Comprehensive Quality Review Highlights Report

September 2015

Special Circumstances—Activities Related to Changes in HLC and AQIP

Ohio University originally was scheduled to host an AQIP team for its seven-year Quality Checkup Visit in 2014-15 with the reaffirmation review to be done in 2015-16. We had devoted significant planning and publicity to that schedule. In April 2014 Eric Martin officially informed us of the AQIP changes and the resulting move of the Comprehensive Quality Review
to 2015-16. This change was received with mixed reactions. We had reorganized and revitalized our AQIP Task Force to complete the 2013 Systems Portfolio in a more inclusive and efficacious model. This work was anticipated to take the University toward a 2014-15 site visit, and the delay resulted in a somewhat reduced momentum, following our intense involvement in the preparation of the Systems Portfolio and the expectation of a visit immediately following. On the other hand, the University leadership recognized an opportunity to work to sustain interest in AQIP in the long term. This delay also provided an extra year to continue to communicate about AQIP to the entire University community and focus additional attention on assessment of learning objectives. We would not have been able to accomplish as much were the visit to occur earlier. Furthermore, the University more thoroughly understands the ongoing nature of institutional accreditation through AQIP. Whereas previous attention had been somewhat episodic, the University community is much more supportive of a continuous and sustained approach. Since 2002, Ohio University has been proud to be a part of AQIP. In the years 2012-2015, however, Ohio University has approached AQIP with renewed energy and interest. The president, provost, and members of the Academic Leadership Council all have worked to inform and involve 5,000 faculty and staff about the AQIP Categories, the HLC Criteria for Accreditation, the AQIP Action Projects, Systems Portfolio, and Systems Appraisal, the results of the 2015 Strategy Forum, and preparations for the Comprehensive Quality Review in fall 2015. Regular AQIP updates have been given at Board of Trustees meetings.

In April 2015 the University sent a team to the scheduled Strategy Forum. At that forum, we had four existing Action Projects (sustainability, universal design, curricular themes, and assessment). We diligently have managed our Action Projects on a consistent schedule (January through December) since 2002. Given the University’s size and complexity, all our Action Projects extended over multiple years, with AQIP reviewers’ support and commendations. While we were expecting changes from AQIP in the approach to Action Projects in the long term, at the April 2015 Strategy Forum we were presented with the expectation that we make changes
immediately. We were given instructions to change our thinking about the size and scope of Action Projects, limiting them to six to nine months, and stagger their schedules among fall, spring, and summer. These changes resulted in the completion of the sustainability project and adjustments to the scope, timing, and reporting of the other projects. All four of our Action Projects were last reviewed in April 2015, and the Project Web site calls for responses within 60 days. Please note that, based on advice from AQIP representatives at the Strategy Forum, we are delaying reporting of the remaining two projects until their scheduled implementation in the new schedule. Although the reports will not appear until well beyond the 60 days of their previous review, significant planning and work are occurring to frame the Action Project activities into the new AQIP Action Project scope and schedule.

Ohio University is pleased to have had five other touchpoints with HLC in recent years. First, we applied for and were approved to open two new additional locations: Dublin, OH and Cleveland, OH. Second, we hosted an additional location visit to three of our locations that are tied directly to our regional campuses: Cambridge (Eastern and Zanesville campuses); Pickerington (Lancaster Campus); and Proctorville (Southern Campus). Third, we were invited to apply for and were approved for HLC’s Notification Program for additional locations. Fourth,
we applied for and were given full approval for offering distance and correspondence courses and programs. Fifth, we submitted screening materials for review of contractual and consortial relationships. HLC reviewers concluded that our relationships did not extend to academic programming, and no further review was needed.

Actions Capitalizing on Systems Appraisal Feedback

The following observations and recommendations were gleaned from Ohio University’s AQIP Systems Appraisal report received in February 2014. The AQIP Task Force reviewed and analyzed this 50 page document with over 150 observations and continuous quality improvement recommendations. The AQIP Task Force condensed and prioritized the recommendations listed below as the most important and relevant actions that Ohio University should take. The numbers in parentheses refer to the sections in the Systems Portfolio and Appraisal documents (SC refers to the “Strategic Challenges” section of the Systems Appraisal).

