Project: Assessment Culture
Version 2.0 - Review
Please comment on anything that is omitted or incomplete in the project status, dates and summary field. Enter N/A if not applicable.
Check for accuracy and completeness against the original Project Declaration. Are the right metrics or measures included for each goal? If not, what revisions to the metrics/measures would you suggest that the institution consider?
The challenge in reviewing the original Project Declaration and Updates (Versions I and II) is thatbthere is no clearly stated overarching goal statement.
The stated purpose – the “why” of the Project – was to “…to implement projects designed to grow the faculty culture of assessment to improve teaching and learning.” Goals are ends that guide actions. Goals – the “what” of the Project – should be specific - a specific goal has a much greater chance of being accomplished than a general goal, measurable - concrete criteria for measuring progress toward the attainment of each goal set, attainable - agreement with all the stakeholders what the goals should be, realistic - a goal must represent an objective toward which the institution is both willing and able to work, and timely - a goal should be grounded within a time frame. A sample goal statement for this Project might have been, to develop and implement an integrated learning outcome process by fall 2017.
The action steps – the “how” of the Project – included the collection, interpretation/analysis, and application of data related to those unique characteristics. Deliverables of the Project included an assessment clearinghouse, the designation of Assessment Liaisons, and revised program review self-study requirements and program review process. Supporting processes included recognizing teaching excellence and learning support through grants and communication and marketing campaigns showcasing best practices.
It may seem as though this is quibbling over semantics, but as an AQIP institution the expectation is that the institution have a working understanding of the basic quality principles, terminology and tools. It appears that all of the components are present, but they need to be reported in a consistent manner; purpose, purpose with goals, goals with outcomes, outcomes with measures, measures with targets, targets with results, results with action plans that will lead to refinement and improvement.
Has the institution acted in meaningful ways to pursue project success, making progress as anticipated in the original project declaration? If meaningful progress or project success has not been achieved, has the institution made appropriate revisions to the goals or anticipated outcomes for this project? • Are descriptions of resources, organization, concrete results, and reaching milestones included? • Make a statement of global judgment. (i.e. “The institution is making [excellent/good/satisfactory/acceptable/slow/ casual/no] progress in this action project.”).
Comparing the original Project Declaration to the updates, it appears as though there was scope creep. Scope creep refers to a Project that has seen its original goals expand while it is in progress. As the term suggests, scope creep is a subtle process that starts with small adjustments and ends up resulting in Projects that take far longer to complete or even fail before they are finished. Even if the Project is completed, scope creep can result in final deliverables that look nothing like what was originally envisioned. This can occur when the scope of a Project is not properly defined, documented, or controlled. Scope creep generally takes the form of new requirements or ideas being added once the Project has started.
There are five basic ways to avoid scope creep: 1) Document the Requirements - talk to all the project stakeholders and work out exactly what it is that they want the project to achieve. Write their requirements down and get them to sign off on them; 2) Set up Change Control Processes - setting up the process for the Project means thinking about who is going to review and approve changes; 3)bCreate a Clear Project Schedule - use the Project requirements to create a detailed task list; 4) Verify the Scope with the Stakeholders - use these discussions to talk to the Project sponsor and stakeholders about the change control process; and, 5) Talk to the Project Team - they need to know about the change control process and how it will affect them.
A Project charter or service level agreement can help alleviate creep.
Accounting for the scope creep and the deliverables of the Project, the institution made acceptable
progress.
Are the appropriate people involved sufficiently for the nature and scope of the project?
• Is there sufficient breadth of involvement?
• Are the right people involved?
• Emphasize the roles of those who can enhance the impact, success, or effectiveness of the project.
• Tactfully call attention to any people that appear to have been omitted or bypassed.
As noted in the previous review, the Project does not seem to have sufficient involvement and ownership by faculty. It is unclear from the narrative who “owns” the assessment process. The narrative does not specify faculty representation on the Program Review Committee. It is also unclear if the academic college and regional campus Assessment Liaisons are faculty, staff or administrators. Broad-based faculty involvement and ownership in the assessment process encourages better decisions and strengthens individual and group ownership of the process. Future Projects can be enhanced by clearly identifying who is involved and the breadth of their involvement.
Does the institution show evidence of learning from what it did well?
• Acknowledge any practice that could be replicated internally in future projects.
• Encourage the sharing of best practices with other institutions.
The assessment clearinghouse, student and program outcome assessment web pages, the SpotLight on Learning Conference, and Innovation Showcase are examples of the institution learning from what it did well. The University should consider presenting a white paper or presentation at the HLC Annual Conference.
Does the institution have a realistic understanding of what it needs to address in order to achieve progress and, ultimately, project success? Does it assess its internal and external environments, recognizing the potential forces that could hinder success? Is anything overlooked?
The Project is noted as being completed. The institution has identified constrained resources, effective institutional communication, competing interests, developing appropriate metrics, and sustainability as ongoing challenges – these are typical for a Project of this scope and nature – and has identified potential measures for addressing some of them.
Does the institution understand the current status of its project and know how it intends to pursue project success?
The action plans presented in the narrative to be taken over the course of the next 12-24 months represent a logical, effective and systematic approach to begin to institutionalize the Project. The institution should identify key performance indicators (KPIs) for the revised process. The institution should consider participating in the HLC Assessment Academy. The Academy provides participating institutions a structured, mentor-facilitated, four-year program aimed at advancing and accelerating an institution’s efforts to assess student learning.
Overall, does the institution demonstrate a good faith effort in its pursuit of continuous quality improvement through this action project? Is there anything of concern that should be brought to the attention of AQIP via your mentor?
Creating an institutional culture of assessment and ensuring …a systematic, faculty-centered approach to continuous improvement through a focus on learning objectives was an ambitious single Action Project. The second Project Update clarified for the reviewer information and associations missing in the first. Future Project Declarations and Updates can be enhanced with a clearly stated goal(s), outcomes, measures, targets, results and action plans – similar to the learning outcome process developed through this Project.