goals progress... · Web viewDuring the course of two years, several university-wide working teams, comprised of representatives from multiple campus units, have been at work planning

1

University of Wisconsin-WhitewaterStrategic Planning Goals Progress

Report 2012-2014

Summary of Accomplishments: 2012-2014 UWW Strategic Planning Goals

2

A Special tribute to WARHAWKS for an amazing season of play in 2013-2014 year: (1) winning a record six National Championships, (2) achieving unprecedented trifecta in the NCAA sports history, and, (3) achieving best finish ever, second place in the 2013-14 NCAA Director’s cup (highest in UWW history).


3

Final Report:


The University of Wisconsin-Whitewater presents a two-year strategic plan at the beginning of each biennium which recognizes key priority areas and goals to advance campus strategic mission and values. This process is in line with the Higher Learning Commission’s guidelines requiring institutions to engage in effective strategic planning on a regular cycle. The 2012-2014 strategic progress report, herewith, highlights goals and progress on each of the five strategic priorities, celebrates accomplishments on several benchmarks, and outlines future recommendations and action plans for consideration in the subsequent biennium and beyond for continuous institutional effectiveness. As such, the five broad strategic themes are tied with clearly defined goals and benchmarks which have been the campus road map for planning and achieving success. The campus has embarked on an ambitious, outcome-based, plan to achieve goals in the current 2012-2014 biennium related to: Programs and Learning, the Scholar Educator Community, Diversity and Global Perspectives, Regional Engagement and Professional and Personal Integrity. During the course of two years, several university-wide working teams, comprised of representatives from multiple campus units, have been at work planning and undertaking various initiatives in an effort to advance the goals. Thus, the report is a collaborative effort of team leaders and a broad array of campus constituents.

The content is organized into four sections under each goal: executive summary, measures and accomplishments, future themes /goals /recommendations, supporting material and links to navigate easy reading.

PROGRAMS AND LEARNING

Goal I: Review the current academic program array (undergraduate and graduate), adjusting program size and creating new academic programs that align with the university mission, resources, evolving workforce, institutional plans for growth, and projected state, regional, and national needs.

Measure: Did each academic college review its program array? YES

Team Leader: Greg Cook, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs


4

Team members: Christine Clements, Dean, College of Business & Economics; Katy Heyning, Dean, College of Education & Professional Studies; David Travis, Dean, College of Letters & Sciences; Mark McPhail, Dean, College of Arts & Communication; John Stone, Dean, Graduate Studies & Continuing EducationOther participants: College assistant and associate deans, department chairs, department faculty and staff.

Frequency of the meetings: Goal leaders discussed the project at many of the bi-weekly meetings of the Deans Council.

Executive Summary:

The academic community within all four colleges and the school of graduate studies has been in discussions from fall 2012 through spring 2014, reviewing their academic program array. The Academic Affairs Staff had a retreat in August 2013 to address these issues, with each of the five Deans issuing short summaries of their program array analysis and planning. Enrollment data for the last ten years were available for each major, emphasis, minor, and graduate program, and these data were reviewed within the academic departments and considered in relation to the campus mission, student demand, market analyses, regional needs and other available information. Summaries (measures and accomplishments) from each college are provided below. Overall, the largest areas for potential growth are in health-related fields (health science, health management, and health education), and the trends indicate further development and growth of academic programs that are interdisciplinary in nature and/or represent global or international issues.

a. Measures and Accomplishments:

1 . College of Arts and Communication

College of Arts and Communication

Measures Recommendations

Maintain All programs

Increase Media Arts & Game Development Art & Design Graphic Design Dance International Journalism Music Education

Decrease None


http://www.uww.edu/irp/dashboards

5

Eliminate None

Add Creative Enterprise Sports Communication & Production Interdisciplinary MSE in Digital Media & Game

Development Revise the graduate program in Communication

Summary Statement: Although enrollments in the college have remained stable for the past decade, the college has made significant contributions toward supporting increasing enrollments across the university at large. Both GENED 110: World of the Arts (with a 44% expansion of available seats over the period of review) and COMM 110: Introduction to Human Communication (with a 22% expansion of available seats) have grown in response to increasing demands of the university’s general education curriculum. The Music Department has also contributed significantly by providing the Marching Band as a service to athletics programs and as a General Education-physical education (GP) course.

2. College of Business & Economics

College of Business & Economics


Maintain All BBA majors (except, perhaps General Management) M.B.A. (Business Administration) M.P.A. (Accounting)

Increase Water Business D.B.A. (Doctorate of Business Administration)—new for

Fall 2014 M.S. Applied Economics—new for Fall 2014 M.S. Environmental Safety & Health

Decrease None

Eliminate Considering merging General Business and General Management Majors. If so, this would lead to some of the suggested management-related areas referred to below as emphases.

Add Health Care Management Not-for-Profit Management Business Analytics (possibly) The Finance Department is evaluating its curriculum

against Certified Financial Planning (CFP) certification to


6

identify gaps in the curriculum, with a plan to develop curriculum to close the gaps.

Explore: M.S. Finance Integration of creativity and innovation into the business

curriculum, perhaps as a joint effort with faculty from the college of Arts and Communication.

Summary Statement: Prominent interests emerged in health care management, social entrepreneurship, and not-for-profit business. Developing programs that would attract more female and under-represented minority students has been a focus. In addition to developing new programs, it should be noted that current academic programs are constantly evolving and improving in response to new knowledge in the disciplines, changes in the business environment, and accreditation demands. Another important consideration is that the MBA market (nationally) is not expected to grow, and enrollments are generally down in most MBA programs due to the increasing number of available programs. Strategic development and expansion of other graduate programs will be important.

3. College of Education and Professional Studies

College of Education and Professional Studies


Maintain UWSSLEC (library media program) Secondary Education programs All current programs in HPERC PE Major with Licensure Athletic Coaching Education minor MSE-PD with Health, PE and Coaching Emphasis All programs in Special Education M.S. Counseling M.S.E. Special Education

Increase All cohort licensure programs such as Gifted and Talented program (graduate), Standards and Assessment (certificate), International Study Abroad (travel study linked to iGEM), Urban Education (currently module, would like minor)

Early Childhood Education – area of need in the U.S. PE Major with HHPR emphasis Health promotion minor Recreation and Leisure Studies Minor MSE-PD with an emphasis in HHPR BSE in CC:LD/EBD and BSE in CC:CD (Special Education

due to high need in the state and nationally


7

M.S. Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis M.S.E. School Business Management M.S. Communicative Sciences and Disorders

Decrease Elementary education: steer students into other majors of high demand

Eliminate M.S.E. Business & Marketing Education Possible elimination of higher education emphasis in

Counselor Education (now that we have HELEAD emphasis in MSE-PD program)

Add Digital Media and Learning major (interdisciplinary) Create a School of Allied Health Professions (interdisciplinary,

cross campus) Pre-health general education science major with introduction to

clinical practice that entails some pre-professional rotations (Communication Disorders and others)

Speech Assistant major Add STEM or STEAM emphasis in secondary and elementary,

perhaps a new minor Computer science education minor for some areas leading to

licensure Strength and Conditioning minor, certificate and emphasis Gerontology emphasis Exercise Science, Sport Management and Personal Training

emphases, minors or certificates Board Certified Behavior Analyst program at the Master’s

Level (Special Education) M.S.E. Digital Learning Certificates or emphases in Counselor Education in LGBT,

trauma, grief, aging populations Web-based counseling program emphasis Explore: Ed.D. Counseling AuD program in Communication Disorders (shortage area) EdD in Higher Education with tracks in Sports Administration

and Student Services

Summary Statement: Many of the educational futurists suggest that we will be offering fully online teacher education programs with flexible and transferrable credits, and programs leading to PK12 online teaching certification. They also anticipate moving more programs INTO the PK12 schools with parents, teachers and administrators being the instructor of record for students who are residents/interns in the school over a full year period. There’s an increasing need for dual licensure (with one license being content specific and the other being special education specific) in all majors and minors.


8

4. College of Letters and Sciences

College of Letters and Sciences


Maintain All programs currently offered except the ones listed under increase, decrease, or eliminate. It is important to note that several of the programs are evolving as interdisciplinary. This means, the campus should allocate additional resources to support shared programs, a paradigm shift in the way budgets are allocated.

Increase Engineering (Physics) Legal Studies (Political Science) Asian and Japanese Studies (Sociology, Geography, Foreign

Languages) Environmental Science (Geography, Biology) Computer Sciences (Computer Science) Public History Emphasis (History) Liberal Studies (Philosophy & Religious Studies) Geographic Information Science Emphasis and Certificate

(Geography & Geology) Geology Emphasis (Geography & Geology) Professional Writing Emphasis (Languages & Literatures) Film Studies Minor (Languages & Literatures) Family Health Studies Minor (Sociology) Race & Ethnic Studies Minor (Women’s Studies/Race &

Ethnic Studies) Philosophy Minor (Philosophy & Religious Studies) Integrated Science & Business (Interdisciplinary)

Decrease Physical/Environmental Track in Geography (due to Environmental Science Major)

Anthropology Forensics Creative Writing/Literature Public History Certificate (replacing Public History Minor) French and German Majors (lack of student interest; national

trends)

Eliminate Physical/Environmental Emphasis in Geography English Writing Education (Languages & Literatures) Gender and Ethnic Studies Certificate (Women’s Studies) Forensics Minor (Sociology, Criminology, and Anthropology) Psychological Sciences Emphasis in Psychology Public History minor (History)


9

Ecology Emphasis in Biological Sciences Applied Math (Mathematics)

Add Behavioral Health Emphasis (Psychology, Interdisciplinary) Health Studies/Sciences Major or Minor (Sociology,

Interdisciplinary) Water Science Major or Minor (Biology, Chemistry,

Geography & Geology, Interdisciplinary) Linguistics Emphasis (Languages & Literatures) Chinese Studies Minor (Sociology; Languages & Literatures) Professional Spanish minor (Languages & Literatures) Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Emphasis (Biological

Sciences) Nanotechnology Major (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) Applied Statistics and/or Actuarial Math Emphasis

(Mathematics) Biomedical Engineering Major (Physics, Biology, Chemistry) Green Chemistry Emphasis (Chemistry) Pharmaceutical/Medicinal Emphasis (Chemistry) M.S.W. (Master of Social Work) M.S. Computer Science Explore: M.S. Applied Science (or Nanotechnology) Explore: Psy.D. Psychology

Summary Statement: Many programs are now aligned with the LEAP goals and embedded within the fundaments of high quality liberal education. In cases where programs were not considered robust, this was attributed to a lack of necessary resources and/or excessive demands on faculty workload not allowing them to focus sufficiently on all programs. Three L&S programs are accredited (Chemistry, Social Work, and the graduate program in School Psychology), and programs within those departments are designed to balance fulfilling the mission of the university and college while also fulfilling the requirements of their respective external accrediting agencies.

The COLS appears to be moving towards five distinct areas of anticipated program growth and development during the next 10 to 20 years. These are:

(1) Programs with more of an applied emphasis (Applied Statistics, Biomedical Engineering), including application towards local interests (Legal Studies, Public Policy).

(2) Programs with more of a skills-based emphasis to better prepare students for jobs in high-skilled positions immediately following graduation (Nanoscience, Computer Science and Linguistics).

(3) Programs with a pre-professional and pre-graduate school emphasis which prepare students for being as competitive as possible in getting admitted to medical or graduate schools (Pharmaceutical/Medicinal Emphasis in Chemistry, Professional Spanish).


http://www.uww.edu/leap

10

(4) Programs that are interdisciplinary in nature to prepare students for positions that require a wide range of knowledge and ability to work as part of a large team with a broad range of expertise.

(5) Programs with an environmental and resource sustainability focus (Green Chemistry, Environmental Science; Water Science).

5. School of Graduate StudiesSummary Statement: Over the next 10-20 years, the most successful graduate programs will target themselves professionally at addressing:

Societal evolutions (e.g., geriatric population); Job sector growth in areas related to service industries that cannot be exported,

including hospitality services, construction, car repair, social services, and healthcare. Job sector growth in areas related to knowledge industries that use knowledge and

innovation to create tangible and intangible values, particularly in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, new media, and education.

The planning process for future master’s-level programs at UW-Whitewater, in particular, should address these principles:

Designed to be market responsive and ready programs —addressing a need and dissolving perhaps as quickly as they are created.

Designed for short-term (7-10 year academic life spans). Positioned to the entrepreneurial nature (most likely of a single faculty member). Funded exclusively through self-supporting tuition revenue models. Rethinking what it means to be a “graduate faculty” member (skill set and qualifications

to look for when hiring future graduate faculty members).

b. Looking forward: Future themes/goals/recommendations

Overall themes across the Colleges:

More interdisciplinary programs. Add programs related to health: health science, health management, health education. More global, international emphasis-matching workforce needs.

Other issues to address in developing the UW-Whitewater program array: Regional needs and student demand Achievement gap Average credits to degree Baccalaureate (LEAP) learning outcomes High-impact educational practices

Next or further steps:

Develop a process for ongoing review and improvement of the academic program array Engage campus representatives to develop an academic plan to guide future development


http://www.uww.edu/leap

11

c. Supporting material and links: Click here to view the report from goal group.

