Improving Board Engagement with Educational Quality Institutional Case Report Templates As part of this AGB project, we will be compiling a set of case reports based on the experiences of the participants. These case reports will help other institutions and boards to learn from your experiences and progress. Near the end of the project, we will ask you for materials and insights that will form the basis of the case reports. What follows is a draft outline of anticipated content and sources. Who you are Briefly describe the institution, its mission and its board including composition and committee structure with particular attention to its committees and work focusing on student learning outcomes. Drake University Description Founded in 1881, Drake University is a private independent, comprehensive master s institution. Drake s mission is to provide an exceptional learning environment that prepares students for meaningful personal lives, professional accomplishments, and responsible global citizenship. The Drake experience is distinguished by collaborative learning among students, faculty, and staff and by the integration of liberal arts and sciences with professional preparation. Drake s size allows faculty and staff to foster close relationships with students that help meet educational professional and personal goals. Approximately 5,600 students are enrolled in the six colleges and schools of the University: the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (including Fine Arts), Business and Public Administration, Pharmacy and Health Sciences; the Schools of Education, Journalism and Mass Communication, and Law. Drake University's six colleges and schools offer more than 75 undergraduate majors and many graduate programs (Master s level, Ed.D., J.D., Pharm. D). Undergraduate majors with the largest enrollments include: Marketing; Finance; Management; Actuarial Science; Psychology; Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology; Biology; Law, Politics & Society; Secondary Education; Magazines; and Graphic Design. Graduate Majors with the largest enrollments include: MBA, MPA, and Education Leadership K-12. Student FTE 2011-12(IPEDS): Undergraduate 3,409 Graduate 735 Doctor s-professional Practice 892 Total 5,036 Drake University 1
Drake University Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees, the governing body for Drake University, is composed of thirty-eight members who are elected by majority vote of the Board. Terms for Trustees are scheduled for three years each and staggered with no term limits. In addition, the Student Body President and Faculty Senate President serve a one-year term. The Drake Alumni Association Chair serves as an ex-officio member. The Board meets four times each year during the following months: September/October, January, April and June. There is an Executive Committee and are ten Standing Committees of the Board. The Standing Committees are Academic Affairs; Athletic Affairs; Audit; Board Affairs; Building and Grounds; Business, Finance and Investments; Compensation; Enrollment; Institutional Advancement; and Student Life. Academic Affairs Committee Charge The Academic Affairs Committee shall, in cooperation with the chief academic officer of the University, study and appraise the quality of academic programs, recommend desirable short and long range academic goals, review policies affecting the faculty of the University, advise the Business, Finance, and Investments Committee on the specifications and requirements for financing the academic programs, and make such reports and recommendations to the Board relative to the foregoing as may be necessary. The Academic Affairs Committee shall also review university-wide retention efforts and recommend strategies to improve student retention. Your starting point regarding board oversight of student learning (Summer 2012) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the beginning of the project (Summer 2012) Board-level student learning metrics Drake started this project with a strong desire to develop a model to provide educational quality information to the board and to engage the board in a meaningful discussion of quality. Prior to the project, the institution engaged the board through various standard reports and periodic updates on specific topics. For example, each spring the board received a summary document called the Academic Dashboard (see Appendix 1). This document provides summary information on several measures of academic progress including student retention, graduation, time to degree, and certification exam pass rates (Law, Pharmacy). It also includes specific faculty profile information including information on full-time status, tenure status, gender, and race/ethnicity. The board also received periodic updates on institutional progress in focused areas. One example included a Spring 2009 Assessment Update report that familiarized the board with efforts to enhance assessment work at the institution (e.g., participation in the Higher Learning Commission Academy for Assessment of Student Learning). Drake University 2
