conference, sponsored by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. The Weldon Conference covers topics related to higher education trends and challenges as well as important higher education initiatives being undertaken within Indiana. Board members are accessible to the public and frequently receive correspondence from members of the public who wish to share their concerns or ideas about Vincennes University.
3.A.3 (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality). • “The team did not find sufficient evidence of appropriate oversight of curriculum quality and rigor at VU’s military locations.”
VU is confident that the institution exerts appropriate oversight of curriculum quality and rigor at all military locations for several reasons, including a 2017 review and visit by the HLC.
The HLC Multi-Location reviewer visited three military locations—Naval Base Kitsap (Bremerton, WA), Naval Base Coronado (San Diego, CA), and St. Augustine Public Safety Academy (St. Augustine, FL)—on 4/20/2017, 2/8/2017, and 3/16/2017 respectively. The reviewer’s June 2017 report affirmed VU’s oversight of quality noting: “Meetings with 22 adjunct faculty members (10-Bremerton; 6-Coronado; 6-St. Augustine) verified the University's aim of "creating commonalities, such as common course outlines and syllabi, common grading standards, common assessments, common faculty credentials . . ." is part of the process in developing and operating additional locations. The individuals reported having
5
communicated directly or through the on-site Director with academic counterparts at the main campus regarding the courses they are teaching. Likewise, the new adjuncts had been through an onboarding process at the location upon beginning their appointment. Students praised faculty members for their commitment to student success both because of their in-class pedagogy and their availability out of class. At the end of each course, students complete a course evaluation; the results are reported to the faculty member and to the on-site Director.”
The HLC reviewer also noted the role of CCOs to ensuring curricular and instructional consistency: “The common course outlines used for the courses offered by the military education program additional locations are those used by the main campus. They specify learning objectives, grading standards, and assessment/evaluation measures. Even though the courses offered at the visited locations are offered during an 8-week term instead of the semester calendar at the main campus, the adjunct faculty at the additional location can only modify the syllabus timeline.”
Concerning the oversight of curriculum quality and rigor, before the University can be allowed on a military base, VU must submit a “Request for Proposal” to the Department of Defense whereby the institution illustrates it can address the needs of the military location. The Department of Defense (DoD) then reviews the degrees offered and their curricular quality, among other factors, before agreeing to partner with any institution. Additionally, approved locations are subject to a military independent review known as “3rd Party Review” whereby the DoD ensures service members are provided quality educational opportunities.
As noted in the HLC review, VU utilizes common course outlines (CCOs) for all courses to ensure curricular continuity across all course sections at all locations. The CCOs articulate the common liberal education, statewide, and course-level outcomes met by a course, the course content, key grade weights, the course text(s) and materials, and all institutional course policies; these common elements precede the individual instructor’s syllabus. All course outlines and syllabi for University Common Core (UCC) courses were reviewed by the military staff most recently in the 2016-2017 academic year to ensure that every course accurately reflected VU’s outcomes and curriculum. Military sites offering courses from the liberal education core submit student critical thinking and written communication artifacts as well as the results of a summative math assessment (a common final exam) in gateway mathematics courses to the military education coordinator and are housed online. Assessment results are compared to those of the VU campus and other locations with strengths and deficiencies noted and communicated to VU’s military education liaison.
3.B.4 (Unclear or incomplete)—The education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work. • “Only student pursuing a BA or BS are required to complete a Human Issues and Dilemmas 300- level course in addition to a Diverse Cultures/Global Perspectives course. No evidence was found in the Portfolio or on the university website that students pursing associate level credentials are required to complete either of these requirements.”
VU ensures that all associate degree-seeking students are exposed to diverse perspectives through the University Core Curriculum’s critical thinking outcomes. All associate degree graduates must have engaged in intellectual inquiry and the integration of broad learning through engagement with diverse perspectives, cultures, and contexts. Students are assessed on their abilities to address an ill-defined issue and consider different perspectives, including those of diverse cultures, as a function of marshaling evidence and analyzing the influence of different contexts and assumptions. Two state diversity
6 outcomes are mapped directly to the Contexts and Assumptions dimension of the CT rubric: “Recognize the extent and impact of diversity among individuals, cultures, or societies in contemporary or historical contexts” (5.5); and “Develop arguments about forms of human agency or expression grounded in rational analysis and in an understanding of and respect for spatial, temporal, and cultural contexts” (6.3). In this way, VU assesses students’ work analyzing the influence of diverse contexts in relation to complex, contemporary issues. In addition to the activities addressed in 1.C.1, VU has many diverse clubs and groups that students can join; for example, the Black Male Initiative, the International Club, the Christian Campus Fellowship, the National Society of Leadership, NAACP, Japanese Culture Club, Philosophy Club, Love International, Young Americans for Liberty, Catholic Campus Ministry, and more.
3.B.5: (Unclear or incomplete)—The faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, and the discovery of knowledge to the extent appropriate to their programs and the institution’s mission. • “The Portfolio did not explicitly provide evidence regarding whether the faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, or the discovery of new knowledge.”
In accordance with its mission, VU is a teaching-intensive institution focused on student learning rather than research. VU faculty do, however, engage in professional development and present both on- campus as well as at national conferences. In addition, VU established the Center for Learning and Research in 2015, which coordinates with faculty who wish to engage students and colleagues in research in addition to or as part of the curriculum. The Center also promotes multi-disciplinary, cross- campus study, engaging the campus and community in presentations and debates about current issues. VU students also engage in research gathering, presentations, and poster sessions in areas like science, engineering, education, agribusiness, and social work. VU students also engage in research-based writing throughout the English curriculum; this work scaffolds students’ research experience, and is enhanced through work in the liberal education courses, as students do research and writing across the curriculum.
In addition to research, students have an array of opportunities to engage in creative work. For example, the annual “Poetry on the Green” event gives students and faculty the opportunity to read creative work. Students judge and assemble “Autumn Voices” and the “Tecumseh Review,” student- created publications of creative writing. Students publish a campus newspaper, “The Trailblazer,” and produce radio and television broadcasts and programming at VU’s PBS television and two broadcast radio stations. VU students create graphic designs for the posters and the cover of the many student and University events and publications. Students perform in musical ensembles and plays in the Red Skelton Center for Performing Arts. Students who complete the Honors curriculum engage in directed research with a faculty mentor culminating in a capstone project whereby they present their research to the university community at on Honors convocation.
3.C.5. (Unclear or incomplete)—Instructors are accessible for student inquiry. • “All on-campus faculty members hold at least seven office hours a week (one or more office hours per day). It is unclear how/whether office hours are required for adjunct, dual credit, or military installation faculty.”
Vincennes University’s office hour policy guides faculty accessibility to students. VU defines “accessible” in two ways. As noted in the Portfolio, VU requires full-time faculty to maintain regular, weekly hours in their office. This past May, the Faculty Senate passed a new office hour policy that had been under discussion for some time—see Appendix C. The new policy, which governs full-time faculty, allows for virtual hours in the place of hours literally in the office. The new policy was approved by the VU Board
7 of Trustees in May. In November, the VU Faculty Senate revised the office hour policy to add responsibilities for both full-time and adjunct faculty—see Appendix C. The revision focuses on “accessibility” in terms of email availability and responsiveness. Today’s students are more likely to write an email with questions rather than visit an office, so VU has added expectations to the office hour policy in order to address concerns and needs of our students, including those who take courses via the Distance Education or Military Education programs. Acting on student complaints about faculty not responding to email (complaints gathered by the Distance Education staff using student survey data and complaints sent by students using the Student Complaint form), VU has formally revised its office hour policy to include expectations regarding email communication. The Board approved the addition to the policy during its December meeting. All instructors, both full-time and adjunct, are now expected to respond to student email within two business days. While the new policy applies to early college and Project Excel dual credit faculty, office hours are less of an issue in these situations since dual credit faculty spend the day with students, usually five days per week. With the new policy revisions, all VU faculty are expected to be accessible to students, whether they are available in their physical or virtual office or via email.
3.D.4 (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution provides to students and instructors the infrastructure and resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning (technological infrastructure, scientific laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, clinical practice sites, museum collections, as appropriate to the institution’s offerings). • “The portfolio did not provide sufficient evidence for 3.D.4.”
VU provides support systems for students, wherever their location. A virtual tour of the Vincennes campus can accessed by following the following link: https://my.vinu.edu/virtual-tour. Library resources total 158 databases, over 73,000 books, more than 107,000 e-books, almost 3,000 physical media, over 31,000 e-media, and nearly 27,000 serials and e-serials. The institution provides infrastructure, technology, and lab spaces and materials to support teaching and learning in every college—see Appendix D for a list of these resources. It maintains the Blackboard LMS to deliver course content and instruction to students while providing faculty with the tools necessary to engage students in the experiences they need to learn effectively. Whether on the Vincennes or Jasper campuses, dual credit locations, military sites, or in the virtual classroom, all VU students have access to student support services such as tutoring, counseling, advising, and technical support. Overall, the institution allocated more than $1.7 million to instructional equipment and almost $8.5 million to supplies and expense accounts in the fiscal year 2017, in addition to over $30 million to salaries and benefits and another $35 million spent on capital projects.
3.E.2: (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution demonstrates any claims it makes about contributions to its students’ educational experience by virtue of aspects of its mission, such as research, community engagement, service learning, religious or spiritual purpose, and economic development. • “Co-curricular programs execute assessment plans similar to instructional areas and may assess achievement in common learning outcomes as well. The resulting information is used by co- curricular programs to analyze and augment their current practices and processes, measure current and identify potential student learning and social activities, and gauge the success of the program’s contribution to the educational experience of students. The university did not provide actual assessment evidence for co-curricular units; thus, the institution failed to demonstrate its claims for 3.E.2.”
8
VU has defined co-curricular units as those non-academic, student support services offices directly engaged with providing support for student learning. This includes, but is not limited to, the library, student activities, the Dean of Students office, the counseling center, housing and residential life, athletics, distance education, the Jasper academic support center, international student affairs, center for career and employer relations, and TRIO programs. While these programs do some direct assessment of student learning, this kind of assessment is not always appropriate for every co-curricular program. More frequently these assessments of student learning will be conducted as part of efforts to assess the operational effectiveness of the objectives of the program or office. Assessment of student learning in co-curricular offices include examples such as a library assessment paired with the ENGL 101 course focusing on student’s research skills; the satisfactory academic progress of COPE students and the academic, personal, inter-personal, and social skills they have developed within the program; and Distance Education’s assessment of course success rates of students who utilize virtual tutoring. See Appendix E for these data in the assessment plans.
4.A.1 (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews. • “VU states that CCAC reviews, program reviews, annual assessment reports, and program health data are all reviewed on regular cycles to ensure continued program quality. However; the institution does not appear to establish predetermined performance targets, and the only external benchmarking mentioned is national certification exam pass rates.”
VU uses both targets and external benchmarks as part of its review of programs. The annual Program Review report is a management tool that has been used at VU for well over 20 years. Data review and success standards focus on multi-year performance trends to determine program strength and success. As shown on the attached sample for VU's Agribusiness program—see Appendix F—program review reports various program indices over a historical time frame: headcount, credit hours generated, student FTE, and matriculation information. Instructional load data such as credit hours generated by full-time faculty, credit hours generated by adjunct faculty, average section size for both full-time and adjunct faculty, and average section size as a percent of capacity are also recorded. Degree and certificate completions for each program are reported as well. In addition a number of financial data points are displayed. These include year-by-year program revenues, direct program costs, net program contribution (margin), and pertinent financial ratios such as revenues to expenditures, cost per credit hour, and cost per degree. The Program Review report is utilized by the college Deans and the Provost in evaluating instructional program financial viability and effectiveness. Multi-year trending information provides directional goals for each dean and relevant program chairs.
One category of Program Review is the same as one of the State funding targets: overall production of degrees. The largest percentage (40%) of Indiana’s pool of performance-based funding is dedicated to the category of overall degree completion. During Program Review, staff consider degree production trends as part of determining a program’s viability. The general target for programs is to recruit a minimum of 20 students per year and graduate 10. Also, VU’s degree production performance is benchmarked by the performance of other state institutions: http://www.in.gov/che/3148.htm
VU’s new Strategic Plan is another example of VU’s use of targets and benchmarks—see Appendix J. The plan will include performance expectations for all instructional units for a number of objectives that have been benchmarked using historical performance data. As Program Review operates, VU will use trend data to measure success for many strategic objectives, and baselines will provide targets that the
9 institution and its various units will be striving to exceed. Many of these baselines loop back into the State funding metrics, such as degree completion. Objectives in Priority One, Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts, include increasing the number of students who convert from dual credit students to traditional college students on the Vincennes Campus where they will complete certificates and degrees. A second example is increasing enrollment in alternative delivery programs. Both objectives will include baseline numbers that will be used to measure success. All units will work to develop unit action plans that will enhance the overall university trends. Budgeting and equipment release funding will be shaped, in part, by how various units plan to add to the University totals and trends. Through VU’s program review process, state funding metrics analysis, and strategic planning processes, VU’s programs are reviewed using both targets and benchmarks that measure program success.
4.B.2 (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs. • “While degree-granting and certificate-granting departments participate in the annual program review, it is not clear whether the general education departments are also required to do so. As well, there is no evidence that co-curricular departments participate in student learning assessment. There is only one assessment report (for VU Early College) on the VU Institutional Effectiveness website, which raises questions regarding the maturity and enculturation of the VU assessment processes.”
All VU academic programs, departments, and colleges take part in the annual program review process. VU disaggregates its general education curriculum into its regular programs; each of these undergo a program review. In this way, general education is covered as a part of the review of the program within which the curriculum is embedded.
Section 3.E.2 addresses co-curricular programs engaged in student learning assessment. The full catalog of academic and co-curricular unit assessment plans can be accessed here: https://my.vinu.edu/web/institutional-effectiveness/assessment-plans. General education and accreditation progress reports can be accessed here: https://my.vinu.edu/web/institutional- effectiveness/assessment-reports. General education assessment results were included as part of VU’s Progress Reports sent to the HLC, which are posted on the site. Reviewer comments about those reports were positive. VU has submitted a preliminary report for 2016-2017 and the disaggregated data from 2014 and 2015 contained in previous Progress Reports and Action Project Updates.
VU has broadly engaged its campuses and sites in assessment. Each year the Vincennes campus engages faculty in Assessment Day, a full day of assessment-related professional development sessions and dedicated time to collaborate on assessment-related matters and receive feedback from their colleagues. A duplicated head-count of 408 faculty attended seven different session in 2016; faculty from the Vincennes and Jasper campuses as well as the School for the Deaf and Aviation Tech Center were in attendance. VU also engages dual credit faculty in a variety of professional development sessions. VU’s Action Project, Assessing General Education in the Early Colleges, offered multiple sessions with early college faculty, and more recently, the Director of Assessment engaged 70 early college faculty at different early college sites.
VU has contributed student writing and work each of the last three years to AAC&U and SHEEO’s Multi- State Collaborative (MSC) Project in the areas of critical thinking, written communication, and quantitative literacy for three years whereby outside faculty assessors measure student success using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics. The assessment data provided to the institution is shared with the
10 participating faculty, the college deans, as well as the Office of Curriculum and Instruction and the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The results of the MSC assessment serve as external validation for VU’s own internal assessment of general education outcomes.
4.B.3 (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning. • VU has used AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics to inform the development of its own rubrics for the assessment of critical thinking and written communication. The university also uses Lumina’s DQP to align its outcomes with national standards and practices. The institution’s participation in the Multi-State Collaborative project will provide comparative assessment data once the institution begins generating such data. While VU reports results for its assessment of common learning outcomes, it is unclear how those results are used to improve student learning. Improvements cited focus primarily on improvements to the assessment process or tools.”
All curricular and co-curricular programs complete an annual assessment plan that builds upon the previous year’s assessment results. Plans require the articulation of the mission and outcomes of the program or office, the assessed outcomes and the methods of assessment for multiple projects, the significance of the skill, knowledge, or process being assessed, the sample size, and a success standard. Then, the data is analyzed, an improvement plan formulated, and the impacts of the previous year’s improvements are addressed. The improvements focus on issues of process, instrumentation, and/or curriculum.
The results of the MSC Project have provided VU with comparative data in the last two years of participation; however, the project has been undergoing a process of development—a “Demonstration” year followed by two “Refinement” years wherein the sampling, assessment, and reporting processes have undergone changes and improvements. VU has been a leader in the state in terms of the quantity of student work supplied to be assessed each year of the project (and VU is the only state institution that has participated all three years). The results have allowed the institution to compare the results of the MSC project with its own internal assessment results. The most recent results have illustrated that VU’s scores are consistent with the project averages supplied in 2017—see Appendix G for these data. The MSC data, disaggregated by course, are provided to each faculty member supplying student work along with the overall VU averages. The course-level results provide the faculty member with the minimum, maximum, and median scores of the student artifacts, enabling them to determine if the students’ work was successful at meeting the assessed criteria for critical thinking, written communication, or quantitative literacy and in connection with the overall VU scores.
The results of general education assessment, both quantitative and qualitative data, are shared with constituency groups across the institution, and the appropriate committees and groups (i.e. General Education committee, Curriculum and Academic Affairs, Provost’s Council) are provided with the results, which are also posted on the website. The institution has used the assessment data to identify necessary curricular and instructional improvements. Most recently, results, especially four years of qualitative feedback, led to the formation of a Liberal Education Committee that reviewed every assignment designed to assess critical thinking to ensure the instructional design and learning scaffolding provided students with the necessary means to be successful in that work. It’s important to understand that VU’s approach to teaching and assessing liberal education courses is to use common course assignments, assignments designed by a course lead and then used by all faculty in all locations. To date assessors have noted issues affecting the results of the assessment that included poor assignment design, unclear assignment directions, and most importantly, an apparent lack of scaffolded
11 instruction and limited class time spent on teaching critical thinking. The recently completed rubric- based assignment reviews by the Liberal Education Committee, after consultation with the faculty designing the learning scaffolding and assessments, have produced significant commitment to changes in course assignments and to augmentation of the instructional methods through the explicit identification of learning scaffolding. The revised assignments and assignment proposal forms submitted for review are posted online so that all faculty at all locations have access to the information. For courses taught at other locations, VU is also adding videos that help to explain the assignment and offer tips for instruction of the assignments. Assignment materials and some of the newly developed videos can be found at: https://my.vinu.edu/web/curriculum-and-instruction/tutorials.