Goal II: Develop a comprehensive approach to improved advising that promotes an integrated learning and enhanced general education experience, consistent with our campus LEAP initiative.

a. Measure: Review current assessment of advising? Reviewed1. AAEC surveys2. NSSE surveys of freshmen and seniorsb. Measure: Define “comprehensive approach to improved advising”: Definedc. Measure: Identify “best practices”: Identifiedd. Measure: Establish criteria to evaluate advising according to best practices in a way that is consistent with LEAP: Developed new outcomes for assessment that are consistent with LEAP

Team Leaders: Deb Heiber, Advising Council; Pam Tanner, Advising Council Team Members: Tracy Arneson-Baker, Advising Coordinator, COEPS; Debra Heiber, Director of Advising and Advising Coordinator COLS; Bob Mertens, Associate Dean and Advising Coordinator COAC; Eric Roche, Senior Advisor and Advising Coordinator COBE; Pam Tanner, Director of AAEC and Advising Coordinator

Other participants: Jan Olson, Asst. Dean, COBE; Tom Karthausser Frequency of the meetings: Several meetings over the two-year period

a. Executive Summary: (Comprehensive Advising)-Advising, like learning, is a broad and complex construct that can occur in many places and forms from admission to graduation. An integral mission of the university is to serve its diverse student population achieve their educational goals through effective advising. Aspects of advising are integrated throughout a student’s educational experience beginning with recruitment, orientation, student services and activities as well as in the formal advising structures with the institution. The institution strives to provide well-balanced, holistic academic advising to its students, nonetheless.

For purposes of this study, the group did a comprehensive review of academic advising for currently enrolled undergraduate students within the formal advising structures in the institution: the Academic Advising and Exploration Center (AAEC) and the four undergraduate colleges Arts and Communication (COAC), College of Business and Economics (COBE), College of Education and Professional Studies (COEPS), and the College of Letters and Sciences (COLS); Elements examined were how advising varies among students levels: freshmen (up to 24 earned credits and upper level students (sophomores 24 credits, juniors 60 credits and senior 90 credits). The Learning Outcomes for Academic Advising (Appendix A) were established in 2005, when the advising coordinators began assessment activities following the assessment model of the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). These advising outcomes define advising within a framework of mutual goals for students and advisors: encouraging student responsibility, providing effective advising interactions, and creating positive affective


http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/

http://www.uww.edu/cls

http://www.uww.edu/coeps

http://www.uww.edu/cobe

http://www.uww.edu/cac

http://www.uww.edu/aaec

12

outcomes. The group has reviewed all available advising assessment data and has been identifying best practices for all aspects of a student’s advising career, attempting to capture a “comprehensive” view of the students advising experience from Plan-It Purple to graduation.

Institutional Advising Structure ( Appendix B flow chart)

OrientationThe entering freshman class attends an orientation program, Plan-It-Purple (PIP). Freshman are oriented and advised at programs with over 200 students per program. After orientation sessions, students are divided into groups by undeclared status or by the college of their majors. They are advised by AAEC advising staff and select faculty advisors. Transfer students also attend an orientation/registration program at which, most transfer freshmen are advised by the AAEC while upper level students and freshmen in the Arts are advised at departmental or college locations.

The faculty assisting at the freshman Plan-It Purple (PIP) programs have been designated as “University Master Advisors,” a program created to support freshmen advising for the PIP programs and by teaching the New Student Seminar (NSS). There has been no formal assessment of this program, and it recently has been changed such that teaching the NSS is no longer part of the University Master Advisor functions.

On-going AdvisingAfter orientation, the structure of each advising unit varies depending on the level of the student, the requirements of the curriculum and the needs of the students. The goals for freshmen established by the AAEC are: clearly understand the purpose and format of the academic advising report; understand the General Education Requirements, utilize WINS as a resource for academic advising and registration, and be aware of the stages and locations of advising at UW-Whitewater.

Advising needs for upper level students vary by level and choice of major. The complexity of advising increases as students begin to focus on degree requirements, pre-requisite structures and requirements in the major, as they plan for Internships, undergraduate research and other out-of-class experiences. Upper level students may also be challenged by standards for admission to professional programs and need to make difficult decisions about majors and minors.

b. Measures and Accomplishments:

1. Measure: Review current assessment of advising i. AAEC surveys ii. NSSE surveys of freshmen and seniors

Accomplishments:


13

A. Analysis of data from external sources

Data from three external sources had been considered prior to reviewing campus survey data: the National Academic Advising Association (NACADA), The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU), and interviews with comparable institutions.

NACADA recommendations from a national survey of advisors conducted in 2011:1. regular assessment2. assessing learning and not just satisfaction3. assessing advising loads4. assessing advisor training and development

AACU recommendations on philosophy of advising should:1. be based on a philosophy/mission for academic advising2. identify clear outcomes for student learning and the delivery of academic advising3. develop systematic processes of assessment; include comprehensive and ongoing

professional development programs Interviews: The team interviewed five institutions which are comparable in size, degree

programs and admissions standards: UW-Superior, UW-Green Bay, UW-Oshkosh, Western Illinois and Winona State. Based on interview conversations and assessment of UW-W advising practices by external schools (system) several best practices were identified (see measure b).

B. Analysis of data from UW-Whitewater Assessment

1) Comparison of results for NSSE, SOAS and UAS

The team considered three sources of information about advising effectiveness: the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Senior Outcomes Assessment Survey (SOAS) and the Undergraduate Survey of Academic Advising (UAS). This report focuses on the results of the UAS data since 1) it was constructed specifically to assess advising outcomes, and not simply satisfaction, and 2) the UAS provides the most comprehensive information on how students experience advising from freshman to sophomore year.

The chart below compares student satisfaction with the quality of advising in freshman and senior years.

Source Average for all Freshmen

Sample Average across all colleges for

Sample Semester


14

Seniors

NSSE 3.27

589 2.73 777 Spr. 2011

UAS 3.52 160 3.15 342 Spr 2011

SOAS N/A N/A 3.26 1087 Spr. 2010

Satisfaction with advising as reported in the Table above by students taking the NSSE shows that although senior advising has improved over the years, it is still below both UW-W freshman and comparable institutions (see Appendix C). However, the UAS reports that both freshman and senior satisfaction with advising is considerably higher than that reported by the NSSE. Similarly, the SOAS shows even higher advising satisfaction for seniors. SOAS Information by college is presented in Appendix D, and indicates that seniors in Letters and Sciences have higher satisfaction than in other colleges, which may indicate satisfaction with the on-going advising relationship developed in the L&S advising model.

2) Undergraduate Advising Survey (UAS): 2011-Administration of UAS to all undergraduate students3) Conclusions from the 2011 UAS: 2011 Survey Responses (see Appendix E)

b. Measure: Define “comprehensive approach to improved advising”: A comprehensive approach to improved advising enables a diverse student body to achieve educational goals through effective advising. It includes policies, procedures and structures that support advising, with an emphasis on 1) students’ transitions throughout their academic careers, 2) adequate resources at all academic levels, and 3) faculty engagement.

c. Measure: Identify “best practices”: Identified

Best practices for general advising from the interviews:

Advising should be required for all students each semester Advising needs to be supported with appropriate resources Sustainable advising loads are critical to provide effective advising

2. Other schools noted that best practices specific to UWW campus: Advising assessment plan was more fully developed UWW Advising Coordinator structure is a good decision making model in addition

to a large Advising Council

d. Measure: Establish criteria to evaluate advising according to best practices in a way that is consistent with LEAP: work in progress- developed new outcomes for assessment that are consistent with LEAP (Appendix F).


15

Additional Comments: 2011 UAS Survey Response Summary-Learning Outcomes for Advising (see Appendices E)

#’s

Survey Questions Response Feedback

1 Understanding of university resources andpreparation for advising

Positive growth from freshman to senior year

2 Discussions with advisors about course planning, information and referral, and goals

Freshmen and COLS upper level students responded positively with the highest values across all questions.

3 Students’ interactions with their advisors Advisor knowledge is positive from freshman to senior year and across all colleges while advisor availability and productive relationship are highest during the freshman year and for upper level students in COLS.

4 Effective outcomes Students are uncertain about their academic goals throughout their academic experience. Values for confidence for degree completion and satisfaction with the quality of advising are higher in COLS.

5 Overall satisfaction Underrepresented minorities have a slightly more positive advising experience than the general student body. Students with higher GPAs were more positive on every outcome.

c. Looking forward: Future themes/goals/recommendations

Recommendations for further assessment Revise 2005 advising outcomes in accordance with LEAP outcomes to reflect increased

awareness of competencies and student involvement in High Impact Practice (in progress).

Revise existing undergraduate advising survey to reflect outcomes and allow college specific questions (in Progress). Qualtrex should allow us to better define student groups for improved information.

Conduct student focus groups to explore areas of concern from survey, and advising process/transition questions that are difficult to assess in a survey.

Survey professional and faculty advisors on their goals, perceptions and knowledge. Assess how our advising structure affects the quality of advising for transfer students.

Recommendations for advising practices This review of advising suggests that the campus should provide additional resources to support advising for all level students:

Develop strategies that support required, one-on-one advising for upper level students.


16

Develop advising practices that focus on student transitions.1. Entering transfer students2. Freshman transition to sophomore year3. Students transitioning between colleges, especially those with academic issues.

Create incentives for faculty engagement with advising. Provide additional college level support for students and advisors Examine sustainable advising loads for faculty and professional advisors. Review the campus University Master Advisor position description.

d. Supporting material and links:

1. (See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Implications-for-assessment-2011-National-Survey.aspx)2. (http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi08/pr-wi08_AcAdv.cfm )3. Appendix A: Learning Outcomes for Academic Advising4. Appendix B: Flow Chart5. Appendix C: NSSE Advising Chart 2001-20106. Appendix D: SOAS chart7. Appendix E: 2011 Survey8. Appendix F: 2014 Learning outcomes revision draft

Goal III: Develop an institutional approach to consider assessment data across campus units including strategies to evaluate the data, improve teaching and learning, set curricular and co-curricular goals and methods, and communicate the findings to the campus community.

a. Measure: Define criteria for “considering assessment data”: Y/Nb. Measure: Number of assessment reports exhibiting criteria defined in “a” submitted to

ELARC by campus units.c. Measure: Number of reported uses of assessment data

1) To improve teaching and learning2) To set curricular and co-curricular goals3) To communicate findings to campus community

Team Leader: Joan Cook, Director of Assessment

Other participants: ELARC Committee (The committee includes representatives from administration, faculty committees, Academic Staff Assembly, Classified Staff Advisory Council, and Whitewater Student Government (see www.uww.edu/acadaff/assessment/elarc for information on current membership).

Frequency of the meetings: The ELARC committee met 12 times a year and some of those discussions were related to goal 3. Additionally, two specific meetings were held to discuss the progress and to prepare the final report.

a. Executive Summary: The institutional approach to assessment includes formation and development of the Essential Learning and Assessment Review Committee (ELARC). Formed


http://www.uww.edu/acadaff/assessment/elarc


http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi08/pr-wi08_AcAdv.cfm

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Implications-for-assessment-2011-National-Survey.aspx

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Implications-for-assessment-2011-National-Survey.aspx

17

prior to the development of SPBC Goal 3, this administrative committee considers data from direct or indirect assessments of student learning, receiving reports from both curricular and co-curricular units across campus (Students Affairs, Andersen Library, each academic college, Multicultural Affairs and Student Services, Audit and Review Committee, Degree Qualifications Profile Project, General Education Review Committee, Writing Still Matters Rubric Group). Its annual report of highlights and recommended actions is distributed to the corresponding units (colleges/departments). Thus far, ELARC’s recommendations have addressed two broader areas of need, 1) enhance a positive culture of assessment that facilitates active faculty, staff, and student engagement along with resource issues; and, 2) areas that directly impact teaching, learning, and curricular and co-curricular goals and methods. Some examples include: UW-W Writing Matters Rubric, assessments of critical thinking and information literacy skills. Based on feedback from the data, curricular changes have been made and professional development opportunities were made available. At this point, however, there is no campus-level process for reporting data to use other than a 5-year Audit & Review (A&R) process. A&R asks programs to describe the process for considering assessment data in making changes to the curriculum, student learning outcomes, and other aspects of the program, but not to catalog changes made and specific data on which they are based. Programs report data on student learning and most provide some interpretation of the data, but do not adequately address how the data could effectively be used for program improvement. We need, institutionally, to do a better job of chronicling and cataloging efforts to use assessment data.

b. Measures/Achievements:

Measure a. Define criteria for “considering assessment data”:

ELARC defined the criteria for considering assessment data: Assessment of data related to student achievement of the baccalaureate student learning

outcomes (ELOs) Quantitative (such as exam scores, rubrics, survey responses on Senior Exit Survey or

NSSE) or Qualitative (such as comments from exit interviews, internship or field placement supervisors)

Direct (samples of student work) or Indirect (advisory board’s view of student learning, student self-reporting of perceptions of learning)

Measure b. Number of assessment reports exhibiting criteria defined in “a” submitted to ELARC by campus units.

Over the past three years, reports have been submitted by: Each academic college, the Degree Qualifications Profile project, Office of Student Affairs, Office of Multicultural Affairs and Student Services, Andersen Library, Institutional Research, Audit and Review Committee, General Education Review Committee, and the Writing Still Matters Rubric Group



18

2011: 9 reports ; 2012: 8 reports ; 2013: 9 reports were received. A total of 26 reports over a three-year period.

The data considered are reviewed so as to summarize them into themes, write recommendations and monitor progress toward meeting the recommendations. Recommendations made by ELARC so far address the overall campus culture on assessment, allocation of resources to support assessment of student learning, development of rubrics and campus activities focused on improving students’ writing and critical thinking.