Actions Capitalizing on Strategy Forum Participation

In April 2015, a team of eight Ohio University representatives participated in the Strategy Forum. Present were the University’s president, executive vice president and provost, Chair of Faculty Senate, academic deans of the colleges of Arts and Sciences, Fine Arts, University College, the Executive Dean of Regional Higher Education, and the Associate Provost for Institutional Accreditation. The membership of this team represented a level of renewed support by the University’s executive administration. The 2015 Strategy Forum was the first attended by Ohio University’s president and provost since the University joined AQIP in 2002. The members of this particular team previously had not had opportunities to work together in such a close, collaborative format. Prior to the Forum event, the team selected academic assessment as the designated action project. We came to the Forum with an existing assessment action project that was very broad in scope. It included three individually large components: developing and enhancing learning objectives and assessment plans for all academic programs; assessing eLearning quality of service; and implementing a newly revised academic program review process. Each of these components was expected to take years to mature.

Participation in the Strategy Forum enabled the team members to understand that the previous action project was unnecessarily ambiguous, ambitious, and difficult to manage. Furthermore, the team realized that in its previous project, it would likely lead to disappointing results. As a result of discussions among team members during the Forum’s exercises, and because of the new, smaller, quicker AQIP Action Project paradigm being introduced, the team developed a new Action Project with very specific components and tasks that realistically could be completed in the 2015-16 academic year. Work began on planning to implement this action project immediately after the team returned to campus. While Ohio University had previously dutifully completed its Action Projects within each annual cycle, this new project from the 2015 Strategy Forum was initiated with more energy and enthusiasm than before. In addition, the team, in consultation with the AQIP Task Force, decided to complete a successful but long-
standing project (sustainability) and re-focus two other projects (universal design and curricular themes) to fit the new Action Project schedule and protocol. Furthermore, Ohio University’s AQIP Task Force will take lessons learned at the 2015 Strategy Forum and apply them in a more effective approach to identifying and carrying out future Action Projects.

Describe How Action Projects Have Advanced the University’s CQI Efforts

Ohio University’s three current Action Projects are now much more evidence-driven than before. The new reporting format is more clear and evidence-based. Our newly revised Action Project on assessment culture revises our previous Action Project on Academic Assessment. During our Strategy Forum in April 2015, AQIP leaders encouraged us to focus our Action Project to include activities that could be completed within nine months. Ohio University has a long history with academic assessment, beginning in the 1980's. With encouragement from the most recent Systems Appraisal, the University leadership recognized the need to revitalize its academic assessment efforts. The overall vision of the project is to recognize, develop, support, and share existing, proven practices among Ohio University faculty for improving student learning and expanding opportunities for student success. The driving force behind this vision is the need to demonstrate, externally and internally, the continuous improvement process for ensuring that our academic programs are current and of high quality. All academic departments/schools, colleges, and regional campuses are increasingly involved in academic assessment activities.

Even with the new Action Project protocol and schedule, we anticipate that this new Action Project will take up to three years for all components to mature. As a result, we are dividing it into phases. The first phase is expected to occur and be completed during the 2015-16 academic year. As this project matures and evolves, additional activities will be identified and added to expand Ohio University's capacity for an institution-wide culture of assessment.

Update on Assessment of Student Learning & Recent Successes

During preparation of the AQIP Systems Portfolio which was submitted in November 2013, numerous discussions occurred and inventories taken of the ways Ohio University's academic colleges support teaching, learning, and assessment. Due to its decentralized academic structure, responsibility for implementing and revitalizing academic assessment was delegated to the academic college and campus deans. Ohio University is a large research university of nearly 40,000 students on six campuses, ten academic colleges, and over 60 diverse academic
departments comprised of 1,900 faculty.

