Open Pathway Quality Initiative Institutional Proposal Template The enclosed Quality Initiative proposal represents the work that the institution will undertake to fulfill the Improvement Process of the Open Pathway. (Signature is separate attachment.) Signature of Institution s President or Chancellor Rev. Dr. Thomas Ries, President Printed/Typed Name and Title Concordia University, St. Pal Name of Institution St. Paul, MN City and State Date The institution completes the Quality Initiative proposal by responding to the questions in each category of the template. The institution may choose to include a brief implementation plan that addresses many of the questions below and replaces portions of the outline. Proposals should be no more than 4,500 words. Overview of the Quality Initiative 1. Provide a title and brief description of the Quality Initiative. Explain whether the initiative will begin and be completed during the Quality Initiative period or if it is part of work already in progress or will achieve a key milestone in the work of a longer initiative. Title Fulfilling the Promise: Comprehensive Program Review, Professional Development, and Departmental and Curricular Planning Brief description As its Quality Initiative project, Concordia University, St. Paul will develop an ongoing, systematic, institution-wide process for program review, integrated with assessment of learning, professional development, departmental and curricular planning, and resource allocation. Education quality and innovation will have a significant focus in the reviews. The process will consist of a cyclical Comprehensive Program Review where each program/ department conducts a Comprehensive Program Review every three to five years. In other years, programs/departments will complete a simpler Annual Review. The review process will be implemented prior to launching a new strategic plan in 2018, and will link the strategic plan to departmental goals and evaluation.
The Quality Initiative will be completed on a three-year timeline. The program review process developed through this initiative will be ongoing. Sufficiency of the Initiative s Scope and Significance 2. Explain why the proposed initiative is relevant and significant for the institution. 3. Explain the intended impact of the initiative on the institution and its academic quality. Significance and relevance of the initiative at this time One of the first initiatives of Concordia University, St. Paul s new president, Tom Ries, was to articulate Concordia s distinctive promise to its students. With broad input from the wider University community, this promise statement was created: Concordia University, St. Paul empowers you to discover and engage your purpose for life, career and service in a dynamic, multicultural, urban environment where Christ is honored, all are welcome, and Lutheran convictions inform intellectual inquiry and academic pursuits. [http://www.csp.edu/about-concordia/vision-missionhistory/mission-vision/#sthash.wmkznytu.dpuf] In order to fulfill this promise to students and effectively carry out its mission, Concordia must provide educational and career opportunities that are relevant to students interests and responsive to the needs of a global society. Concordia s efforts to this end will be supported by this Quality Initiative, with its focus on educational quality and innovation. An ongoing program review cycle is clearly needed to maintain and improve educational quality, as well as contribute to institutional effectiveness, promote forward thinking and innovation, and strategically allocate resources. A systematic and institution-wide program review process is a highly significant endeavor for Concordia University at this time for multiple reasons. Our institution is embarking on the Open Pathways process for the Higher Learning Commission, which emphasizes ongoing quality improvement and more frequent analysis and reporting of institutional performance. Program review and evidence of quality improvement processes are needed evidence for reaffirmation of Concordia s accreditation. The Higher Learning Commission, in its Criteria for Accreditation, Criterion Four, Core Component 4A.1, expects that The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews." A comprehensive University-wide review effort was undertaken more than 10 years ago, and college-level program reviews have taken place to varying degrees on an ad hoc basis. Currently, however, Concordia University has no systematic, integrated, institution-wide program review process. With the arrival of a new vice president for academic affairs in 2015, Concordia is primed for a forwardlooking initiative that engages faculty and staff in planning for the future. This program review initiative will include elements that develop faculty and staff ability to promote strategic projects and programs, and more effectively meet the challenges of the current and future higher education landscape. As colleges and universities face heightened competition for fewer traditional
undergraduates and increasing scrutiny from the public and governmental entities, careful and strategic resource allocation based on solid evidence becomes even more critical. Implementing a University-wide program review process over the next two to three years is also critical to our strategic planning process. Concordia will be developing a new strategic plan in that time, since the current plan is set to be completed in 2018. A program review process will provide the institution with much of the evidence it needs to evaluate institutional effectiveness, systematically prioritize goals, and focus resources in the design of a new strategic plan. A formal program review process is also an opportunity for departments to affirm their alignment with the institution s mission. A periodic comprehensive review can help a department strengthen, improve, highlight, and make explicit the ways in which they are preparing students for the world in which they live and work with a curriculum that is relevant to their needs. Departments can take the time to evaluate how well their curricular and non-curricular offerings address real-world issues and promote the development of skills and values described in Concordia s mission and promise. Impact on the institution and its academic quality The program