Measure c: Number of reported uses of assessment data:

1. To improve teaching and learning Faculty development opportunities LEARN Center workshops on writing Sessions on instruction and assessment of critical thinking Rubrics development UWW Writing Matters rubric data led to curricular changes in English 101/102 and Gen

Ed 390 Critical thinking skills enhanced in Math 141 and Finance and Business Law

2. To set curricular and co-curricular goals Structures to foster student writing across the curriculum; defining “writing intensive”

courses Improving instruction and assessment of critical thinking Revision of campus policies to support and reward faculty and staff engaged in

assessment Development of a strategic plan to advance assessment of the learning outcomes.

3) To communicate findings to campus community

Draft report is sent to several groups on campus and upon receiving feedback, the final report is posted on the ELARC webpage.

ELARC observed its data collection and analysis that programs report data on student learning with some interpretation of the data but most do not provide a meaningful discussion on how it could be used for program improvement. Also, reporting data use is currently limited through only the Audit and Review process. A more systematic and streamlined reporting of the use of data assessment is recommended.

ELARC received 8-9 assessment reports from various programs/units in the last three years and met monthly to observe themes and make recommendations but did not specifically address the SPBC Goal 3. It does look forward to improving the strategies for disseminating its reports to a wider audience and ensuring the recommendations are considered by units across campus and identifying ways in which data are used to improve curriculum and instruction, student learning outcomes and programs are encouraged to document the effectiveness of these data-based changes. It suggests moving to a two-year reporting cycle so the units have time to respond to the


19

recommendations as well as the committee could summarize and disseminate results, recommendations and ongoing assessment from across campus.

c. Looking forward: Future themes/goals/action plans

Recommendations to improve the current process

Continue to require assessment reports as part of each unit’s annual report. Include information about the unit’s student learning outcomes, alignment of the unit’s SLOs with the ELOs, summary of data organized by SLO, and summary of data-based actions taken by the unit (curricular, co-curricular, and/or class-based). Ask that units copy these reports to their respective college assessment committees and to the Office of Academic Assessment.

Consider establishing a parallel but separate committee to review data on campus/student statistics such as enrollment trends, retention and graduation statistics (overall, by subgroups), identify achievement gaps, and make data-based recommendations regarding these issues.

Improvements in the ELARC process: Improve the strategies for disseminating ELARC reports ensuring that recommendations

are considered by units across campus. Increase the focus on identifying ways in which data are used to improve curricula and

instruction, and encourage units to collect data to document the effectiveness of these data-based changes.

As ELARC gathers more data on the ELOs, begin to look for trends within subgroups. Continue to identify gaps in the assessment data being collected and make

recommendations for assessment data still needed. Consider moving to a two-year reporting cycle so that units have time to respond to

ELARC recommendations and the committee can develop strategies to better summarize and publicize results, recommendations, and ongoing assessment work from across campus.


1. ELARC reports for 2012 and 2013 can be found at: http://www.uww.edu/acadaff/assessment/elarc

THE SCHOLAR EDUCATOR COMMUNITY

Goal IV: Increase support for faculty, staff, and students to engage in research, creative, and scholarly activity.

a. Measure: Define “support for research activities”: Definedb. Measure: Determine baseline for various support categories: info lacking



20

1. Funding2. Release time3. Number of awards given (campus grants, releases, etc)4. Other supportc. Measure: Numbers of students, faculty, and staff involved in research activitiesTeam Leaders: Denise Ehlen, ORSPTeam Members:

a. Executive Summary: Support for research, creative, and scholarly activity is defined as gift/grant/contract or other funds leveraged to facilitate research, creative, and scholarly activity by faculty, staff, and students. Support may also include in-kind contributions (access to equipment, for example). The group conducted an inventory of “support for research, creative, and scholarly activity” based on definitions, and began to review literature, previous grant programs/mechanisms, and best practices to determine model support mechanisms. The institutional inventory indicated strong commitment to enhance faculty/staff and student research activities; (1) Research and scholarly activity support is available for faculty and staff at both the college and institutional level. Support is provided through course releases/reassignments, publication charges, and travel/collaboration development. (2) Support for research and scholarly activity is available at both the formal (grant programs, college research releases, etc.) and informal (mentoring/networking opportunities, etc.) level. (3) Ample opportunities exist to support research by undergraduate students across campus, either through the Undergraduate Research Program or other mechanisms (individual faculty/staff awards, Office of the Provost funds, etc.). (4) With the exception of the College of Business and Economics, there are no formal mechanisms to incentivize research and scholarly activity by faculty/staff. There are, however, other methods to incentivize, but not at the level utilized by College of Business and Economics. (5) Faculty/Staff professional development in grant writing and proposal development has been centered on developing applications to internal grant programs as a method to develop skills and establish a research track record. The group identified a list of key strategies as potential mechanisms to increase research capacity along with clear assessment strategies (to view the recommendations, scroll down to section c, looking forward).

b. Measures/Accomplishments


a. Measure: Define “support for research activities”

Operationalized “support for research, creative, and scholarly activity”: conducted a literature review to identify common definitions and sought feedback from researchers (faculty and staff) and administrators.

Support for research, creative, and scholarly activity definition would include: gift/grant/contract or other funds leveraged to facilitate research, creative, and scholarly activity by faculty, staff,


21

and students. Support may also include in-kind contributions (access to equipment, for example).

b. Measure: Determine baseline for various support categories as below1. Funding 2. Release time 3. Number of awards given (campus grants, releases, etc) 4. Other support

Conducted an inventory of “support for research, creative, and scholarly activity” based on definitions, and began to review literature, previous grant programs/mechanisms, and best practices to determine model support mechanisms.

Feedback was provided from the Deans on existing support mechanisms for tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, and academic staff. Information on support mechanisms for each of the Colleges is provided below.

College of Arts and Communication: support to faculty/staff research and scholarly activity

The Visiting Artist Fund, which provides travel/honorariums to artists willing to visit UW-Whitewater;

Professional Development Plan [PDP] funds, which support faculty/staff development as outlined in the campus policies;

Funds to support projects within the College that have a focus on Inclusive Excellence (diversity, inclusion, equity, etc.);

Funds are provided to support faculty and staff engaged in assessment activities; andcourse releases, for those projects that align closely with the College’s strategic plan, mission, values, and/or priorities.

College of Business and Economics: support to faculty/staff research and scholarly activity

Additional funding to support faculty/staff presentations at conferences, workshops, symposiums, etc. (approximately $4,000), in addition to PDP funds;

Course releases, along with mechanisms to control course preps when possible; Summer Research Grants, which provide summer stipends/salaries; Funds to support projects or priorities that align with the College’s Association to

Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB] Accreditation process or requirements;

Funds to support projects that encourage inter-disciplinary or cross-college collaborations;

Funds that support mentoring opportunities between senior and junior faculty.

Additionally, the College has developed a research incentive program, which allows faculty and staff to earn credits towards incentives such as publications, presentations, awards, etc. These credits accumulate and may be used to “purchase” course release, summer stipends/payments, additional travel funding, etc. The College also provides modest funding to support networking and collaboration opportunities, such as brown bag lunches, retreats, discussions that allow faculty/staff to “map” activities, and/or other opportunities to promote research and scholarly activity.


22

College of Education and Professional Studies: support to faculty/staff research and scholarly activity

Course (or student supervision) releases for research and scholarly activity that align closely with the college’s or campus’ strategic plan or priorities;

Funds for projects/activities that align with pre-tenured faculty long-term professional development goals;

Additional funding to support travel, in addition to PDP funds; The Administrative Fellows Program, which provides funding for special projects or

leadership development/training [tenured faculty]; Tuition remission for advanced degrees [academic staff]; Additional funding for Academic Staff Development Grant and awards.

College of Letters and Sciences: support to faculty/staff research and scholarly activity

Funds to support the cost of publishing/presenting research and scholarly activity; Research releases, which provides support for a one or two-course release to support

research and scholarly activity; Match funding to support external grant applications—funds may support travel, course

releases, summer stipends, etc.; and Funds to support the development of research agendas/tracks or outfit laboratorie

Institution Level Support-support to faculty/staff research and scholarly activityThe University of Wisconsin-Whitewater supports a host of grant programs that provide funding to support faculty/staff engaged in research and scholarly activity, including but not limited to:

Research releases provided by the Office of the Provost; The Academic Staff Development Grant Program, which supports individual professional

development/training opportunities that contribute to the needs of the institution. The Faculty Development Grant Program, which supports expanding scholarly resources

in faculty fields of study The Faculty Sabbatical Program, which enables faculty to engage in intensive study to

become more effective teachers and scholars. The program permits tenured faculty to take leave for either one semester with full compensation or an academic year with sixty-five percent compensation.

The Faculty/Staff Publication Award, which funds publication costs (i.e., “page charges”) or partial subsidies related to the cost of publishing scholarly books or research monographs. A 1:1 match is required (through personal, department, and/or college funds).

The Grant Writing Fellowship Program, which supports summer stipends to fellows to develop external grant applications of $50,000 or greater.

The Education Outreach Grant Program, which supports projects that establish or build upon previously developed partnerships/ collaborations with area schools and/or school districts; or which foster mutually beneficial relationships between UW-Whitewater and the Cooperative Educational Service Agency #2. All projects must have the broader intention of improving PK-12 student learning, the professional development of educators and/or administrators, and the performance of area schools.


23

Additionally, through student support, faculty/staff receive an opportunity to mentor undergraduate and graduate students through a host of programs. These opportunities provide support for pilot/seed projects and/or establish the faculty/staff member’s experience in mentoring, which is useful for a number of external grant opportunities. Support includes:

Graduate Research Grants, which funds single or multiple-student research projects that involve supervision by a member of the graduate faculty. Funding may support travel, supplies, photocopying, telephone charges, or student wages (other than the student investigators).

The Research Scholars Program, which seeks to enhance undergraduate research among new mentors and faculty/staff in traditionally underrepresented departments through a pilot program in which faculty may request salaries to hire undergraduates to assist them in their research.

Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships, which fund for traditional research projects and community-based research. Both tracks support student stipends, faculty/staff mentor stipends, and supplies, services, and travel expenses.

Undergraduate Research Grants, which provides opportunities for students to conduct undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity in partnership with faculty/staff mentors.

c. Measure: Numbers of students, faculty, and staff involved in research activities

Research and scholarly activity support is available for faculty and staff at both the college and institutional level. Support is provided through course releases/reassignments, publication charges, and travel/collaboration development.

Support for research and scholarly activity is available at both the formal (grant programs, college research releases, etc.) and informal (mentoring/networking opportunities, etc.) level.

Ample opportunities exist to support research by undergraduate students across campus, either through the Undergraduate Research Program or other mechanisms (individual faculty/staff awards, Office of the Provost funds, etc.).

With the exception of the College of Business and Economics, there are no formal mechanisms to incentivize research and scholarly activity by faculty/staff. There are, however, other methods to incentivize, but not at the level utilized by College of Business and Economics.

Faculty/staff professional development in grant writing and proposal development has been centered on developing applications to internal grant programs as a method to develop skills and establish a research track record.

Key Takeaways:


24

Based on the information above, the following key themes emerged from the institutional inventory:

Research and scholarly activity support is available for faculty and staff at both the college and institutional level. Support is provided through course releases/reassignments, publication charges, and travel/collaboration development.

Support for research and scholarly activity is available at both the formal (grant programs, college research releases, etc.) and informal (mentoring/networking opportunities, etc.) level.

Ample opportunities exist to support research by undergraduate students across campus, either through the Undergraduate Research Program or other mechanisms (individual faculty/staff awards, Office of the Provost funds, etc.).

With the exception of the College of Business and Economics, there are no formal mechanisms to incentivize research and scholarly activity by faculty/staff. There are, however, other methods to incentivize, but not at the level utilized by College of Business and Economics.

Faculty/staff professional development in grant writing and proposal development has been centered on developing applications to internal grant programs as a method to develop skills and establish a research track record.