While the board received a set of indicators and periodic updates, there was no distinct effort to provide an annual report for the Academic Affairs Committee with information on efforts to assess student learning outcomes or the use of that evidence to improve the quality of academic programs, cocurricular programs, and support services. Many of the indicators or updates focused on output metrics or process updates. Institutional assessment processes Prior to the start of the project, the university s curriculum adopted a common language for learning outcomes related to both the Drake Curriculum (i.e., general education) and the Drake mission statement. Drake made progress in developing measures of these outcomes by applying rubrics to student work (e.g., critical thinking, writing, information literacy). Overall, the most important aspect of both these efforts was the clear understanding of the central role faculty play in assessment. At the start of the project Drake recognized the need to expand the scale and scope of assessment work. For example, based on work in the Higher Learning Commission Academy for Assessment of Student Learning, Drake recognized the need to expand its efforts to assess include assessment of co-curricular learning experiences. In addition, there was recognition of the need to leverage existing information in new ways in order to promote quality. As seen in the Academic Quality Overview document (Appendix 2), there is a broad series of indirect and direct measures related to student learning. The challenge faced by the institution is not isolated to finding information, but also in identifying systematic ways of sharing and using the information. Institutional assessment processes included several types of evidence that is collected at various levels (university, school/college, program, course). Examples of these Drake assessment efforts include: Use of Critical Thinking rubric to assess sample student papers (2007, 2008, 2011), Use of the Collegiate Learning Assessment to measure written communication and critical thinking (2008, 2009, 2010), Use of rubrics in writing and information literacy applied to pilot projects in First-Year Seminars, Ongoing use of national and institutional surveys to gather indirect measures related to the quality of student learning experiences (i.e., National Survey of Student Engagement, Drake Student Survey, Foundations of Learning Assessment) and an effort to align these instruments to support longitudinal data analysis. Use of electronic portfolios to collect samples of student work as evidence of learning outcome achievement (e.g., College of Pharmacy and Health Science, School of Education, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Physics). Investigation of targeted assessment in capstone courses to examine learning outcome achievement within majors (e.g., Math, College of Business and Public Administration). Use of national exams to assess competencies in various departments (e.g., Teaching and Learning, World Languages and Cultures). Drake University 3
Increased attention across various programs on gathering evidence of student learning (e.g., International Programs, DUSCI, Leadership programs, Student Life, CBPA Active Learning Workshop, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Athletics) The Spring 2009 Assessment Update to the Board of Trustees included information on many of these efforts, but did not necessarily provide a holistic understanding of how the results of these assessment processes promote educational quality or how the information may be useful in supporting board oversight of educational quality. Ways and frequency in which the board and faculty interact (if they interact) The Board of Trustees and faculty interacted during the Board of Trustees meetings, however the interactions were somewhat limited by the content of select presentations or representation (typically Faculty Senate President). Board processes for the oversight of educational quality The oversight of educational quality is part of the charge for the Academic Affairs Committee. The Committee did receive several metrics (i.e., Academic Dashboard) and reports (e.g., Spring 2009 Assessment update). The Committee then shared a summary of this information with the full Board of Trustees during committee reports. While this process supported focused exchange of information, it did not necessarily invite a clear pathway for oversight of educational quality. What you are currently doing (Fall 2013) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the conclusion of the project (Fall 2013) Board-level student learning metrics This year, the AGB project team focused on finding ways to shift the interaction with the Academic Affairs committee. Previous interactions involved a series of reports, where the Board received written documents and a series of summary presentations that did not always have a specific focus on engaging the Board. In order to promote successful achievement of the project s overall goal (and address the project cornerstones), the team focused more attention on process/structure and building trust than on the development and presentation of refined metrics. For example, we initiated a pilot project in the April 2013 meeting where we wanted to engage the academic affairs committee in a dialogue, using data to scaffold the discussion. This pilot had a targeted focus on educational quality that aligns with our upcoming quality initiative effort to enhance institutional efforts to promote diversity (part of institutional HLC accreditation). This specific focus directed faculty, staff, and board members attention to many broad educational quality measures related to student learning. Drake University 4