Following our submission of the Systems Portfolio, each college and campus began a process of working with their academic programs to develop or update their learning objectives and develop more formal assessment methods and action plans. All of Ohio University's academic programs have been working on revitalizing their assessment plans. Each program's faculty are expected to participate in the development of their assessment plans. Ohio University is attempting to redirect resources and attention to make significant, sustainable progress with academic assessment that yields meaningful evidence for academic planning. Consultants were
brought to the University to work with academic programs’ faculty in developing appropriate and assessable learning objectives. Colleges have begun to post programs' learning objectives on their own Web sites. A leading example of this work is from the College of Arts and Sciences: https://www.ohio.edu/cas/about/assessment/learning/index.cfm#_

In October 2014, at the recommendation of the AQIP Task Force, the provost convened the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Advisory Committee to help Ohio University be more intentional in its mission to support the intellectual and personal development of its students and its vision to be the nation’s best transformative learning community. The purpose of this committee is to provide a vehicle for Ohio University to coordinate and support teaching, learning, and assessment for its diverse academic programs and levels. It is intended to provide a venue for academic leaders and innovators from the faculty to discuss and plan how Ohio University should best support teaching, learning, and assessment as a long-term, sustainable venture. In part, the charge to this committee is based on these specific 2014 AQIP Systems Appraisal recommendations:

. . . directly address how [Ohio University] supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the
future.

. . . develop a new student learning assessment based upon a student success model in order to institute continuous improvement processes.

. . . create a systematic, institutional-level program of assessment that will define its vision for student learning across the university in order to inform institutional strategic decision-making, allocation of resources, and identification of best practices.

The committee was charged with identifying University-wide teaching and learning expectations based on Ohio University’s mission, vision, and the 4 x 4 strategic plan; bringing together existing ideas, best practices, and innovations on teaching, learning, and assessment from Ohio University’s academic units and share them across the University; recommending ways in which Ohio University can coordinate the increasing learning support needs of students and faculty, including ways to address differences in students’ learning styles and experiences, use of technology, and support of instructional innovations; and monitoring academic program assessment.

In September 2014 and again in February 2015, Dr. Doug Eder was invited to campus to lead discussions, conduct workshops, and meet with faculty on assessing learning objectives. Dr. Eder met with representatives from all academic program representatives and continued consulting with many of them throughout the year. These programs included departments in the College of Arts and Sciences and schools in the Colleges of Fine Arts and Health Sciences & Professions. Dr. Eder recognized the differences among Ohio University’s academic units in their approaches to assessment. Among his recommendations were the need to commit visible
resources and promotion from central leadership to emphasize the importance of improving teaching and learning though assessment. The University took this feedback, along with recommendations from the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee and the AQIP Task Force. Formal communication to the faculty from the president and the provost about assessment occurred in spring 2015. The president and the provost issued a joint letter to the faculty. Among other things, it asked for “support in capturing assessment evidence that truly reveal each program’s commitment to academic quality and in making such evidence explicit . . . that information collected about student learning objectives informs your programs’ academic programming and review.” Also in spring 2015, similar communication from the Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment Committee reiterated that:

...establishing program learning objectives, assuring student learning, and improving programs are responsibilities of the faculty. Criterion 4 requires
demonstrations of program effectiveness and educational quality through processes that (1) assess student achievement of learning outcomes and (2) use assessment information to improve student learning. Because faculty are the drivers of OHIO’s curriculum, teaching, and student learning, faculty are
responsible for demonstrating continuous improvement to teaching and learning through student achievement of learning outcomes.

In addition, to help communicate the importance of accreditation and the assessment of student learning to the university community, the TLA Committee created a flyer “Accreditation and Assessment: Summary for Faculty and Instructors,” summarizing what Ohio faculty and instructors should know and do with regard to student learning assessment and continuous improvement. This flyer was distributed via email to all Ohio University faculty and staff in spring, 2015 and again in fall, 2015.

Using learning objectives as its foundation, the University Curriculum Council revised the criteria for and process of its seven-year academic program review. A phased, three-year implementation began two years ago, giving programs under review time to collect the necessary student outcome data. Full implementation is expected in 2016-17. The provost appointed a new Faculty Fellow from the University's senior faculty, to assist in administering the program
reviews and ensure their success. In fall 2014, 35 faculty reviewers were recruited and charged with catching up in the schedule of reviews that was delayed while the criteria were revised. Academic administrators from the Executive Vice President and Provost's Office, and members of Faculty Senate and the University Curriculum Council are working to implement the revised review guidelines. Significant progress has been made in conducting the reviews in 2014-15 and ensuring they are expedited through the review process.