The following strategies were identified as potential mechanisms to increase research support [potential assessment strategies in brackets]:

Provide match funds for extramural proposal applications [proposal submissions versus proposal awards, along with relevant budget data];

Establish mechanisms for proposals to undergo an internal review prior to submission to the sponsor [proposal submissions versus proposal awards, along with relevant review data];

Link promotion and merit pay decisions with undergraduate and graduate research outcomes [undergraduate and graduate research outcome data; promotion and merit pay review decisions/data];

Increase the visibility of faculty, staff, and student research accomplishments through publicity by Marketing and Media Relations [proposal submissions versus proposal awards, along with relevant publicity data];

Leverage existing Professional Development Funds to support research and scholarly activity [review of outcomes tied to Professional Development Funds];

Provide additional training/technical assistance to faculty and staff, with topics such as: Success in Publishing; Fostering Interdisciplinary Research; Grant Writing/Mentoring; Internal Proposal Reviews/Editing [outcomes data reported by attendees, ORSP, LEARN Center, and/or other campus departments];


25

Develop partnerships between high schools, industry, and/or UW-Whitewater that would combine apprenticeships and college credit, leading to a degree [outcomes data reported by partners, ORSP, individual departments/colleges, and the School of Graduate Studies and Continuing Education];

Provide “major” summer research grants (to include applied research/outreach), which provide support for projects with a high expectation for outcomes [proposal, award/contract, and final reporting data];

Provide additional support to department chairs, through additional release and/or compensation, to allow department chairs additional time/resources for research and scholarly activity [outcomes data];

Better market programs, through targeted campaigns in specific programs, technical assistance/training sessions, or other marketing strategies to increase the number of faculty/staff participating in undergraduate research programming [proposal, award, and marketing data];

Increase the support for curriculum development and redesign, for which faculty/staff engaged in these activities receive little support [proposal, award, accreditation, and outcomes data];

Provide funding/resources to support outreach initiatives or activities in their initial planning stages, especially on those initiatives that are closely tied with institutional or college strategic plans, mission, values, or priorities [outcomes data];

Redirect unused PDP funding to productive faculty/staff in order to leverage existing funds [PDP plans and outcomes data];

A list of best practices/strategies have been identified at predominately undergraduate institutions to enhance the research productivity. Click here to view the complete list.

d. Supporting material and links: Click here to view the report from goal group

Goal V: Collect, review and disseminate data regarding the levels of participation and effectiveness of high-impact educational practices for various student populations, and use these data to improve our high-impact practices.

a. Measure: Identify specific high impact practices to record: Identifiedb. Measure: Record # of students involved in each HIP by student group: Data provided on some HIP programsc. Measure: Define “effective” and establish criteria to identify and measure: Specific criteria were identified and measuredd. Measure: Record effectiveness of HIPs by student group: Measurede. Measure: Create a report to disseminate: Yes


26

f. Measure: Each involved HIP identifies and notes changes based on data: Partial data available and the work is ongoingg. Suggested HIPs to include:

a. Learning Communities b. Undergraduate Researchc. New Student Seminard. Internshipse. Campus student employment

Team Leader: Matt Aschenbrener, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Enrollment & Retention

Team Members: Bob Barry (University Center), Brent Bilodeau (Student Affairs), Catherine Chan (UG Research), Candace Chenoweth (Center for Global Education), Joan Cook (Assessment), Adrianna Guram/ Beth John (First Year Experience/Learning Communities), Rex Hanger/ Marjorie Rhine (Honors), Liz Hachten (Letters & Sciences), Richard McGregory (Multicultural Affairs and Support Services)

Frequency of the meetings: The committee met several times between March 2013 through April 2014. Each of the HIP sub-committees met within their constituent groups to obtain information about student participation in the program, define the level of participation and level of effectiveness with the program and write a summary of the program.

a. Executive Summary:

In the Fall 2012, the UW-Whitewater Strategic Planning and Budget Committee formed a committee to review “High Impact Practices” (HIPs). In addition to the HIPs articulated by George Kuh in High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter (2008), the committee split the Diversity/Global Learning category into the two subareas of diversity and global learning. Further, the committee the areas of co-curricular activities, honors, and on-campus employment. The committee categorized the HIPs into three groups: Course-based, classroom-based and program-based.

The Strategic Planning and Budget Committee (SPBC) (and Academic Affairs Staff, AAS) developed a list of “Potential Objectives” for the HIP committee. Those objectives are:

1) Identify a list of High Impact Programs currently offered at UW-Whitewater.2) Identify the number of students participating in the High Impact Programs and compare

to overall number in student body (identify multiple years to study?)3) Identify a list of various student sub-populations to study:4) Define “level of participation” and “level of effectiveness” 5) Define metrics 6) Make recommendations to SPBC/AAS on future improvements.

First-Year Cohort and Retention Data for the student sub-populations studied.Number of Students in First-Year Cohort

Year Under- Men Wome First Pell Eligible Total in Cohort


27

represented minority

n generation

2012 319 1,062 941 953 695 2,1552011 285 994 973 923 681 1,9932010 250 1,060 999 929 706 2,0332009 223 1,000 1,093 898 644 1,9412008 201 1,107 1,050 NA 634 2,1322007 197 1,055 993 NA 603 2,0482006 129 944 836 NA 423 1,780

Retention Rate of Students in First-Year Cohort

Year Under-represented minority

Men Women

First generation

Pell Eligible Total in Cohort

2012 63% 74% 80% 73% 74% 77%2011 76% 78% 82% 78% 82% 80%2010 68% 75% 79% 76% 75% 77%2009 67% 76% 81% 78% 81% 79%2008 73% 77% 79% NA 87% 78%2007 63% 75% 77% NA 80% 76%2006 76% 77% 77% NA 81% 77%

Summary of Findings:At the start of the review the committee did not realize how complex of a task was at hand. We found that many areas being reviewed actually contained multiple programs or could be looked at through multiple lenses; thus we had many conversations on what to review and how to review it. Undergraduate Research, for example, has the traditional Undergraduate Research Program (URP) as well as the Research Apprenticeship Program (RAP); both programs needed to be reviewed. The same was true for study abroad where short-term travel study programs could be viewed much differently than semester or year-long programs. Other HIPs such as common intellectual experience and collaborative assignments were more nebulous and a challenge to quantify. Data on other programs such as internships, capstone courses, and service learning were also difficult to gather due to the nature of those specific programs.

But we found that many of the High Impact Programs at UW-Whitewater are serving students quite effectively with high numbers of participation (e.g.. participation in co-curricular programs, New Student Seminar). Some HIPs showed surprising retention rates – specifically on-campus employment. Other programs, such as learning communities, had demonstrated success over the years. Some programs demonstrated they are more effective for particular sub-groups. For example, female students tend to participate in more HIP programs at higher levels. Other sub-groups such as URM students participate in study abroad and learning communities at the same or higher rates as the overall student population. Other HIPs had significantly lower URM participation, such as honors and on-campus employment.

b. Measures/Accomplishments:


28

a. Measure: Identify specific high impact practices to record

The committee identified 14 areas of “High Impact Practices” on the UW-W campus (listed below in the table) as opposed to the Kuh model which lists 10 educational practices. The additional four HIPs include: The Diversity/Global Learning category was split into two areas – diversity and global learning. The non-LEAP HIPs include: co-curricular activities, honors, and on-campus employment.

High Impact Educational Practice UW-Whitewater Type

Initial Group Leader/Current Page in Report

Co-curricular activities Program Brent Bilodeau 4Diversity (split from Global Learning) Program Richard McGregory 6Global Learning Program Candace Chenoweth 7Honors Program Rex Hanger/Marjorie Rhine 12Learning Communities Program Adrianna Guram/Beth John 16On-campus employment Program Bob Barry 20Service Learning/Community-Based Learning Program Matt Aschenbrener 26Undergraduate Research Program Catherine Chan 28Capstone courses and projects Course Joan Cook 35First-Year Seminars and experiences Course Adrianna Guram/Beth John 37Internships Course Ron Buchholz 40Collaborative assignments & projects Classroom Joan Cook 46Common Intellectual Experiences Classroom Liz Hachten 49Writing Intensive Courses Classroom Liz Hachten 51

b. Measure: Record # of students involved in each HIP by student group:

For the purposes of assessing, quantifying and reporting accurate data under each HIP practice, the HIPs were ultimately categorized into three groups: course-based, classroom-based and program-based. As such, the sub-committees were organized to review specific metrics for student groups and assist with reporting final outcomes. Representative data from Learning Communities, Global Education, On-Campus employment and Undergraduate Research are given below.

1. Learning Communities: Learning Communities (LC) at UW-Whitewater started in 2004 with 38 students in one LC. Learning Communities began as its own department that reported to Continuing Education and Graduate Studies until the fall of 2012 when the department was merged with First Year Experience. During the fall 2013 there were 26 LC options with over 542 students participating, nearly one-third of the first-year class. Students who participated in LCs at UW-Whitewater have been retained at a higher rate than other students; this rate has varied from 3% (2010) to +7% (2008, 2012). Success (student engagement and retention) has been found in the LCs due to the cohort model where students are connected through multiple courses and because of the involvement of faculty members outside of class. Programming in the LCs is also a draw for students. Successful trips to Chicago and locations across Wisconsin and northern Illinois have engaged students.

Number of Participants in Learning Communities


29

Year Under-represented minority

Men Women First generation

Pell Eligible Total Number in Program

2013 85 248 307 5542012 95 248 345 238 182 5962011 78 159 253 166 139 4122010 78 166 250 189 160 4162009 79 172 265 188 163 4372008 49 101 137 NA 88 238

Metrics in Learning Communities for All studentsStudents IN LCs Students NOT IN LCs Difference

Year Total N in Program

Retention rate

First Year GPA

Total N Not in Program

Retention rate

First Year GPA

DifferenceRetention

rate

DifferenceFirst Year GPA

2012 596 82.0% 3.044 1,559 75.0% 2.948 7.0% .0962011 412 84.7% 3.170 1,581 79.2% 2.996 5.5% .1742010 416 78.8% 3.073 1,617 76.4% 2.952 2.4% .1212009 437 82.6% 3.105 1,504 77.3% 2.967 5.3% .1382008 238 84.0% 3.112 1,894 77.2% 2.932 6.8% .180

Metrics in Learning Communities for URM StudentsURM Students IN LCs URM Students NOT IN LCs Difference


Retention rate

First Year GPA


Retention rate

First Year GPA

DifferenceRetention

rate


2012 95 70.5% 2.679 224 60.3% 2.588 10.2% .0912011 78 79.5% 2.909 207 75.4% 2.796 4.1% .1132010 78 70.5% 2.716 172 66.3% 2.621 4.2% .0952009 79 68.4% 2.752 144 66.0% 2.633 2.4% .1192008 49 85.7% 2.776 152 69.1% 2.644 16.6% .132

Metrics in Learning Communities for Male StudentsMale Students IN LCs Male Students NOT IN LCs Difference


Retention rate

First Year GPA


Retention rate

First Year GPA

DifferenceRetention

rate


2012 251 78.1% 2.933 811 72.5% 2.877 5.6% 0.0562011 159 87.4% 3.137 835 76.8% 2.927 10.6% 0.2102010 166 75.3% 2.889 894 75.1% 2.850 0.2% 0.0392009 172 76.7% 3.008 828 75.7% 2.905 1.0% 0.1032008 101 83.2% 3.117 1,066 76.4% 2.888 6.8% 0.229

Metrics in Learning Communities for Female Students


30

Female Students IN LCs Female Students NOT IN LCs DifferenceYear Total N in

ProgramRetention

rateFirst Year GPA


Retention rate

First Year GPA

DifferenceRetention

rate

Difference

First Year GPA

2012 345 84.9% 3.120 748 77.7% 3.009 7.2% 0.1112011 253 83.0% 3.191 746 81.9% 3.071 1.1% 0.1202010 250 81.2% 3.190 723 78.1% 3.074 3.1% 0.1162009 265 86.4% 3.163 676 79.3% 3.040 7.1% 0.1232008 137 84.7% 3.109 888 78.0% 2.982 6.7% 0.127

Metrics in Learning Communities for 1st Generation Students1st Generation Students in LCs

Year Total N in Program Retention rate First Year GPA2012 238 78.6% 3.0262011 166 78.9% 3.0792010 189 75.7% 2.9912009 188 80.3% 3.0952008 NA NA NA

Metrics in Learning Communities for Pell Eligible StudentsPell Eligible Students IN LCs

Year Total N in Program Retention rate First Year GPA2012 182 80.8% 2.9372011 139 80.6% 3.0782010 160 73.1% 2.9332009 163 79.1% 3.0002008 88 89.8% 3.013

2. Global Education

Each year, over 300 UW-Whitewater students participate in global education programs through the Center for Global Education, including study abroad and exchange programs, faculty-led travel study programs, international internships, and international student teaching placements. UW-Whitewater offers programs in over 50 countries that range in academic focus, program model (e.g. enrollment in a foreign university vs. in a UW-Whitewater faculty-led group program) as well as in length (from 10 days to a full academic year).

Student engagement in high-impact practices has consistently been shown to improve graduation rates (Astin 1990, Pascarelli & Terenzini 2005, Tinto 1993), a recent study by O’Rear, Sutton, and Rubin (2012) found that study abroad participation specifically increased college completion rates. In keeping with this previous research, the statistics of UW-Whitewater global education participation and educational outcomes below indicate that participation in global education programs at UW-Whitewater is strongly correlated with positive educational outcomes, including increased first year GPAs and 4, 5, and 6-year graduation rates when compared students who did not study abroad.

Metrics in Global Education for All studentsStudents IN Global Ed Students NOT IN Global Ed Difference


31

Year N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


2012 5 - - 3.361 2163 - - 2.976 - 0.3852011 39 - - 3.303 1967 - - 3.028 - 0.2752010 114 - - 3.290 1930 - - 2.956 - 0.3342009 144 44% - 3.329 1809 27% - 2.967 17% 0.3622008 175 43% - 3.295 1979 25% - 2.914 18% 0.3812007 154 36% 87% 3.224 1909 27% 52% 2.872 9% 0.3522006 123 41% 93% 3.267 1682 28% 55% 2.930 13% 0.337

Metrics in Global Education for URM studentsStudents IN Global Ed Students NOT IN Global Ed Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


2012 0 - - - 322 - - 2.621 - -2011 8 - - 2.992 282 - - 2.819 - 0.1732010 23 - - 3.140 228 - - 2.590 - 0.5502009 28 32% - 3.143 200 10% - 2.592 22% 0.5512008 35 29% - 3.103 173 10% - 2.566 19% 0.5372007 21 14% 67% 3.044 182 8% 35% 2.537 6% 0.5072006 18 39% 89% 3.061 121 7% 27% 2.635 32% 0.426

Metrics in Global Education for Male StudentsMale Students IN Global Ed Male Students NOT IN Global Ed Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate

Difference First Year

GPA2012 1 - - 3.355 1067 - - 2.899 - 0.4562011 13 - - 3.152 987 - - 2.960 - 0.1922010 30 - - 3.168 1036 - - 2.846 - 0.3222009 47 36% - 3.319 956 24% - 2.899 12% 0.4202008 55 42% - 3.336 1607 24% - 2.877 18% 0.4592007 44 25% 91% 3.186 1023 24% 53% 2.783 1% 0.4032006 44 30% 86% 3.279 909 24% 50% 2.839 6% 0.440

Metrics in Global Education for Female StudentsFemale Students IN Global Ed Female Students NOT IN Global Ed Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


GPA2012 4 - - 3.363 1096 - - 3.045 - 0.3182011 26 - - 3.377 980 - - 3.094 - 0.2832010 84 - - 3.332 894 - - 3.081 - 0.2512009 97 47% - 3.333 853 29% - 3.040 18% 0.293


32

2008 120 43% - 3.275 923 27% - 2.958 16% 0.3172007 110 40% 87% 3.239 886 30% 55% 2.972 10% 0.2672006 79 47% 94% 3.259 773 34% 57% 3.035 13% 0.224

Metrics for 1st Generation students in Global EducationEntering class year

Total Number in Program

4th Year Grad Rate 5th Year Grad Rate 6th Year Grad Rate 1st Year GPA

2012 0 - - - -2011 13 - - - 3.2982010 46 - - - 3.1812009 66 47% - - 3.3072008 - - - - -2007 - - - - -2006 - - - - -

Metrics for Pell Eligible students in Global EducationEntering class year


4th Year Grad Rate 5th Year Grad Rate 6th Year Grad Rate 1st Year GPA

2012 1 - - - 3.1062011 14 - - - 3.1522010 38 - - - 3.1782009 55 35% - - 3.2372008 79 27% 77% - 3.2182007 56 20% 68% 80% 3.2062006 35 23% 80% 89% 3.148

3. On-Campus Student Employment:

Each year approximately 3,000 students are employed on campus at UW-W in jobs ranging from office and clerical type positions, to student management positions and peer educators. Additionally, 350 students are employed by dining services, a contracted service intentionally intertwined with our self-operated campus services.

