Role-of-Office-of-Assessment-Student-Involvement-Sample-Recommendations-for-University-Level-Assessment

Assessment: Benchmarking ASU Chris Smith, Misha Cummings, Kasey Kellums, Brandi Stehle Abstract Research Question Accreditation of ASU by the Higher Learning Commission is tied directly to evidence of campus-wide commitment to institutional priorities Although ASU makes public its data on institutional effectiveness, benchmarking data are notably absent Analyzing institutional planning documents and data currently publicized on ASU’s website, we conclude that intentional benchmarking against similar and model institutions would advance ASU’s progress toward fulfillment of its 2010-2014 strategic plan How can benchmarking be used to gauge success as ASU seeks to fulfill the goals of its 2010-2014 Strategic Plan? Introduction Why Benchmark? • • • • • • • • • Provides realistic and achievable targets Encourages continuous quality improvement Motivates change Visualizes progress toward goals Identifies peer models and competitors Clarifies goals Encourages transparency and accountability Unveils strengths for marketing purposes Uncovers weaknesses for planning interventions Method What to Benchmark? We examined ASU’s Strategic Plan to identify possible metrics for each of ASU institutional priorities Results The following metrics would be useful for gauging progress toward ASU’s goals as identified through the 2010-2014 strategic plan: Priority Metric Research-intensive Classification Increased Enrollment of WellQualified Students Graduate program funds, degrees, extramural research/awards, Graduation/Retention Trends Financial Aid Retention Financial Aid Distribution and Associated Default Rate National Survey - NSSE Engagement and Service Diverse, Excellent Faculty Benchmark Against Whom? • We examined benchmarking data of other Carnegie classified Master’s Large Universities to identify possible schools against whom ASU might benchmark • We searched ASU’s website to identify publicized comparative data Colleges and Universities Similar to ASU – Master’s L Transparency Ranked Faculty – Number, Demographics, and Productivity Shared Governance Involvement Expand Resources/Reform Budget Revenue/Spending per FTE student Excellence in Teaching Faculty Development and Awards • Existing data published on ASU’s website include: • Diversity • Tuition • Yearly Student Retention Rates • New Student Applications • ASU currently compares itself to a select few schools in the state and across the nation Benchmarking Institutions listed on ASU’s website include: • University of Central Arkansas • University of Arkansas at Little Rock ASU’s 2010-2014 Institutional Priorities and Select Goals Priority: Refine ASU’s mission and identity as an emerging global research institution • Continue to Promote the Transformation of ASU Into a Research‐Intensive Institution • Promote Outcome‐Based Decision Making • Increase Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment of Well‐Qualified Students Conclusion • Our current choice of benchmarks is not allowing us to clearly see where we stand or help us define steps needed to reach our goal of becoming a researchintensive institution • For a realistic image of where we stand and where we need to go, ASU needs to have a more diverse yet reasonable comparison group Priority: Create a service and support culture that is focused on student learning, retention, and academic success • Enhance student persistence and academic success • Manage the use of financial aid to help attract and retain students Priority: Create learning experiences through student engagement, service to our region, and partnerships with our community • Promote safety, environmental responsibility and stewardship Suggestions *What to Benchmark? Priority: Create a collaborative decision-making environment that is based on effective shared governance, open communication, and mutual respect of all members of our teaching and learning community • Create transparency in planning and decision making Priority: Adopt polices and models that continuously promote, grow, and reward all modes of effective teaching and learning experiences • Refocus excellence in teaching and learning Priority: Increase our diversity and expand our globalization • Attract, employ, retain, and advance greater numbers of university faculty and staff from underrepresented groups Priority: Continually improve our institutional efficacy and alignment of resources with our priorities • Enhance recruitment and retention initiatives of faculty and staff • Expand resources and refine budget procedures Research Intensive Public Universities - • • • • Funding for Graduate Programs Faculty hires, diversity, and scholarship State and Extramural Funding Trends in Quality, Persistence, and Retention *Against Whom? For comparative data: • Southern Public Universities • Year and Above • Master’s Large and Above *Against Whom? For goal setting: • Research Intensive • Public • “DRU” Doctoral/Research Carnegie Classified