LESSONS LEARNED IN WRITING A PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT Kara O. Siegert, PhD Special Assistant to the President, Institutional Effectiveness & Assessment Robert M. Tardiff, PhD Professor, Mathematics & Former Associate Provost

S ESSION O BJECTIVES Attendees will be able to: describe how a representative and effective committee of faculty and staff is an essential ingredient in developing a meaningful PRR. outline a proven method for creating a PRR document. identify key documents and reports that should be utilized in creating the PRR.

A BOUT S ALISBURY U NIVERSITY Masters level comprehensive institution with 42 undergraduate & 14 graduate programs Member of the University System of Maryland Has 4 privately endowed schools (Liberal Arts, Science & Technology, Education & Professional Studies, and Business) Enrolls about 8,600 students with 92% in undergraduate programs 570 faculty (300 TT) and 900+ support staff

MSCHE PRR O BJECTIVES To assess the impact of significant major developments, changes, or challenges subsequent to the last evaluation To assess the institutions response to recommendations resulting from the previous evaluation To review the institutions enrollment trends, financial status, and enrollment and financial projections To determine the current status of the implementation of plans for the assessment of institutional effectiveness and the assessment of student learning outcomes (accreditation standards 7 and 14) To assess the extent to which linked institutional planning and budgeting processes are in place

PRR S ECTIONS I. Executive Summary II. Response to Recommendations III. Challenges & Opportunities IV. Enrollment and Finance Projections V. Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness & Student Learning VI. Linking Institutional Planning and Budgeting

A TTEND MSCHE PRR W ORKSHOP Chair(s) attend a MSCHE PRR Workshop Learn What the PRR must address What reviewers of the PRR look for Review successful PRRs both at the workshop and online

PRR VS. G RANT P ROPOSAL PRR is similar to a grant proposal Consultation with agency professionals Clear guidelines equate to the Request for Proposal Peer Review Concise with limited extraneous, PR-type comments Presented using one voice

L ESSON #1: D EVELOPING THE C OMMITTEE Create a representative & informed committee that: Reviews PRR Guidelines & previous accreditation documents self-study visiting teams report institutional response follow-up actions Endorses a timeline (example) allowing for feedback from all constituents (e.g., governance bodies, Executive staff, editors)

L ESSON #1: D EVELOPING THE C OMMITTEE Review the sections of the PRR and determine who can serve as leaders and who knows campus history Consider positions that served on the last self- study and those that are a part of institutional Strategic Planning Key campus representatives: Faculty leadersStudent Affairs Academic AffairsStudent Affairs Enrollment ManagementAdministration & Finance

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT Organizing the committee: Round 1: based on previous self-study sub- committees Round 2: based on themes identified during brainstorming Brainstorming identified institutional highlights relevant to each PRR section Reviewed notes to determine common themes and identify those that were related to MSCHE standards (qualitative approach)

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT Round 1 Subcommittees: AssessmentFacilities Enrollment ManagementCommunity Response Resource Management Computing

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT Round 2 Subcommittees: Closing the Achievement Gap & First-year student initiatives Assessment/General Education/APR BudgetingAccreditation & Professional Schools Fulton Curriculum ReformAcademic Programs/Offerings Mission/Strategic PlanDiversity Facilities & Technology NeedsSTEM Enrollment/Test-OptionalSatisfaction, Opinions & Engagement

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT Template for each theme (example) Broken down by PRR section Included statements/thoughts collected during the brainstorming sessions Sub-committees elaborated on the statements and provided context to be used by the writing team The writing team collected the templates and reviewed PRR documents from other institutions to organize the content

Section 3: Challenges & Opportunities Advancing our Scholarly Community (MSCHE Standards 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) Curriculum ReformGraduate Programs STEMInitiatives to Meet MD Workforce Demands UG ResearchUSM Course Redesign Initiatives Progress in Student Recruitment and Enrollment (MSCHE Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 6, 9, 10) Incoming Student Recruitment Student Success & Retention Initiatives Pilot of Test-Optional Admissions Policy Envisioning and Implementing Institutional Effectiveness (MSCHE Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14) Mission & Strategic PlanningInstitutional Effectiveness Assessment Developing Innovative Facilities (MSCHE Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6) Academic BuildingsTechnology Residence Halls Pressures on our Academic Resources (MSCHE Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10) Academic CommonsFinancial Aid Faculty & StaffCoping in Light of Economic Challenges

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT I. Executive Summary II. Response to Recommendations 1. The University should define what proficient means for General Education. 2. General Education Curriculum: It is unclear in the General Education curriculum how students are developing skill in oral communication; Oral communication and quantitative reasoning are not included in the Honors core curriculum. 3. It does not appear that the Technology Fluency Policy adheres to MSCHE guidelines for Information Literacy 4. SU General Education learning outcomes include outcomes related to the SU strategic emphasis on diversity and globalization. However, only 18% of existing General Education courses purport to address this outcome. The majority of students graduate without experiencing courses with these learning emphases. 5. There are substantial differences in General Education between transfer and native SU students. These need to be critically examined to ensure that the SU degree is comparable for all students.

L ESSON #2: O RGANIZING THE C OMMITTEE & C ONTENT III. Challenges & Opportunities Review history and forecast the future. Must relate to MSCHE Standards IV. Enrollment and Finance Projections Audited financial statements, IPEDS, & projections V. Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness & Student Learning Goals, assessment methods, & examples of closing the loop VI. Linking Institutional Planning and Budgeting Opportunity to align your budget with the Strategic Plan *Strategic Plans *Program reviews *Peer comparisons *Dashboards example *DE Study example

L ESSON #3: W RITING THE E XECUTIVE S UMMARY Utilize your faculty and staff resources for writing expertise Provide an institutional overview & outline and connect the main themes. This is your opportunity to tell a story. We did this FIRST We knew the major themes We wanted verification from the committee that we were on the right track

L ESSON #3: W RITING THE E XECUTIVE S UMMARY What to include: Overview of the institution Institutional approach to the PRR Summary of major changes & developments since the last self-study Abstract of the PRR sections Certification Statement Must be related to the MSCHE Standards *mission *enrollment *resources *structure

L ESSON #4: U TILIZING E XISTING R ESOURCES Exploit work that has already been done! Public documents have already been vetted and approved Internal reports may demonstrate institutional effectiveness and assessment efforts May include data to support statements made in the PRR No need to replicate enrollment, budget, faculty/staff, and other routinely reported information

L ESSON #4: U TILIZING E XISTING R ESOURCES Closing the Achievement Gap Strategic Plans University of DE Study of Instructional Costs & Productivity Peer Comparisons (IPEDS) Academic Program Review documents Annual departmental reports Surveys

L ESSON #5: S HARING W ITH THE C AMPUS Purpose of the PRR is to demonstrate that we are meeting the MSCHE accreditation standards Review for accuracy & completeness Not a public relations document or list of grievances

L ESSON #5: S HARING W ITH THE C AMPUS University developed website to collect feedback Executive Staff Deans Faculty governance body Staff governance body Student governance body

Contact: Kara Siegert