1 / 15

The KIG Committee

REPORT OF THE STETSON UNIVERSITY KEY INDICATORS ACADEMIC WORK GROUP (KIG) February 2, 2010 Revised March 12, 2010. The KIG Committee. John K. Schorr , Senior Professor of Sociology, Chair Erich Friedman , Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science

winter-marsh
Télécharger la présentation

The KIG Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REPORT OF THE STETSON UNIVERSITY KEY INDICATORS ACADEMIC WORK GROUP (KIG) February 2, 2010Revised March 12, 2010

  2. The KIG Committee John K. Schorr, Senior Professor of Sociology, Chair Erich Friedman, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science Laura Glander, Administrative Assistant II, Department of Physics W. Tandy Grubbs, Professor of Chemistry W. Daniel Hale, Professor of Psychology Janis B. Kindred, Professor of Music Susan Ryan, Professor and Associate Director of the duPont-Ball Library Theodore J. Surynt, Professor of Decision and Information Sciences John M. Tichenor, Director, Institutional Research Office, Assistant Professor of Decision and Information Sciences

  3. Charge to the Committee “Define key indicators and analyses that can be used by academic leaders in the College, Schools, Departments, and Programs to study the “economies” of our academic programs (e.g., course and program enrollment distributions, student-faculty ratios, faculty workload, major and minor counts, change of major paths, program costs, net revenue)” Source: SU Planning Document www.stetson.edu/administration/academics/planning.pdf

  4. Clarification of the Charge Once formed, the committee sought clarification from the provost about the scope of their work. After discussion between the provost and the committee, it was agreed that: • The work of KIG is to determine and recommend indicators for academic planning at Stetson. These indicators should be suitable for the support of academic decision making and to serve as guides for academic planning. • The focus of KIG is the academic program (i.e., data for the indicators would be collected at the departmental or program level). • Indicators should apply to all undergraduate and graduate programs on the DeLand and Celebration campuses. The College of Law may also use some of the indicators recommended by KIG, but the College of Law should not be a specific focus for the current KIG effort.

  5. Clarification of the Charge (continued) • KIG’s task is to define the indicators needed and direct, where necessary, how they should be gathered in order to build a useful academic program review system. KIG is not asked to gather these data; nor is it asked to set university targets for the indicators recommended. • KIG recommendations should assume that data for each indicator recommended would be collected annually by the appropriate academic or administrative unit and data entry, storage, and access would be coordinated by the Institutional Research Office. • The general goal of KIG is to recommend indicators for a system of academic decision making and planning that is more data-driven, principle-driven, and transparent.  This system will help to determine what constellation of academically excellent programs can be offered at Stetson University in a way that is financially sustainable.

  6. Committee Organization After agreement on the charge and the scope of KIG’s work, the committee determined that the following themes were central to the development of a system of indicators for academic programs at Stetson (committee members responsible in parentheses): • Measures of program cost, program revenue, and program net revenue (Grubbs, Ryan, Surynt). • Measures of program student demand (Hale, Schorr). • Measures of program faculty load (Glander, Kindred). • Measures of program quality/reputation (Friedman).

  7. Findings and Recommendations After two months of research and discussion, and after considering hundreds of possible indicators, the KIG committee agreed to recommend 28 indicators. We recommend that each of these indicators be based initially on a 3-year average rather than a one-year result. It was felt that use of a 3-year average would reduce the effects of one-year programmatic variations that might not be typical (e.g., sabbatical leaves, large expenditures for equipment, an exceptionally large graduating class, etc.). As the data base envisioned by KIG grows over the next few years, we also recommend examination of the possible use of 5-year averages; this would further reduce the effect of one-year fluctuations in program results.

  8. KIG Topic Group 1: Net Revenue and Cost 1. Program/Department Net Revenue ( Model 1 = sum of tuition & fees for each departmental major or program participant - unfunded discount / Departmental or Program FTE Faculty). (Source: Finance Office) 2. Program/Department Net Revenue ( Model 2 = Departmental major or program annual CHG / sum of all SU annual CHG X Annual SU Net Tuition & Fee Revenue / Departmental or Program FTE Faculty). (Source: Finance Office) 3. Program/Department External Funding ( Revenue from external grants, contributions, earnings, etc.). (Source: Finance Office) 4. Program/Departmental Labor Costs (All faculty & staff salary and benefits /dept. for A&S & SoBA & school for SOM) (Source: Finance Office). 5. Program/Departmental Direct Costs (All non-salary expenditures/dept). (Source: at College & School level Finance Office, Dept. Level TBD). 6. Program/Departmental Net Revenue (Total Net Revenue Model 1 or 2 + External Funding - Labor and Direct Costs) (Source: TBD)