Studies conducted for this report have produced data that shows that students employed on-campus have 3rd year retention rates as much as 40 percentage points higher (96% vs. 56%) and 4th year retention rates as much as 43 percentage points higher (94% vs. 51%). The effect on graduation rates are just as impressive with preliminary results showing 4-year graduation rates as much as 25 percentage points higher (48% vs. 23%) and 5-year graduation rates as much as 30 percentage points higher (71% vs. 41%). These findings are very exciting in that, if UWW can target on-campus employment programs towards students who have traditionally been retained or graduating at lower than average rates than the overall population, their success could possibly be multiplied exponentially.

Metrics in On-Campus Employment for All students


33

Students IN OCE Students NOT IN OCE DifferenceYear N 4 yr

grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


201220112010* 160 - - 3.229 1873 - - 2.953 0.2762009 360 43% - 3.221 1581 25% - 2.942 18% 0.2792008 509 41% - 3.142 1623 23% - 2.885 18% 0.2572007 556 43% 78% 3.119 1492 22% 46% 2.807 21% 0.3122006 567 43% 81% 3.192 1213 24% 47% 2.833 19% 0.359

Metrics in On-Campus Employment for URM studentsStudents IN OCE Students NOT IN OCE Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


201220112010* 24 - - 3.039 226 - - 2.603 0.4362009 44 20% - 3.029 179 10% - 2.575 10% 0.4542008 72 31% - 3.009 129 5% - 2.440 26% 0.5692007 59 14% 63% 2.901 138 6% 22% 2.416 8% 0.4852006 56 18% 51% 2.904 73 8% 30% 2.542 10% 0.362

Metrics in On-Campus Employment for Male StudentsMale Students IN OCE Male Students NOT IN OCE Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


GPA201220112010 65 - - 3.026 995 - - 2.843 0.1832009 130 39% - 3.203 870 23% - 2.877 16% 0.3262008 233 39% - 3.075 874 21% - 2.859 18% 0.2162007 251 36% 77% 3.061 804 21% 44% 2.708 15% 0.3532006 289 38% 82% 3.125 655 19% 44% 2.732 19% 0.393

Metrics in On-Campus Employment for Female StudentsFemale Students IN OCE Female Students NOT IN OCE Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


GPA201220112010 95 - - 3.366 878 - - 3.074 0.292


34

2009 230 44% - 3.231 711 27% - 3.020 17% 0.2112008 276 42% - 3.198 749 24% - 2.915 18% 0.2832007 305 48% 79% 3.166 688 23% 49% 2.921 25% 0.2452006 278 49% 81% 3.263 558 30% 52% 2.947 19% 0.316

Metrics for 1st Generation students in On-Campus EmploymentYear Total Number

in Program4th YearGrad Rate

5th YearGrad Rate

6th YearGrad Rate

1st YearGPA

20122011

2010* 70 - - - 3.1562009 178 42% - - 3.2072008 - - - - -2007 - - - - -2006 - - - - -

Metrics for Pell Eligible students in On-Campus EmploymentYear Total Number

in Program4th YearGrad Rate

5th YearGrad Rate

6th YearGrad Rate

1st YearGPA

20122011

2010* 52 - - - 3.1502009 151 38% - - 3.1762008 200 31% 62% - 3.1142007 209 29% 60% 71% 3.0252006 175 31% 65% 77% 3.108

4. Undergraduate Research Program (URP) Participants

The following table reports Undergraduate Research Program participants as a function of the year they enter as freshman in UW-Whitewater. Note that the following data only include full-time, first time freshman students and therefore, exclude transfer students (149 students since 2006). This data also do not include students who participate in Undergraduate Research as part of large group projects (about 80 students/ year in recent years) since the composition and therefore identity of students in these groups can be very fluid. Students who participated in Undergraduate Research more than once (92 students since 2006) are only counted once here for this report. Hence, the following data underestimate the level of participation in Undergraduate Research. Furthermore, data on students who are part of the Research Apprenticeship Program are reported separately as this program is specifically designed to serve freshman and sophomore students, especially students of opportunity, and is expected to have different demographics compared to other program elements.

Number and Percent of Participants in URP

Year All URM All Males All Females All First Generation

All Pell Eligible


2012 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%) 6 (1%) 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.3%) 7 (0.3%)2011 2 (1%) 18 (2%) 18 (2%) 14 (1%) 9 (1%) 36 (2%)


35

2010 2 (1%) 21 (2%) 23 (2%) 16 (2%) 13 (2%) 44 (2%)2009 3 (1%) 18 (2%) 32 (3%) 18 (2%) 17 (3%) 50 (3%)2008 2 (1%) 20 (2%) 20 (2%) - 22 (3%) 40 (2%)2007 5 (2%) 11 (1%) 29 (3%) - 16 (3%) 40 (2%)2006 5 (4%) 22 (2%) 15 (2%) - 13 (3%) 37 (2%)

The SPBC Committee was asked to review specific metrics for student groups. Below are tables outlining the participation in the Undergraduate Research for all participants and then by other student groups.

Metrics in Undergrad Research Program for All studentsStudents IN URP Students NOT IN URP Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


2012 7 - - 3.456 2161 - - 2.975 - 0.4812011 36 - - 3.481 1970 - - 3.024 - 0.4572010* 44 - - 3.362 2000 - - 2.968 - 0.3942009 50 48% - 3.421 1903 27% - 2.985 21% 0.4362008 50 40% - 3.297 2114 26% - 2.942 14% 0.3552007 40 35% 90% 3.407 2023 27% 54% 2.891 8% 0.5162006 37 41% 92% 3.453 1768 29% 57% 2.944 12% 0.509

Students in Undergraduate Research have higher 1st year GPA and 4th and 6th year graduation rate.

Metrics in Undergrad Research Program for URM studentsStudents IN URP Students NOT IN URP Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


2012 1 - - 3.589 321 - - 2.616 - 0.9732011 2 - - 3.307 288 - - 2.819 - 0.4882010* 2 - - 3.645 249 - - 2.641 - 1.0042009 3 33% - 2.979 225 12% - 2.671 21% 0.3082008 2 0% - 2.993 206 14% - 2.671 -14% 0.3222007 5 20% 60% 3.563 198 8% 30% 2.568 12% 0.9952006 5 20% 80% 3.337 134 11% 40% 2.667 9% 0.67

URM students in Undergraduate Research have higher 1st year GPA and 4th and 6th year graduation rate. Note that the majority of URM students in Undergraduate Research are in the Research Apprenticeship Program. That data are reported in a separate section.

Metrics in Undergrad Research Program for Male StudentsMale Students IN URP Male Students NOT IN URP Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


GPA2012 1 - - 3.463 1067 - - 2.899 - 0.564


36

2011 10 - - 3.500 982 - - 2.951 - 0.5492010 21 - - 3.351 1045 - - 2.844 - 0.5072009 18 39% - 3.321 985 25% - 2.914 14% 0.4072008 20 55% - 3.282 1102 24% - 2.895 31% 0.3872007 11 36% 82% 3.286 1056 24% 51% 2.797 12% 0.4892006 22 45% 91% 3.434 931 24% 54% 2.848 21% 0.586

Metrics in Undergrad Research Program for Female StudentsFemale Students IN OCE Female Students NOT IN OCE Difference


6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

N 4 yr grad rate

6 yr grad rate

First Year GPA

Difference 4-year

Grad rate


GPA2012 6 - - 3.454 1094 - - 3.044 - 0.412011 18 - - 3.462 988 - - 3.094 - 0.3682010 23 - - 3.373 955 - - 3.094 - 0.2792009 32 53% - 3.475 918 30% - 3.058 23% 0.4172008 20 25% - 3.311 1012 29% - 2.992 -4% 0.3192007 29 34% 93% 3.450 967 31% 57% 2.990 3% 0.462006 15 33% 93% 3.480 837 35% 60% 3.049 -2% 0.431

There are more female student participants in Undergraduate Research. Students of both genders in Undergraduate Research have higher 1st year GPA and 4th and 6th year graduation rate.

Metrics for 1st Generation students in URP

Year Total Number in Program

4th YearGrad Rate

6th YearGrad Rate

1st YearGPA

2012 2 - - 3.6572011 14 - - 3.3932010 16 - - 3.2662009 18 39% - 3.3252008 - - - -2007 - - - -2006 - - - -

Metrics for 1st Generation students NOT in URP

Year Total Number in Program

4th YearGrad Rate

6th YearGrad Rate

1st YearGPA

2012 960 - - 2.8972011 934 - - 2.9602010 933 - - 2.9012009 905 27% - 2.9572008 34* 32% - 2.9772007 29* 10% 31% 2.5302006 16* 13% 38% 2.717


37

* Campus did not systematically track student data on 1st Generation status in these years. 1st Generation students in Undergraduate Research have higher 1st year GPA and 4th and 6th year graduation rate (although the number of students in this category is low).

c. Measure: Define “effective” and establish criteria to identify and measure:

1. Define metrics – What to measure: Learning outcomes of current programs, first year GPA, final GPA, retention, graduation, time to degree, NSSE questions, major, date of birth, class standing2. Identify a list of various student sub-populations to study:Ethnicity, first generation, Pell eligible, international students, gender

d. Measure: Record effectiveness of HIPs by student group:

Tables outlining specific metrics for student groups are presented in measure b. The data shows an impressive correlation, in general, across all student groups, with HIP participants achieving higher educational outcomes. Overall, students are more successful- They have higher 1st year GPA, retention and graduation rates when compared to non-HIP participants. This observation is also true for underrepresented populations (e.g., URM, 1st Generation, Pell Eligible students). The table below shows trends in GPA averages over a six year period, 2006-2012, for select HIP groups. With 95% confidence, it has been seen that each HIP has made a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in the GPA based on data collected over the last several years (2006-12).

Trends in First Year GPA Averages Over a Six-year period, 2006-2012, for HIP and Non-HIP participants at UW-W

#’s HIP Practice Students GPA in HIP Programs

Students GPA NOT in HIP programs

Difference

1 On-campus Employment 3.18 2.88 0.32 Learning Communities 3.10 2.96 0.143 Honors 3.71 2.93 0.784 Global Education 3.30 2.95 0.355 URP 3.41 2.96 0.45

Engagement in HIP activities definitely plays a major role in the academic performance of Freshman students and directly contributes to their satisfaction and continuous enrollment beyond Freshman year.

HIP research tells us that it is not just one program or event that makes a difference; it is a combination of programs and services. Additionally, the more HIPs students participate in, the higher level of retention, etc.

e. Measure: Create a report to disseminate:

a link to the report is provided under section d, “supporting materials and links”.Summary of Accomplishments: 2012-2014 UWW Strategic Planning Goals

38

f. Measure: Each involved HIP identifies and notes changes based on data:

The current practices seem to be working well as evidenced by increase in Freshman GPA and retention rates over several years for each HIP category-the work is ongoing

g. Suggested HIPs to include: a. Learning Communities; b. Undergraduate Research; c. New Student Seminar; d. Internships; e. Campus student employment

Highlights from HIP practices (learning communities, global education, campus student employment and undergraduate research) are presented in this report. Review the full report, under “supporting material and links” for summary reports on other HIP activities.


A version of this committee should be continued during the next SPBC strategic planning process to further explore the High-Impact Educational Practices and their impact on student retention and graduation rates at UW-Whitewater.

SPBC should assist in the prioritization of expanding HIPs on campus. For example, the SPBC could assist in identifying sources of additional institutional funding and which programs should receive “priority” funding.

A centralized method is needed for collecting data on the students involved in HIPs. One idea is that the data should be collected through “student groups” and maintained in WINS.

An annual report on participation in HIPs using “student group” data and NSSE data should be conducted and reported to the campus community to show the activity in each area and for accountability. Both qualitative and quantitative methods of evaluation should be used to evaluate the programs and to learn more about each HIP.

The ability to gather information on specific sub-groups, i.e. first generation students, student-employees, needs to be assessed.

Additional conversations need to occur around HIPs that extend across all academic programs such as capstone courses, service learning, and internships. There are no common definitions and little coordination (i.e. course numbering) between the colleges in the offerings and thus these groups need to work closely to identify common issues, create policy across colleges, and develop the infrastructure to build the programs so they can be adequately staffed and evaluated.