review process will be designed to elicit departmental goals that help to meet Concordia s current strategic goals. Those goals are to: 1. Grow enrollment 2. Increase persistence to graduation 3. Increase transition to job or graduate school 4. Grow net assets When each department is intentionally engaged in the University s efforts to achieve these goals, the impact on the outcomes of these goals is substantial. A program review process that encourages and supports innovation and relevance can lead to higher enrollment with new programs that meet student needs. Increased program and curricular relevance can lead to greater persistence and preparation for jobs and graduate school. A program review process that expects the building of community partnerships and career connections for students can have a significant impact on students successful transition to the work world. When the review process includes monitoring of student success beyond the University, data collection and analysis of graduates transitions can be improved. Further institutional impact will be seen from program reviews when program review outcomes and action plans are integrated with planning and resource allocation. Concordia has a well-developed assessment of learning and improvement process in place, but this process has not been wellintegrated into decision-making processes. Academic quality can be significantly impacted when what is learned about student achievement through assessment is brought to bear on departmental goals and priorities in the program review. The long-term impact on academic departments is the institutionalization of data-driven decisionmaking and future-oriented thinking at all levels. The communication and discussion of review outcomes will facilitate collaboration across the institution. Program reviews also serve to make
institutional expectations for academic quality explicit and shared across disciplines. The development of agreed-upon criteria for academic quality can stimulate collaboration between faculty and administration and heighten focus on the academic enterprise. The process of benchmarking learning achievements and educational practices can reinvigorate quality improvement efforts. Clarity of the Initiative s Purpose 4. Describe the purposes and goals for the initiative. 5. Describe how the institution will evaluate progress, make adjustments, and determine what has been accomplished. The Quality Initiative will establish criteria and cycles for Annual Reviews and Comprehensive Program Reviews for academic departments, which will: Utilize best practices in the fields of evaluation and strategic planning. Include input of administration, faculty, and staff to increase support and buy-in. Introduce standard criteria, templates, and data sets. Standardize comparative benchmark measures across the institution. Increase the use of external benchmarking for verification of program quality. Align curricular goals with student and societal needs. Facilitate faculty-administration partnership in setting goals and quality measures. Result in the strategic application of resources. Integrate program review results and action plans into strategic planning process and institutional effectiveness measures. The project will use the following measures to evaluate progress toward goals: Citations and resource list for the initial planning of the program review process. Surveys (individual written and/or focus groups) of participants in either the Annual Review or the Comprehensive Program Review. Dean feedback to programs/departments on their submitted reports. Academic Cabinet analysis of the first year Annual Reviews and Comprehensive Program Reviews conducted by programs/departments as recorded in meeting minutes. Evaluations from the faculty development workshop on innovation. Evaluation by the Executive Leadership Team and BOR academic subcommittee. Review of the Strategic Planning Council proceedings. The Quality Initiative Report and HLC response. The University s Assurance Argument for Criterion Four and the Site Visit. The project will use the following process for evaluating progress toward goals: Goals Met Not Met: Notes and follow-up Citations and resource list for the initial planning of the program review process Frequency of review Semi-annually the first year; annually Responsible Parties
developed. In subsequent cycles, this stage will include improvements to the process based on surveys, other reviewer input, and HLC input through the QI Report response. Surveys (individual written and/or focus groups) of participants in either the Annual Review or the Comprehensive Program Review conducted. Dean feedback to programs/departments on their submitted reports provided. Academic Cabinet analysis of the first year Annual Reviews and Comprehensive Program Reviews conducted by programs/departments as recorded in meeting minutes. Evaluations from the faculty development workshop on innovation collected and analyzed. Subsequent years may include workshops on other topics relevant to program review. Evaluation of the program review process and outcomes by the Executive Leadership Team and BOR academic subcommittee. Review of the Strategic Planning Council proceedings. The Quality Initiative Report and HLC response. The University s Assurance Argument for Criterion Four and the Site Visit (2017-18). The success of the new program review process will also be addressed in the Year 4 Assurance Review and subsequent reaffirmation visits. in subsequent years. Semi-annually during the course of the Quality Initiative project. Annually Annually After each workshop Annually during the course of the Quality Initiative project; subsequently every three years. Annually Accreditation and Academic Cabinet Accreditation Academic Cabinet Academic Cabinet Accreditation, Academic Cabinet, and Faculty Development Committee Coordinated by Accreditation Accreditation and Strategic Planning Council 2017 Accreditation and Academic Cabinet 2017 and subsequent HLC review years Accreditation and Self-Study Steering Committee Evidence of Commitment to and Capacity for Accomplishing the Initiative 6. Describe the level of support for the initiative by internal or external stakeholders. 7. Identify the groups and individuals that will lead or be directly involved in implementing the initiative.