4.B.4 (Unclear or incomplete)—The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty and other instructional staff members. • “The work of analyzing and interpreting assessment data is completed by a team of four faculty and two academic deans. This raises questions about the degree to which the institution is truly enculturating its assessment work and whether the faculty body is meaningfully and substantively engaged.”
Using AAC&U’s VALUE rubrics as models, VU has created a rubric to assess Critical, Ethical, and Integrative Thinking and uses AAC&U’s VALUE rubric for Written Communication. The summer assessment engages 12-14 faculty members in assessing approximately 200 student CT essays and 50 WC essays each year, with two college deans also participating in the assessment groups in each of the summers of 2016 and 2017. VU’s regular Assessment Committee is broken into two sub-committees— the first is comprised of at least one faculty liaison from each of the 5 academic colleges and a Jasper campus representative, and the second is comprised of liaisons from the co-curricular offices. The committees meet regularly throughout the academic year, chaired by the Interim Director of Assessment, and in coordination with faculty and staff who compile the reports. The committees review each assessment plan submitted by academic or co-curricular units in stages in ensure the quality of the assessment and the clarity of the plan:
Plan Setup (pt. I), draft Plan Setup (pt. I), revision (Data Collection)
Results and Analysis (pt. Results and Analysis (pt. II), Assessment Finalized & II), draft revision uploaded to the IE website
Faculty and staff within each assessed unit—academic or co-curricular—design assessments to measure the specified outcomes and detail this plan in part I of the assessment report, which is reviewed by the Assessment Committee using a rubric and feedback is provided. If necessary, a revision of the plan is then sent forward for a second committee review. Once completed, the assessment data is collected based upon the plan setup, and an analysis of the data is compiled in the second half of the assessment report. Using a rubric, the Committee reviews this half of the assessment and feedback is provided. If necessary, a revision is completed and reviewed again by the Committee. After this review, the plan
12 and the resulting data are finalized and the raw data and assessment instruments are saved on file with the assessment plan. A spreadsheet is used to record progress in the process—see Appendix H. The faculty or staff members identified as Assessment Chairs for a department or office are notified by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness when a plan will be reviewed so that they may join the Committee for the review that day, ask and answer questions, and engage with the Committee during its review. The faculty or staff then receive a copy of the finalized assessment report after it has been reviewed. This process directly engages the faculty and staff responsible for assessment and ensures a complete, transparent review process. The ultimate goal of the process is to engender trust and confidence in the methods and aims of assessment and shared perspective concerning the value and use of assessment data.
• “Assessment of critical thinking and written communication general education outcomes is presented; however, VU does not mention assessment efforts or results for the other common learning outcomes or for program outcomes.”
All curricular programs assess student learning outcomes each year, and the Math department conducts an assessment of students’ quantitative literacy by using the final exam to focusing on key skills, a common assessment implemented at all locations and collected in order to compare the students’ results. VU also obtains data concerning students’ demonstration of quantitative literacy through its participation in the MSC. Additionally, VU has associated the critical thinking work students complete in the University Common Core (UCC) with the ethical and integrative reasoning outcomes. As a result of the assignment review conducted by the Liberal Education Committee (see 4.b.3), each assignment has been revised to incorporate either an ethical or integrative component in the work which will also be assessed when students’ CT artifacts are assessed.
• “Closing the assessment loop is important; VU’s narrative suggests that the institution is using assessment data to inform curricular revisions. It is unclear whether assessment data was the factor that prompted the current CCAC review, or whether assessment data have directly informed specific curricular changes.”
As part of the summer assessment of UCC outcomes, VU collects both quantitative results and qualitative survey data from faculty assessors. These data were directly responsible for the creation of the Liberal Education committee review of CT assignments. The review process required faculty to complete an assignment approval form, which includes descriptions of the essential learning and goals of the assignment and the scaffolding required to help make students better critical thinkers; both the approval form and revised assignment sheets were required as part of the submission for review. The assessment data directly resulted in the changes to the UCC curriculum regarding critical thinking and the associated ethical or integrative reasoning outcomes. These data have been presented at the opening meeting of the university as well as with the faculty and administrators on the Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC) as well as Provost’s Council, all as part of an on-going discussion of teaching and improving students’ critical thinking skills. In this way, VU has engaged all of its stakeholders with assessment data to highlight the need for ongoing curricular improvement efforts and the results of those improvements.
5.A.5. (Adequate, but could be improved)—The institution has a well-developed process in place for budgeting and for monitoring expenses. • “None of the processes above reflect alignment with the university mission or strategic plan goals.”
13
Indiana’s performance funding metrics provide clear goals and a scorecard by which the University’s outcomes are measured and rewarded by the State. As such, those metrics help to drive institutional priorities and budgeting decisions, as reflected in the annual program review process. The University’s program review and annual budgeting processes serve as mechanisms to ensure that units are performing according to university mission, priorities, and the strategic plan. Past and current strategic plans also reflect the State’s priorities, including retention, completions, and on-time graduation. The Continuous Quality Improvement Committee will conduct the annual evaluations of unit progress toward the strategic plan and will recommend adjustments to be evaluated by senior administration and the Board of Trustees—see Appendix I. Any changes will then be used to inform both the annual budgeting and the instructional equipment budgeting processes. Biennial review of performance funding outcomes results in two scenarios: 1) changes in funding for the next biennium that may be used to reinforce or shift funding priorities, and 2) the ability to project the university’s performance on those metrics, along with budgetary impact, for the following biennium. The combination of these factors informs the Board of Trustees and the administration regarding budgeting priorities for a two- to four- year time frame.
5.C.1–4. (Unclear or incomplete)— 1. The institution allocates its resources in alignment with its mission and priorities. 2. The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting. 3. The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups. 4. The institution plans on the basis of a sound understanding of its current capacity. Institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue, such as enrollment, the economy, and state support. • “While it is clear that the most recent process engaged a broad swath of stakeholders, no evidence was presented that an established, repeatable process for engaging stakeholders in strategic planning is in place at VU.”
VU’s previous two strategic plans, established in 2004 and 2010 respectively, incorporated similar processes involving use of consultants, vetting by internal and external stakeholders, and environmental scanning. Due to an expected shift in the university presidency in mid-2015, VU delayed the development of a new strategic plan until three months after the new president took office.
• “No evidence was presented to indicate that the institution or its leaders are proactively establishing measures and targets in this area, or that they are using performance results to inform continuous quality improvement initiatives in this area.”
As mentioned in 5.A.5., Indiana’s performance funding metrics provide an over-arching framework for establishing institutional performance targets, along with results and related impact on state funding. In addition, over the past 12 months, the president and senior administration, working with the assistance of the consultant, have been establishing metrics, developing a framework for measuring progress of the strategic plan, establishing goals and evaluating contributions by individual units, incorporating those reviews into budgeting processes, and annual review of the plan and metrics themselves—see Appendix I. These processes have now been incorporated into an operational framework, with the
14
Continuous Quality Improvement Committee serving in a key role for coordination and evaluation of the plan (see annual review graphic).
• “Strengthening its institutional vision and establishing the CQI committee are notable improvements since the portfolio presented in 2012, as was the new consultant-led highly- engaging strategic planning process. VU has much work to do in terms of establishing direct measures of planning effectiveness, setting predetermined targets and timelines for those measures, and embarking on a sustainable cycle of continuous quality improvement in which data is intentionally gathered and analyzed to inform institutional improvements and decisions.”
The new strategic plan, which has been under development during 2017—see Appendix J—includes metrics and a newly-developed process for measuring progress, establishing goals and evaluating contributions by individual units, incorporating those reviews into budgeting processes, and annual review of the plan and metrics themselves. These processes have now been operationalized, with the Continuous Quality Improvement Committee serving in a key role for coordination and evaluation of the plan. The final version of the plan draft and annual review process will be presented and discussed at the annual Board Retreat in February 2018.
5.C.5. (Unclear or incomplete)—Institutional planning anticipates emerging factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.
• “No evidence was presented in the portfolio that the university considers emerging factors in its planning efforts (5.C.5).” Each February, the University’s Board of Trustees holds a retreat in which recent and emerging challenges and opportunities are reviewed and discussed. Recent examples include: 1) challenges related to escalating costs of employee health care which led to the University’s establishment of a primary care clinic and wellness program, and 2) a review of VU’s Aviation Technology programs in the context of a predicted shortage in airline pilots, which ultimately resulted in the Board’s approval of a multi-million-dollar investment in a new fleet of training aircraft to be delivered in 2018. In February 2016, the University’s Board of Trustees utilized its annual retreat to begin the strategic planning process. Working with a consultant, the board identified preliminary markers of success (e.g., those driven by the State’s performance funding metrics (https://www.in.gov/che/3148.htm), including enrollment targets for system and the two campuses, student retention and success rates) that it would like to achieve for the next five- to six-year period. Facilitated by a consultant and fueled by data, the Board conducted a thorough review of the current state of the University, expected changes in political, economic, demographic, and technological environments. The consultant also led a SWOT analysis as a prelude to the development of a new strategic plan. Coming out of the retreat, the board identified six areas of institutional priority for the 2017-2022 period. Those six areas became the nucleus of a new strategic plan that the University has been crafting over the past 18 months, involving a wide variety of internal and external stakeholders. In addition to the plan itself, the VU Board approved a revised mission statement and reaffirmed the University’s vision statement and values. Among the universities six strategic plan priorities, two have been developed specifically to help ensure that the University stays abreast or ahead of emerging factors, such as new technologies, workforce needs, and demographics. By emphasizing “partnerships with industry, K-12, and higher education” organizations, VU expects to stay informed of changes and emerging trends that may provide
15 opportunities or threats to current programming and delivery models. As part of the strategic priority, “Identify and investigate opportunities to establish new programs and enhance existing programs,” VU expects to strengthen its use of external data from advisory councils and industry partners, along with projections (e.g. data from Bureau of Labor Statistics and Indiana Department of Workforce Development) as part of its program review process.
Since 2015, the University has also engaged in a significant effort to increase globalization in curricular and co-curricular environments. Exchange programs with two Japanese Universities have allowed VU students to study in Japan and resulted in Japanese students enrolling at VU. VU faculty and students have engaged in other study abroad activities in Latin America. Further, VU has established several memoranda of understanding with Chinese colleges and schools as the first step toward increasing international experiences and increasing global diversity among the VU student population. In summer 2017, ten VU faculty taught Chinese students and faculty in Funing County, Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, as part of a partnership program with the Funing County Education Bureau. These and other programs are expected to continue and grow.
5.D.1–2. (Unclear or incomplete)— 1. The institution develops and documents evidence of performance in its operations. 2. The institution learns from its operational experience and applies that learning to improve its institutional effectiveness, capabilities, and sustainability, overall and in its component parts. • “While these examples demonstrate the institution is beginning to learn from its operational experience, it is not evident from the Portfolio that the University routinely documents evidence of its performance or learns from its experience.”
The primary measure of VU’s performance is through Indiana’s performance funding metrics. The University’s performance is documented in several areas, not the least of which is in VU’s data submitted to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education, which is used for determination of funding according to the State’s biennial performance funding formulas. The annual program review booklet also tracks performance in key metrics for each university program area. Annual financial statements also track the University’s financial performance. VU has also participated in an Indiana Commission for Higher Education-led initiative to benchmark alumni satisfaction with the Gallup – Purdue index. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) results are published on MyVU, including VU’s performance against peer institutions.
Over the past five years the University, principally through the CQI, has established a practice of pilot implementations of new projects or initiatives prior to full scale or wider scale rollouts. The use of pilots allows the University to test the efficacy of new ideas before taking on the risk and cost associated with a broader implementation. Through pilots, VU also gains insight on the need for programmatic or operational adjustments that will be required before broader implementation. Examples of pilot initiatives that have evolved into University – wide programs include, MyFoundationsLab, Co-requisite Remedial Education, and the development of the Student Profile.
16
URL Page:
Student Handbook: http://globaldatebooksonline.com/flipbooks/vin/
University Manual: https://my.vinu.edu/documents/182733/0/University+Manual.pdf/10d8cc79-023c-40eb-bf43- 0231c43b55cb
University Catalog: http://catalog.vinu.edu/
17
Appendix A:
Multicultural Activities
Selected Activities for a Multicultural Society, 2016-18
• Middle Eastern International Dinner: Music by Salaam • Martin Luther King Annual Dinner: James Sims, President, Monroe County NAACP, guest speaker • Women in STEM Annual Banquet for VU students and faculty • American Sign Language Program/Indianapolis: participating in Homecoming for the Indiana School for the Deaf • Faculty Photography Exhibit: Teaching in China across the curriculum • Women in STEM Convocation: Leah Curry, President of Toyota, guest speaker • Tecumseh Review: Readings of creative work from annual literary magazine for creative writing and art by VU students • Banned Books Read-Out: annual campus event during Banned Books Week • Asian Culture Night: Dr. Rong Yang, guest speaker • Open Mic Night at Jefferson Union, sponsored by Black Male Initiative • Sexual Identity 101: Kand McQueen, guest speaker, sponsored by LGBTQ Club • African American Arts Institute: IU Soul Review, guest speaker/concert • Take Back the Night: campus safety, support for equal rights, rape awareness • Latin American Dinner, VU students and guest speaker • African Culture Night, VU students and guest speaker • Disability Awareness Week: various activities • VU Center for Learning and Research: annual conference for Education students, elementary and secondary teachers; inquiry and research for teaching and learning • Campus Civility campaign: students, faculty, and staff meeting and promoting activities all year • Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society: community service projects
Appendix B:
State Board of Accounts and
Department of Education Letters
STATE OF INDIANA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET ROOM E418 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-2769
Telephone: (317) 232-2513 Fax: (317) 232-4711 Web Site: www.in.gov/sboa
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
TO: THE OFFICIALS OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, VINCENNES, INDIANA
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the business-type activities and the ag- gregate discretely presented component unit of Vincennes University (University), a component unit of the State of Indiana, as of and for the years ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the University's basic financial statements as listed in the Table of Contents.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the financial statements of Vincennes University Foundation (Foundation), a component unit of the University as discussed in Note 1, which represents 100 percent of the assets, net assets, and revenues of the discretely presented component unit. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the Foundation, is based solely on the report of the other auditors. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing stand- ards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assess- ment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In mak- ing those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the University's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the University's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by man- agement, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that our audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
2 | Vincennes University INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Opinions
In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the business-type activities and the aggregate discretely presented component unit of the University, as of June 30, 2015 and 2014, and the respective changes in financial position, where applicable, and its cash flows thereof for the years then ended, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 17 to the financial statements, in fiscal year 2015, the University adopted new accounting guidance GASB Statement 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis, Schedule of Employer's Share of Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts (TRF Pre-1996), Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts, Schedule of Employer's Share of Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996), Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996) be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial state- ments. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited pro- cedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the University's basic financial statements. The Treasurer's Report and the Board of Trustees and University Officers are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The Treasurer's Report andINDEPENDENT the Board of Trustees AUDITOR'S and University REPORT Officers have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of (Continued)the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on this information.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 23, 2015, on our consideration of the University's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other mat- ters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial report- ing and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on internal control over finan- cial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering University's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Paul D. Joyce, CPA State Examiner
2014-2015 Financial Report | 3 October 23, 2015 STATE OF INDIANA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET ROOM E418 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-2769
Telephone: (317) 232-2513 Fax: (317) 232-4711 Web Site: www.in.gov/sboa
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
TO: THE OFFICIALS OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, VINCENNES, INDIANA
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the financial statements of the business-type activities and the discretely presented component unit of Vincennes University (University), a component unit of the State of Indiana, as of and for the years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the University's basic financial statements, as listed in the Table of Contents.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the financial statements of the Vincennes University Foundation, Inc. (Foundation), a component unit of the University as discussed in Note 1, which represents 100 percent of the total assets, net assets, and reve- nues of the discretely presented component unit. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the Foundation, is based solely on the report of the other auditors. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to finan- cial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assess- ment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the University's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the University's inter- nal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by manage- ment, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
2 | Vincennes University Opinions
In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the business-type activities and the discretely presented component unit of the University, as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis, Schedule of Employer's Share of the Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts (TRF Pre-1996), Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts, Schedule of Employer's Share of Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996), and Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996) be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such informa- tion, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic finan- cial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that col- lectively comprise the University's basic financial statements. The Treasurer's Report and Board of Trustees and University Officers are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The Treasurer's Report and Board of Trustees and University Officers have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on this information.
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 13, 2016, on our consideration of the University's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other mat- ters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the University's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Paul D. Joyce, CPA State Examiner
October 13, 2016
2015-2016 Financial Report | 3 STATE OF INDIANA AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 302 WEST WASHINGTON STREET ROOM E418 INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-2769
Telephone: (317) 232-2513 Fax: (317) 232-4711 Web Site: www.in.gov/sboa
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
TO: THE OFFICIALS OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, VINCENNES, INDIANA
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the financial statements of the business-type activities and the discretely pre- sented component unit of Vincennes University (University), a component unit of the State of Indiana, as of and for the years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the University's basic financial statements, as listed in the Table of Contents.
Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presen- tation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the financial statements of Vincennes University Foundation (Foundation), a component unit of the University as discussed in Note 1, which represents 100 percent, 100 percent, and 100 percent, respectively, of the total assets, net position, and revenues of the discreetly presented component units. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the Foundation, is based solely on the report of the other auditors. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The financial statements of the Foundation were audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, but were not audited in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and dis- closures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the University's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the University's internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
2016-2017 Financial Report | 3 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT (Continued)
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.
Opinions
In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the business- type activities and the discretely presented component unit of the University, as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof and for the years then ended, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management's Discussion and Analysis, Schedule of Employer's Share of Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts (TRF Pre-1996), Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund Pre-1996 Accounts, Schedule of Employer's Share of Net Pension Liability Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996), and Schedule of Employer Contributions Teachers' Retirement Fund 1996 Account (TRF 1996) be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such informa- tion, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the University's basic financial statements. The Treasurer's Report and Board of Trustees and University Officers are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The Treasurer's Report and Board of Trustees and University Officers have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on this information.
4 | Vincennes University INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT (Continued)
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 12, 2017, on our consideration of the University's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the University's internal control over financial reporting and compliance.
Paul D. Joyce, CPA State Examiner
October 12, 2017
2016-2017 Financial Report | 5
Appendix C:
Faculty Senate Agendas
Appendix D:
Infrastructure and Resources
Supporting Teaching and Learning
College of Humanities Infrastructure and Resources
American Sign Language – ASL Campus at ISD • Math Lab- Tutoring/ Classroom - 267 Smart Classrooms –3 264 236,237
Center for Art and Design – CAD 33 • Ceramics Studio – 112 • Smart Classroom – 166 • Clay Mixing Room – 112C • Ceramics Kiln Room – 112B • Ceramics Glazing Room – 112A • Plaster Studio – Room 111A • Metalworking Studio – 111 • Sculpture Studio – 108 • Woodworking Studio – 107 • Graphic Design Computer Lab – 102 (Smart Classroom) • Graphic Design Computer Lab – 115 (Smart Classroom)
Shircliff Humanities Center – SHC 15 • Academic Skills Center - E136 • Audio Recording (Stuido A Control Room) - E220 (Studio A Isolation Room) - E222/223 (Wiring Room) - E224 (Live Room) – E225 (Stuido B Control Room) - E225 (Studio C) – E235A (Studio D- Overdub Suite/Studio C) – E235B (Studio C ISO/Storage) - E235D • Art Gallery – Room A109 • Art Gallery Prep – Room A104 • Claudia Bossard’s Office (Private Lessons - Piano) – E202 • Clothing Lab- A110 (Smart) • Dave Parman’s Office (Private Lessons- Bass Guitar Lessons) – E249 • EALG Classroom/Lab- D209 (Smart & Computer Based) – D212, D214 • Figure Life Drawing Studio - C212 • Foods Lab - A204 (Smart) • Hospitality Area (FACS) - A207 • Graphic Design Computer Lab - C204 • Interior Design (Drafting) - A208, A209 (Smart) • Juliet Gilchrist’s Office (Private Lessons - Vocal) - E244 • Michael Howell’s Office (Private Lessons - Guitar) - E209 • World Languages & Cultures Lab/Classroom - D110A (Smart), D110B • Music Lab/Lecture – D201 (Smart & Computer Based) • Music Practice Rooms (Piano) – E238 • Music Tech Lab - E207 (Smart) • Painting Studio - C210 • Photography - C109 • Photo Black & White Film Developing - C112 • Photo Color Dark Room - C108 • Photo Dark Room - C116 • Photography Lecture Room - C120 (Computer Based) • Printmaking Studio - C103 • Scott Mercer’s Office (Private Guitar) - E203 • Still Life Drawing Studio - C208 • Theater- E101 (Smart) (Control Room – E252) • Two-dimensional Design Studio - E213 • Two-dimensional Design Studio - E215 • Virgil Franklin’s Office (Audio Recording Techniques) - E250 • Writing Center- E229 (Smart)
Smart & Computer Based - 9 D108, D109, D111, D118, E123, E124, E128, E132, E133 (Not listed above) Smar t Classroom - 18 A112, A205, A212, B106, B107, B108, B112, B113, B211, B212, B213, B217, B218, C101, D219, D220, E210, E228 (Not listed above)
College of Business and Public Service Infrastructure and Resources
Emergency Medical Services: • Classroom with ambulance simulator and simulation mannequins
• Clinicals performed at multiple hospitals and ambulance services throughout southern Indiana
Fire Science: • FIRE 100 certification course taught at Vincennes Township Fire Department using all of their equipment
Law Enforcement: • Crime scene course work conducted in laboratory with tools and equipment used for evidence collection
Information Technology: • All courses taught in classrooms equipped with computers and software relevant to the course
Culinary Arts: • Course taught in laboratories with equipment used for processing and cooking/baking food
College of Science, Engineering, & Mathematics Infrastructure and Resources
• Robeson Hills Nature Preserve – Serves as research and teaching area • 1 Tutoring Lab w/testing room and computer lab (ARC-GIS software, Chemistry Software, Math Software) • 1 Computer Lab for Engineering (Engineering software, C Programming) • 1 Microbiology Lab • 2 Anatomy & Physiology Labs • 2 General Biology Labs • 1 Horticulture/Agriculture Lab • 2 Geoscience/Agriculture Labs (ARC-GIS software) • 1 Organic Chemistry Lab • 5 General Chemistry Labs • 1 Electrical Engineering Lab • 4 Physics/Engineering Labs • 13 General Classrooms
College of Technology Infrastructure and Resources
• Precision Machining – 2 machine labs HURCO CNC and Manual Machine Lab - Mastercam Software • Advanced Manufacturing – Multi-use robot and Industrial Maintenance Center. PLC Lab, Hydraulics, Pneumatics, and Mechatronics labs • Welding- Multi booth welding lab space with additional metal working equipment • Automotive- Multiple service bays 17,500 square feet - Mitchell On Demand, Identifix software • Collision Repair- 2 lab areas Non-structural repair and Paint/Structural - CCC One software • Architecture-2 lab areas- Manual drafting and CAD labs. Revit software • Product Design- 4 lab areas- Manual/CAD drafting, Reverse engineering, Additive manufacturing, Mold making - CREO Software • Electronics- Multiple lab areas to include: Biomedical, Networking, Computer Repair, General Electronics. Microsoft, Cisco, and CompTIA certification testing • Construction- 4 lab areas including: Framing, Residential wiring, Finish Carpentry, Masonry • Surveying- CAD lab and multiple outdoor training sites • Diesel- Heavy truck lab - Cummins, Meritor, Eaton software • John Deere- Tractor and implement lab - John Deere factory repair software • Aviation Flight-Flight simulator lab and 2 hangars - Eagle Creek Airport flight training site • Aviation Maintenance- 2 hangars, welding lab, electronics lab, composites lab, propeller lab, engine lab, sheet metal lab
College of Health Science and Human Performance Infrastructure and Resources
• Nursing skills labs (practical and associate of science in nursing): 2 separate skills labs with an additional 2 ‘patient rooms’ for simulation o Several “static” manikins o Adult, obstetric, pediatric and infant moderate fidelity manikins o Adult and infant high fidelity manikins o Simulation software for medication delivery, charting • Pharmacy Technology Lab o Sterile/laminar air flow hoods o Key Centrix software for ordering, processing, filling and selling “medications” in a simulated pharmacy environment • Surgical Technology Lab o Laparoscopic surgery simulator o Surgery tables and lights o Full scrub sink with hands-free function o Massive inventory of surgical equipment • Health Information Management Lab o Patient record software with mock patient information o Dual screen computers • Physical Therapist Assisting o Simulation lab with dual vide cameras, adjustable from control room o Recording software to capture video from simulation exercises that allow students and faculty to review student performance on skills • Funeral Service Education o Embalming machines (2) o Refrigeration units (2) for storage o Air brush set for make-up application in restorative art o Van for transportation of deceased to and from hospitals, funeral homes and the University laboratory
Learning Resource Center
• Books: 73,500 • Ebooks: 107,719 • Physical Media: 2,837 • eMedia: 31, 026 • Serials: 587 • eSerials: 26,091 • Individual Databases: 158 Management Information Center
The VU campus has more than 4,000 PCs, 300 network switches, 300 wireless access points, and supports the Windows 10 operating system, Microsoft Office 2016, Symantek antivirus software, Banner, the Blackboard LMS, Adobe Acrobat, and AutoCAD.
Jasper Campus Infrastructure and Resources
Facilities and Technological Resources:
VUJC comprises 140 acres on the southeast side of Jasper, Indiana and includes five buildings.
The Administration Building houses offices that include Admissions, Student Services, the Fiscal Department, the Counseling Services, Student Activities Coordinator, Student Government Association, the VUJC Foundation, and the AVP/Dean. The building has six smart classrooms, two computer labs, and several office spaces for adjunct faculty. The bookstore and the Certified Nursing Assistant classroom/laboratory are located on the lower level.
The Ruxer Center supports student services with a gymnasium, exercise room, walking track, student lounge, and the Bistro (cafeteria). The Ruxer Center also houses the Indiana Baseball Hall of Fame, which is open to the public and is run by a separate community board.
The Jasper Campus Classroom Building (JCCB) is one of the largest buildings on campus. It has eight smart classrooms, two computer labs, and a virtual hospital with an ambulance lab, a skills lab, an adjunct office, and a seminar room/IP video room. There is also a lecture hall, an Academic Support Center that includes a computer lab, a conference room, a newly remodeled student lounge with high- tech modern furniture, a staff work room, seven full-time faculty offices, two department chair offices, and a secretary/welcome area office. The additional technology available in the JCCB includes 3 Simman 3G's, 2 Simbabies, a birthing manikin, 4 task/skill training manikins, Pyxis system for dispensing medications, four military-grade cameras, and a patient monitor.
The Center for Technology, Innovation, and Manufacturing (CTIM) was opened in 2013 with a total of fourteen smart classrooms, seven industrial labs, a theater/lecture hall, a computer/CAD lab, a collaboration lab, an academic support center, large and small conference rooms, an office suite, two student lounges, and a secretary/welcome area office. The CTIM is home to our Career Advancement Partnership (CAP) program and all Jasper Campus math courses. Technology available for student use includes: Industrial WEEKE CNC Router, virtual welder, wood working equipment and machines, laser engraving machine, thermal trouble shooting system, motor control systems, AC/DC electrical systems, hydraulics and pneumatics training systems, Motoman XV3X robots, programmable automation controller, electrical wiring training systems and electronics stations, 3D printers, and a CAD software lab.
The Habig Library Learning Center Building has a student lounge, four smart classrooms, one telecom classroom, four computer labs, a chemistry lab, a life science lab, a cadaver and cadaver storage, eight full-time faculty offices, three adjunct offices, two department chair offices a secretary/welcome area office, and the library. The library is open to students, as well as the public. The library includes quiet study and group study areas, as well as a computer lab. Technological Support:
The VU Management Information Center (MIC), located on the Vincennes Campus, has the responsibility of maintaining the technical infrastructure consisting of the network, servers, and user peripherals for the entire University, including the Jasper Campus.
To ensure adequate resources and assist with Jasper operations, MIC monitors performance by tracking usage and to determine adjustments necessary to satisfy performance levels required. Pro-actively, computer workstations are replaced taking into consideration maintenance, budget, and most importantly, need. Additional campus technology needs are met through the university equipment request process, and through departmental budget allocation.
Technical Support at the Jasper Campus is supported by MIC and the Learning Resource Center. The staff at Jasper monitors the requests, and assigns simple tasks to a student worker or forwards requests to the help desk on the Vincennes Campus, which is monitored during all business hours. MIC staff typically comes to the Jasper Campus every Friday and the student worker is available on call each day.
Appendix E:
Co-Curricular Assessment Plans
Assessing Student Learning 2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
AREA: Student Affairs PROGRAM: COPE Student Support Services
DUE DATES: Part I (green) 7.11.16 - - Data & Tools (summer & fall projects) 12.22.16 - - Data & Tools (spring projects) 5.26.17 - - Part II (purple) 5.26.17
Mission Statement & Program Learning Outcomes
Has your Mission Statement changed from last year? Have you revised your Objectives since last year? ☐ YES ☒ NO *choose only one ☐ YES ☒ NO *choose only one
Mission Statement The mission of the Vincennes University COPE Student Support Services program is to increase retention, graduation, and/or transfer to a four-year institution through person-centered-planning approaches that enhance academic, financial, personal, and social development for low income, first generation, and/or students with disabilities.
Objectives The COPE Student Support Services program will: • increase awareness of the COPE Student Support Services program. • contribute to students’ retention, time to degree, and academic success. • foster students’ personal growth. • build parents’ knowledge of the college process.
1st Assessed Objective: Contribute to students’ retention, time to degree, and academic success. Outcome: The COPE SSS students will be in Good Academic Standing with the institution.
Why is this Assessment Significant? The significance ensures passing grades and higher success rate for retention and graduation. Continued federal funding requires the COPE SSS Program to meet this objective.
Collaborators: Candace Joles, Nan Wagner, April Kaiser, Jessica Hatton, Jared Dixon
Project 1A Title: Program and Tutor Evaluations
1
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
This is the 3rd year for this project. Brief Project Description: This project will have the participants in the COPE SSS Program complete Program and Tutor Evaluations utilizing a 3-point Likert-type assessment tool to measure how well the program is meeting students’ needs and helping to ensure their academic success for the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 semesters. The data will be compiled, analyzed, and interpreted in order to assist with the COPE SSS Program evolvement. Assessment Tool(s) Used: Program and Tutor Evaluation forms Success Standard: Each question will strive for a 2.45/3.00 on both the Program and Tutor Evaluations with an overall score of 2.65/3.00. (Previous versions utilized a 5-point scale.) Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: COPE SSS participants Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Candace Joles and Jared Dixon – Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 255 Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Fall and Spring
Project 1A Results
Actual Sample Size: 57
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The three-point Likert type scale was not utilized due to the previous year’s five-point survey copied and sent out for completion by accident. Thirty Program Evaluations were completed in the Fall 2016 with an overall score of 4.56/5.00. "I found for COPE SSS staff to be knowledgeable, helpful, and/or accessible" had the highest rating of a 4.90/5.00. "I found the labs/offices to be comfortable and inviting" received 4.83/5.00. This meant that 11 of the 12 questions had a rating of 4.00/5.00 or greater. Twenty-seven Program Evaluations were completed in the Spring 2017 with an overall score of 4.76/5.00. "Overall, I found that COPE SSS was helpful for me" with a 4.96/5.00 rating with "I found for COPE SSS staff to be knowledgeable, helpful, and/or accessible" following closely with a 4.92/5.00 rating. During the Spring 2017, all of the survey questions received a rating above 4.00/5.00. Thirty-one Tutor Evaluations were completed in the Fall 2016 with an overall rating of 4.89/5.00. The ratings ranged from 4.78/5.00 "The Professional Tutor checks my understanding by asking me questions, having me work examples, listening to my explanations, and/or challenging me" to a 5.00/5.00 rating for "The Professional Tutor encourages me and makes me feel that I have the ability to do well." Twenty-six Tutor Evaluations were completed in the Spring 2017 with an overall rating of 4.97/5.00. Six of the ten questions (numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10) received a 5.00/5.00 rating, while two of the questions (numbers 3 and 9) ranked the lowest rating of 4.92/5.00. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data): For the Fall 2016 Program Evaluation data indicated that "I benefited from assistance to transfer to another college/university" had the lowest rating of 3.79/5.00, which did not meet with 4.00/5.00 rating goal. "I benefited from the FAFSA information and completion" and "I benefited from Educational Workshops" scored low with a 4.24/5.00 4.35/5.00 respectively. During the Spring 2017, the lowest rating was "I benefited from transfer assistance to another college/university" with a 4.47/5.00 rating. Although we would have, ideally, liked all Program participants to have completed both the Program and Tutor Evaluation forms, only 57 surveys were completed in the assessment year. Response rates have been low throughout the three years of this project despite increased effort by Program staff to encourage student participation in this project. This issue is addressed in the Improvement Plan which follows. Data Indicating Trends (N/A for 1st year projects): Students’ evaluation of Professional Tutors has increased from previous years. In the Fall of 2015 the overall score was 4.88/5.00 and 4.80/5.00 for Spring 2016. The overall tutor evaluation scores increased to 4.89/5.00 in Fall 2016 and 4.97/5.00 in Spring 2017. One area of weakness noted in the Fall 2015 assessment was how students benefitted from educational workshops 4.21/5.00; moreover, this item increased to 4.35/5.00 in Fall 2016 and 4.63/5.00 in Spring 2017. The one item that did not meet the success standard from the 2015-2016 assessment was the transfer assistance to a four-year university, which only scored a 3.83/5.00 in Spring 2016 and 3.79/5.00 in Fall 2016. However, a notable increase was observed in Spring 2017 with this item receiving a score of 4.47/5.00. Overall scores for the Tutor Evaluation remained relatively unchanged from the 2014-2015 assessment year to the 2015-2016 year (4.85/5.00 in 2014-2015 to 4.88/5.00 in Fall 2015 and 4.80/5.00 in Spring 2016). Considerable gains, however, were noted between the previous two assessment years and this year, with the overall Tutor Evaluation scores increasing to 4.89/5.00 in Fall 2016 and 4.97/5.00 in Spring 2017. This positive trend implies that students are increasingly gaining valuable skills and academic assistance in,
2
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
and encouraged by, observing this positive trend because increasing students’ study skills and non-cognitive skills are directly related to the Program’s objective of fostering students’ personal growth.
