Lesson Learned from the Standard’s Pilot Project

1. Lesson Learned from the Standard’s Pilot Project The Impact of the Standard’s Reviews on the Organization/Institution

2. Impact of the Standards • Amy Bartnick Blume, IFSA-Butler • Rebecca Hovey, SIT Study Abroad • Rosemary Sands, St. Norbert College • Bruce Sillner, SUNY New Paltz

3. Impact of the Standards • Scope of the pilot review • Motivations for pilot participation • Survey from peer reviewers • Expectations and outcomes

4. Scope of the Pilot Review: Overview • Organization and program specific interface • Single program vs. large set of programs • Quality/integrity of management structures • Query Response Grid for rapid assessment for programs

5. Scope of the Review: Query Response Action Plan Grid

6. Scope of the Pilot Review: Institutional Capacity Outcomes • Instilling an Assessment culture • Merits of assessment and evaluation • Operational assessment tools • Forum standards adaptation

7. Motivations for Pilot Participation • Approval/validation • Reinforcement of needs • Review of internal procedures/documents • Altruism • Increased visibility (internal/external)

8. Motivations for Pilot Participation • Approval/validation • Peer approval • Showcase what and how we do it • Peer validation • Self-approval • Reinforcement of needs • Tool for personnel and funding needs • Lever to higher administration/consultant

9. Motivations for Pilot Participation • Review of internal procedures/documents • Fresh eyes • Self assessment of “right” • Self assessment of areas where lacking • Altruism • Contribution to study abroad community • Benchmarks

10. Motivations for Pilot Participation • Increased visibility (internal/external) • Recognition by peers • Put organization on the map • Opportunity to let campus know recognition

11. Survey from Peer Reviews • Reaction from upper administration? • Organization receptive to change? • Report and process make impact? How? • Did organization suggest areas where you could assist office? • Strike a balance between identifying problem/providing solution? How?

12. Expectations and Outcomes • For the Program/Office • For the University/Organization • For the Study Abroad Community

13. Expectations/Outcomes • Program/Office • Insights and recommendations from outside reviewers • Analysis of strengths and weaknesses • Direction for future development • Comparison against national/international standards

14. Expectations/Outcomes • Program/Office • Validated staff concerns • Clarified issues and provided context • Helped in setting priorities for future development • Opportunity to participate in Forum’s QUIP through expedited process • Awareness of additional resources

15. Expectations/Outcomes • University/Organization • Contribution to institutional assessment • Quality commitment documented from outside • Positive marketing value • Recognition and judgment • Study Abroad Community • Contribution to future • Contribution to profession

16. Discussion/Questions • Are there other impacts that we have not mentioned? • How have you shared these results internally and externally? • What have been positive repercussions on campus/organization? Do you have the resources to deal with these? • Given these impacts, why would your organization decide NOT to participate in the QUIP process? What are your campus barriers and obstacles?

17. Contact Information • Amy Bartnick Blume • abartnic@butler.edu • Rebecca Hovey • rebecca.hovey@worldlearning.org • Rosemary Sands • rosemary.sands@snc.edu • Bruce Sillner • sillnerb@newpaltz.edu