We found that the language of metrics can interfere with a focus on academic quality. Board members experiences and previous institutional reports (e.g., dashboards) may focus on a specific type of data presentation (e.g., benchmark data, easily quantified information) that may not align with academic quality. In addition, a focus on developing metrics may not address the structural barriers to a deep engagement with the board on matters of quality. The information presented to the board now includes a hybrid of previous metrics (e.g., Academic Dashboard), along with some additional information that focuses on a specific aspect of academic quality (e.g., academic success of students by race/ethnicity, assessment of students critical thinking skills). We also see the benefit of varied interactions that engage the board in different ways. For example, board members received a qualitative overview of the impact of J-Term on student learning. Institutional assessment processes Institutional assessment processes are largely similar in comparison to the start of the project. However, there is greater attention to the need to focus on student learning assessment as an important component of academic quality. We are maturing in the ability to provide information to internal and external constituents on measures of student learning, and more importantly are finding success in using assessment information to promote change. One example of this information is recent efforts to share assessment of Drake students critical thinking skills. The data resulted in the following responses: These results provide a foundation for critical conversations among faculty and staff about ways to support student learning in this area. For example, over the course of the past year and a half, a group of faculty met monthly to discuss ways of enhancing students critical thinking skills. The results informed the planning and design of multiple faculty development workshops that provide strategies for enhancing students critical thinking skills (Summer 2012, Summer 2013, Fall 2013 Learning Symposium). Faculty recommended the creation of a faculty toolkit for implementing critical thinking exercises and assessment into courses. The toolkit will include examples of assignments that encourage students to move beyond taking and defending a position. Faculty recommended expanding the use of rubrics/criteria as a communication and assessment tool that is widely shared by students, staff, and faculty. Ways and frequency in which the board and faculty interact (if they interact) We have sought to build broader inclusion of faculty in board meetings. When topics address issues of academic issues or quality, we have tried to engage both groups in a collective discussion. We promoted an increased interaction between board and faculty senate; inviting board members to attend faculty senate and to engage faculty senate in direct discussions with the board. The effort to build this relationship happened through an intentional focus over the course of the project timeline. First, the President of the Board of Trustees attended a Faculty Senate meeting to gain a better understanding of how the two groups can better communicate and collaborate. Second, we created an Drake University 5
interactive session for the Academic Affairs committee that helped promote a common understanding of various types of academic language. The goal here was to build understanding and to open the conversation to areas of confusion (what is the Drake Curriculum, what is an Area of Inquiry, what is a capstone experience). Third, we created a joint interaction during the April 2013 board meeting by having faculty present for a keynote presentation and discussion on MOOCs. Fourth, we engaged a faculty fellow in the development of academic success case study information and the interactive data to dialogue presentation in the Academic Affairs Committee meeting in June 2013. Lastly, we developed mini College experience in June 2013, where Board members participated in an interactive introduction into high impact pedagogies used in courses and then discussed the experience with the Drake faculty during a lunch meeting. Board processes for the oversight of educational quality At the start of the project, we noticed limited engagement with the board on quality assurance of student learning. We are trying to shift the structure and substance of interactions with the board in a way that will assist more attention on quality of student learning. We are developing practices during academic affairs meetings to promote additional attention to quality. It is important to closely examine the structure and function of committees to determine the best way to engage the board in conversations and action related to academic quality. The current structure includes a series of reports/discussions with the Academic Affairs committee (Provost report, Academic Profile, Student presentations). The Academic Affairs committee then reports a summary to the full board. We noticed progress in moving past a report out function where the institution provided a series of reports to the Academic Affairs committee, which in turn, provided a summary of the report series to the full board. Instead, we are working to focus the Academic Affairs Committee s attention on specific aspects of academic quality (increased understanding of academic language, identifying areas of interest for board, developing topical areas of focus for additional review and attention) in an effort to dig deeper than simple output or process summaries. How you got there The steps you took to increased board engagement with student learning outcomes assessment and educational quality and with what effect. We learned that there is high value in establishing a foundation for dialogue and building a shared understanding of the purpose of this work (e.g., creating meaningful interaction between faculty and Board, improving governance, shared dialogue across campus on issues of quality (e.g., Board and faculty discussion of MOOCs, mini college experience). In order to make this happen, we needed to shift our focus from reporting information to encouraging active engagement. Our Provost used a series of presentations to both Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees to help focus attention on the purpose of this project. These presentations helped participants to share a holistic view of the end goal Drake University 6