Project 1B Title: Satisfactory Academic Progress
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description: The Banner screen SHATERM will be utilized to compile the cumulative completion rate for each student in the COPE SSS Program. Assessment Tool(s) Used: Satisfactory Academic Progress standards set by Vincennes University Success Standard: A minimum of 74% of the COPE SSS students will be in Good Academic Standing with the institution. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: COPE SSS participants Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Candace Joles and Jared Dixon – Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 255 Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Spring
Project 1B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 212
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The success standard was met with 74% (157 students) meeting the Satisfactory Academic Progress. 157 out of the 212 students sampled were in Good Academic Standing with the institution at the end of Spring 2017. The data indicate that 74% of the Program participants sampled are in Good Academic Standing. Therefore, the success standard was met, with 74% of Program participants meeting the Satisfactory Academic Progress evaluation criteria. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Fifty-five students did not meet Satisfactory Academic Progress. Nine of the 55 students met the minimum GPA of 2.000, but did not meet the cumulative completion rate which equals the number of credits completed divided by the number of credits attempted. Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): Comparing this year’s data to last year’s results, the data indicate a positive trend from 70% to 74% meeting Good Academic Standing.
Analysis of Objective 1 Results: Overall, the Program and Professional Tutor evaluation data indicate students’ strong satisfaction with Program services and the services received from Professional Tutors. Furthermore, nearly 3 out of 4 COPE SSS participants were in Good Academic Standing at the end of the 2016-2017 academic year. The objective of Project 1 was to “Contribute to students’ retention, time to degree, and academic success” as a whole. We feel the data collected for this Project show that the Program is meeting this objective. Specifically, the fact that our success standard was met for Project 1B and that nearly three out of four COPE SSS participants were in Good Academic Standing with the institution at the end of the 2016-2017 academic year indicates that students are poised for retention and on track to complete a certificate or degree program. Meeting the 74% success standard aligns well with our objective of student retention and providing support for degree completion. Furthermore, we feel that the data collected from Project 1A, specifically, the Tutor Evaluation forms
3
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
indicate that the Program is serving students’ needs regarding academic success. Data collected from Tutor Evaluations indicate that students are receiving significant and quality academic assistance and support from their Professional tutoring session, thus contributing to students’ overall academic success.
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): Last year’s improvement plan focused on increasing response rates for the Program and Professional Tutor Evaluation surveys being completed. The Program staff made a conscientious effort to make sure that all students coming into the office or Computer Labs completed the surveys, which allowed for a 26.9% completion rate.
New Improvement Plan: Based on feedback from Student Advisory Board, the surveys will be limited to one page with six quantifiable questions and space for open-ended comments at the bottom of the page.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: A brief oral interview will replace the evaluation forms previously utilized in Project 1A. Student comments will be qualitatively analyzed for strengths and weaknesses in Program services, which will assist with making changes. The new survey will have six questions with a three-point Likert type, as well as N/A due to some Program participants not utilizing those specific services.
Written by: Candace Joles and Jared Dixon
2nd Assessed Objective: Foster students’ personal growth. Outcome: COPE SSS students will experience non-cognitive personal growth as a result of COPE SSS services through CPPs data collection and analysis.
Why is this Assessment Significant? This project will identify the number of COPE SSS participants’ non-cognitive factors gained as a result of participation in Program services. Continued federal funding requires the COPE SSS Program to meet this objective.
Collaborators: Candace Joles, Nan Wagner, April Kaiser, Jessica Hatton, Jared Dixon, Jessie Davis, Stephanie Peacock, Nicole Hagemeier-McVay, Shannon Green, Dixie Strange, Danny Dishong
Project 2A Title: Non-cognitive Growth through CPPs
This is the 1st year for this project. Brief Project Description: The COPE SSS staff, specified grant individuals, as well as all Professional Tutors, will record non-cognitive factors (CPPs) gained from interactions with Program participants. Assessment Tool(s) Used: CPPs Crib Sheet (i.e., executive function, study strategies, and social skills) Success Standard: A minimum of 74% of the COPE SSS participants will have addressed at least one are of personal self-growth as measured by the CPP crib sheet. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: COPE SSS participants Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Candace Joles and Jared Dixon – Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 255 4
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Fall and Spring
Project 2A Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 228
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): CPP data from both the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 semesters were collected and analyzed. The following results are from combined Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 CPP data. The CPPs were broken into six themes (coaching/mentoring, executive function, study skills, social skills, SMART Goals, TAPS), of which some students received more than one CPP. The success standard was met with 96% of the Program participants received at least one CPP. Overall, 55.3 % (126 students) received only one CPP service, 18% (41 students) received two CPP services, and 11.4% (26 students) received three CPP services. Most of the CPP services (50.4%) that students received were from TAPS notifications for either needing academic support or notice that dropping classes could affect their financial aid. 17.3% of the CPP contacts were from the completed the SMART Goals sheet; however, 32% students completed the SMART Goals sheet with a staff member. 13.2% of the CPPs were associated with coaching/mentoring services. 10.6% of the CPPs were received through support services for study skills. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Relatively low percentages of Program participants received four or more CPP services during the assessment year. Only three students (1.3%) received all six, 12 students (5.3%) received five, 12 students (5.3%) received four CPP services. Two of the six themes (executive function and social skills) had less than 10% of the students receiving these specific services (5.4% and 3.1%) respectively. Eight students (3.5%) did not receive any of the six CPP theme services. Because the open-ended qualitative survey question was administered along with the Program and Tutor Evaluation forms, we encountered the same issue with low student response rates as we noted in Project 1A Results (please see Project 1A Results, Data Indicating Weaknesses). Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): N/A
Project 2B Title: Non-cognitive Growth
This is the 3rd year for this project. Brief Project Description: This project will have the COPE SSS participants complete and open-ended qualitative questions. The responses will be analyzed, synthesized into themes, and utilized for COPE SSS Program evolvement. Assessment Tool(s) Used: Program Evaluation Part II (i.e., reflective survey question) Success Standard: N/A Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: COPE SSS participants Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Candace Joles and Jared Dixon – Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 255 Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Fall and Spring
Project 2B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 58
5
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The qualitative data were broken down into six themes (i.e., academics/tutoring, financial assistance/financial literacy, coaching/mentoring, executive function skills, social skills, independent living skills/self-advocacy skills). Academics/tutoring theme identified the most with 39.7%. "I have learned to recognize some of my own writing mistakes by having a proof reader over my work before I turn it in. I don't make as many of the same mistakes that I did at the beginning of the semester." "I feel that I have begun to develop better study habits and have gained a better understanding on how I learn and what type of learner I am." Three additional themes (i.e., Independent living/self-advocacy skills, coaching/mentoring, executive functioning skills) were also in the double digit percentages 19.9%, 16.3%, and 12.8% respectively. Independent Living Skills/Self-advocacy - "I learned how to open up and ask for help." "My confidence in my abilities to achieve my goals has also improved." Coaching/Mentoring - "I wouldn't have been able to succeed like I have without the awesome support from the COPE teaching and staff." "I felt like having the extra help gave me a boost of confidence to succeed more and to know that I can do it." "...they are all easy to talk to, and I can tell they always want us to do our best and for us to be good students." "Anytime I doubt myself or am feeling burnt out the people at COPE always make me feel better." Executive Function Skills - "They have helped me not procrastinate as much and just to be more like an adult." "I have learned to have study time, homework time, and play time. I have learned how to manage my time during the day." "This program has helped give me a structure that I needed in college." "I use to procrastinate a lot but now as people can see I've changed myself for the better in life..." Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Two themes identified were under ten percent (i.e., Social Skills and Financial Assistance/Financial Literacy) with 9.2% and 2.1% respectively. Even though less than ten percent identified Social Skills as a theme, several statements were given. "I've improved my communication skills." "I learned not to be so shy and open up and build relationships with others." Financial Assistance/Financial Literacy "If I need to understand information in regards to finances this is my first place to come." "SMART Goals helped me stay on track." Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): This year an increased cognizant focus was identified as Financial Assistance/Financial Literacy, which a SMART Goals sheet was completed with 85 students. The new Student Support Services course (SSKL 006) assisted with completed these SMART Goals, which included financial goals. Most of these SMART Goals were completed at the beginning of the semester, while the Program II Evaluations were completed at the end of the semester. The students may have forgotten their financial goal discussed during the SMART Goals completion.
Analysis of Objective 2 Results: The TAPS system allows the Program the ability to early identify students in need of support, especially CPP services. While TAPS CPP contacts were high in number, Program staff need to also focus on these students’ TAPS issues through additional intensive support services through other CPPs such as study strategies and executive functioning. Project 2B allowed for students to express their noncognitive growth through the Program, while the six themes allowed the Program to focus on specific programming needs for the students such as increasing financial literacy and budgeting, executive functioning, and social skills through the Program’s course, individual and group coaching/mentoring, and workshops.
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): N/A
New Improvement Plan: Future in-service training will occur to increase staff awareness of social skills, executive function strategies, study skills, and coaching/mentoring, which will allow for more accurate coding in the database, StudentAccess.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: The thoughts are that more coaching/mentoring were occurring than was reflected. Staff discussions occurred about how to code CPP data into the database, StudentAccess. Methods for making coding CPPs and data easier and more effective were identified, including how to code contacts into StudentAccess and which Program activities are to be coded under each of the six different themes. Restructuring the coding of CPP contacts will help Program staff identify coaching/mentoring interactions that are occurring with staff.
Written by: Candace Joles
6
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
AREA: Extended Studies PROGRAM: Distance Education
DUE DATES: Part I (green) 7.11.16 - - Data & Tools (summer & fall projects) 12.22.16 - - Data & Tools (spring projects) 5.26.17 - - Part II (purple) 5.26.17
Mission Statement & Program Learning Outcomes
Has your Mission Statement changed from last year? Have you revised your Objectives since last year? ☐ YES X NO *choose only one ☐ YES X NO *choose only one
Mission Statement The mission of the Vincennes University Distance Education Department is to provide quality lifelong educational services to interested individuals located anywhere and at any time to facilitate the achievement of their education goals as they work to improve the quality of their lives and compete economically. These educational opportunities are provided to individuals through degree programs and courses offered via the internet, by use of blended instructional methods and other emerging technologies. Courses and programs are offered in a variety of time formats to meet the diverse needs of adult learners. It is the responsibility of Distance Education to connect students with superior instructors as well as provide student and instructor support. These distance education programs meet all values set forth for traditional on-campus programs.
Objectives The Distance Education program will: • increase enrollment. • expand degree offerings. • expand student support services to enhance retention. • improve course quality. • expand faculty support services.
1st Assessed Objective: Improve course quality. Outcome: Upon successful completion of the new Blackboard Online Instructor Training, faculty will improve Blackboard skills.
Why is this Assessment Significant? This assessment will provide data to show the success of the online training to improve online instruction. For distance education courses to meet with Title IV requirements, they must show consistent teacher-student interaction. Otherwise they are considered correspondence and do not meet the financial aid requirements.
Collaborators: Debbie Stanczak, Director Center for Teaching & Learning; and Shanni Simmons, Assistant Vice President of Lifelong Learning.
1
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Project 1A Title: Blackboard Revised Online Instructor Training Pre-and Post-Test
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description (what will the project measure and by what means): Faculty will be given a test over the topics covered in the online training before they start, and then again after they complete the training. Assessment Tool(s) Used (describe the tool that will measure this project): Blackboard online test Success Standard (varies – see informational guide): At least 80% of faculty enrolled in training course will achieve at least 80% score on post-test. There will be a 20% average improvement between pre-and post-test scores. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: VU faculty enrolled in Online Blackboard Training Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Deborah Stanczak and Shanni Simmons- Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 15 VU faculty Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? (when will the project itself occur?) Fall 2016 & Spring 2017
Project 1A Results
Actual Sample Size: 7 instructors
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The data looked at two areas: Average group test scores and individual pre and post test scores. The seven instructors in the group show an average increase of 8% between pre and post test scores. The group had an increase in the post test ranging from 2% to 12%. Four instructors scored over the 80% correct on the pretest. All instructors’ individual scores are over 80% on the post test. Instructors have met all aspects of the first part of the standard with 80% or more score on post test. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data): The second part of the success standard is a 20% average improvement between pre and post test scores. This part of the standard was not met as the average improvement between pre and post test of the seven instructors was only 8% and did not meet the 20% standard. Data Indicating Trends (N/A for 1st year projects): Comparing both years shows that the training does improve with all instructors’ individual scores achieving 80% or more on post- test. The difference in the average increase from 22% down to 8% does not meet the standard.
Project 1B Title: Blackboard Online Instructor Training Graduate Satisfaction Survey
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description (what will the project measure and by what means): Blackboard Online Instructor Training Graduate Survey to measure faculty satisfaction with training course. Assessment Tool(s) Used (describe the tool that will measure this project): Survey
2
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Success Standard (varies – see informational guide): 80% of faculty will respond that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the Blackboard Online Instructor Training Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: VU faculty enrolled in Blackboard Online Training Course Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Deborah Stanczak and Shanni Simmons- Vincennes Campus Projected Sample Size: 15 VU faculty Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? (when will the project itself occur?) Fall 2016 & Spring 2017
Project 1B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 7
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): Three survey questions Q6, Q7, and Q8 (see survey) were used to gather satisfaction with Blackboard Online Training Course. Q6: Overall satisfaction =0% were unsatisfied or somewhat unsatisfied 100% were satisfied or very satisfied. Q7: Recommend to colleagues- Yes=100%, No=0%. Q8: Interest in more training in this format- No= 0% Maybe or Yes= 100%. The 100% satisfied or very satisfied meets the standard. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Possible weakness is low number of sample size Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): The data shows a 100% satisfied or very satisfied which is a 14.28% improvement.
Analysis of Objective 1 Results: The Blackboard Online Instructor Training Pre-and Post-Test project 1A has met the standard with all instructors achieving over 80% correct on pre and post tests. The second part of the standard was not met, as the average improvement between pre and post test of the seven instructors was only 8% and did not meet the 20% standard. A possible reason for this is that only seven instructors complete the training this year. Comparing both year’s shows that the training does improve with all instructors individual scores achieving 80% or more on post-test. The difference in the average increase from 22% down to 8% may be due to the lower sample size. Or, looking at the two years data closer shows the second year group of instructors pre-test score average is 39 compared to the second year pre-test scores of 47. This may indicate the second year instructors started with more knowledge about Blackboard and account for the smaller percentage of improvement. Project 1B satisfaction survey continues to meet the standard of 80% or more response satisfied or very satisfied.
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): Last year’s improvement plan was to revise the modules from 12 to 10 modules which seems to have affected the faculty satisfaction as shown in the survey results increasing from 85.72% to 100%. The post quiz scores are very close to last year although the prequiz scores are higher so the data does not show a significant difference in the change to quizzing after each module. However being able to quiz after each module may be part of the increase in satisfaction with the course.
New Improvement Plan: Because of the lower numbers of faculty now in the training, this project may be at the end of its life and a new project may be best. Will have to see what the enrollment in the training is for the next year before a decision can be made.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: N/A 3
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Written by: Deborah Stanczak and Shanni Simmons
2nd Assessed Objective: Expand student support services to enhance retention. Outcome: Determine the success rate of online students that use virtual tutoring and student satisfaction of the VU virtual online tutoring.
Why is this Assessment Significant? This assessment will determine if virtual tutoring will improve online student course success. It will also rate student satisfaction with the virtual tutoring service. The information gathered from this assessment will be used to determine the benefit of virtual tutoring for online students and improvements to the service.
Collaborators: Shanni Simmons, Assistant Vice President of Lifelong Learning and Adam McKinley, Coordinator of Learning Unlimited
Project 2A Title: Virtual Tutoring Comparison
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description (what will the project measure and by what means): A comparison of grades will be conducted between online students who use the virtual tutoring versus online students that do not utilize the virtual tutoring. Assessment Tool(s) Used (describe the tool that will measure this project): Grades will be exported from Banner. Students utilizing virtual tutoring will be compared to students not utilizing virtual tutoring. The grade comparison will be done by students in the same course with the same instructor. The scale for student success is the grade range of A-C. The scale for student failure is the grade range of D-F. Success Standard (varies – see informational guide): 75% increase in students passing who utilize virtual tutoring versus students who do not utilize virtual tutoring Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: Online student population Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Shanni Simmons & Adam McKinley-Distance Education Projected Sample Size: 25-30 students Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? (when will the project itself occur?) Fall 2016, Spring 2017 and Summer 2017
Project 2A Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 36
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): 36 students utilized tutoring services in the 201710 and 201720 semesters: 52.8% (19) students passed (A-C) the course in which they received tutoring services. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? 36 students utilized tutoring services in the 201710 and 201720 semesters: 38.9% (14) students failed (D-F) the course in which they received tutoring services.
4
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
8.3% (3) students were dropped from the course for non-participation.
During the 201710 and 201720 semesters, nine students repeated a course using the Learning Unlimited (LU) tutoring services. All nine students did not use the LU tutoring services during the previous attempt. Of the nine students: 55.6% (5) students passed (A-C) the repeated course. 33.3% (3) students failed (D-F) the repeated course. 11.1% (1) student was dropped from the repeated course for non-participation.
Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): Due to major difference in sample size from one year to the next data is insufficient to identify meaningful trends.
Project 2B Title: Virtual Tutoring Student Survey
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description (what will the project measure and by what means): All students enrolled in an online course will receive a survey at the end of each semester. The purpose of the survey is to gather information about online student tutoring needs with some open ended questions for student opinion. A second survey will be given at the end of each tutoring session to the student who attended the session. The survey is to determine student satisfaction with the tutoring service. Assessment Tool(s) Used (describe the tool that will measure this project): Information Survey & Satisfaction Survey Success Standard (varies – see informational guide): 75% of students will respond that they found the online tutoring helpful or very helpful Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: Online student population. Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Shanni Simmons & Adam McKinley-Distance Education Projected Sample Size: 15-30 students Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? (when will the project itself occur?) Fall 2016, Spring 2017 and Summer 2017
Project 2B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 68 students completed the information survey/4 students completed the satisfaction survey.
