Cultivating a Culture of Assessment in a Time of Transition 1 Dr. Laura Sáenz, Associate Vice President for Academic and Institutional Excellence Dr. Carlos Cuellar, Director of Institutional Assessment TxAHEA Conference, October 5, 2018 , University North Texas, Denton, TX
Outline of the Presentation 2 • Welcome and Introductions • Historical Background on UTRGV • Major Phases of the Development of the UTRGV Assessment Process and Office • Lessons learned • Continuous Improvement Efforts
Welcome and Introductions 3 • Dr. Laura Saenz – Associate Vice President of Academic and Institutional Excellence in the Division of Academic Affairs, Student Success and P-16 Integration • 20 years in higher education – tenured in the College of Education at UTPA • 10 years in higher education administration (college and university at UTPA) • Undergraduate studies, teaching, assessment and accreditation
Welcome and Introductions 4 • Dr. Carlos Cuellar – Director of Institutional Assessment 7 Years in Higher Ed • 7 years experience in higher education • Previously lecturer in Dept. of Politics and International Affairs at NAU (Flagstaff, AZ) • Currently part-time faculty in Political Science Dept. at UTRGV 3 Years in Higher Ed Administration • 3 years in higher education administration • Blank slate for UTRGV’s new assessment office (lots of reading required!) • Helped develop UTRGV’s assessment reporting framework and support infrastructure
The UTRGV Story 5 • In 2013, the Texas Legislature recognized the need to expand education opportunities in the region and created The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV) from UTPA and UTB. • Prior to the fall of 2015, The University of Texas Pan American (UTPA) and The University of Texas Brownsville (UTB) were two distinct Texas-Mexico border universities belonging to the UT System. • In the fall of 2015, UTRGV enrolled its first class. • In the summer of 2016, the School of Medicine welcomed its first class.
6
Campuses and Facilities 7
Three Major Phases of Assessment Development 8 • Phase I: Preparation Years – 2013-14; 2014-15 • Phase II: Assessment Transition Period – 2015-16; 2016-17 • Phase III: New Assessment Period – 2017-18; 2018 to present
Phase I: Preparing for UTRGV 9 • Phase I: Preparation Years – 2013-14; 2014-15 • 2013-2014 - campus leaders formed work groups from faculty, staff, administrators and students of its legacy institutions. • The work groups were with envisioning the new University’s mission, structure, programs, operations and much more. • 2014-2015 – unify ifyin ing programs, operations and services
2013-14: Joint Work Groups 10 2013-2014 Work Groups Academic Operations Academic Programs Administration Administration Institutional Academic Effectiveness & Assessment Accreditation SACSCOC, Non- SLO, Core & Program SLO assessment, IR Review Reporting
Academic Assessment Work Group Process 11 Develop Guiding Philosophy Situation Analysis Research best practices Consultations with National Leaders Key Recommendations
Guiding Philosophy 12 • The Philosophy guiding the work of the Academic Assessment Work Group was based around the goal l of f cr creatin ing an authentic ic cu cult lture of evid idence-based dec ecis isio ion-makin ing . • Work Group agreed that Academic Assessment must be assigned greater valu lue and giv iven prio iorit ity attentio ion at t UTR TRGV .
13 Thirteen Recommendations • 1. • 8. . Divi vision of of Academic ic Affairs . Cor ore cu curr rric iculum com ommit ittee • 2. Academic Assessment Council • 9. SLO review committee • 3. • 10. Program review oversight . Adm dmin inistrators com ommunic icate impo portance committee • 4. • 11. . Crea eate one one-stop ass assessment t sho shop . In Invest or or de develop an an AMS • 5. • 12. . Del elin ineate role oles and and resp esponsibil ilit itie ies . SLO in n co-curric icula lar r ar areas for or ass assessment • 13. . Facult lty Develo lopment t • 6. . Ass ssocia iate Dea eans for or Asse ssessment • 14. Healthy budget • 7. Incentivize assessment
Recommended Organizational Chart for Academic Assessment 14 One Stop Shop: Assistant Provost Center for Academic College Associate of Assessment Dean of Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Department Specialist Specialist Assessment Edinburg Brownsville Liaison Research Analyst Research Analyst IT Expert
2014-15: Unifying Programs & Organizational Structures 15 UTPA UTPA Operation Program & Service UTRGV UTRGV Operation Program & Service UTB UTB Program Operation & Service
Phase II: Transition Period - Overview 16 • Phase II: Transition Period – 2015-16 & 2016-17 • UTRGV multi-campus structure • Consolidated educational programs to be offered in parallel at all campus locations • Entirely new institutional organizational chart • Lots of excitement, anxiety and buzz in the local news!