  9. KIG Topic Group 2: Student Demand 7. Course Demand (Total CHG by Department or Program) (Source: IRO) 8. Course Demand per FTE Faculty (Total CHG by Department or Program / Departmental or Program FTE Faculty)(Source: IRO) 9. Academic Major and Minor Demand (Total Majors and Minors by Department or Program)(Source:IRO) 10. Academic Major Demand per FTE Faculty (Total Majors in Department or Program / Department or Program FTE Faculty) (Source: IRO) 11. Graduating Majors (Total Annual Graduates by Department or Program) (Source: IRO) 12. Graduating Majors / Faculty FTE (Total Annual Graduates by Department or Program/ Department or Program Faculty FTE) (Source: IRO) 13. Prospective Student Demand (# of prospective students expressing interest in a department. or program) (Source: IRO) 14. Geographic Student Demand (# of prospective students expressing interest in a department or program by geographic region) (Source: IRO)

  10. KIG Topic Group 3: Faculty Workload 15. Standard Format Course CHG (lecture, discussion, seminar courses, etc.) (Source: course designation TBD) 16. Intensive Format Course CHG (writing intensive, theater/music production, lecture w/ lab, ensemble, etc.) (Source: course designation source TBD) 17. Independent Format Course CHG (seminar, thesis, internships, advanced tutorial, independent study, lab-format course, studio, etc.)(Source: course designation source TBD) 18. Departmental/Program Scholarly Load (papers, publications, performances, exhibits, etc.) (Source: IRO, Deans, Chairs) 19. Departmental/Program Service Load (committee/professional memberships, chairs, administration; community & public service, equipment maintenance, etc) (Source: IRO, Deans, Chairs) 20. Departmental/Program Student Services Load (recruiting, advising, outreach, alumni support, etc.) (Source: IRO, Deans, Chairs) 21. Departmental/Program Academic Contact Hours/ Faculty FTE (Source: Contact hours formulation TBD)

  11. KIG Topic Group 4: Quality 22. Departmental/Program Student Admissions Quality Points (Source: IRO) 23. Departmental/Program Student Quality SU Jr./ Sr. Non-Major GPA (Source: IRO) 24. Departmental/Program Alumni Quality Post-SU Activity (Career progress, graduate/professional school, etc) (Source: Career Services for job placement rates, Student Clearinghouse through IRO for schools attended after Stetson) 25. Departmental/Program Faculty Scholarship Quality (Scholarly production, awards, grants, etc.) (Source: IRO, Deans, Chairs) 26. Departmental/Program Faculty Teaching Quality (Course evaluations, peer reviews, etc.) (Source: IRO, Deans, Chairs) 27. Departmental/Program Alumni Perception of Program Quality (Senior surveys, alumni surveys) (Source: IRO) 28. Departmental/Program Learning Outcomes Assessments (Source: TBD)

  12. Committee Concerns and Possible Shortcomings The KIG recognizes that Key Indicators are essential in determining the viability of our current and future programs, and we were happy to be able to participate in building a healthier institution. We hope that the KIs we have presented will help to develop a University that is both financially stable and academically excellent. We also recognize that a system of indicators summarizes the rich complexity of the academic program at Stetson, and therefore much detail may be lost in the process. As we developed our system of indicators, we sought to keep in mind possible exceptions and shortcomings in the system. We list these here for the consideration of the academic leaders who will employ our system in the academic planning process.

  13. Committee Concerns and Possible Shortcomings(continued) • Is the School of Music a single program or many programs for the purposes of this system? • How will we define Discovery for the purposes of the system recommended here? • How will the movement to the course unit system affect our measures, especially those employing three-year rolling averages? • Will administrative units be able to provide the required data input in a timely fashion and at the level of specificity required? • Will measuring these indicators and not others affect our academic program in the way U.S. News rankings have affected college and university behavior and reporting?

  14. Committee Concerns and Possible Shortcomings(continued) • Will looking at unfunded scholarships as departmental expenditures penalize departments with large numbers of students with large unfunded merit aid packages? • Can we measure program quality without looking at student academic work in that program? Should we include a portfolio of academic work as an indicator of program quality? • Finally, we recognize that indicators of net revenue and student demand are the easiest to quantify and employ. However, our recommended system of KIs integrates faculty effort and academic quality measures into the program evaluation process. While more difficult to measure, the KIG believes that measures of faculty effort and academic quality are essential components of the program review process.

  15. Questions, Suggestions, and Comments

More Related