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): Information survey results: (Note: Tutoring services were not utilized during Summer 2016) The results below are from the information survey given in 201710 and 201720. We had a total of 68 online students/students taking online courses complete the survey. Of the 68 students that completed the survey 9 students indicated that they utilized the tutoring services.
Out of the 9 students 3 indicated that they used the tutoring service several times per week, 2 once a week, 2 several times a month, and 2 once a month. These 9 students heard about the tutoring service from Distance Education office staff and/or advisors. Tutoring days that are most beneficial to students are Monday, Thursday, and Wednesday. Tutoring time that is most beneficial to students is evenings, 5-10 pm. One student stated that “I really got great help from Daniel Ziegler, Learning Unlimited coach. He got me through 3 semesters of math. He is awesome.” 5
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Satisfaction Survey Results: The survey results are from the satisfaction survey given in 201720. We had no responses in 201710 and the tutoring services were not utilized during 201630. We had a total of 3 students who utilized the virtual tutoring complete the survey.
1 student learned about the tutoring service from their advisor 2 students learned about the tutoring service from their instructors 1 student utilized the tutoring service once a week 2 students gave a satisfaction rate of extremely satisfied 2 students reported no technical issues at all
Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Information survey results: (Note: Tutoring services were not utilized during Summer 2016) The results below are from the information survey given in 201710 and 201720. We had a total of 68 online students/students taking online courses complete the survey. Of the 68 students that completed the survey 9 students indicated that they utilized the tutoring services.
Out of 36 students that utilized the Learning Unlimited Tutoring only 9 students completed the information survey. Of the 68 students that indicated that they knew about the Learning Unlimited Program: 13.2% (9) students stated that they utilized the LU tutoring. 61.8% (42) students stated that they did not need the tutoring. 5.9% (4) students stated they had problems logging into the web conferencing tool used for tutoring. 19.1% (13) students did not respond.
Satisfaction Survey Results: The survey results are from the satisfaction survey given in 201720. We had no responses in 201710 and the tutoring services were not utilized during 201630. We had a total of 3 students who utilized the virtual tutoring complete the survey.
2 students utilized the tutoring service once a month 1 student gave a satisfaction rate of somewhat satisfied 1 student reported an issue with the Collaborate launcher 1 student reported an issue getting their webcam to work in Collaborate, but noted that it only happened the first time
Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): The information survey indicates that about 50% of respondents are aware of the Learning Unlimited services.
Analysis of Objective 2 Results: Of the 36 students that utilized tutoring services in the 201710 and 201720 semesters, 52.8% (19) students passed (A-C), 38.9% (14) students failed (D-F) the course in which they received tutoring services, and 8.3% (3) students were dropped from the course for non-participation.
During the 201710 and 201720 semesters, nine students repeated a course using the Learning Unlimited (LU) tutoring services. All nine students did not use the LU tutoring services during the previous attempt. Of the nine students 55.6% (5) students passed (A-C), 33.3% (3) students failed (D-F) the repeated course, and 11.1% (1) student was dropped from the repeated course for non-participation. 6
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
There was an increase in students that utilized the LU tutoring services, however the student success rate decreased 32.9%.
During this year, we experienced an increase in the proctoring service and lost a math coach. The increase in services in addition to the lack of LU coaches may also account for the decrease in the student success rate.
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): The following activities from the improvement plan more than doubled the number of students utilizing the tutoring services: The consistent announcements of the tutoring services on Facebook and Twitter The revision of the tutoring language used on the website Email reminders about the tutoring services to advisors, instructors, and students Tutoring information added to the Blackboard login page
New Improvement Plan: We were unable to implement the Bb Help Button project and the online study groups this year due to lack of staffing and increased numbers in the proctoring services. We plan to implement these projects for the coming assessment year.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: No new changes to the assessment tool.
Written by: Shanni Simmons
7
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
AREA: Shake Learning Resource Center PROGRAM: Shake Learning Resource Center
DUE DATES: Part I (green) 7.11.16 - - Data & Tools (summer & fall projects) 12.22.16 - - Data & Tools (spring projects) 5.26.17 - - Part II (purple) 5.26.17
Mission Statement & Program Learning Outcomes
Has your Mission Statement changed from last year? Have you revised your Objectives since last year? ☐ YES ☒ NO *choose only one ☐ YES ☒ NO *choose only one
Mission Statement The mission of the Vincennes University Shake Learning Resource Center is to encourage and provide innovative programs, emerging technological solutions, and access to a robust physical and virtual library that supports teaching and learning and enriches the University community.
Objectives The Shake Learning Resources Center will: • advance professional values of intellectual freedom, intellectual property rights and values, user privacy and confidentiality, collaboration, and user- centered service. • partner in the educational mission of the institution to develop and support information literate learners who can discover, access, and use information effectively for academic success, research, and lifelong learning. • enable users to discover information in all formats through effective use of technology and organization of knowledge. • foster an intellectual commons where users interact with ideas in both physical and virtual environments to expand learning and facilitate the creation of new knowledge. • engage the campus and broader community through multiple strategies in order to advocate, educate, and promote their value.
*From ACRL Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, and ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.
1st Assessed Objective: Partner in the educational mission of the institution to develop and support information literate learners who can discover, access, and use information effectively for academic success, research, and lifelong learning. Outcome: Students who complete the Comp I unit test will improve their scores in English 101.
Why is this Assessment Significant? A co-curricular assessment collaboration project between Shake Library and the VU English Department is underway, and it is expected that resulting data will be useful in determining the effectiveness of library instruction offered within the English Composition I course required of most students. The library portion of the English Comp I curriculum consists of a library instruction unit the students complete to learn about print and electronic 1
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17 resources in Shake Library. Following completion of this unit, students visit Blackboard to complete a 20 point test based on what they are expected to have learned. Traditionally this has been done using Scantron sheets, but librarians and English instructors felt that by moving the test to Blackboard the process could be streamlined plus data from the results could be mined for assessment purposes. Results should show how well students understand basic library research overall, but also should provide item analysis to show specific areas of weakness that can be addressed by improvements/alterations in the library unit the students complete. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be obtained from two surveys plus statistical information available on Blackboard.
Collaborators: Jamie Cox, Richard King, Magen Melton, Bradley Scott
Project 1A Title: Results Data from English Composition I quiz (quantitative results)
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description: Blackboard data should show how well students perform on the library test after they have completed the library unit. A focus should be on specific questions students have trouble with, which will help with the library unit design improvement. Assessment Tool(s) Used: The Comp I test on Blackboard is the tool used. Success Standard: An average score of 70% by the students taking the test is desired. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: Students who enroll in an English Composition course complete the library unit and then a test to show what they learned. Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Jamie Cox, Richard King, Magen Melton, Bradley Scott, Vincennes campus. Projected Sample Size: 200 students. Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Data will be collected during Fall Semester 2016 and Spring Semester 2017.
Project 1A Results
Actual Sample Size: 154 took the test out of a potential 926 students enrolled.
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The average score for the test was 70.7%. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data): 83% of the students enrolled did not attempt to take the quiz. It is understood that instructors consider the library quiz to be optional and many give the students a grade for completing the library/exercises instead of requiring them to take the quiz. Data Indicating Trends (N/A for 1st year projects): 23 more students took the quiz than the 131 total last year. This is due in part to the efforts of a librarian who made a presentation to all English faculty explaining the how the Blackboard option was more efficient and useful than the old paper test method. This is also positive in that this occurred during a campus-wide enrollment decline. This year’s average score was again within the desired goal of 70%, as it was last year. In addition, the Blackboard Item Analysis indicated that all 20 questions on the quiz are “good questions,” an improvement over last year’s listing of 18 questions as “good” and two as “fair.” Neither year listed questions in the “hard” category. Light editing of the questions probably resulted in this slight improvement. 2
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Project 1B Title: Satisfaction Surveys for qualitative data about effectiveness of Comp I test.
This is the 3rd year for this project. Brief Project Description: Students using the library will be asked to complete a survey measuring satisfaction with quality of search experience and results. Several questions will address the English Composition I assessment above to determine qualitative information about student competency in using library resources. A link for the student survey will be placed on the desktop in Shake Library’s Computer Commons Assessment Tool(s) Used: Survey utilizing a Likert Scale emailed to users at the end of the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 Semesters. Success Standard: 70% of the students surveyed will “agree” that they feel comfortable in using library resources to obtain research information for their class assignments. 70% of the faculty/staff surveyed will “agree” they are satisfied with the Library class instruction. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: Surveys will focus on researching students, faculty and staff. Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Jamie Cox, Richard King, Magen Melton, Bradley Scott, Vincennes campus. Projected Sample Size: A sample of at least 200 responses at a minimum is sought. Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Fall Semester 2016 and Spring Semester 2017.
Project 1B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 115 students responded to a survey; 67 faculty/staff responded to a different survey.
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): Teaching faculty responses [AC1] to survey: Out of 41 responses, 59% said they strongly agree or agree that library instruction sessions met their expectations (the rest, or 11, reported N/A). Student responses [AC2]to survey: Out of 113 responses, 95% said they are “somewhat competent” or higher in using library resources. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? Student responses to survey: approximately 31% responded they had taken the Library Comp. I Unit/test. Of these, approximately 61% indicated it was “very helpful,” “helpful,” or “somewhat [AC2] helpful.” Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): The following compares the above results with 2015 and 2016 surveys: Faculty responses show a decline of 7% this year when compared with last year’s response of 66% who ranked the library instruction as “good” or higher. However, only 35 faculty/staff responded last year as compared to this year’s 41 responses of teaching faculty only, which can be considered as a slightly less satisfaction rate but with a more targeted audience of faculty only. As for the student responses, this year’s 95% who responded they are “somewhat competent” or higher in using library resources is a positive increase over last year’s 93%.
Analysis of Objective 1 Results: Essentially, the number of students taking the Comp I quiz increased, despite a campus-wide enrollment decline, and also met the stated success goal. More instructors are requiring their students to take the test, rather than simply giving a grade for completing the library unit before the test. The librarians believe that meeting with the English faculty and discussing the Blackboard quiz was useful and will be continued. The Blackboard analysis of the difficulty level of the questions showed the quiz makeup is not unreasonable. The student survey responses indicate students are strongly positive about
3
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17 their competency in using library resources. The faculty survey showed that instructors generally like the library instruction sessions librarians provide, despite being less satisfied than last year. However, due to a small faculty response, it is difficult to view this in a negative way.
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): Librarians followed up on last year’s improvement plan to work with library technical staff to set up the student survey on the Computer Commons’ browsers so the survey would pop up for each user. However, we still had a smaller student response than last year (115 students responded as opposed to 86 last year).
New Improvement Plan: Repeat the surveys next year to obtain more results for comparison.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: Librarians will attempt to garner more responses by running the faculty survey for a longer period and email Deans to request the faculty in their Colleges to complete it. The student survey will be made available for a longer time, as well.
Written by: Richard L. King, Reference Librarian
2nd Assessed Objective: Enable users to discover information in all formats through effective use of technology and organization of knowledge. Outcome: Library users will report they can effectively use library technology and understand organization of knowledge.
Why is this Assessment Significant? A new library catalog and discovery layer called OneVU was implemented in January 2014, the intention of which was to improve user access to library resources through the use of a single search box instead of having to use separate databases and the native search functions of those databases to access different formats of information such as articles, books, and videos. Both qualitative data in the form of survey responses plus quantitative data of database usage will be collected, which will help librarians learn about how to better make administrative decisions concerning OneVU.
Collaborators: Magen Melton, Bradley Scott, Jamie Cox, Richard King.
Project 2A Title: Satisfaction Surveys for qualitative data concerning OneVU interface.
This is the 3rd year for this project. Brief Project Description: Library users (students, faculty, and staff) will be asked to complete two surveys (one for students, one for faculty/staff) including questions concerning satisfaction with quality of search experience and results for the OneVU interface. A link for the student survey will be placed on the desktop in Shake Library’s Computer Commons. Assessment Tool(s) Used: Survey utilizing a Likert Scale emailed to users at the end of the Fall 2016 and Spring 2017 Semesters. Success Standard: 70% of the users surveyed will report they “agree” that they feel comfortable in using library resources to obtain research needs for their class assignments. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: Surveys will focus on researching students, faculty and staff. Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Magen Melton, Bradley Scott, Jamie Cox, Richard King, Vincennes Campus. 4
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Projected Sample Size: A sample of at least 200 responses at a minimum is sought. Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Fall Semester 2016 and Spring Semester 2017
Project 2A Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): 115 students responded to a survey; 67 faculty/staff responded to a different survey.
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): 87.2% (75) of the students responded that they find the OneVU interface “somewhat easy,” “easy,” or “very easy” to use to find library resources. 98.3% (60) of faculty/staff indicated they “strongly agree,” “agree,” or are “neutral” that OneVU is easy to use for information searching and 65.6% (44) are aware that individual databases can be searched on the library’s web site instead of using OneVU. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? The student responses did not show weaknesses below our 70% target. Most of the faculty/staff responses were within the target, though 32.8% (22) said they are “not familiar” with OneVU; 67.2% (45) said they are familiar with OneVU. Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): Compared with last year’s data, the student responses for the OneVU ease of use question are exactly the same (87.2%). For the faculty/staff response, a great many (98.3% total) more than last year’s 71% reacted positively. A small portion (32.8%) of the faculty/staff indicated they are unaware of OneVU. However, some VU staff (and perhaps a few instructors) might not have need to look up books and articles to fulfill their duties. It is important for librarians to continue to publicize OneVU in various library publications and presentations by librarians, however, to combat this unawareness.
Project 2B Title: Usage Data from database statistics, quantitative.
This is the 2nd year for this project. Brief Project Description: Usage statistics of all databases subscribed to by Shake Library from May 2016 to May 2017, which will be compared to the usage statistics of those databases during the same time period from May 2015 to May 2016. Assessment Tool(s) Used: Statistical reports will be conducted based on library administrative systems. Success Standard: There will be an 8% increase in overall database usage since the previous year. Population of students or stakeholders being assessed: All users of library electronic resources. Program Staff Collecting Data & Campus: Magen Melton and Bradley Scott, Vincennes campus. Projected Sample Size: (all library users) Assessment Will Occur: Fall? Spring? Summer? Both semesters.
Project 2B Results
Actual Sample Size (# of students who participated): All library users.
*Data given below should correspond with the success standard.
5
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Data Indicating Strengths (must include actual data): The total number of database and ebook platform searches [AC3] reported by vendors for the 2016-2017 assessment year (May-April) was 553,855 for a FTE population of 10,210, or 54.25 searches per FTE, representing a 45% increase in searches per FTE over the 2015-2016 assessment year and an increase of 32% over the 2014-2015 assessment year, the initial year of this project. (Based on data currently available, the corresponding figures from the 2015-2016 assessment year--May-April--were 375,142 searches for an FTE of 10,080, or 37.22 searches per FTE. This represented a 9.2% decrease in searches per FTE from the 2014-2015 assessment year, a change which was attributed to high staff turnover during the measured time period.) Usage of some core databases was up significantly: 57% for CQ Researcher, 40% for LexisNexis Academic; 37% for Proquest Research Library; 37% for Films on Demand, 25% for Ebsco’s Associates Program databases; 24% for WestLaw Campus Research; 23% for CINAHL. Usage of the LibraryH3lp chat service was up by 213%, with most of the increase coming after the summer 2016 redesign of the library webpage. Data Indicating Weaknesses (must include actual data)? The number of searches per FTE on databases to which the library had access throughout both assessment years declined by 15%. Usage of some core databases decreased significantly. Artstor showed a decrease of 76%, after an increase of 178% from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016. Other decreases: 52% for Gale Literature Resource Center; 35% for Ebsco ERIC; 16% for Ebsco Academic Search Premier. Data Indicating Trends (N/A if a 1st year project): It remains difficult to determine why some databases increased or decreased in usage, other than being aware that as faculty retire and new instructors are hired, assignments will vary and database use will be impacted.
Analysis of Objective 2 Results: Most of the databases for which usage significantly increased (excluding the new INSPIRE offerings for which there is no previous usage data) were ones which library staff made a focused effort to promote in library instructional sessions, and which faculty incorporated into classroom assignments, presentations, and exercises. Usage of specific databases is highly volatile from one semester to the next due to changes in faculty, syllabi, assignments, and class requirements. The difference between the 45% increase in total database searches and the 15% decrease in searches of databases to which the library had access throughout both assessment years appears to be due to the introduction of more than 20 new databases which were newly offered by the Indiana State Library’s INSPIRE program in the fall of 2016. It is difficult to judge how many of the searches conducted on these new databases represent a diversion of searches which would have been performed on previously available databases. For example: the 2016-2017 usage of Ebsco’s Literary Reference Center Plus, newly offered in fall 2016, was 3,156; meanwhile, usage of Gale’s Literature Reference Center, which was continuously available throughout both assessment periods, dropped from 5,272 in 2015-2016 to 2,554 in 2016-2017, a decrease of 2,718. It seems likely that much of the decline in the use of the Gale product is due to its pool of potential users being divided between it and the newly-available and similarly-named Ebsco product. It is possible that reported usage for certain Ebsco products is inflated by use of Ebsco’s multi-database search. If each such search is counted as a separate search on every Ebsco database, including the 20+ new databases which were offered in fall of 2016, it could artificially inflate the number of searches reported on certain highly specialized Ebsco databases (European Views of the Americas; Vente et Gestion; Referencia Latina; etc.) which would otherwise rarely be used. If we apply the most stringent possible correction and assume that all usage of the least popular of the Ebsco databases in each assessment year is the result of such databases being included in multi-database searches, and subtract that number from the usage of all of the other Ebsco databases, then we get the following grand totals for each year: 393,955 instead of 553,855 for 2016-2017 (37% increase per FTE over previous year); 283,450 instead of 375,142 for 2015- 2016 (1% increase per FTE over previous year); 289,187 instead of 424,315 for 2014-2015. Note that these assumptions cannot be applied across the board due to the strong likelihood that users who selected the multi-database search did, in fact, wish to search more than one database.