Some of the programs that utilize community partners, such as community-based learning/service learning and internships, need to not only build capacity with their external constituent groups, but also improve the relationships with host organizations in a manner that best represents UW-Whitewater. These programs also need to work closely to identify common issues, create policy across colleges, and develop the infrastructure to build the programs so they can be adequately staffed and evaluated.

d. Supporting material and links: Click here to view the report from goal group


39

DIVERSITY AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Goal VI: Increase the understanding of both domestic multiculturalism and international perspectives as central to university curricular and co-curricular priorities.

Measure 1: Define multicultural and international learning outcomes, within major/minors and select student affairs units/student organizations: YES

Measure 2: Identify student success in obtaining those outcomes

Team Leader: Pilar Melero, Associate Professor and Coordinator, Race and Ethnic StudiesTeam members: Richard McGregory, Elizabeth Kim, Candace Chenoweth

Frequency of the meetings:

a. Executive Summary: The committee focused its work on two key areas: the development and expansion of “Inclusive Excellence” through the Chancellor’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence , the creation of Inclusive Excellence Committees at the College Level (The College of Business and Economics and College of Letters and Sciences now have a college IE committee), and the development of a “Diversity Learning Rubric.” The plan was to assess student growth and comprehension of both domestic multiculturalism and international perspectives. As part of this work, a subcommittee has developed a diversity learning rubric to test competencies in evaluating the knowledge and attitude of UW-W students towards issues of “diversity.” Beginning with an expanded definition of “diversity,” a three day summit, “Defining & Assessing Diversity” workshop, was held during Winterim 2013 to develop a draft of the diversity learning rubric. Over the course of Spring 2013, the rubric was revised and tested. Though it was originally intended for measuring student learning on diversity issues, it has also been identified as a training tool by some campus organizations, such as the LGBTQ Office. Members of the Chancellor’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence held question and discussion sessions across campus with units of all types during the 2012-13 academic year on issues of diversity and inclusive excellence. In addition, a group of UW-Whitewater’s Inclusive Excellence members attended a two-day workshop at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in August and have identified clear operational goals for inclusive excellence at UW-Whitewater, the main objective being “graduating students who are able to thrive in a diverse environment.” The annual Campus Diversity Forum s have been held during September 27-28, 2012 and November 7-8, 2013 bringing together people from across the campus units for rich discussions. The themes were “Student Leadership and Inclusive Excellence”, in 2012 and “It Gets Better Live Pre-Show” in addition to guest lectures and discussions and other campus events. Also, the COBE and the College of Letters and Sciences have formed college-level IE committees. The L&S IE Committee includes one or more members from each of the 13 academic departments and has been in operation since the fall, 2013. This August (2014), the L&S IE Committee is


http://facstaff.uww.edu/mcphailm/forum/index.html

http://www.uww.edu/diversity/inclusive-excellence/

http://www.uww.edu/diversity/inclusive-excellence/

40

inviting a Fall Retreat speaker to address IE-related issues in the classroom. COBE will be hosting the Fall 2014 Diversity Forum.

The Center for Global Education has been hosting annual International Education Week at UW-Whitewater. Activities included cultural entertainment, a film showing reflecting on cultural differences, faculty presentations, student presentations, International Trivia Contest in Wells Residence Hall, a Global Experiences Fair, and a Global Experiences Scholarship Workshop. The colleges have been revising and improving their curriculum to integrate global education in key course offerings and to serve broader pool of students with these opportunities. Global Education major continues to progress in the College of Education & Professional Studies (COEPS). COEPS has reworked its College International Education committee, which now overseeing all international initiatives. Undergraduate Research Program (URP) provides additional grant funding to UR students whose projects require international travel and collaborates with the Center for Global Education to provide more information and support for students who would like to conduct research while studying abroad.

b. Measures and Accomplishments

Measure 1: Define multicultural and international learning outcomes, within major/minors and select student affairs units/student organizations:

Explicit definition on multicultural and international learning outcomes has not been identified.Accomplishments:1. INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE

Chancellor’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence Core Group L&S Inclusive Excellence Committee Inclusive Excellence Milestone (a second IE requirements for all students) New Initiatives: LEAP Committees DIVERSITY FORUM-The campus continues to hold annual diversity forums during the

fall semester. The College of Arts & Communication has created “Inclusive Excellence Award” to

reward faculty and staff who have made significant contributions to the college’s inclusive excellence efforts. Mr. Michael Flanagan and Professor Barbara Penington received the first awards.

The College of Letters & Sciences (L&S) developed and approved a new Disabilities Studies Certificate, which includes two new courses: English 305: “Literature of Disability,” and Political Science 331: “Disability Politics and Policy.”

2. DIVERSITY- RACE AND ETHNIC CULTURES New leadership for Race and Ethnic Cultures Change in name to Race and Ethnic Studies, recognizing the many areas of study in

the program Updated minor in Race and Ethnic Studies (RES; update in progress) Two new emphasis for RES minor:


http://www.uww.edu/cls/sociology/disability-studies

http://www.uww.edu/cls/sociology/disability-studies

41

African-American Studies Emphasis (change in progress) Chican@/Latin@ Studies Emphasis (change in progress) Change in the name of the Chicano Studies to Chican@/Latin@ Studies or CHILAS

to reflect that the program now includes Latin@ studies beyond the traditional Chican@ area

Upcoming: two new courses (one-time trial): Native American Travel Study Hmong-American Travel Study Diversity Leadership certificate-Developed by Lauren Smith through funding from

LEAP.

3. DIVERSITY COMMITTEE New leadership The Committee now has a non-voting member in the UCC to ensure that there is dialogue

between the Diversity Committee and the UCC courses proposed for diversity credit and other issues.

Measure 2. Identify student success in obtaining those outcomes

Accomplishments:New Initiatives related to student success:

Diversity Leadership Certificate (new academic program) The UW-Whitewater Diversity Learning and Intercultural Competency Rubric to

measure student learning Conversations on Race (a multidisciplinary effort by faculty in L&S and others across

campus to engage in difficult topics on race to commemorate the Civil Rights Movement, 50 years later

The Foreign Language unit of the Languages and Literatures department revised its popular Language Day for local high school students into "World Languages and Cultures Day,” held February 22, 2013. The revision changed the focus of the festival from language competition to cultural learning, and was designed to increase participation by UW-W students.

ICIT assisted the Center for Global Education in transitioning its operations to the web-based software StudioAbroad, which is a complete information center for students and faculty traveling abroad.

The University created and approved an Intensive English Program, intended to attract, integrate, and keep a greater number of international students at UW-W.

The Center for Global Education (CGE) made major efforts to increase international student enrollment, travelling and researching student recruitment in China as well as increasing and improving marketing materials aimed at bringing international students to UW-W.

CGE has implemented an attractive “Global Ambassador program” designed to foster the academic success, satisfaction with first-year experience, and to provide opportunities for international and U.S. students to live with and learn from one another. The Office of Career and Leadership Development is lending their expertise to strengthen this initiative.

COEPS’s global education program continues to grow and attract broader pool of


42

students. The teacher education program in Jamaica is newly re-focused, and COEPS strengthened programs in Sweden and Mexico. The Ecuador program will now involve service learning in addition to student teaching.

L&S introduced a curriculum for a Global Engagement Certificate, and the first student to earn the certificate graduated in May 2013.

The Academic Advising & Exploration Center teamed up with the Center for Global Education to create an orientation for new international students.

CGE will implement their international student enrollment management plan for 2013-2014 by participating in recruitment fairs in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore during Fall 2013 and a Latin American fair in Spring 2014.

The School of Graduate Studies & Continuing Education is exploring ways to offer new and existing travel study programs that address domestic multiculturalism as part of their course objectives.


The Diversity Learning rubric group recommends the following initiatives: Share the rubric across campus units and meet with relevant parties to discuss plans for

testing, revising and deployment. The evaluation plan focuses on assessing student growth in understanding of both domestic multiculturalism and international perspectives.

Initiatives to enhance recruitment and retention of women and multicultural students, ways to enhance student and faculty multicultural competence, and plans for the fall 2015 Diversity Form.

d. Supporting material and links: None

Goal VII. Identify, examine and implement models for success for students of opportunity.

a. Measure: Identify existing programs (1. Pathways to success, 2. Tutoring, 3. New Student Seminar, NSS, 4. Learning Communities, LC, 5. Non-traditional student programs, 6. Summer Business Institute, SBI, 7. FTP )

b. Measure: Examine success of existing programs ( 1. Retention, 2. GPAs, 3. Success in qualifying for entry into major, 4. Graduation)

c. Measure: Identify “models for success” at other universities and compare to our own

Team Leaders: Richard McGregory and Matt Aschenbrener Team members:

Frequency of the meetings: multiple

a. Executive Summary: Diversity has the potential to increase the quality of learning. Diversity in the college classroom can foster intellectual development, reduce students’ level of


http://www.uww.edu/aaec

http://www.uww.edu/cls/global-engagement

43

racial prejudice, increase tolerance towards racial and gender differences, and facilitate students’ explorations of diverse perspectives (http://www.asha.org). In 2000, racial/ethnic minorities comprised 30% of the U.S. population and were projected to represent approximately 50% of the total U.S. population by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Thus, UW-Whitewater must become a leader in recruiting and retaining students of opportunity to grow and succeed in the future.

Drs. Aschenbrener and McGregory have led the efforts to review models for success for students of opportunity as part of the 2012-2014 strategic planning process. As Dr. Aschenbrener works with Enrollment and Retention functions and Dr. McGregory works with Multicultural Affairs and Student Success functions at UW-Whitewater, they identified, examined, and discussed many of the existing challenges and opportunities for current and prospective students at UW-Whitewater. During multiple meetings, the team outlined process for executing the tasks to move the review forward. Initial focus was to review National Best (or Sound) Practices for Underrepresented Multicultural (URM) student recruitment, retention and success.Best or Sound Practices: The review led to first examining pre-admission and recruitment programs at Whitewater. The next step was an inventory of best practices aimed at orientation programs as well as academic and cultural support”. Further, the dimensions of existing UW-W programs including measures of success as set forth by the SPBC committee, such items as: retention rates, college GPA, entry into major, and graduation rates were examined. The last phase of the inquiry focused on recommendations for future programs or opportunities at UW-Whitewater. After reviewing a number of state university system reports, articles, papers from national organizations dedicated to higher education advocacy efforts in the recruiting and retaining students of color, it was noted that themes emerged across the states and types of institutions. These articles indicated the need to provide students’ support through a myriad of programs that span the following: pre-college and bridge programs, orientation programs, academic and cultural support programs.

We came across a good example of best or sound practices from the Minnesota State Colleges and University system where an inventory lists programs and activities from across its 31 institutions, (http://www.asa.mnscu.edu/AccessandOpportunity/Index.html). This inventory lists programs and activities from across its 31 institutions. The best practices for undergraduate retention indicated were: 1) Summer bridge program 2) Learning Communities 3) Intrusive Advising, and 4) Supplemental Instruction.

The list below shows two sets of major activities; Pre-college programs aimed at the recruitment of minority students and a myriad of Freshman-Senior general and targeted retention programs to assist in college success and life-skills (see the list under measure b). 1. Progression of Underrepresented Students through current UW-W Programs and InitiativesAs outlined in the Best Practices section, pre-college programming is vital to the overall recruitment of minority students. Outreach and awareness campaign programs must be directed to where minority students are located. Thus, understanding the demographics of the school district and individual school levels are important. Through admissions recruiting and the TRiO


http://www.asa.mnscu.edu/AccessandOpportunity/Index.html

http://www.asha.org/

44

Upward Bound program, UW-Whitewater has been able to develop programs to reach URM students in the K-12 environment.

The UW-Whitewater Admissions office has counselors assigned to the top feeder high schools in Wisconsin and Illinois. Counselors visit those schools annually and read prospective student applications from those schools. Targeted admissions recruitment of URM students at UW-Whitewater occurs primarily through Rob Gambsky. Mr. Gambsky works with high schools in the Milwaukee Public School district. He conducts “Wheels to Whitewater” programs where UW-Whitewater pays for busses from the districts to UW-Whitewater. Of the 361 first-year, URM students enrolled at UW-Whitewater during the Fall 2012 semester, 306 (84.7%) were from Wisconsin, and 131 (36.3%) had a Milwaukee address.

Some examples of precollege/admissions/college transitional programming at UW-Whitewater include: Upward Bound Program/Summer Academic Camps/Great Lakes (Office of Precollege Programs); Summer Business Institute (MultiCultural Business Program); Future Teacher Program (College of Education); King/Chavez Scholarship/Summer Transition Program; Plan It Purple; U LEAD; Club U-Dub-Dub. Periodically, funds have been obtained from external and internal entities to sponsor selected transition initiatives (e.g. Biology Bootcamp, QVVEP, STAR).

Wheels to Whitewater is designed to give multicultural students the opportunity to visit the UW-Whitewater campus while also exposing them to specific areas such as Admissions, Academic Advising, Athletics, Financial Aid and Multicultural Affairs and Student Success. This comes at no cost to the high schools as transportation and meals are covered by UW-Whitewater. Historically, the program has served 325-400 students each year. Moreover, Wheels participants that apply to UW-Whitewater have a higher than average yield rate.

