ࡱ> NPM` )bjbjss 06!0 ${$h  5      :V, @uq}  K0{R9 99    {D,, Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Summary of Alignment to College Goals 2005-06 Submitted by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee May 2006 Executive Overview This summary brings together collective summaries from four major areas of the College: Administrative Services, Human Resources, Instruction, and Student Services. Each of these areas submitted a summary of the individual PIE planning efforts or division summaries that reports goals developed at the individual department or unit level. As a committee, Institutional Effectiveness is charged with reporting to Presidents Advisory Council on the progress we may document in meeting college goals. Therefore, after reviewing the submitted area summaries carefully, the IEC offers this summary that is particularly focused on assessing the general responsiveness of the campus to identified college goals. Responsiveness was assessed by reading the goals reported for each goal and determining whether the unit goal was directly responsive to the college goal, indirectly responsive, or not responsive to the college goal. All members of the committee were involved in rating responsiveness to the individual goals for the largest area summary (Instruction), and then the norms established were used to evaluate reported goals from other area summaries. A standardized format was developed that included for each area summary (1) a summary of the goals reported and (2) an analysis of progress toward each goal; additionally, a Campus Wide Summary of Goals Reported for each goal as well as a recommendation for reconsideration of each of the college goals. Overall, the committee notes that responsiveness to the individual college goals ranged from 0% to 78%. The distribution is noted below: College Goal # of Unit Goals Directly Responsive Not Responsive A 24 25% 75% B 44 27% 73% C 77 25% 75% D 110 21% 79% E 57 18% 82% F 25 0% 100% G 27 78% 22% H 78 32% 68% I 44 32% 68% J 47 6% 94% The full report attached provides analysis and breakdowns for each of the four major areas of the college. It is of particular concern to the IEC that such a large percentage of goals were not responsive to the college goals. Although for Goal G, 78% were directly responsive, generally speaking on the other college goals anywhere from 68% to 100% of the goals did not appear to be responsive. Some themes emerge in the recommendations for addressing the PIE process and forms themselves: Confusion in goal alignment: A number of departments identified a connection between their own goal and multiple college goals even though it was difficult for an outside reader to see much connection between the department goal and any of the college goals. In many instances, a department linked one of its goals with a college goal based on one phrase of the college goal but thus missed the complexity implicit in the entire goal statement. These patterns resulted in department goals that were often not responsive to college goals. Examples of goals that did not respond to college goals are included in the Summary of Alignment of Unit Goals to College Goals. Differentiation between Outcomes and Goal Development: For goals A and G that refer to the creation of a risk-free environment for outcomes assessment across the campus, a number of departments confused SLOs or AUOs themselves with goals. A general confusion about whether to consider outcomes statements as goals prevailed for many of the other college goals. Again, this confusion led to reporting goals that were not responsive to the college goals. Support for Goal Development: In some areas, what was reported as a goal didnt sound like a goal. Because goal setting is a relatively new requirement, the IEC believes that some sample goals may be helpful in assisting departments to develop goals. Difficulty in assessing progress towards college goals: Even when unit goals are responsive to college goals, it is not clear at this time how we might use the data to establish progress toward college goals. Since this is the first year of the process, we may consider these results as the baseline for future cycles of planning and evaluation. However, even if responsiveness to college goals increases and there is greater alignment of unit to college goals, we will still need a clearly defined way to measure progress. After careful analysis of PIE summaries for the 2005-06 cycle, IEC presents to Presidents Advisory Council the following recommendations to enable us to use Planning for Institutional Effectiveness planning efforts more effectively: We need to establish a formal mechanism for assessing progress toward college goals. One possibility is that the PIE form be amended to enable units to indicate whether they are in the planning, implementation, or completion stage so that we have a better indicator about what kind of progress we have established. The college goals need to be reviewed and reconsidered. Many are so complex that individual units have a difficult time aligning themselves to the goal