6
2016-2017 FINAL ’16-17
Impact of Previous Year’s Improvement Plan (N/A for 1st year projects): Newly hired librarians in general have been beneficial to the assessment projects as they have been in their positions long enough to provided additional stability in assessment. A better response was received by the student survey due to placing the survey on the Computer Commons browsers and desktops, as projected last year. Overall, we believe that our assessment project shows that the library provides services, awareness and instruction to impact our objectives stated at the top of this document.
New Improvement Plan: Librarians have decided to publish in The Text Messenger [AC4] newsletter selected questions with answers from the faculty/staff survey; this was done in February and April. This is believed to be a good way to improve communication about the availability of library resources such as OneVU, but also a good way to discover and address any unknown issues the library’s clientele might have.
Assessment Tool Improvement Plan: Librarians will repeat the surveys and attempt to leave the faculty/staff survey and the student survey in place for a longer period and to alert Deans of Colleges to ask their instructors and staff to respond to it.
Written by: Richard L. King and Bradley Scott
7
Appendix F:
Agribusiness Program Review
Appendix G:
Multi-State Collaborative Assessment Data—
Aggregate Project Averages & Vincennes University Results
Outcome Performance Report: Critical Thinking (Vincennes University) Average by Criterion chart details
Explanation of issues Average Score: 1.92 Number of Submissions: 174 Number of Scores: 174
Evidence Average Score: 1.58 Number of Submissions: 174 Number of Scores: 174
Influence of Context and Assumptions Average Score: 1.59 Number of Submissions: 174 Number of Scores: 174
Student's Position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) Average Score: 1.67 Number of Submissions: 174 Number of Scores: 174
Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences) Average Score: 1.56 Number of Submissions: 174 Number of Scores: 174
Outcome Performance Report: Quantitative Literacy (Vincennes University) Average by Criterion chart details
Interpretation Average Score: 1.9 Number of Submissions: 48 Number of Scores: 48
Representation Average Score: 2.08 Number of Submissions: 48 Number of Scores: 48
Application / Analysis Average Score: 1.9 Number of Submissions: 48 Number of Scores: 48
Assumptions Average Score: 1.23 Number of Submissions: 48 Number of Scores: 48
Communication Average Score: 2.25 Number of Submissions: 48 Number of Scores: 48
Outcome Performance Report: Written Communication Average by Criterion chart details
Context of and Purpose for Writing Average Score: 1.82 Number of Submissions: 195 Number of Scores: 195
Content Development Average Score: 1.62 Number of Submissions: 195 Number of Scores: 195
Genre and Disciplinary Conventions Average Score: 1.57 Number of Submissions: 195 Number of Scores: 195
Source s and Evidence Average Score: 1.59 Number of Submissions: 195 Number of Scores: 195
Control of Syntax and Mechanics Average Score: 1.97 Number of Submissions: 195 Number of Scores: 195
Appendix H:
Assessment Progress Reports 2015-2016 Co-Curricular Assessment Progress Report
PART I Data & Tools PART II Shake Learning Resource Center Su-10/23/15; Fall 12/22/15; Sp-5/27/16 Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st draft due 10/23/15; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st draft due 5/27/16; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized Assessment Center 1A 9/2/16 1B David Sanders, x5404 4/26/16 6/8/16 6/28/16 7/1/16 7/25/16 2A 2B 7/8/16 07/22/16 N/A N/A 07/25/16 Center for Teaching & Learning 1A 7/6/16 1B 7/6/16 Debbie Stanczak, x5611 11/11/15 11/19/15 N/A N/A 11/20/15 2A 7/6/16 2B 7/6/16 7/6/16 07/22/16 N/A N/A 07/28/16 Media Services 1A 5/25/16 1B 5/25/16 Jay Wolf, x4172 10/23/15 11/17/15 12/1/15 12/3/15 3/22/16 2A 5/25/16 2B 5/25/16 06/08/16 6/13/16 6/17/16 06/17/16 Shake Learning Resource Center 1A 1B 9/15/16 Richard King, x5411 10/22/15 11/17/15 3/30/16 3/31/16 3/31/16 2A 9/15/16 2B 9/15/16 5/31/16 06/08/16 6/20/16 6/24/16 06/24/16
PART I Data & Tools PART II Student Affairs Su-10/23/15; Fall 12/22/15; Sp-5/27/16 Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st draft due 10/23/15; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st draft due 5/27/16; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized Athletics 1A 7/5/16 1B 7/5/16 Harry Meeks, x4397 10/21/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/24/15 11/24/15 2A 7/5/16 2B 7/5/16 07/22/16 7/28/16 8/12/16 08/16/16 Center for Career & Employer 1A 9/8/16 1B 9/8/16 12/22/15, 3/21/16, 6/28/16, 7/1/16, Relations - Rick Coleman, x4109 12/22/15 3/21/16 4/26/16 6/8/16 6/9/16 2A 9/8/16 2B 9/8/16 4/26/16 6/8/16 7/10/16 7/22/16 7/25/16 COPE Student Support Services 1A 1B Candace Joles, x4400 10/15/15 11/17/15 11/22/15 11/30/15 11/30/15 2A 2B 6/30/16 07/22/16 N/A N/A 07/27/16 Counseling Center 1A 1B 9/6/2016; DUE Lisa Bishop, x4374 2A 2B 5/13/16 6/8/16 N/A N/A 6/9/16 5/13/16 06/08/16 10/27/16 10/13/16 Dean of Students 1A P-11/9/15 1B John Livers, x4102 11/9/15 11/19/15 11/30/15 12/3/15 12/3/15 2A 2B 6/30/16 07/22/16 N/A N/A 07/25/16 Disability Services 1A 1/7/16 1B Leslie Smith, x4502 10/28/15 11/19/15 12/2/15 12/3/15 12/4/15 2A 5/26/16 2B 5/26/16 5/23/16 06/08/16 6/14/16 6/17/16 06/17/16 1A P-8/2/16 1B 8/2/16 Experience VU 8/11/2016; Candace Joles, x4400 10/15/15 11/17/15 11/22/15 11/30/15 11/30/15 2A P-8/2/16 2B 7/5/16 07/22/16 DUE 10/27/16 10/13/16 10/13/16 Educational Talent Search 1A 6/13/16 1B 6/13/16 Cynthia Ragle, x4179 10/7/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/24/15 11/24/15 2A 6/13/16 2B 6/13/16 6/13/16 06/17/16 6/20/16 6/24/16 06/24/16 Housing/Residential Life *11/20/15 1A 7/8/16 1B 7/8/16 Dawn Brewer, x4504 11/4/15 11/19/15 12/3/15 12/9/15 12/9/15 2A 7/8/16 2B 5/18/16 06/08/16 6/28/16 7/1/16 07/01/16 International Student Affairs 1A P-4/27/16 1B P-4/27/16 Valerie Allen, x4156 4/27/16 6/8/16 6/20/16 6/24/16 8/1/16 2A 2B 4/27/16 6/8/16 6/20/16 7/22/16 08/01/16 1A 1B Multi-Cultural Student Affairs 1/7/16, 3/21/16, Due to departure of personnel, assessment for Charles Surrett, x5886 1/7/16 3/21/16 5/12/16 6/8/16 6/9/16 2A 2B 05/12/16 6/8/16 2015-2016 cannot be completed. Project ASPIREE 1A 6/13/16 1B 6/13/16 Cynthia Ragle, x4179 10/7/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/24/15 11/24/15 2A 6/13/16 2B 6/13/16 6/13/16 06/17/16 6/20/16 6/24/16 06/24/16 Recreational Sports & Facilities 1A 1B Due to departure of personnel, assessment for 2015- Gary Sparks, x5718 3/30/16 3/30/16 5/16/16 6/8/16 6/10/16 2A 2B 2016 cannot be completed.
1 of 2 2015-2016 Co-Curricular Assessment Progress Report Student Activities 1A 1B Due to departure of personnel, assessment for 2015- Barry Hawkins, x4301 *10/23/15 *11/19/15 6/27/16 2A 2B 2016 cannot be completed. Student Support Services Disability - 1A 1B Candace Joles, x4400 10/15/15 11/17/15 11/22/15 11/30/15 11/30/15 2A 2B Upward Bound 1A 1B Marcus Weatherford, x5241 10/26/15 11/19/15 12/8/15 12/8/15 12/8/15 2A 2B VUPD 1A 1B James Jones, x5169 2A 2B
PART I Data & Tools PART II Extended Studies Su-10/23/15; Fall 12/22/15; Sp-5/27/16 Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st draft due 10/23/15; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st draft due 5/27/16; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized Distance Education 1A 7/6/16 1B 7/6/16 Shanni Simmons, x4026 12/6/15 3/21/16 3/23/16 3/23/16 3/23/16 2A 7/6/16 2B 7/6/16 7/7/16 07/22/16 N/A N/A 07/28/16 Data & Tools PART I PART II Jasper Campus Su-10/23/15; Fall 12/22/15; Sp-5/27/16 Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st draft due 10/23/15; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st draft due 5/27/16; Final due 2 weeks after initial review 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized Academic Support Center 1A P-6/22/16 1B P-6/22/16 Angie Valuch, x5914/3077 10/26/15 11/19/15 12/4/15 12/7/15 12/7/15 2A P-6/22/16 2B 6/24/16 06/24/16 7/26/16 7/26/16 08/01/16 Student Services 1A 12/14/15 1B 12/14/15 Allison Tempel, x5905 10/16/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 11/24/15 11/24/15 2A 2B 5/2/16 06/08/16 N/A N/A 06/13/16
As of: 10/13/16
LEGEND Complete/Finalized by Assessment Committee
Date = Date submitted; awaiting review - OR - Date = Date reviewed; awaiting final draft Partially submitted Fall Semester Project Spring Semester Project Project assessed both semesters Project not completed due to program and/or personnel changes. Project completed during the summer No submission/Past Due
2 of 2 Instructional Assessment Plan Progress Report - FINAL PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL College of Business and Public Service 1ST DRAFT DUE 10/12/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 11/13/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Accounting 1A 12/22/15 1B 5/13/16 9/18/15 10/7/15 N/A N/A 10/8/15 36 5/13/16 9/15/16 9/21/16 9/29/16 10/4/16 23 59 Rosalie Hartwick, x5920 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 Administrative Office Technology 1A 5/12/16 1B 5/12/16 9/17/15 9/30/15 10/22/15 11/13/15 11/16/15 31 5/13/16 9/6/16 9/20/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 22 53 Mary Bowen, x4294 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 Agribusiness 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 9/18/15 10/7/15 11/13/15 11/20/15 11/23/15 36 5/13/16 9/13/16 9/16/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 24 60 Susan Brocksmith, x5718 2A 12/22/15 2B 5/13/16 Business Administration 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 9/18/15 10/7/15 N/A N/A 10/8/15 36 5/13/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 11/7/16 21 57 Jennifer Pacheco, x5347 2A 5/13/16 2B 7/29/16 Business Management 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 11/11/15 11/13/15 12/15/15 12/22/15 1/19/16 35 5/13/16 9/13/16 N/A N/A 9/15/16 24 59 Mike Coyne, x4518 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 Computer Programming Technology 1A P-11/16/15 1B P-11/16/15 9/18/15 10/7/15 11/16/15 2/9/16 2/10/16 36 9/23/16 9/29/16 10/28/16 11/15/16 11/16/15 21 57 Troy Schotter x4598 2A P-11/16/15 2B P-11/16/15 Conservation Law 1A 9/26/16 1B 9/26/16 9/21/15 10/28/15 12/14/15 12/15/15 12/15/15 35 5/11/16 8/23/16 9/8/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 24 59 Levi Clark, x4596 2A 9/26/16 2B 12/1/16 Cosmetology 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 10/9/15 10/14/15 1/23/16 1/26/16 1/27/16 33 5/13/16 9/15/16 10/7/16 10/25/16 11/7/16 20 53 Stephanie Nuttall x4272 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 Culinary Arts 1A 12/24/15 1B 12/24/15 9/17/15 10/7/15 N/A N/A 11/10/15 32 5/10/16 8/23/16 10/25/16 11/1/16 11/2/16 19 51 Bill Stenger, x5743 2A 5/10/16 2B 5/10/16 04/18/161 Emergency Medical Services 1A 11/30/16 1B 11/30/16 10/2/15 10/28/15 2/9/15 4/18/16 4/18/16 31 5/6/16 8/23/16 9/9/16 9/22/16 9/28/16 22 53 Tim Benningfield, x6837 2A 11/30/16 2B 11/30/16 *11/16/15 Fire Science and Safety 1A 12/17/15 1B 12/21/15 9/18/15 10/14/15 *12/10/15 12/21/15 12/21/15 36 5/13/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 9/28/16 24 60 Adam Vaal, x6833 2A 5/3/16 2B 5/3/16 Homeland Security and Public Safety 1A 5/12/16 1B 5/12/16 2/23/16 3/1/16 3/21/16 3/22/16 3/23/16 35 5/12/16 8/30/16 9/15/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 22 57 Bill Gollmitzer, x6839 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 Hotel Management 1A 12/24/15 1B 12/24/15 9/17/15 10/7/15 11/10/15 11/10/15 11/10/15 31 5/10/16 9/1/16 9/15/16 9/22/16 10/4/16 20 51 Bill Stenger, x5743 2A 12/24/15 2B 12/24/15 Information Technology 1A 12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/18/15 10/7/15 11/23/15 11/23/15 11/23/15 36 9/23/16 9/29/16 10/18/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 20 56 Jaci Lederman, x5346 2A 10/24/16 2B 11/30/16 Information Technology Support and 1A 12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/18/15 9/30/15 11/8/15 11/13/15 11/17/15 36 5/13/16 9/13/16 9/22/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 23 59 Security Specialist - Greg Hirsch, x5323 2A 12/18/15 2B 10/25/16 Law Enforcement 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 9/25/15 10/14/15 11/5/15 11/6/15 11/10/15 36 9/13/16 9/20/16 9/22/16 9/27/16 9/28/16 24 60 Tom Cunningham, x4589 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 Paralegal 1A 12/17/15 1B 12/17/15 9/19/15 10/14/15 12/3/15 12/11/15 12/14/15 28 5/13/16 9/15/16 10/21/16 11/1/16 11/3/16 21 49 Vanessa Purdom, x5764 2A 12/17/15 2B 12/17/15 Programming and Game Development 1A 1/11/17 1B 1/11/17 9/18/15 10/7/15 N/A N/A 12/15/15 33 9/23/16 9/29/16 N/A N/A 10/3/16 24 57 Steve Riggs, x5296 2A 1/11/17 2B 1/11/17 Restaurant Management 1A 5/10/16 1B 5/10/16 9/17/15 10/7/15 N/A N/A 11/10/15 34 5/10/16 9/1/16 9/15/16 9/22/16 10/4/16 22 56 Bill Stenger, x5743 2A 5/10/16 2B 5/10/16 Supply Chain Logistics - Indianapolis 1A 1/28/16 1B 1/28/16 9/18/15 10/14/15 12/21/15 12/22/15 12/22/15 35 Due to no enrollment, assessment for 2015-2016 cannot be completed. James Dolan, x6028 2A 1/28/16 2B 1/28/16 Web Design 1A 3/2/16 1B 3/2/16 9/18/15 10/7/15 11/16/15 2/9/16 2/10/16 36 10/29/16 11/8/16 11/13/16 11/22/16 11/23/16 22 58 Troy Schotter x4598 2A P-11/16/15 2B P-11/16/15 College of Health Sciences & Human PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL Performance 1ST DRAFT DUE 09/18/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 10/16/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Athletic Training/Sports Medicine 1A 3/3/16 1B 5/20/16 11/20/15 12/2/15 12/16/15 12/16/15 12/17/15 33 5/25/16 9/20/16 10/28/16 11/8/16 11/10/16 24 57 Robert Cullen, x4591 2A 3/3/16 2B 5/20/16 Funeral Service Education 1A 12/7/16 1B 12/7/16 9/18/15 9/30/15 10/14/15 10/21/15 10/22/15 34 5/10/16 8/30/16 N/A N/A 11/7/16 22 56 Russell Ort, x5469 2A 12/7/16 2B P-9/18/15 Health Information Management 1A 11/30/16 1B 11/30/16 12/4/15 12/11/15 12/16/15 12/16/15 12/17/15 36 5/11/16 8/30/16 N/A N/A 9/2/16 24 60 Traci Stephens, x5541 2A 5/11/16 2B 5/11/16 Nursing, ASN 1A 12/22/15 1B 1/4/16 9/15/15 9/18/15 N/A N/A 9/18/15 36 5/12/16 8/30/16 10/25/16 11/1/16 11/3/16 24 60 Alice Hildenbrand x5967 2A 5/12/16 2B 1/6/16 Nursing, BSN 1A 12/1/16 1B 12/1/16 9/16/15 9/25/15 10/14/15 10/21/15 10/22/15 35 8/27/16 9/20/16 N/A N/A 10/6/16 18 53 Micah Morgan, x5350 2A 12/16/15 2B 12/16/15 Pharmacy Technician 1A P-3/16/16 1B 3/16/16 3/22/16 4/11/16 4/13/16 4/14/16 33 4/13/16 8/23/16 9/2/16 9/20/16 9/28/16 21 54 Karen Daugherty, x4348 2A 2B Physical Education 12/21/15 1A 5/12/16 1B 5/12/16 9/28/15 10/14/15 12/22/15 12/22/15 35 5/13/16 9/13/16 9/28/16 10/4/16 10/4/16 24 59 Tina Miller x4476/Misty Bohnert x4477 *12/11/15 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 1 of 4 Instructional Assessment Plan Progress Report - FINAL