The Office of Pre-College Programs administers the Upward Bound Program, Pre-College Academic Camps, and Saturday College Program. The Upward Bound Program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, provides academic advising, tutoring, mentoring, and a six week summer academic enrichment experience to 68 college-bound students each year in grades 9-12 at targeted schools in Milwaukee and Racine. The Pre-College Summer Camps, which are largely funded by the State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, provides 200-300 low-income, first generation, and underrepresented multicultural students each year with academic, career, and cultural/recreational activities in a one, two, or three week residential experience to.

Once URM students have transitioned to UW-Whitewater, they are served by a myriad of general and targeted retention initiatives. These include programs offered by First Year Experience (New Student Seminar, Learning Communities) and support units such as MASS and AAEC (Pathway for Success) as well as targeted retention initiatives offered in academic colleges (COBE, COEPS) and support units. Students that progress into their sophomore years and beyond are encouraged to participate in broadly defined high impact practices such as undergraduate research, travel study/study abroad, work and research internships, campus leadership and employment, service learning broadly defined; and, the University Honors Program.


45


Measure a: Identify existing programs (1. Pathways to success, 2. Tutoring, 3. NSS, 4. LC, 5. Non-traditional student programs, 6. SBI, 7. Future Teacher Program, FTP )

Descriptions of Current Programs and Initiatives

1. Pathways to Success and Tutoring (1&2): The Pathways for Success Program provides specialized academic advising and support services geared toward developing self-responsibility and motivation for learning as well as a defined academic and career plan. The program was developed to better coordinate instruction, advising, and support services to assist students with remedial needs toward degree completion. The first four cohorts of Pathways suggest an improvement in first to second year retention of approximately ten percentage points.The King/Chavez Scholars Program is designed to attract and retain exceptional incoming multicultural and first-generation undergraduate scholars for participation in high impact educational programs and initiatives such as: McNair Scholars Program; University Honors Program; Undergraduate Research Program; First Year Fall and Spring Semester Seminar; travel for conference presentations. Students receive a scholarship during their freshman year. The last five King/Chavez cohorts have had an average first to second year retention rate of 85%. Moreover, participants from the 1997-2006 cohorts have had an average graduation rate that exceeds 60%.

2. NEW Student Seminar, NSS and Learning Communities, LC (3&4): The Office of First Year Experience hosts learning communities and the new student seminar. First year students are invited to live and study with peers who share similar interests in learning communities (LCs) where approximately 25 students live together and share common courses. Learning Communities are led by faculty members who mentor students and encourage them to carry classroom discussions into their residential communities. Moreover, more than 90% of each incoming freshman class enrolls in the one credit New Student Seminar that helps students connect with the campus, achieve academic success, succeed in a changing world. Data consistently has shown higher first to second year retention rates for students that participate in learning communities and the New Student Seminar.

3. Multicultural Business Program (MBP) and Summer Business Institute (SBI) (6): The Multicultural Business Program (MBP) is a specialized support program, and a cooperative effort between the College of Business & Economics, campus Academic Support Programs, and industry. The early identification of academically talented minority students for participation in summer internships and scholarship opportunities is a major benefit to students who participate in the program. In addition, students who actively participate in MBP interact and develop supportive relationships with other business majors; discuss current issues confronting professionals in the business arena, and gain insight into the expectations of business


46

professionals. The Summer Business Institute is a program offered by the Multicultural Business Program to help students of color successfully transition from high school to college at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. The SBI enrichment experience promotes excellence and provides its participants opportunities to gain a competitive edge as they pursue a business degree and go on to hold leadership positions in the business community. SBI participants have had an average first to second year retention rate of over 87%.

4. Future Teacher Program (FTP) (7): The Future Teacher Program (FTP) is an initiative for recruitment and retention designed to increase student learning and provide practical application of the knowledge received in their teacher education courses. Students receive focused academic and professional support from freshman year through graduation. Preliminary data suggests that FTP participants have an average first to second year retention rate of 80-90%.

5. Other Programs: Biology Boot Camp is a program that welcomes 15-20 incoming freshman and returning sophomores to UW-Whitewater for a two-week summer session. Students learn how to: work in a laboratory; take good notes; access campus resources; and improve their writing and oral communication skills. Participants in the Biology Boot Camp have had a first to second year retention rate of over 86%.

The McNair Scholars Program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, prepares first-generation, low-income, and multicultural students for doctoral study and eventual careers as college professors. The program: matches each student with a faculty mentor in their major; provides resources for undergraduate research projects; enhances students’ quantitative, technology, test taking, research methods, and critical thinking skills; provides students with opportunities to present research findings at regional and national conferences; and provides stipends for on-campus and external summer research internships. Over 80% of participants have gone to graduate school, approximately 55% of graduates have earned Master’s degrees, and over 10% of graduates have earned terminal degrees.

UG Research Undergraduate Research Program supports inquiry-driven research scholarship and creative activity. The program is an advocate for expanded experiential learning that enhances engagement in undergraduate research, scholarship and creative activity, including faculty-mentored research and curriculum-based projects. One of the program’s goals is to create more opportunities for inclusive participation.

b. Measure: Examine success of existing programs ( 1. Retention, 2. GPAs, 3. Success in qualifying for entry into major, 4. Graduation)

The UW-W has an impressive list of programs to choose from, as listed in measure a, for URM students’ academic, leadership and career success. Each program narrative provides qualitative and quantitative (retention and graduation) indicators related to program goals and success.


47

Overall, the data demonstrates high level of students’ satisfaction and success in achieving their educational goals. 1. Pathways to Success and Tutoring: The first four cohorts of Pathways suggest an

improvement in first to second year retention of approximately ten percentage points.King/Chavez Scholars Program: first to second year retention rate of 85%. Moreover, participants from the 1997-2006 cohorts have had an average graduation rate that exceeds 60%.

2. NEW Student Seminar, NSS and Learning Communities: Data consistently has shown higher first to second year retention rates.

3. Summer Business Institute (SBI): SBI participants have had an average first to second year retention rate of over 87%. Multicultural Business Program: Students who actively participate in MBP interact and develop supportive relationships with other business majors; discuss current issues confronting professionals in the business arena, and gain insight into the expectations of business professionals

4. Future Teacher Program (FTP): Preliminary data suggests that FTP participants have an average first to second year retention rate of 80-90%.

5. Biology Boot Camp: Participants in the Biology Boot Camp have had a first to second year retention rate of over 86%.

6. McNair Scholars Program: Over 80% of participants have gone to graduate school, approximately 55% of graduates have earned Master’s degrees, and over 10% of graduates have earned terminal degrees.

c. Measure: Identify “models for success” at other universities and compare to our own

Models for success at other campuses (a literature review): Provide students’ support through programs that span the following: pre-college and bridge programs, orientation programs, academic and cultural support programs.

From Minnesota State Colleges and University System (MnSCU): Summer Bridge program; Learning Communities, Intrusive Advising, and the use of Supplemental Instruction.

Based on successful models identified at other campuses and a quick review of programs at UW-Whitewater, the institution’s commitment is readily apparent considering an impressive list of programs, certainly at or above the national norms, targeted to enhance students’ of opportunity success.


The reality in the United States is that a major proportion of racial/ethnic minority students have unequal access to higher education (Ntiri, 2001). Many experience a variety of personal, environmental, and institutional barriers that result in limited or no access to college and


48

university education (Opp, 2001; Thomason & Thurber, 1999). Some of these barriers include financial difficulty and lack of financial aid, the need to work full-time, lack of family support, lack of information about the college preparation and application process, low scores on traditional college admission tests, and often, an absence of role models who have gone to college (Lee, 1991; Ntiri, 2001). As we develop future programs at UW-Whitewater, we need to not only take into account the existing programs that have been successful for us, but also take into account the barriers that inhibit or prevent students from attending the university.

The following is a listing of programs and initiatives that could be developed/implemented/expanded to enhance the success of racial/ethnic minority students at UW-Whitewater:

Expand URM Special Program Recruitment (Wheels) Expand the number of King/Chavez Scholarships from 50-60/year to 75-100/year Expand Summer Transition programming to impact more students:

o This would also require greater coordination and collaboration between existing programs (i.e. Biology Bootcamp, King/Chavez, Center for Students with Disabilities, Summer Business Institute, Future Teacher Program)

o This could also involve the development of an extensive “bridge” program for students needing developmental coursework and/or admitted conditionally such as the Summer Collegiate Experience (SCE) offered by UW-Madison

Expand STEM initiatives to include “Science camps” targeted toward URM students in grades 6-11o This could complement campus efforts such as Biology Bootcamp, Research

Apprenticeship Program (RAP), and McNair Scholars Programo This could also evolve into a 4-year program for URM students in STEM areas

similar to FTP and MBP Commit to institutionalize and institutionally customize TRIO type efforts to support

students o This would be similar to the campus commitment to institutionalize Pathways for

Success at 100 students per entering cohort in light of the fact that the Pathways model is similar to the federal Student Support Services (SSS) model

o Expansion of the King/Chavez Coordinator from 50% to 100% position: could be expanded to customize and institutionalize efforts to engage URM students in undergraduate research, which will be particularly important if there are future funding challenges for the federal McNair Scholars Program

Provide additional staffing to support URM studentso Full-time staff members could better support African American, Latino,

Southeast Asian, and Native American students through intrusive advising where Multicultural Retention Initiatives in MASS currently utilize graduate/undergraduate peer advisors

d. Supporting material and links: None


49

DIVERSITY AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Goal VIII. Examine and improve campus policies, procedures, and practices to increase the diversity of students, faculty, and staff, as a way to enhance the learning environment for all.

Goal Leader: Elizabeth Ogunsola, Assistant to the Chancellor for Affirmative Action & DiversityTeam Members: Richard McGregory and Mark McPhail.Other participants : Faculty/Staff Diversity Recruitment & Retention CommitteeWorkforce Diversity Team and Chancellor’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence Steering Committee

a. Measure: Define “Diversity”: YES

b. Determine existing make up of faculty, staff, student population

c. Identify best practices

d. Establish peer benchmarks

a. Executive Summary: The committee reviewed the changes made to improve campus policies, procedures, and practices within colleges, Student Affairs, and other units. There are several great examples of measures in the colleges. The College of Business & Economics has joined the KPMG Ph.D. project, which provides scholarships to minority students studying for PhDs in business fields. Members are given access to students as they enter the job market via receptions and e-mail notifications of program completion. The college discussed this issue of student diversity during the last five years at its strategic advisory group meetings, generating annual goals to help us improve numbers.

An example from the College of Arts & Communication shows its efforts to work closely with the Office of Human Resources and Diversity to improve its effort to attract a diverse pool of candidates for positions in the college. Policies in position descriptions have been revised to address explicitly the University’s commitment to inclusive excellence, diversity and global learning, and to include these in the qualifications that they are seeking in potential candidates. The college will also target search opportunities at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Colleges and Universities (HSCUs), and Native American Tribal Colleges and Universities. Additionally, it is planning to offer instructional opportunities to two alumni of color, currently working at the university, both of whom have expressed an interest in teaching in the college. These efforts are clearly aligned with the University’s strategic goals of Diversity and Global Perspectives, and also connect with the strategic goal of Personal and Professional Responsibilities.


50

The committee reviewed the current data to determine the existing make-up of faculty, staff and student population. Details are provided under measures/accomplishments section. The data on faculty/staff diversity did not show a significant change over the four years while the student enrollment data (2002-2012) showed enhanced diversity.

b. Measures and Accomplishments:

a. Measure: Define “Diversity”

The diversity of a university’s faculty, staff, and students influences its strength, productivity, and intellectual personality. Diversity of experience, age, physical ability, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, and many other attributes contributes to the richness of the environment for teaching and research. We also need diversity in discipline, intellectual outlook, cognitive style, and personality to offer students the breadth of ideas that constitute a dynamic intellectual community. (WISELI – Benefits and Challenges of Diversity in Academic Settings)

Information from Institutional Research and the Office of Human Resources and Diversity detailing the proportions of faculty, academic staff, and classified staff by gender and racial/ethnic groups was reviewed to determine the current diversity of the workforce at UW-Whitewater. Currently, taken as a whole, faculty and academic staff from multicultural groups are represented at approximately the same proportions on campus as they are in southeastern Wisconsin. However, there are major variations across the multicultural groups. Classified staff personnel from all multicultural groups are underrepresented on campus. Currently faculty and academic staff are evenly split between males and females. However, there are disparities in individual programs.

Measure b. Determine existing make up of faculty, staff, student population

The committee reviewed the current data to determine the existing make-up of faculty, staff and student population. The Affirmative Action Plan/Workforce data breakout by department, gender and ethnicity/HRS data (click here to view “UW-Whitewater Workforce Data for 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 from Institutional Research”) was shared with the Chancellor Committee on Inclusive Excellence, the Strategic Planning & Budget Committee, LEAP Workforce Diversity Team and the Faculty/Staff Diversity Recruitment & Retention Committee. The data did not show a significant change over the four years.

Institutional Research data on students from “headcount on racial/ethnic heritage headcount & percentages of each sub-group of fall enrollment from 2002 to 2012” indicates increased student diversity. The chart below shows the trend in student diversity, data from 2010-2014 for


51

racial/ethnic student populations. However, several underrepresented groups appear to be experiencing stagnation in terms of increased representation on campus.

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-140

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Institutional Reserach Data on Race/Ethnic Student Popula-tions

African American

Latino

Native American

Southeast Asian

Plans have been established to work with Director of Institutional Research regarding Recruitment & Retention data.

