1. Designing Assessment and Institutional Research for a New Institution
Georgia Gwinnett College
Designing Assessment and Institutional Research for a New Institution
Lily Hwang, Director, Institutional Research
Juliana Lancaster, Director, Institutional Effectiveness

2. Origins 4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia
Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005
President hired in September 2005
Campus opened with 118 students and 10 faculty in August 2006
Home of the Grizzlies!

3. Current Status Students: Faculty (Fall 2008): Facilities:
Fall 2007 Enrollment: Headcount 787
Spring 2007 Enrollment: Headcount 867
Fall 2008 Enrollment: Headcount 1563
Faculty (Fall 2008):
Instructional full-time faculty: 120 Instructional part-time faculty: 10
Facilities:
6 Buildings: A, B, C, D (Student Services Ctr), E (Valentine Bldg), F (Fitness Ctr)
Building E not occupied yet Total:  474,351 square feet
Parking Deck: 734 cars 
Total acreage: >200
Four Degree Programs
BBA, Business; BS, Biology; BS, Information Technology; BS, Psychology

4. Reimagining Higher Education for the 21st Century
Commitment at every level to student learning and effectiveness
Institutional focus on interdisciplinary/ integrated education
Openness to going “outside the box” – provided there is a plan for assessment
Created the opportunity for a ground-up design of an INSTITUTIONAL assessment plan and of well-integrated institutional research functions

5. Institutional Effectiveness:
Initial Design
The First Full Year
Lessons Learned
Next Steps

6. Institutional Effectiveness: Initial Design
Advantages of starting from scratch
Strong executive level support for and understanding of IE
Limited number of programs and offices at start-up
Absence of legacy or standing processes and structures
Disadvantages to starting from scratch
Each individual brings a different set of assumptions and expectations
Rapid growth and hiring leads to continuous need for explanation/education

7. Institutional Effectiveness: Initial Design (2006-07)
In order to get “…ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes…[SACS]” for we needed:
Structure and resources
Broad buy-in, consensus and agreement
Working “ground rules”
Institution-wide and pervasive
Integrated with institution’s mission & strategic plan
Faculty/staff participation and basic control
Interdisciplinary and developmental assessment of student learning

8. Institutional Effectiveness: Initial Design (2006-07)
Program level student learning outcomes and assessment plans
General Education curriculum designed around student learning outcomes
Agreement to develop and assess for institutional student learning outcomes
Agreement to integrate curricular and co-curricular student learning efforts
Leading to: Integrated Educational Experience (IEE) Student Learning Outcome Goals for GGC

9. Institutional Effectiveness: Continuing Design (2007-08)
Conceptual Relationships Among Outcome Goals and Objectives
Institutional Goals
Administrative Unit Outcome Goals
Integrated Educational Experience SLO Goals
General Education Goals
Program of Study Goals
Student Affairs Goals
Course Goals
Student Affairs Activity Goals
Lesson Objectives

10. Institutional Effectiveness: Continuing Design (2007-08)
Organizational Structure to Manage Resulting Flood of Data
Assessment Steering Committee
Integrated review of all assessment results
Strategic analysis of results; impact on strategic plans
IEE Assessment Review Committee
Communication
Integrated review of IEE assessment results
Administrative Review Committee
General Education Committee
General Education Goal Teams
IEE Goal Team
Interdisciplinary
Operationally define & plan assessment(s)
Integrated review of program findings
Program Goal Teams

11. Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year
Planning
All operating units, both academic and administrative developed assessment plans.
Academic units focused on course-level, embedded assessments.
All faculty and numerous staff engaged in discussing and planning assessment.
Goal teams developed operational definitions of each institution-level student learning outcome (GE and IEE)

12. Institutional Effectiveness: The First Full Year
Execution
All units attempted to fully execute their assessment plans
Some outcomes were not measurable
Some measures called for unobtainable data
All units were able to collect valid data on at least one outcome
Most units were able to identify at least one needed action in response to assessment
60% identified needed changes in curriculum or operations
34% identified needed changes in assessment plans

13. Institutional Effectiveness: Lessons Learned
Challenges & Lessons Learned
Implementing program-level assessment plans while still developing the institutional framework
Communicating the history of and basis for having both General Education and IEE student learning outcomes at the institutional level
Articulating the initial task of the Goal Teams: To operationally define each Student Learning Outcome
Managing expectations at multiple levels

14. Institutional Effectiveness: Next Steps
Review the conceptual and actual relationships between the two sets of institution-wide student learning outcomes
Initiate a campus-wide discussion about whether or not to make changes and, what those might be
Continue developing a broad base of informed, skilled individuals across campus to lead assessment efforts.
Continue efforts to establish systematic, manageable assessment at all levels

15. Institutional Research:
Unique Setting/Environment
Major Tasks
Major Challenges

16. Institutional Research
Institutional Environment
Banner hosted institution -- technical environment located at a central location – Office of Information & Instructional Technology (OIIT)
Internal support available for IR: a core data manager (Banner function person), and a programmer (IT).
Since its onset, GGC has been a Banner hosted institution (one of the first cohort). The Institutional Research Office, thus, takes a heavier responsibility in working with the registrar’s office internally and with OIIT directly for institutional data validation, management, and reporting. 16

17. Institutional Research
Major Tasks
To learn legacy data system, e.g., Student Information Reporting System (SIRS) and Curriculum Inventory Reporting (CIR), etc.
To learn USG reports, e.g., Semester Enrollment Report (SER)—their definitions.
To learn new Academic Data Mart (ADM) systems.
Producing reports (routines, ad hoc/internal & external).
Producing the College Fact Book.
The major tasks of our first year have included experiencing the transitions from the legacy system (SIRS/CIR) to ADM reporting; and producing the first year’s College Factbook.

18. Institutional Research
New Major Task
Began IPEDS reporting
Began many other surveys:
CUPA Faculty Salary Survey (began earlier)
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (did not have data due to non-Title IV status at the data point)
The Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE), National Student Clearinghouse—supported by USG.

19. Institutional Research
Major Challenges
Entering in the transitional period from the legacy data system to new ADM system; allowing very brief learning curve.
Learning together with other Units, e.g., the Registrar’s Office, Human Resources; requiring close relationships.

20. Institutional Research
Example:
A collaborative effort on establishing a CIP list representing GGC’s teaching disciplines/areas.
Why is this important for GGC?
GGC does not have departments.
School >>Major (program) >> Tracks/Concentration

21. Institutional Research
IE and IR
As does every unit of GGC, IR operates within the college framework IE facilitates and monitors.
Specific tasks for IR in support of IE operations:
Institutional information request for accreditation purposes
Information support for assessment projects, e.g., NSSE and Course Evaluations
Anticipated tasks for IE in support of IR
Providing benchmark and assessment data for Fact Book
Collaboration in design of specific studies

22. Questions & Comments

23. THANK YOU! Presenters: Juliana Lancaster
Director, Institutional Effectiveness
Lily Hwang
Director, Institutional Research