directly. Goal B (The College will secure funding that supports exemplary programs and services in a fiscally responsive environment) is clearly stated with a focus that departments can understand. On the other hand, Goal F (The College will become a nationally recognized institution of higher education that embraces an atmosphere of self-reflective dialogue in making policies and plans and in communication) contains four key interlocking components that set an almost impossible set of conditions for most departments to meet. In the Summary of Alignment of Unit Goals to College Goals, each goal analysis contains suggestions for review and either deletion or revision of the current college goals. We strongly urge PAC to reconvene the group that developed the college goals to review these recommendations and formally decide on any changes that might be prudent in light of the first round of PIE reports. We need to offer an option in the PIE forms for goals that do not align to college goals. Very appropriate and significant goals have been developed and reported in departments across campus that do not align clearly to any of the college goals. Being forced to align to a college goal may skew unit planning efforts unnecessarily so that we do not support genuine planning efforts within departments. A part of the difficulty we have noted in this years alignment may have to do with the demand that all unit goals align with one of the college goals. It is important that we make every effort to create a program review process that gives departments opportunity to plan with integrity, and acknowledging goal-setting that is not aligned to college goals may help us to support this intent more effectively. By providing a field on the PIE form for listing goals that do not respond to college goals, we may improve the form and increase alignment with college goals as well. It is important to find ways to document progress toward college goals that may not most appropriately grow from the PIE reports. We have groups working specifically to help us establish progress toward some of our goals; in particular we may note Goals A and G which refer to the creation of a risk-free environment for outcomes assessment and Goal I that focuses on diversity efforts across the campus. In the ongoing effort to document progress toward meeting our goals, we need to find a way to include the significant and central efforts made by specialized groups. In other words, the departmental PIE reports may be inadequate to help the institution document progress toward some highly specialized goals, and we should include goals from those committees or work groups to more accurately assess our progress. In summary, we may say that as a first attempt to institute a new program review process, we have had excellent participation across the campus. Many departments are still learning how to use outcomes assessment to improve their own functioning, and this new requirement for using outcomes in department goal-setting was not without its significant challenges. Although at this point, the IEC notes fairly low alignment with college goals, there are a number of process changes we may make that will enable us to move forward with greater effectiveness in using unit planning efforts to help show us ways in which we might improve our collective effectiveness. U^;-yw~T #T$)ٴٴٴٴٴh4h% >*OJQJh4h% 5OJQJh4h% CJOJQJh4h% OJQJh4h% CJOJQJh4h% 5CJOJQJ/U]^z { mn<*$d%d&d'dNOPQ]gd% ]gd% $]a$gd% )<Ocw]gd% dh]gd% -dh$d%d&d'dNOPQ]gd% 1dh$d%d&d'dNOPQ]`gd% xyvw}~vw# 0]0^gd% & F0]0gd% h^hgd%  & Fgd% gd% & F]gd% & F0]0gd% ]gd% 0]0gd% ## ' '))gd% 0]0gd% & F0]0gd% 0h]0^hgd% .:p% / =!"#$% D@D NormalCJOJQJaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List!6 z z z z$!n/U]^z{mn<Ocw   xyvw}~vw  !!!a!a!a!a!.j!1!1!.j!a!.j !.j!.j !.j!.j!.j!.j!-+!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!E!!!E!.j!.j!.j!.j!.j!.j!L!.j!E!.j!  !.j!!.j!.j!.j!.j!.j !.j!.j!.j!.j!.j!.j !.j!.j !.j!.j/U]^z{mn<Ocw   xyvw}~vw  !!0000000000000000000000000000000000 00 00 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000)<#))! P B.BNh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH. BN                  % @'0!@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialiHelvetica Neue LightCourier New?5 z Courier New;Wingdings 1hֲ&ֲ&F==$4d!!4 2QP$02.Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE)Virginia Burley jblake-judd  Oh+'05 ,8 X d p |0Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE)Virginia BurleyNormal jblake-judd2Microsoft Office Word@F#@@.2y@T}@T}G3VT$m  v   .@1Courier New- P2  . xPlanning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 2   x $C2 % xSummary of Alignment to College Goals $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 2  x $@1Courier New-2 # x2005$$$$ 2 #[ x-$2 # x06$$ 2 # x $ 2 gI x $@1Courier New-\2 6 xSubmitted by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2   x !@1Courier New-2  xMay 2006 2  x  2 I x @1Courier New- 2 TI x !-&2  xExecutive Overview$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 2  x $- 2 I x !-n2 B xThis summary brings together collective summaries from four major !