8. List the human, financial, technological and other resources that the institution has committed to this initiative. Stakeholder support for the initiative Students are a primary stakeholder in a program review process. They rely on quality and relevance as part of the value of their educational investment. Student input will be involved directly and indirectly in the campus workshop that focuses on innovative thinking and planning. Faculty benefit by being able to showcase their achievements and get feedback. The review process sets aside time for reflection and shared understandings. Faculty typically appreciate the opportunity for collegial conversations around shared goals and values that a common task can provide. The administrative structure has shifted incrementally during the first years of the current president s tenure. Establishing an institution-wide program review process that all colleges and departments undergo will bring consistency, common metrics, and much-needed evidence for institutional effectiveness, planning, and direction. The Board of Regents and its academic subcommittee will benefit from consistent metrics and evidence of quality and performance from the institution s academic departments. The University s accreditors, including HLC, look for quality improvement processes to be in place and for institutional planning that is responsive to evidence and the needs of constituents. University marketing and enrollment management offices and their partners (e.g., The Learning House) support academic departments in their efforts to provide the programs prospective students and their families are looking for. These offices also look for evidence of institutional strengths that can be shared with external constituents. The executive leadership has made a commitment that program review will be part of the institution s ongoing processes. After the initial cycle of annual and comprehensive reviews, the cycle will be repeated and the results will be integrated into resource allocation, program review, faculty development plans, and assessment processes. The Higher Learning Commission has explicitly incorporated regular program review into its Criteria for Accreditation and Assumed Practices. Concordia s cycle of program reviews will be part of ongoing reporting and assurance arguments for HLC, which will ensure its continuation. The groups and individuals that will lead or be directly involved in implementing the initiative College deans and department chairs. Executive leadership. Assessment and accreditation leaders. Faculty participating in program reviews and surveys. Institutional Research and Academic Computing staff. Innovation expert on the Concordia faculty, who will lead a professional development workshop.
The human, financial, technological, and other resources that the institution has committed to this initiative Approximately $25,000.00 to support training, the workshop on innovative thinking, and the Comprehensive Review Process for three years, including hospitality, honoraria for external reviewers, and workload. Institutional Research and Academic Computing staff time to develop and distribute the data sets. Addressing potential obstacles As this project will be taking place during the University s HLC self-study, there will already by high demands on faculty and staff time. Where possible, project leaders will seek to integrate tasks with the self-study process where possible. Existing department and college meeting times can be used for collaborative tasks. University staff in institutional research, enrollment management, and career development can save faculty time by contributing research data that departments would use for projections and benchmarking. A proportion of faculty will be adjusting to a new way of thinking about academic planning. The professional development workshop on innovation will provide them with the tools they need to integrate evidence into academic planning. The workshop will also introduce a mindset that promotes openness to change and future-oriented thinking. For departments or department chairs who have not previously conducted a program review, there may be uncertainty about what is expected and how to undertake the task. The standard templates for the reviews will be designed to reduce uncertainty and make expectations clear. The data formats used will be understandable to faculty users, and training will be provided on accessing it and applying it appropriately. Appropriateness of the Timeline for the Initiative 9. Describe the primary activities of the initiative and timeline for implementing them. Primary Activities and Timeline for Implementation Year One: 2015-16 Develop the Comprehensive Program Review criteria, process, and timeline with input from stakeholders. Begin Comprehensive Program Review Cycle: Selected academic programs/departments (one-third of all) undertake the newly developed Comprehensive Program Review. Complete program/department Annual Reviews using assessment data, departmental goals, and institutional data in departments not completing a Comprehensive Program Review. Year Two: 2016-17 Continue Comprehensive Program Review Cycle: Another one-third of academic programs/departments undertake the Comprehensive Program Review Cycle.