to engage in essential conversations about academic quality that is informed by evidence, not the development of metrics. We identified ways to provide meaningful experiences that would help board members learn about work to improve student learning. The June Board meeting included a mini College experience, where Board members participated in an interactive introduction into high impact pedagogies used in courses. Board members participated as students in two classes offered by Drake faculty, and then discussed the experience with the Drake faculty during a lunch meeting. Class formats included interactive discussion, role-play debate, online research and group work, inquiry based discussion, dialogue, and small group work with data. Through this work, it is clear that we have enhanced communication and involvement between the board and faculty members. We continue to explore a systematic process for identifying key issues/topical areas of focus regarding academic quality and ways to best use committee time during board meetings. Our foundational work on building trust and increasing understanding offer promise, but we need to examine the impact of various strategies for moving from data to dialogue. Lessons from experience Please share the most salient lessons from your experience about how to further board oversight of educational quality What two or three things most facilitated your progress? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? Purpose We needed to take a step back from our initial plan. Rather than forge ahead with our initial plan, we saw the need to review our focus in several specific ways. First, we moved from an initial focus on improving board oversight, to improving broader engagement and communication between faculty and the board on matters related to academic quality. Second, we recognized that this purpose will take time: to develop shared understanding, build relationships and trust, and identify essential areas of focus. Initially, we framed the issue as hinging on the need to provide the right set of metrics to the board. We thought that if we provided the right information, the board would engage in substantive and constructive dialogue about academic quality. Over the course of the project, we recognized how the structures and processes of interaction shape our collaborative work. We noticed the need to rethink the ways we used our time, the ways we engaged, the types of data that we use, and the overarching questions that we explore. Based on this experience, we would advise others to communicate broadly across groups (faculty, staff, board) in order to develop a shared understanding of the purpose and direction of this work. We also advise others to explore connections to important strategic priorities (e.g., improving efficiency, Drake University 7
enhancing governance effectiveness, enhancing academic quality), which helps to integrate this work with other institutional priorities. Process We noted the challenge in finding an appropriate amount of time in board meeting to engage in dialogue about data and its implications. In April, we presented too much data for the amount of time allocated. In addition, conversations may focus on specific methodology questions which can limit the amount of time available for discussions on implications and applications of the information. We learned that it is critical to have easily understood information (simple presentation) and that it is important to align metrics with a focused conversation on institution issues/needs. For example, the time and attention devoted to a discussion of U.S. News rankings may not support a focus on academic quality. We also would highlight that data should include both quantitative and qualitative information. The sharing of testimonial data often proved to be the information that most invited dialogue and deeper discussion. What two or three things slowed progress? What lessons do you draw regarding pitfalls and sticky points? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? Here we would highlight the importance of building trust and facilitating change. Based on our efforts, we recognize the need to examine current processes and structures that both contribute to, and interfere with, board engagement in academic quality oversight. While an important cornerstone of this effort is having evidence to inform conversations, institutional progress is greatly enhanced through attention to multiple strategies that support the development of trust and engagement. We found that the language of metrics can interfere with a focus on academic quality. Board members experiences and previous institutional reports (e.g., dashboards) may focus on a specific type of data presentation (e.g., benchmark data, easily quantified information) that may not align with academic quality. In addition, a focus on developing metrics may not address the structural barriers to a deep engagement with the board on matters of quality. We adopted a holistic view of the end goal to engage in essential conversations about academic quality that is informed by evidence, not the development of metrics For further information contact: Name: Kevin Saunders Title: Director of Institutional Research and Assessment E-mail: kevin.saunders@drake.edu Phone number: 515-271-1984 Address : Old Main, 2507 University Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50311 Assistant s Name: Katherine Grasso Assistant s contact information: Katherine.grasso@drake.edu Drake University 8