Physical Therapist Assistant 1A 12/17/15 1B 12/17/15 10/12/15 10/14/15 N/A N/A 12/3/15 33 5/13/16 9/13/16 9/23/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 24 57 Natalie Graves, x4414 2A 6/16/16 2B 6/16/16 Practical Nursing 1A 1/19/16 1B 5/11/16 12/10/15 12/11/15 12/22/15 12/22/15 1/5/16 34 5/11/16 8/30/16 9/13/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 24 58 Alice Hildenbrand, x5967 2A 5/11/16 2B 5/11/16 Radiography 11/10/15 11/20/15 1A 10/28/16 1B 10/28/16 11/24/15 12/2/15 1/11/16 34 9/23/16 9/27/16 10/25/16 11/1/16 11/3/16 24 58 Marsha Cox, (812) 885-8011 (*9/18/15) (*9/30/15) 2A 10/28/16 2B 10/28/16 Surgical Technology 1A 2/8/16 1B 2/8/16 9/22/15 10/14/15 12/8/15 12/11/15 12/14/15 32 2/29/16 8/23/16 9/6/06 9/20/16 9/28/16 24 56 Chris Keegan, x5893 2A 2/8/16 2B 2/8/16 PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL College of Humanities 1ST DRAFT DUE 09/18/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 10/16/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE American Sign Language - Indianapolis 1A 1/19/16 1B 1/19/16 9/16/15 9/25/15 *10/10/15 12/11/15 12/22/15 34 5/12/16 9/8/16 9/20/16 9/29/16 10/3/16 21 55 Cynthia Sanders (317) 923-2305 2A 6/8/16 2B 6/8/16 Art and Design - Deborah Hagedorn, x4425/ 1A 1B 9/18/15 10/2/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 10/30/15 36 12/22/15 12/22/15 5/12/16 9/8/16 N/A N/A 10/11/16 22 58 Emily Loehle, x4494 2A 12/22/15 2B 12/22/15 English - Matt Norman, x4484/Elaine 1A 1/26/16 1B 1/26/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 10/16/15 10/20/15 10/20/15 35 5/13/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 9/28/16 24 59 Burklow, x5442 2A 5/16/16 2B 5/16/16 English as a Second Language 1A 2/1/16 1B 2/1/16 9/15/15 9/25/15 10/16/15 10/20/15 10/21/15 34 5/13/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 9/28/16 24 58 Jacqueline Klueh, x5121 2A 2/1/16 2B 2/1/16 Family and Consumer Sciences 1A 1B Lou Ann Lindsey, x5304; SueEllen McClure 9/15/15 9/18/15 9/23/15 9/25/15 9/25/15 35 5/13/16 5/13/16 5/13/16 9/15/16 9/22/16 9/29/16 10/4/16 23 58 x5851 2A 1/28/16 2B 1/13/16 Graphic Design 1A 1/20/16 1B 1/20/16 9/18/15 10/2/15 10/14/15 10/16/15 10/16/15 36 5/19/16 9/22/16 N/A N/A 9/29/16 24 60 Ron Wise, x4465 2A 5/19/16 2B 5/19/16 Modern Foreign Languages 1A 11/23/16 1B 11/23/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 11/13/15 11/16/15 11/16/15 36 10/28/16 11/8/16 N/A N/A 12/1/16 19 55 Steve Gregory, x5406 2A 11/23/16 2B 11/23/16 Philosophy 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 1/25/16 1/26/16 2/2/16 2/9/16 2/10/16 35 5/13/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 9/27/16 24 59 David Cockerham, x4202 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 Reading 1A 12/14/15 1B 12/15/15 9/18/15 10/9/15 10/15/15 10/16/15 10/16/15 36 5/13/16 9/22/16 N/A N/A 9/29/16 22 58 Jane Minderman, x4293 2A 12/14/15 2B 12/15/15 Study Skills and STEP 1A 5/11/16 1B 5/11/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 N/A N/A 10/14/15 36 5/11/16 9/1/16 9/14/16 9/22/16 9/29/16 21 57 Ranell Locke, x5116 2A 12/18/15 2B 1/22/16 College of Science, Engineering and PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL Mathematics 1ST DRAFT DUE 09/18/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 10/16/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Agriculture 10/5/15 (O1) 1A 12/23/15 1B 12/23/15 12/11/15 12/16/15 12/22/15 1/13/16 34 6/3/16 9/20/16 10/8/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 24 58 Chuck Mansfield, x4311 12/10/15 (O2) 2A 5/19/16 2B 5/19/16 Biology 10/5/15 (O1) 1A 3/18/16 1B 12/21/15 12/16/15 12/17/15 12/17/15 12/17/15 34 5/11/16 8/30/16 9/16/16 10/4/16 10/4/16 24 58 Curt Coffman, x4373 12/15/15 (O2) 2A 7/27/16 2B 7/27/16 Chemistry 1A 5/26/16 1B 5/26/16 9/18/15 9/30/15 12/11/15 12/11/15 12/11/15 36 5/12/16 8/30/16 N/A N/A 9/2/16 24 60 Ivana Peralta, x4372 2A 5/26/16 2B 5/26/16 Engineering Science 1A 12/19/15 1B 12/19/15 9/18/15 9/30/15 10/17/15 10/21/15 10/22/15 29 5/11/16 9/6/16 10/2/16 10/4/16 10/4/16 17 46 Andy Wagner, x4264 2A 12/19/15 2B 12/19/15 Geosciences 1A 5/31/16 1B 8/3/16 3/4/16 3/15/16 4/19/16 4/26/16 4/27/16 33 8/4/16 9/20/16 N/A N/A 11/7/16 16 49 Daniel Vaughn, x4535 2A 6/1/16 2B 6/1/16 Horticulture Technology 1A 12/16/16 1B 12/16/16 12/18/15 12/21/15 4/29/16 8/8/16 9/16/16 32 10/26/16 11/1/16 11/18/16 12/6/16 12/7/16 20 52 Ted Kroeger, x5326 2A 12/16/16 2B 12/16/16 Mathematics 1A 12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/15/15 9/18/15 N/A N/A 9/18/15 36 5/10/16 8/30/16 N/A N/A 8/30/16 24 60 Nancy Riggs, x4536 2A 12/18/15 2B 12/18/15 College of Social Science, Performing PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL Arts and Communications 1ST DRAFT DUE 10/02/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 11/02/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Communication 1A 6/28/16 1B 6/28/16 9/18/15 10/2/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 10/26/15 36 6/28/16 9/20/16 10/6/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 22 58 Ann Hefner, x4234 2A 6/28/16 2B 6/28/16 Economics 1A 5/17/16 1B 5/17/16 9/18/15 10/2/15 N/A N/A 11/16/15 34 5/24/16 9/20/16 N/A N/A 9/28/16 24 58 Lakshmi Mahapatra x4246 2A 12/23/15 2B 1/13/16 Education, 2 Yr Transfer, Early Childhood 1A P-12/18/15 1B P-12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/10/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B P-12/18/15 Education, 2 Yr Transfer, Elementary 1A P-12/18/15 1B P-12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/10/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Education - Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B P-12/18/15 Education, 2 Yr Transfer, Special Education 1A P-12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/18/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B 12/18/15
2 of 4 Instructional Assessment Plan Progress Report - FINAL Education, 4 Year, Math 1A P-12/18/15 1B P-12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/18/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B P-12/18/15 Education, 4 Year, Science 1A P-12/18/15 1B P-12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/18/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B P-12/18/15 Education, 4 Yr, Special Education/Elementary 1A P-12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 11/3/15 11/6/15 11/18/15 36 5/12/16 9/6/16 9/14/16 9/27/16 10/3/16 Education - Ann Herman, x5789 2A P-12/18/15 2B P-12/18/15 Electronic Media 1A 5/13/16 1B 5/13/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 N/A N/A 10/9/15 36 6/25/16 9/20/16 10/5/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 24 60 Kendal Rasnake, x5358 2A 5/13/16 2B 5/13/16 History 1A 12/17/15 1B 12/17/15 9/17/15 9/25/15 10/2/15 10/9/15 10/9/15 35 1/29/16 8/23/16 9/6/16 9/20/16 9/28/16 24 59 Gretchen Keller, x4778 2A 12/17/15 2B 1/13/16 Journalism 1A 1B Due to departure of personnel, assessment for 2015-2016 cannot be completed. Russ Leonard-Whitman, x4551 2A 2B Music Audio Recording 1A 12/17/15 1B 12/22/15 9/18/15 10/16/15 12/16/15 12/18/15 12/18/15 36 5/13/16 9/13/16 11/16/16 12/6/16 12/7/16 13 49 Virgil Franklin x4453 2A 3/3/16 2B 2/28/16 Music Fine Art 1A 3/3/16 1B 2/28/16 9/14/15 9/18/15 N/A N/A 12/21/15 32 5/16/16 9/13/16 N/A N/A 11/7/16 15 47 Lisa Miller, x4497 2A 12/22/15 2B 12/21/15 Music Theatre 1A 12/19/15 1B 12/19/15 9/14/15 9/18/15 N/A N/A 12/21/15 30 5/19/16 9/13/16 10/11/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 21 51 Lisa Miller, x4497 2A 12/22/15 2B 12/21/15 Political Science 1A 12/18/15 1B 1/13/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 10/26/15 35 5/13/16 9/13/16 10/24/16 11/1/16 11/3/16 20 55 Kirk Abendroth, x4122 2A 12/18/15 2B 12/18/15 Psychology 1A 2/15/16 1B 2/19/16 9/18/15 10/2/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 10/26/15 33 5/11/16 9/6/16 10/6/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 24 57 Mike Drysdale, x4223 2A 2/15/16 2B 2/15/16 Social Work 1A 5/12/16 1B 5/12/16 9/17/15 9/30/15 N/A N/A 11/16/15 32 5/12/16 9/6/16 N/A N/A 10/6/16 17 49 Jennifer Hensley, x6966 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 Sociology 1A 3/4/16 1B 3/4/16 10/6/15 10/23/15 3/4/16 3/15/16 3/16/16 34 7/29/16 9/20/16 N/A N/A 10/6/16 22 56 Rob Evans, x4468 2A 6/22/16 2B 6/22/16 Theatre 1A 12/19/15 1B 12/19/15 9/14/15 9/18/15 N/A N/A 11/20/15 32 5/16/16 9/13/16 N/A N/A 9/15/16 24 56 Eric Margerum, x4256 2A 12/19/15 2B 12/19/15 PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL College of Technology 1ST DRAFT DUE 09/18/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 10/16/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Architectural Studies 1A 12/4/15 1B 12/4/15 9/17/15 10/2/15 10/5/15 10/5/15 10/5/15 34 5/11/16 9/1/16 N/A N/A 10/6/16 23 57 Laura Swan, x4431 2A 12/4/15 2B 12/4/15 Automotive Technology 1A 12/21/15 1B 12/21/15 9/16/15 9/25/15 N/A N/A 9/25/15 36 5/12/16 9/8/16 10/11/16 10/25/16 10/26/16 20 56 Norb Brown, x5107 2A 12/21/15 2B 12/21/15 Aviation Flight - Indianapolis 1A 6/16/16 1B 6/16/16 9/16/15 10/30/15 2/3/16 2/9/16 2/10/16 34 5/12/16 9/8/16 9/28/16 10/6/16 10/7/16 24 58 Sean MacDermott, x6011 2A 6/16/16 2B 6/16/16 Aviation Maintenance - Indianapolis 1A 12/22/15 1B 12/22/15 9/18/15 10/9/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 1/4/16 35 5/12/16 9/8/16 9/28/16 10/6/16 10/7/16 22 57 Dan Gunder, x6097 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 Collision Repair and Refinishing 1A 12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/16/15 10/16/15 10/23/15 10/30/15 11/2/15 36 5/12/16 9/8/16 9/21/16 9/29/16 10/3/16 23 59 Dayne Hosier, x5317 2A 12/21/15 2B 12/21/15 Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1A 12/8/15 1B 12/8/15 9/17/15 9/25/15 11/16/15 11/17/15 11/18/15 36 7/12/16 9/22/16 10/24/16 11/1/16 11/10/16 20 56 Darrell Hicklin, x4394 2A 5/10/16 2B 5/10/16 Computer Networking 1A 4/27/16 1B 4/27/16 10/5/15 10/16/15 11/6/15 2/1/16 2/1/16 33 6/17/16 9/22/16 N/A N/A 9/29/16 24 57 Mike Wehrman, x5015 2A 4/27/16 2B 4/27/16 Construction Technology 1A 1/5/16 1B 1/8/16 9/21/15 10/9/15 11/11/15 11/12/15 11/12/15 35 5/10/16 9/1/16 9/6/16 9/22/16 9/28/16 24 59 Brian Lindsey, x6257 2A 1/5/16 2B 1/5/16 1A 12/21/15 1B 12/21/15 Diesel Truck & Heavy Equipment 12/21/15 12/22/15 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 35 2A 12/21/15 2B 12/21/15 5/10/16 9/1/16 10/28/16 11/8/16 11/10/16 20 55 Levi Lumm, x6265 9/14/15* 2C 12/21/15 Electronics Technology 1A 4/27/16 1B 4/27/16 10/5/15 10/16/15 11/6/15 2/1/16 2/1/16 35 6/17/16 9/22/16 N/A N/A 9/29/16 24 59 Mike Wehrman, x5015 2A 4/27/16 2B 4/27/16 1A 12/21/15 1B 12/21/15 John Deere Tech 12/21/15 12/22/15 1/21/16 1/21/16 1/21/16 35 2A 12/21/15 2B 12/21/15 5/10/16 9/1/16 N/A N/A 10/26/16 22 57 Levi Lumm, x6265 9/14/15* 2C 12/21/15 Precision Machining Technology 1A 5/11/16 1B 5/11/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 10/15/15 10/16/15 10/16/15 36 5/11/16 9/1/16 9/6/16 9/22/16 9/29/16 24 60 Doug Lucas, x5566 2A 5/11/16 2B 5/11/16 Product Design and Production Processes 1A 1/22/16 1B 1/22/16 9/17/15 10/2/15 N/A N/A 11/18/15 35 5/11/16 9/8/16 9/23/16 9/29/16 10/3/16 22 57 Joseph Wofford, x5503 2A 1/22/16 2B 6/22/16 Surveying 1A 12/8/15 1B 12/8/15 9/1/15 9/4/15 N/A N/A 9/8/15 35 5/11/16 9/8/16 N/A N/A 9/14/16 24 59 Bill Clark, x5865 2A 12/8/15 2B 12/8/15 Technology, B.S. 1A 2/4/16 1B 2/4/16 9/11/15 9/18/15 2/3/16 2/3/16 2/4/16 36 5/12/16 9/8/16 10/27/16 11/8/16 11/10/16 14 50 Rob Nora, x4257 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 3 of 4 Instructional Assessment Plan Progress Report - FINAL
Welding Technology 1A 12/18/15 1B 12/18/15 9/17/15 10/2/15 N/A N/A 11/16/15 34 5/12/16 9/8/16 9/29/16 N/A 9/29/16 23 57 Mike Hastings, x5558 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16 PART I Data & Tools PART II FINAL Interdisciplinary Programs 1ST DRAFT DUE 09/18/15 - 2ND (FINAL) DRAFT DUE 10/16/15 Fall - 12/22/15; Spg - 5/13/16 1ST DRAFT DUE 5/13/16 - FINAL DRAFT DUE 2 WKS AFTER REVIEW RUBRIC Program, Assessment Chair, Phone 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized P1 SCORE O/P Date Final O/P Date Final 1st Draft Reviewed 2nd Draft Reviewed Finalized PII SCORE SCORE Honors Program 1A 5/12/16 1B 5/12/16 9/18/15 10/9/15 N/A N/A 10/9/15 36 5/12/16 9/15/16 N/A N/A 9/28/16 24 60 Matt Norman x4484 2A 5/12/16 2B 5/12/16
As of: 1/12/2017
LEGEND Complete/Finalized by Assessment Committee Date = Date submitted; awaiting review - OR - Date = Date reviewed; awaiting final draft Partially submitted Fall Semester Project Spring Semester Project Project assessed both semesters Project not completed due to program and/or personnel changes. Project completed during the summer No submission/Past Due Blue Font--Does not qualify for the 'leap year'
TOTAL RUBRIC SCORES: MINIMUM: 45 points with no categories scoring a 1, 2 or N MAXIMUM: 60 points with no categories scoring a 1, 2 or N
PART I RUBRIC SCORES: Maximum points possible = 36 with no categories scoring a 1, 2, or N Minimum points possible to qualify for a Leap Year = 27 with no categories scoring a 1, 2, or N *Programs that have not met at least the mininum standard upon completion of Part I will not be qualified for a leap year in 2016-2017. Their scores are indicated in BLUE .
PART II RUBRIC SCORES: Maximum points possible = 24 with no categories scoring a 1, 2, or N Minimum points possible to qualify for a Leap Year = 18 with no categories scoring a 1, 2, or N
HOW TO QUALIFY FOR A LEAP YEAR IN 2016-2017: *All of the following requirements must be met- 1. A program must meet at least the minimum standard for Part I; 2. A program must also have a minimum Part II rubric score of 18 with no categories scoring a 1, 2 or N; 3. A program must have an overall minimum rubric score of at least 45 with no categories scoring a 1, 2 or N; 4. Assessment projects must be entering their 2nd year in 2016-2017 OR - Assessment projects currently in their 2nd year must have opted to add a 4th year upon the submission of Part I.
Programs who have not met all of the above requirements will not be qualified for a leap year in 2016-2017.
Programs whose projects will be in their 1st or 4th year, or programs whose projects will be in their 3rd year but did not opt to add a 4th year upon the submission of Part I do not qualify for a leap year in 2016-2017.
