assessment review committee report chancellor’s division/ university advancement

Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research

Assessment Review CommitteeReport

Chancellor’s Division/University Advancement

Erin F. Eatman

March 3, 2014

12013 Institutional Planning, Assessment, and Research

Mentoring/Review Process– 6 ARC members representative of various units in Chancellor’s Division and

University Advancement—all members “new” to assessment process

– Each member assigned 2-3 units to review independently, 16 total units reviewed

– Met on Sept. 9:

• Reviewed outcomes for 2 assessment reports

• Discussed best practices and strategies for reviews

– Met again on Oct. 17:

• Provided updates on progress

• Walked through 2 more units to answer questions


2012-13 Component Data

Developing Acceptable Proficient

Outcome 5 32 11

Means of Assessment

8 31 9

Criteria for Success

7 24 16

Results 12 25 11

Actions Taken 26 19 2

Follow-Up to Actions Taken

33 12 1


Data Visualization

Out-come

MOA CFS Results AT Follow up

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

ProficientAcceptableDeveloping


2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” ECU Police

• Outcome: Critical Incident Preparedness - Address the threat of a critical incident situation on campus through the use of education and programming for the on-campus community and effective training for law enforcement personnel.

• Means of Assessment: Monthly testing of emergency notification system to warn campus community of imminent active shooter threat.

• Criteria for Success: 100% compliance with Monthly Test Training.

• 2012-2013 Results: The Police Department met this goal with 100% compliance of monthly testing. The department members conducted 40 tests per month with a total of 480 monthly tests. In addition, the university conducted two tests of the alert system. The University transitioned to a new alert system (RAVE) on May 2, 2013. During one of the monthly tests on the new RAVE system, an error was made and a live alert was sent out.

• Actions Taken (based on analysis of results):Due to the error occurring on the new RAVE Alert System, new testing procedures were introduced to decrease the chances of a system-wide alert being broadcast during monthly tests. It includes instructions to end-users to review their message to ensure only one or two people are receiving the messages and to use TEST MESSAGE at the beginning and ending of each message being sent.


2012-13 Best Practices – “Closing the Loop” Office of the Chancellor

• Outcome: Chancellor’s Leadership Academy- The Chancellor’s Office will provide a means to development leadership on campus in the form of the Chancellor’s Leadership Academy

• Means of Assessment: Using the Assessments and Evaluations submitted by the Chancellor’s Leadership Academy participants, experiences are rated as satisfactory and participants report an increased understanding of leadership in the 21st Century and the University’s Strategic Action Plan. Participants achieve an increased understanding of themselves as leaders within the context of their professional environment and are taught tools and strategies to implement in their work

• Criteria for Success: The majority (60%) of CLA participants rate their overall experience as meeting their expectations on the CLA participant evaluation. Evaluation scores will provide insight into the effectiveness of speakers and subject matter.

• 2012-2013 Results: Evaluations of the CLA curricula and participant experience during the academy and post participation surveys were analyzed and findings show that 60% of participants found the experience to meet their expectations, 20% rated it moderately helpful, 10% rated it as unsatisfactory, and 10% rated it as very unsatisfactory.

• Actions Taken (based on analysis of results):New leadership for the CLA was established. Evaluations were reviewed and changes were made based on results, including changes to curricula, instructors and topics. To improve the quality of the program, the application process was modified. The

selection process was more efficient which ensured higher quality participants.


Rubric and Review Process Feedback• Challenges:

– ARC members unfamiliar with assessment process—learning experience for all.– Had to wait on entire area (5 units) before we could review them.

• What worked:– ARC members quickly caught-on.– Tricky areas were reviewed as a committee. – Open dialogue was kept with IPAR.– ARC Chair/Chief of Staff had regular meetings to update progress.

• After all reviews were done, an email was sent to all UACs letting them know reviews were completed and reminding them to make changes.

• Moving ahead:• Plans are being made to change what we’re assessing so it is more meaningful, i.e.

CULTURAL SHIFT.


assessment review committee report chancellor’s division/ university advancement

Documents