The renewal of learning objectives and the development of actionable assessment plans by the academic units caused many faculty to realize the need for the University to be more intentional and coordinated in its support of teaching, learning, and assessment. In February 2015, the provost created a new position, Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovations. Academic Technologies, eLearning, and the Center for Teaching and Learning were reorganized under this new position. All of these staff are working within the TLA Committee, which is
seeking ways to institutionalize a uniformly supportive approach to assessment of learning objectives.

The Office of Institutional Research is in the process of creating a centralized office of assessment, which is to be called the Assessment Clearinghouse. Existing Institutional Research staff with assessment expertise is being reorganized into this new unit. The purpose of this unit is to support our academic programs’ efforts to assess teaching and learning. Among its immediate plans are to create Web-based resources, such as a permanent, centralized repository for assessment plans and reports; serve as an informational resource for academic units conducting assessments; and to serve as a liaison between Institutional Research and the academic
departments/schools. Institutional Research continues to do student outcome assessments in the form of retention and graduation rate studies, two different follow-up surveys of graduates, and by meeting the assessment requirements of the Voluntary System of Accountability (NSSE, standardized testing of general education skills using ACT’s CAAP test, and other assessments as required).

Beginning in spring 2015, the TLA Committee undertook a comprehensive inventory, through an online survey, of all academic programs’ learning objectives and assessment plans. This survey is a starting point for the Institutional Research Assessment Clearinghouse. With a 90% response rate, preliminary results indicate that 94% of undergraduate programs have student learning outcomes, 80% have identified a set of current measures or methods to evaluate student learning outcomes, 66% have collected data based on current assessment measures or methods, and 71% are using current student learning outcomes measures to make improvements. Whereas, at the graduate preliminary results show that 68% of undergraduate programs have student learning outcomes, 58% have identified a set of current measures or methods to evaluate
student learning outcomes, 45% have collected data based on current assessment measures or methods, and 44% are using current student learning outcomes measures to make improvements. The next step in the process of building the Institutional Research Assessment Clearinghouse is to work with departments /schools to create executive summaries of their assessment plans to be listed on the Assessment Clearinghouse website. Development of the website and collection of the executive summaries are being done simultaneously.

In collaboration with representatives from each academic college and Institutional Research, the Career & Leadership Development Center created and implemented a customized first destination survey, following National Association of Colleges and Employers standards that included college-specific questions from three colleges. This survey is a university-wide effort to uniformly collect critical outcome data during the first six months post-graduation, which complements the one-year and five-year surveys done by Institutional Research. We
expect to obtain usable data from at least 65% of graduates. Beginning January 2016, results will be shared with each college, Institutional Research, and other assessment professionals on campus to use for the purpose of improving planning, services and programs across the University.

Ohio University’s Libraries provide strong support for teaching, learning, and assessment. Over the past two years, the Libraries installed an experimental, active learning classroom for the use of librarians and archivists working with courses that have information
literacy-related assignments. This technology enriched classroom includes flexible, adaptable
furniture that easily allows students to move, work, and share alone or in small or large groups. It was designed to align learning spaces and with pedagogy that encourages direct student interaction with library digital resources. The room was designed by a team of teaching librarians who reviewed the literature on active learning classrooms and performed a local needs assessment with all of the Ohio University librarians who teach. In 2014, a group of librarians
completed a mixed-methods research project to study the information needs of graduate students
at Ohio University. The results are being used to develop workshops and other resources to help
graduate students cultivate their research skills and include partnerships in development with the Graduate Research and Writing Center, the Graduate College, and others on campus. In 2015, a group of librarians received a grant from the University’s 1804 Fund for an undergraduate learning project that incentivizes faculty to work with a librarian to revise assignments and syllabi based on knowledge of student research habits from national assessments like Project Information Literacy.

Highlights of Institutional Priorities

Highlights Related to Distance Education

In 2014-15, as a result of applying to HLC to increase its distance education offerings and HLC’s subsequent policy change, Ohio University’s stipulation regarding distance and correspondence courses and programs was upgraded to “Approved for distance education courses and programs. Approved for correspondence education courses and programs.”