*Part II Evaluation Rubric currently under construction. Information given above subject to change.
4 of 4 Appendix I:
Strategic Plan Flowchart 1. October 15 Final enrollment data are recorded
9. June/July 1 2. Late October CQI meets to review data sources Areas are sent Program needed to evaluate plan Review planning packets; 9 2 Institutional Effectiveness gathers other data requested by CQI
8. March/April Cycle of 3. Late November Board changes and Program Review published Strategic Plan progress 8 Annual 3 and distributed; Strategic inform annual budget Plan narratives sent to CQI planning process Review of Strategic 4. December/January 7. March Plan CQI reviews Strategic Plan progress President and VPs with Program Review and other data; review Board changes; 7 4 CQI evaluates progress and produces Changes incorporated into recommendations to President for Strategic Plan, where indicated changes as needed
6. February 6 5 President reports to Board of Trustees 5. Late January/Early February on Strategic Plan Progress; President and VPs review CQI Board evaluates progress and reviews/approves recommendations and Strategic Plan Progress recommended changes Appendix J:
Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan 2017 - 2022 Mission Vincennes University develops people and enhances communities through accessible, high-quality educational programs, strategic partnerships, and active engagement.
Vision Vincennes University is a premier learning institution, widely recognized for leadership in innovation and delivery of successful educational experiences.
A broad range of program offerings and a commitment to superior service ensure the University’s role as an important link in Indiana’s economic and cultural vitality.
VU is a diverse community whose members all share responsibility to support the University mission and are respected for their contributions.
Values 1. Personal growth and academic excellence for our students, faculty, and staff. 2. Collaborative relationships with our stakeholders and communities. 3. An environment that encourages open dialogue and cooperation. 4. Continuous improvement through data-informed planning and evaluation. 5. Cultural enrichment, diversity, and individual freedom.
Strategic Priorities 1. Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts 2. Emphasize Partnerships with Industry, K-12, and Higher Education 3. Improve Student Retention and Success 4. Cultivate Internal and External Resources 5. Identify and Investigate Opportunities to Establish New Programs and Enhance Existing Programs 6. Develop and Implement a Communication Strategy that Promotes and Reinforces VU’s Role and Identity with Indiana and Elsewhere
1
Mission Vincennes University develops people and enhances communities through accessible, high-quality educational programs, strategic partnerships, and active engagement. 1. Priorities 1 (Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts) and 3 (Improve Student Retention and Success) support this mission by developing people and enhancing communities by providing access to and support through post-secondary certification and associate and baccalaureate degree programs. 2. Priority 2 (Emphasize Partnerships with Industry, K-12, and Higher Education) advances this mission through strategic partnerships and collaboration with industry and other education partners to ensure that education programs are meeting the needs of the community (local and state). 3. Priority 4 (Cultivate Internal and External Resources) focuses on developing people through the development of faculty and staff to ensure that they continue to grow and have the skills and knowledge necessary to advance institutional goals. Additionally, Priority 4 focuses on developing the financial resources to further enhance communities and advance the university’s mission and goals. 4. Priority 5 (Identify and Investigate Opportunities to Establish New Programs and Enhance Existing Programs) enhances community through accessible, high quality educational programs, strategic partnerships and active engagement by engaging the business and local communities through advisory councils and creating systemic accountability and review processes for all new and existing programs. 5. Priority 6 (Develop and Implement a Communication Strategy that Promotes and Reinforces VU’s Role and Identity with Indiana and Elsewhere) ensures the active engagement of the campus with local, national, and international communities through marketing and messaging VU’s programs and partnerships.
Vision Vincennes University is a premier learning institution, widely recognized for leadership in innovation and delivery of successful educational experiences.
A broad range of program offerings and a commitment to superior service ensure the University’s role as an important link in Indiana’s economic and cultural vitality.
1. Priorities 2 (Emphasize Partnerships with Industry, K-12, and Higher Education), 5 (Identify and Investigate Opportunities to Establish New Programs and Enhance Existing Programs), and 6 (Develop and Implement a Communication Strategy that Promotes and Reinforces VU’s Role and Identity with Indiana and Elsewhere) focus on building superior programs that meet the demands of the 21st century workforce in Indiana and ensures that the resources available to meet these demands as well as communicate the availability and success of these programs to current and future students in Indiana, across the country and around the world.
VU is a diverse community whose members all share responsibility for support of the University mission and are respected for their contributions.
2. Priorities 1 (Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts), 3 (Improve Student Retention and Success), and 4 (Cultivate Internal and External Resources) focus on the members of the VU
2
community – students, faculty, and staff – and the related activities work to ensure that all members of the community are given the opportunity to thrive at VU.
Values The VU Values are realized throughout the strategic priorities and related activities are indicated below.
Priorities Values 1 2 3 4 5 6 Personal growth and academic excellence X X X for our students, faculty, and staff. Collaborative relationships with our X X X stakeholders and communities. An environment that encourages open X X X X dialogue and cooperation. Continuous improvement through data- X X X informed planning and evaluation. Cultural enrichment, diversity, and X X X individual freedom.
Strategic Priorities 1. Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts 2. Emphasize Partnerships with Industry, K-12, and Higher Education 3. Improve Student Retention and Success 4. Cultivate Internal and External Resources 5. Identify and Investigate Opportunities to Establish New Programs and Enhance Existing Programs 6. Develop and Implement a Communication Strategy that Promotes and Reinforces VU’s Role and Identity with Indiana and Elsewhere
3
Priorities and Related Activities Strategic Priority One: Enhance Enrollment and Recruitment Efforts Objectives: Measured by: 1.1 Increase recruitment activities outside of Baseline: Indiana to grow enrollment of non-Indiana • Number of non-Indiana students October students. 15, 2017.
Success measured by: • Growth in number of non-Indiana students measured each year on October 15. 1.2 Increase Baccalaureate enrollment in identified Baseline: programs through program specific recruitment • Identify specific programs to focus on for activities. enrollment growth. • Identify number of students enrolled in programs as of October 15, 2017.
Success measured by: • Growth in number of baccalaureate students measured each year on October 15. • Tracking program specific recruitment activities in these programs. 1.3 Increase number of students who convert from Baseline: ProjectEXCEL and Early College enrollment and • Number students converting from complete a certificate or degree. ProjectEXCEL and Early College to VU students as of October 15, 2017. • Number of degree seeking students retained from conversion programs from October 15, 2016 to October 15, 2017. • Number of students who have enrolled in past 4 years and completed a credential within 100% and 150% of designated time as of May 2017.
Success measured by: • Growth in enrollment of conversion students measured each year on October 15. • Growth in number of students retained from conversion programs from year to year measured each year on October 15. • Growth in number of conversion students completing a certificate or degree within 100% and 150% of designated time each year.
4
• Comparison of the average number of semesters it takes for conversion students to complete certificates or degrees to non- conversion students. (Show savings in terms of time and cost.) 1.4 Increase enrollment in alternative delivery Baseline: method programs including distance education, • Number of students enrolled in alternative hybrid delivery systems, military education delivery methods as of October 15, 2017 programs, and competency-based education (by program/by location). programs. • Number of students retained in alternative delivery method programs from year to year as of October 15, 2017. • Number of students completing a certificate or degree within 100% and 150% of designated time each year.
Success measured by: • Growth in number of students enrolled in alternative delivery measured each year as of October 15, 2017 (by program/by location). • Growth in number of students retained in alternative delivery method programs from year to year measured each year on October 15. • Growth in number of students completing a certificate or degree within 100% and 150% of designated time each year.
5
Strategic Priority Two: Emphasize Partnerships with Industry, K-12, and Higher Education Objectives: Measured by: 2.1 Increase number of students participating in Baseline: work-based learning programs. • Define work-based learning programs. • Number of students participating in work- based learning opportunities each semester beginning Fall 2017.
Success measured by: • Growth in number of students participating in work-based learning programs each semester. 2.2 Increase number of students enrolled in 2+2 Baseline: programs • Number of students participating in 2+2 programs as of October 15, 2017.
Success measured by: • Increase in number of students participating in 2+2 programs measured each year on October 15. • Increase in number of students successfully transferring to and completing second part of 2+2 program measured each year on October 15. 2.3 Leverage distance education in Business and Baseline: Industry programs. • Number of programs offered through B&I distance education programs. • Number of B&I partners/locations offering distance education programs. • Number of students enrolled in distance education programs through B&I.
Success measured by: • Increase in number of programs offered through B&I distance education programs. • Increase in number of B&I partners/locations offering distance education programs. • Increase in number of students enrolled in distance education programs through B&I.
6
2.4 Develop events and activities that reinforce and Baseline: recognize partnerships. • Catalogue existing activities that reinforce and recognize partnerships. • Identify gaps in activities and/or opportunities for growth/reduction.
Success measured by: • Adjust events and activities based on initial evaluation. • Review partnership survey data and re- evaluate and adjust annually. • Implement recognition of significant partnerships.
7
Strategic Priority Three: Improve Student Retention and Success Objectives: Measured by: 3.1 Develop systems that work across the Baseline: university to track prospective, current, and • Implement a CRM-type system that former students. provides students with better advising and degree mapping processes to increase student retention and success rates. • Number of students reporting degree audit problems each semester. • Number of students completing a credential each semester within 100% and 150% of expected time. • Number of Early College transfers to full time matriculation on campus. • Results from Annual Advising survey.
Success measured by: • Creation of CRM-type system (year one). • Training for key personnel across the university (year one and ongoing). • Implementation across the university (year two). • Reduction in the number of students reporting degree audit problems. • Reduction in the number of students with denied petitions. • Reduction in the number of course substitutions. • Increase in number of on-time graduates in all programs. • Grow early college transfers. • Improvement across Annual Advising survey. 3.2 Enhance and expand Summer Baseline: Bridge and related programs. • Number of students enrolled in Summer Bridge 2017. • Number of students from Summer Bridge 2017 enrolled in Fall 2017. • Number of students from Summer Bridge 2017 retained in Winter 2018 and each subsequent semester. • Number of students who have participated in Summer Bridge in past 4 years and completed a credential as of May 2017.
8
Success measured by: • Growth in enrollment of Summer Bridge students each year. • Growth in number of students from Summer Bridge Program who are enrolled in the subsequent fall semester measured each year on October 15. • Growth in number of students from Summer Bridge Program who are retained each semester and who complete credential within 100% and 150% of expected time.
3.3 Offer structured first-semester experiences to Baseline: enhance orientation of entering students. • Create pilot program in 2017-2018 school year for implementation in Fall 2018. • Fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall retention rates for students participating in identified programs compared to non-participants. • 100% and 150% completion rates for students participating in identified programs compared to non-participants. • Achievement rates of credit hour benchmarks. • Satisfaction survey results of first year students.
Success measured by: • Growth in fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall retention for students who participate in first-semester experiences compared to those who do not participate each semester/year. • Growth in 100% and 150% completion rates for students who participate in first- semester experiences compared to those who do not participate each semester/year. • Growth in achievement of credit hour benchmarks (i.e. 15, 30, 45 credit hours, etc.) each semester for students who participate in first-semester experiences compared to those who do not participate each semester/year.
9
• Improved satisfaction survey results as compared with similar students who did not participate in the first-semester experiences. 3.4 Redesign tutoring and related academic Baseline: support programs to increase student access • Redesign tutoring and learning support and utilization. programs in 2017-2018 academic year. • Rates of use for tutoring academic support programs. • Average GPA for students who utilize tutoring and academic support programs. • Fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall retentions rates for students who use tutoring and academic support programs. • 100% and 150% completion rates for students who use tutoring and academic support programs.
Success measured by: • Growth in number of students utilizing learning support services. • Growth in average student GPA for students utilizing tutoring and academic support services. • Growth in fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall retention of students utilizing tutoring and academic support services compared to those who are not utilizing services. • Growth in 100% and 150% completion rates of students utilizing tutoring and academic support services compared to those who are not utilizing services. • Positive results for Student Tutoring Surveys. 3.5 Continue refining Student Profile and TAPS Baseline: early warning system; develop appropriate • Refined and updated student profile and interventions and supports. early warning system. • Developed intervention and support systems for students identified as at-risk through the student profile and early warning system. • Number of students withdrawing from courses each semester. • Number of students withdrawing from the university each semester. • Achievement rates of credit hour benchmarks (15, 30, 45 credit hours, etc.).
10
Success measured by: • Decrease in the number of course withdrawals each semester. • Decrease in the number of students withdrawing from the university each semester (measured at the program, school, and institutional level). • Growth in number of students meeting credit hour benchmarks (i.e. 15, 30, 45 credit hours, etc.) each semester. 3.6 Increase and enhance “transfer back” Baseline: partnerships with higher education peers. • Number of public institutions participating in transfer back programs. • Number of students participating in transfer back programs. Success measured by: • Growth in number of public institutions of higher education participating in transfer back program (Goal=100% participation). • Growth in number of students participating in transfer back program.
11
Strategic Priority Four: Cultivate Internal and External Resources Objectives: Measured by: 4.1 Enhance on-boarding of new faculty and staff. Baseline: • New faculty/staff survey results. • Identified questions from CQS survey results. • Faculty/Staff attrition rate after 1, 2, and 5 years.
Success measured by: • Improved results on the new faculty/staff survey. • Improved CQS survey results. • Reduction in faculty/staff attrition after 1, 2, and 5 years. 4.2 Enhance current professional development and Baseline: training programs. • Catalogue current inventory of professional development and training programs; develop survey to assess need for changes; implement changes. • Number of individuals participating in professional development and training programs. • Identified questions from CQS survey results.
Success measured by: • Growth in participation by faculty/staff in professional development and training programs. • Improved CQS survey results. 4.3 Grow development capacity and increase Baseline: fundraising in partnership with VU Foundation. • Implement new MOU. • Annual dollars raised. (Note that all elements must be negotiated with • Annual number of gifts received. Vincennes University Foundation Board prior to • Annual number of donors giving at least implementation.) $25/$50/$100. • Annual number of recurring donors.
Success measured by: • Growth in annual number of gifts received. • Growth in annual number of donors giving at least $25/$50/$100. • Growth in number of recurring donors. 4.5 Develop more sophisticated framework for Baseline: identifying and pursuing grant opportunities.
12
• Year One: Implement strategic, streamlined system for grant identification. • Year Two: Establish process for faculty/staff to access grants office for support. • Year Two: Identify means to collect feedback from faculty/staff regarding grants office support. • Number of grants awarded. • Number of grant dollars awarded. • Win rate for grant applications (by program/by institution).
Success measured by: • Growth in the number of grants awarded. • Growth in the dollars awarded. • Growth in the win rate for grant. applications (by program/by institution). • Positive feedback from faculty regarding support from grants office. 4.5 Increase net revenue from non-general fund Baseline: operations. • Current net revenue funds by category (Auxiliary, Business and Industry, Other).
Success measured by: • Growth in net revenue funds earned in identified categories (Auxiliary, Business and Industry, Other).
13
Strategic Priority Five: Identify and Investigate Opportunities to Establish New Programs and Enhance Existing Programs Objectives: Measured by: 5.1 Increase engagement of advisory councils. Baseline: • Identify which programs have advisory councils, who is on the councils, and the frequency of their meetings.
Success measured by: • Annual tracking of membership and meetings; tracking participation of advisory council members in meetings, special events, and giving. • Assessing membership of each advisory council to ensure that the appropriate sectors and partners are represented. 5.2 Leverage relationships with higher education Baseline: partners to establish first two years of potential • Number of 2+2 programs. new 2+2 programs. • Number of articulation agreements (by program/by institution). • Develop process for tracking new programs on 4 year campuses and reviewing market for developing a 2+2 curriculum.
Success measured by: • Proposals submitted for new 2+2 programs. • Growth in the number of 2+2 programs. • Growth in the number of articulation agreements (by program/by institution). 5.3 Augment program review process to include Baseline: periodic assessment of external factors. • Year One: Establish team to update review and implementation systems/processes. • Year Two: Implement new process for reviewing programs based on workforce and community needs.
Success measured by: • Annual progress in reviewing programs, making recommendations for improvements and seeing revisions in place. 5.4 Develop and put into practice clear processes Baseline: for starting/ending programs based on • Year One: Establish team to create and workforce demands. implement timeline and review process for program start/end.
14
Success measured by: • Year Two: Implementation of program start/end review processes. • Review and assess desired outcomes for new programs (enrollment, completion, job placement, etc.)
15
Strategic Priority Six: Develop and Implement a Communication Strategy that Promotes and Reinforces VU’s Role and Identity with Indiana and Elsewhere Objectives: Measured by: 6.1 Develop and deploy new branding campaign. Baseline: • Development of new branding campaign.
Success measured by: • Implementation of new branding campaign. • Results from 5-year market research survey.
6.2 Develop marketing plan that expands current Baseline: presence across Indiana, in neighboring states, • Development of marketing plan. and internationally. Success measured by: • Implementation of marketing plan. • Growth in awareness in targeted counties, neighboring states and other countries based on 5-year market research survey, origination of website visits. • Growth in enrollment from targeted counties, neighboring states and other countries. 6.3 Redesign and launch of website with increased Baseline: capacity for creating and maintaining content. • Year 1: Design of new website.
Success measured by: • Year 2: Implementation of new website. • Use of website as measured by hit rates, click through rates, average amount time on website, targeted page visits, average amount pages visited, etc. • Site satisfaction survey to measure usability of site. 6.4 Increase alumni engagement to promote VU Baseline: and recruit students. • Number of alumni participating in the referral process • Number of alumni referrals • Number of alumni participating in activities (by program/by institution)
Success measured by: • Growth in number of alumni participating in the referral process. • Growth in number of alumni referrals.
16
• Growth in number of alumni participating in activities (by program/by institution).
17