Goals of Transition Assessment Period Starting Fall 2015 17 Functio Fun ional Cult ulture of of Con ontin inuous Im Impr provement • Develop and market an identity for the • Develop resources and materials assessment office • Website, How- to’s , FAQs, examples, etc. • Jump start the institutional assessment • Develop shared understandings process • Provide planned and on-demand training • Two years to prepare for decennial • Develop a network of assessment reaffirmation contacts/leads • Rea eaffirm rmati tion due e Se Sept. 2017 • Define roles and responsibilities • No assessment planning leading up to fall 2015 • Seek input and work collaboratively with leads • Implement an interim assessment • Develop a communication plan management system • Develop and implement an assessment • Review and recommend a permanent feedback process assessment management system
Getting Started: Opening the “New” Assessment Office 18
Organizational Chart 19 AVP Areas of Accreditation & Associate Deans Responsibility: Assessment for Assessment -Educational Program- SLO -Administrative Support Director of -Academic & Student Accreditation Institutional Research Analyst Support Coordinator Assessment -General Education* -Assessment Management System -Program Review Assessment Assessment -Specialized Coordinators Coordinators Accreditation (Brownsville) (Edinburg) -QEP -SACSCOC*
Advantages and Challenges of the “New” Assessment Office 20 Advantages Challe llenges • Opportunity to “reset” the assessment • Messaging all came from the process and improve on legacy practices Assessment Office and staff • Dedicated assessment leaders in the • No assessment “champion” at the academic colleges institutional level • Dedicated assessment staff on both • Experienced and inexperienced staff campuses • Number not as important as experience
Jumpstarting Assessment at UTRGV 21
Introducing the Future Plans for a New Assessment Framework 22
Starting with Administrative Unit Assessment 23
Defining Roles and Responsibilities 24
Transitional Assessment Process 25
Collecting Assessment Plans in Transitional AMS - SharePoint 26
Implementing Meta-Assessment 27
Capturing Improvements from Transitional Period 15-17 28
Advantages & Challenges of the Transitional Assessment Process 29 Adv dvantages Cha hall llenges • New process resulted in a mindset • Conflicting legacy practices of support among in assessment • New leaders and faculty with limited office staff experience • Provided information regarding • No master list of programs and units areas of need among faculty and • Templates not intuitive staff • Developing and maintaining records • Provided an opportunity to build a of AMS access and privileges process with input from assessment leaders
Adopting a New AMS – Tk20 30 • Acquired fall 2016, but postponed implementation until the end of the transition assessment period • Fall 2016 to spring 2017 • Implementation planning with Tk20 staff • Product training
Phase III: New Assessment Period – Overview 31 • Phase III: New Assessment Period – 2017-18; 2018 to present • Implementation of new assessment framework • Development or resources • Development of network of assessment leaders • Implementation of meta-assessment process through college-level assessment activities
Priorities 32 • Sup Support rt. Develop institutional infrastructure for supporting programs and units • Com omplia liance. Ensure that a critical mass of programs and units participate in institutional assessment process • Qua uali lity. Improve the quality of assessment activities and the reporting of those activities
Step 1: Developing a New Framework 33 • Identify major challenges with previous framework • Research best practices • Create a unique process to inc increase buy buy-in in and red educe res esis istance from assessment skeptics while complying with SACSCOC expectations
Recommend
More recommend