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 U  xareas of t!!!!!!!!!!^2 U 7 xhe College: Administrative Services, Human Resources, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q2 D xInstruction, and Student Services. Each of these areas submitted a !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s2 E xsummary of the individual PIE planning efforts or division summaries !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!k2 @ xthat reports goals developed at the individual department or uni!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2   xt !!q2 OD xlevel. As a committee, Institutional Effectiveness is charged with !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m2 A xreporting to Presidents Advisory Council on the progress we may t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!n2 B xdocument in meeting college goals. Therefore, after reviewing the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^2 7 xsubmitted area summaries carefully, the IEC offers this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2  x summary that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!v2 HG xis particularly focused on assessing the general responsiveness of the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!A2 $ xcampus to identified college goals. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 f x ! 2  x !p2 C xResponsiveness was assessed by reading the goals reported for each t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!n2 AB xgoal and determining whether the unit goal was directly responsive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 AD  x to !!!!n2 B xthe college goal, indirectly responsive, or not responsive to the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q2 D xcollege goal. All members of the committee were involved in rating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q2 D xresponsiveness to the individual goals for the largest area summary !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!V2 :2 x(Instruction), and then the norms established were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&2 :4 x used to evaluate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!s2 yE xreported goals from other area summaries. A standardized format was e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!p2 C xdeveloped that included for each area summary (1) a summary of the s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m2 A xgoals reported and (2) an analysis of progress toward each goal; e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!C2 3 % xadditionally, a Campus Wide Summary o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>2 3 " xf Goals Reported for each goal as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q2 r D xwell as a recommendation for reconsideration of each of the college !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2  xgoals.!!!!!! 2  x ! 2  x !p2 - C xOverall, the committee notes that responsiveness to the individual !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!t2 k F xcollege goals ranged from 0% to 78%. The distribution is noted below:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 k  x ! 2  x 2 v x !@0Courier New--2  xColleg!!!!!!2  xe Goal!!!!!! 2 N x 2  x "2  x# of Unit Goals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2  x - 2  x (2 b xDirectly Responsive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2  x ]2 2  xNot !!!!- @ ! -x - @ ! -- @ ! -- @ !D -- @ ! -- @ ! -- @ !D -- @ !D -'-2 /   xResponsive!!!!!!!!!!- @ !J< - 2 /  x !x - @ !> -- @ !> -' 2 m v xA! 2 m  x 2 m * x 2 m  x 2 m  x24!! 2 m  x r 2 m F x 2 m  x 2 m  x25%!!! 2 m  x Q 2 m b x 2 m  x 2 m  x75%!!! 2 m -  x !x - @ !]> -- @ !]> -' 2  x 2 v xB! 2  x 2 * x 2  x 2  x44!! 2  x r 2 F x 2  x 2  x27%!!! 2  x Q 2 b x 2  x 2  x73%!!! 2 -  x !x - @ !^ -- @ !^ -' 2 (  x 2 ( v xC! 2 (  x 2 ( * x 2 (  x 2 (  x77!! 2 (  x r 2 ( F x 2 (  x 2 (  x25%!!! 2 (  x Q 2 ( b x 2 (  x 2 (  x75%!!! 2 ( -  x !x - @ !] -- @ !] -' 2  x 2 v xD! 2  x 2 * x 2   x 110 !!!!!!!!!!!!! 2  x o 2  x 2  x 2 b x21%!!! 2  x Q 2  x 2  x 2 ~  x79%!!! 2  x Q 2 2  x !x - @ !^V -- @ !^V -' 2  x 2 v xE! 2  x 2 * x 2  x 2  x57!! 2  x r 2 F x 2  x 2  x18%!!! 2  x Q 2 b x 2  x 2  x82%!!! 2 -  x !x - @ !] -- @ !] -' 2 @  x 2 @ v xF! 2 @  x 2 @ * x 2 @  x 2 @  x25!! 2 @  x r 2 @ F x 2 @  x 2 @  x 0%!!!! 2 @ 2 x 0 2 @ b x 2 @  x 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 @  x !x - @ !^ -- @ !^ -' 2  x 2 v xG! 2  x 2 * x 2  x 2  x27!! 2  x r 2 F x 2  x 2  x78%!!! 2  x Q 2 b x 2  x 2  x22%!!! 2 -  x !x - @ !]o -- @ !]o -' 2  x 2 v xH! 2  x 2 * x 2  x 2  x78!! 2  x r 2 F x 2  x 2  x32%!!! 2  x Q 2 b x 2  x 2  x68%!!! 2 -  x !x - @ !^ -- @ !^ -'"System|$ق9-xx  ww  vv  uu  tt  ss  rr  qq  pp   o o    n n   ՜.+,0, hp  91ֱ=! /Planning for Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Title  !"#$%&'()+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFGHIJKLORoot Entry F@s}Q1TableMWordDocument06SummaryInformation(*5DocumentSummaryInformation8ECompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q