Complete program/department Annual Reviews using assessment data, departmental goals, and institutional data in departments not completing a Comprehensive Program Review. Quality Initiative Report Filed by August 15, 2017 Year Three: 2017-18 Continue Comprehensive Program Review Cycle: Another one-third of academic programs/departments undertake the Comprehensive Program Review Cycle. Complete program/department Annual Reviews using assessment data, departmental goals, and institutional data in departments not completing a Comprehensive Program Review. Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Site Visit (dates to be determined) Primary Project Activities Persons Involved Timelines Program Review Structure Development: a) Determine the criteria of common program review processes, both an Annual Review and cyclical Comprehensive Program Review, to be used across academic units. Use resources from the literature in program evaluation and review. Include criteria that address current institutional needs. b) Develop the process to be used, including feedback, action steps, and sharing and use of results. c) Establish a time cycle for Comprehensive Program Reviews that includes variation for new programs and incorporates professional accreditation schedules. Faculty Input Survey: Gather faculty input on academic quality measures, program review process, and training/professional development needs. Program Review Structure Modification: Make revisions to the Comprehensive Program Review criteria and process based on input from faculty survey. Professional Development Workshop: Prepare faculty for the strategic thinking called for in the Comprehensive Program Review. Faculty Training: Faculty learn to use the technology and databases available for outcome analysis. Comprehensive Program Review Begin the Cycle: Selected pioneer departments conduct a Comprehensive Program Review using the new structure and process. Institutional Data: Provide programs/ departments with the institutional data needed to address Annual Review or Comprehensive Program Review criteria Annual Review: Academic programs/ departments not conducting a Comprehensive Program Review complete an Annual Review, including analysis of assessment data, retention/graduation rates, enrollments, course non-completion rates, credits Executive leadership, deans, and faculty leaders All faculty Executive leadership, deans, and faculty leaders All faculty Academic department leadership Selected programs/ departments Institutional Research; Academic Computing; Office of Academic Affairs Programs/ departments October 1, 2015 November 1, 2015 December 1, 2015 February 2016 March 2016 August 15, 2016 May 31, 2016 June 30, 2016
generated, or similar criteria. In addition, in subsequent years, departments will report on their progress toward previous improvement goals and show how data was used to make improvements. Faculty Set Goals for Improvements and Make Resource Requests: Based on results of assessment of student learning and program review benchmarking data, external review, and resource analysis, faculty will set department goals for program improvement tied to budgeting and resource requests. Dissemination of Results: Comprehensive Program Review results will be shared with various campus constituents and feedback solicited from these groups. Constituents and methods of distribution will be determined as part of the program review development process at the start of the Quality Initiative project. Review and Modification of the Process: Gather input on how the review process worked for participants (e.g., survey individuals, debrief groups, etc.) and make modifications as warranted. Use of Results: Bring Comprehensive Program Review and Annual Review actions plans and recommendations into the strategic planning process and the development of the next strategic plan. Evaluation of the Quality Initiative: The Quality Initiative Report for HLC will be the first step in evaluating how well Concordia University met its goals for establishing an institution-wide program review process. Evaluation of the Program Review Process: The Assurance Argument for HLC reaffirmation of accreditation will be the next step in evaluating Concordia University s institution-wide program review process, and how well it meets HLC Criterion Four. Review and Modification of the Process: Gather input on how the review process worked for participants (e.g., survey individuals, debrief groups, etc.) and make modifications as warranted. Department chair and member faculty. Colleges and academic departments; executive leadership and deans; Board of Regents Academic Subcommittee. Colleges and academic departments; executive leadership and deans President and Strategic Planning Council* Executive leadership, deans, and faculty leaders Criterion Four Team; executive leadership, deans, and faculty leaders; HLC Peer Reviewers Colleges and academic departments; executive leadership and deans Summer 2016 Fall 2016 Fall 2016 Begin Fall 2016 Target Completion: June 2017 Quality Initiative Report Filed by August 2017 Assurance Argument Submitted Fall 2017 Fall 2017 *The Strategic Planning Council includes executive leadership, deans, faculty senate chair, and representatives from enrollment management, marketing, student development, CSP Ministry, and advancement. Institutional Contact for Quality Initiative Proposal Miriam Luebke, Associate Vice President for Assessment and Accreditation Name and Title
651-641-8825 luebke@csp.edu Phone Email Concordia University, St. Paul