In January 2015, because of distance learning’s growing strategic importance to Ohio University, eLearning engaged a consultant to perform a voluntary program review of its distance education operation. Following is a summary of that assessment, paraphrased from the consultant’s report: Coordination of Ohio University’s distance learning degree programs is decentralized among the
academic colleges and regional campuses. eLearning Ohio provides or arranges for student support services, ensures compliance with state and federal requirements, and markets programs. It may also partner with academic programs in coordinating distance program development.
Distance learning continues to grow at Ohio University, and the report identified a number of
opportunities for the University to continue to be successful in this area:
Distance learning strategic plan
Data collection and evaluation of effectiveness/assessment
Selection/approval process for program development
Faculty/instructional support
Policies/procedures guiding distance education

Building on work that had begun the previous year, in February 2015 eLearning, Academic Technologies, and the Center for Teaching and Learning were reorganized under a new Senior Vice Provost for Instructional Innovation (SVPII). With input from the consultant’s report and academic leaders familiar with distance learning at Ohio University, the SVPII created
a discussion document to address these and other opportunities to enhance distance education at the University. Three fundamental principles were identified to guide this work:

1. Distance learning should be thought of as a modality, like a classroom option, that is available at the course and program level. Fundamentally, we believe distance learning is not a distinct thing wholly or even largely removed from traditional educational models. It is a delivery option, a learning environment that is on a continuum with the variety of modalities already in play on our campuses—office hours, seminar rooms, lecture halls, active learning classrooms, labs, internships and so on.
2. Distance learning should be treated, to the greatest degree possible, in the same way
   traditional academic operations are treated. Distance learning should be managed operationally by having like needs integrated into operations that are already in place to support traditional learning modalities where possible. For instance, student recruitment, marketing and enrollment management for distance programs should be the responsibility of the same unit that manages this for campus-based programs. There, are, however, unique needs that arise in the context of fully distance learning (e.g., instructional design, web development, remote proctoring) that need to be acknowledged and made available to support instructors.
3. Students enrolled in distance programs should experience a high quality of care and made to feel a part of the Ohio University community. The University’s distinctive ability to cultivate an attachment to place and community is one of its most powerful and unique advantages. This culture should be extended to our distance education community.

Given the above discussion document principles, the following identified services and functions are assigned to responsible units in a way that is built upon a reconceptualization of eLearning as a service unit. This next generation eLearning unit will be primarily responsible for leadership, project management, administrative support, student support, and coordination across many units which need to be engaged for successful distance learning operations. The vision is for an eLearning unit that supports both a turnkey operation from the perspective of academic units and a seamless high touch enrolled student experience (i.e., many units involved, but coordinated by project management and service center within eLearning).

A more mature distance learning operation will require investment across administrative units (Enrollment Management, eLearning, Information Technology, and many others) that will increase as distance learning grows. Academic units may pursue and require support for distance learning operations more or less aggressively than other units. Therefore, it is recommended that the budgeting model for eLearning be reclassified as a service center (horizontal) in the RCM model. This will require the development of a satisfactory model, or weighting factor in RCM, to account for a fair and adequate allocation and service management.

Overview Information on Additional Instructional Locations and Dual Enrollment

Handbooks and Catalogs

Faculty Handbook:
https://www.ohio.edu/facultysenate/handbook/upload/Faculty-Handbook-fall-2015-2.pdf 

Classified Senate By-Laws:
https://www.ohio.edu/csen/upload/Bylaws.pdf 

Administrative Senate Constitution and By-Laws:
https://www.ohio.edu/adminsenate/bylaws/constitution.cfm 

Ohio University Policy and Procedure Manual:
https://www.ohio.edu/policy/ 

Student Handbook:
https://www.ohio.edu/students/handbook/index.cfm

Undergraduate Catalog (Choose Undergraduate Catalog 2015-15 from drop-down menu):
http://www.catalogs.ohio.edu/

Graduate Catalog (Choose Graduate Catalog 2013-15 from drop-down menu):
http://www.catalogs.ohio.edu/