An example of a college making efforts to determine the existing make-up of faculty, staff, and student population is provided in the College of Business & Economics CoBE. Every year, the college reports on the diversity of its faculty and instructional academic staff to its accrediting agency, AACSB. The CoBE Inclusive Excellence Committee has been considering the ethnicity and gender of its student body for the last two years and discussing strategies for increasing the recruitment and retention of American minorities and women. Prior to the existence of the CoBE Inclusive Excellence Committee and back to the time of the Equity Scorecard, the college has tracked its diversity enrollments and undertaken initiatives to enhance retention. The Summer Business Institute (SBI) Program and introduction of Supplemental Instruction (SI) in sophomore level business courses are examples of initiatives between the college faculty and instructional staff and the Minority Business Programs office (now the Multicultural Business Programs office).

Measure c: Identify Best Practices:

Current Best Practices and Accomplishments Toward Diversifying the Whitewater Community:

A. Review Colleges/Units Annual Reports on Best Practices:The Chancellor’s Committee on Inclusive Excellence is currently reviewing summary reports of colleges/units on “global learning, diversity and inclusive excellence accomplishments” for academic year 2013-2014 and plans to provide its summary report shortly.


52

B. Current Campus Policies, Procedures, and Practices to Increase the Diversity of Students, Faculty and Staff:

A host of programs are available on campus to provide support services to multicultural faculty/staff/students. Some are listed below. To view a detailed list of program goals and services, click here;

2. a. Multicultural Affairs & Student Success; McNair Scholars Program; Future Teacher Program (FTP); Multicultural Business Program (MBP) & The Summer Business Institute (SBI); Pathway for Success Program; Grow Our Own Forum; Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program; Hiring Process/Search & Screen Process; Admissions Office (Wheels to Whitewater); International Education Recruitment.

Grow Our Own Forum: The “GROW OUR OWN” Forum is a systematic means of identifying individuals with potential is being developed. This structure will allow existing faculty and staff to suggest individuals for this program and also permit individuals to nominate themselves. The structure will monitor the academic and professional development of those individuals.

Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program : The Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program supports the university’s commitment to fostering greater understanding of individual, societal and group differences at every level of university life. Fellows play a critical role in intentionally integrating those differences into the core aspects of the institution. The Fellowship Program is open to all individuals who are academic or creative professionals who have completed a terminal degree within the last five years or who will have completed a terminal degree by September 1, 2014. Applicants should be able to demonstrate a commitment to their academic field as well as a commitment to the principles of Inclusive excellence. Faculty/Staff Diversity Recruitment & Retention Committee are designing strategies to sustain the Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program at UW-Whitewater.

c. Select articles from a literature review on “best practices in increasing diversity of faculty/staff” A Guide to Recruiting and Retaining a More Diverse Faculty prepared by The College of

Sciences and Humanities Task Force on Diversity – Ball State University, Dec 2008 Best Practices: Recruiting/Retaining Faculty/Staff of Color , Western Washington

University, 2009 Searching for Excellence & Diversity :

o Evaluation of WISELI workshop at UWW - Sept 2007 New Levels of Excellence: Faculty Recruiting for the 21 st Century Resource List ,

University of Wisconsin System, Office of General CounselSummary of Accomplishments: 2012-2014 UWW Strategic Planning Goals

53

How to Diversify the Faculty by Daryl G. Smith Search & Screen Strategies for Diversity-Inclusion – Oregon State University

o

Strategies for Increasing Faculty Diversity - Women in HE VCU-Strategies for Successfully Recruiting Diverse Faculty – Virginia Commonwealth

University Eastern Kentucky University Comprehensive Diversity Plan , Academic Year 2011-2015

Measure d. Establish Peer Benchmarks (Students/Faculty/Staff)

1) Trends in “Enrollment of Multicultural Students” from 2010-11 to 2013-14

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

African American 541 546 573 551

Latino 371 399 460 490

Native American 28 21 22 28

Southeast Asian 92 90 111 102

2) Review of current data as of 12-6-2013 for faculty, staff, & graduate assistants

Ethnicity Faculty/Staff Graduate Assistants

Total %

American Indian/Alaska

9 0 9 1%

Asian 81 6 87 6%

Black/African American

54 5 59 4%

Hispanic/Latino

23 4 27 2%

NativeHawaiian/Pacific

5 2 7 <1%

Not Specific 7 1 8 1%


54

White 1180 63 1243 86%

Total 1359 81 1440 100%

c. Future themes/goals/action plans

Pursue the Workforce Diversity LEAP Team goals

Design and develop resources and strategies to assist with the successful recruitment of diverse faculty and staff. Create strategies to develop vita banks within colleges, units, and departments. Network with UW-W faculty/staff currently working on workforce diversity initiatives to share ideas & resources Identify successful model for diversifying the workforce diversity that can be duplicated in department/unit. Effective communication strategies for engaging individuals in their department/unit in having conversations about diversifying the workforce in their areas. Develop long term strategies to enhance and prepare potential individuals to participate in the Grow Our Own forum and Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program.

Review summary reports of college/unit global learning, diversity and inclusive excellence accomplishments for the last two years.

Endorse, encourage and support College Inclusive Excellence Committees initiatives. Support the implementation of the Inclusive Excellence Fellowship Program and work to

make it a sustainable program along with the Grow Our Own Forum. Empower the Chancellor Committee on Inclusive Excellence Steering Committee to

monitor the implementation of the UW-Whitewater Institutional Inclusive Excellence Goals.

All of our graduates can thrive and succeed in diverse environments Achieve a higher level of compositional diversity

Faculty/staff to mirror student body Students to mirror surrounding area

Curriculum diversity initiatives to be in place throughout the departments and colleges Students will have explicit identity and cultural development experiences Develop and apply tools to measure growth in intercultural development for students,

faculty, and staff Members of the UW-Whitewater can demonstrate an ability to articulate insights about

their own identity in multiple contexts Expand diversity learning to include social class and employment status



55

1. 2009-2010 UW-W Workforce Data2. 2013-2014 UW-W Workforce Data3. List of support services to multicultural faculty/staff/students Workforce Data

REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT

Goal 9: Improve community and regional connections in ways that enhance UW-W capacity to align educational, cultural and athletic programs and services with community and regional needs, and assess the outcomes of these efforts.

1. Measure: Define operational terms like “improve” and “community and regional needs.”2. Measure: Assess number of programs, UWW students, and members of the public involved in relevant “connections:” a. educational b. cultural c. athletic

Team Leaders: Tom Rios, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; Paul Plinske, Director of Athletics

1. Executive Summary: The committee discussed operational terms like “improve” and “community and regional needs.” Civic/Community Engagement has become somewhat of a catchphrase in higher education, and thus, it is difficult to define one size fits all; it could mean various things to various people bringing diverse set of ideas and perspectives to the table. Moreover, the practice of community engagement has become, for many, though not all students, obligatory and perfunctory. Indeed, several schools are mandating a certain number of service learning/community engagement hours as part of undergraduate curriculum for their students.

The definition for improvement, is recommended that “improvement” center on assessment of activities; more specifically, on aspects of student learning and practice within community.

Indeed, the Carnegie Community Engagement Certification process revealed various approaches to assessing community engagement currently being undertaken. Nonetheless, our campus could benefit by having broader conversation about what community engagement means — as it relates to creating learning experiences for our students.

2. Measures and Accomplishments

Measures Accomplishments

1. Define operational terms like “improve” and “community and regional

Improve: “improvement” center on assessment of activities; more specifically, on aspects of student learning and practice within community

Community and Regional needs: Civic/Community Engagement has become somewhat of a slogan in higher education, and thus, it


56

needs”.

2. Assess number of programs, UWW students, and members of the public involved in relevant “connections:

a. Educational

could mean various things to various people bringing along diverse view points and perspectives to the conversation.

The University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, through its Whitewater Incubation Program (WhIP) and the University Technology Park, has been of excellent resource and profile providing additional services to advance university-community connections, nurturing entrepreneurship and identifying pathways to engage citizens in the economic development of Wisconsin. A host of services are offered at the innovation center and in addition a mix of educational events of interest in the form of seminars, workshops and lecture are being held throughout the year.

Elements for Success monthly seminar series is being held at the Whitewater University Technology Park Innovation. Building Partnerships to Launch and Grow Your Business-

Choton Basu, faculty, COBE and James Jackson of Slipstream. A mobile-based software app called GOStrive was developed in partnership with the National Parks and Recreation Association. It’s a great navigation tool enabling citizens to find out what’s happening in the community.

The Fairhaven Lecture Series is celebrating 30 years of community discourse this current year. UWW hosts these events and the faculty give talks and lead discussions at the Fairhaven Retirement Community in Whitewater. The lectures are open and free to the public.

InterActiv Conference and Technology Academy targeting K-12 and Higher Ed Educators was held at UW-Whitewater in June 18-21, 2013. Sessions were designed to provide valuable professional development for attendees. It is estimated that over 300 educators have attended the conference.

The College of Education and Professional Studies sponsored a Collaborative Rube Goldberg type machine building event in conjuction with Fond du Lac Stem Academy and Whitewater LINCS Charter School. ICIT provided the technology support.

Blackthorne Capital Management , the first private business tenant of the Whitewater Innovation Center, has been partnering with UW-Whitewater to develop software systems for the purpose of managing financial investment portfolios. UWW-ICIT is providing network infrastructure and security consultation services for the project.

The Andersen Library hosted a History Resources Workshop On August 22, 2012, as part of an educational outreach event

The College of Letters & Sciences created a new Science Outreach Coordinator position. The coordinator facilitates outreach activities to local schools, area libraries, museums,


http://www.blackthorne.com/Default.aspx

http://www.rubegoldberg.com/

http://www.interactivlearning.com/

http://www.uww.edu/conteduc/fairhaven/

http://uwworsp.org/Innovation/For-Entrepreneurs/Whitewater-Incubation-Program-WhIP/iHUB-Showcase.aspx

http://uwworsp.org/Innovation/For-Entrepreneurs/Whitewater-Incubation-Program-WhIP/Elements-for-Success.aspx

57

b. Cultural

c. Athletic

engaging faculty and students. JumpStart program (group advising) has been implemented by

the Academic Advising and Exploration Center during first 3 weeks of the semester with 73% of first-year class attending in Fall 2013.

The School of Graduate Studies & Continuing Education (SGSCE) engages the community by distributing a semi- bi-monthly newsletter chronicling its activities and highlighting those that impact the community. Five newsletters were sent to a list of approximately 1,150 email addresses in AY 12-13 with an average open rate of 26.5% and 18.6% of SGSCE-related links clicked.

The Andersen Library and the Children’s center co-sponsored a cultural event for young children, on April 19, 2013 to participate in the library’s First Annual Stuffed Animal Sleepover.

The University of Wisconsin Digital Collection’s Photo Digitization project-the Special Collections at Anderson Library provided 200 campus building photographs and associated metadata to the project and developed call numbers and identified local collections expanding the database to benefit the community.

“Walworth County Genealogical Society research evening” hosted by Special Collections on May 7, 2013.

The Financial Aid office Financial Aid Nights at regional high schools and participated in Wisconsin Goal Sunday (part of National College Goal Sunday) to provide financial aid presentations and assistance with preparing the FAFSA.

None Identified

3. Future themes and Recommendations:

Key areas to explore and bolster Learning and Assessment related to:

Insight. Into oneself, one’s community, and one’s world. How we think about ourselves, our work, our relationships with others.

Practice. Learning how to dwell in a place — “being in community” as opposed to just “working in community.” Norms of engagement that make community/regional


58

engagement a reciprocal relationship versus “let us come in and do for you.” Promise. Gathering compelling evidence that community engagement becomes real —

that it prompts new “ways of being” and complements other disparate forms of learning.

The committee recommends forming a “Council,” with representation from Student Affairs and Academic Affairs, to develop action plans based upon the areas for exploration (insight, practice, and promise). The Task Force recommends Student Affairs to assume a leadership role.


Goal 10: Increase campus capacity to connect students, faculty, and staff in service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development in ways that advance student learning and foster community and regional partnerships.

Measure: a. Service Engagement: assess number of students involved and quality involvementb. Entrepreneurship and Economic development: assess number of students, faculty, and community members involved; assess financial valuec. Identify community and regional needs Leaders: Denise Ehlen, ORSP; Seth Meisel, Continuing Ed.

Team Members:

Frequency of the meetings:


Over the last two years, the group has defined and operationalized “service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development” and “community and regional partnerships” for the purposes of campus activities, as well as conducted a thorough literature review and asset mapping for the campus. Much of this work has informed the campus’ application to the Carnegie Community Engagement Certification (completed in April 2014), and has generated an invaluable list of key institutional strengths and weaknesses for further development. Additionally, group members have developed institutional strategies to increase community engagement and outreach activities across campus, leveraging or reallocating existing programs/resources to increase the institution’s visibility in the areas of engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development.


The group operationalized "service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development" and "community and regional partnerships" for the purposes of campus activities and this goal


59

An inventory of "service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development" activities were steered based upon the definitions/best practices derived from the literature and conducted a needs assessment of community/regional partners. This information was also used to assess the value of “service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development.” Below is a summary list of the institution’s strengths and weaknesses.

Measure a: Service Engagement: assess number of students involved and quality involvement

There are institutional (campus-wide) learning outcomes for students’ curricular engagement with community. Community engagement is integrated into curricular (for-credit) activities.

On 15 April 2014, the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater submitted an application for the Carnegie Community Engagement Certification. Drs. Susan Johnson, Barbara Beaver, and Seth Meisel spent months compiling information for the UW-Whitewater application, which included data provided by all of the campus’ colleges and units regarding partnerships within the region. A decision on the classification is anticipated by January 2015.

The Undergraduate Research Program has worked, in collaboration with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs and the Whitewater University Technology Park Innovation Center, to expand opportunities for undergraduate students by placing them into suitable applied projects affiliated with the Center.

Created promotional materials (videos, for example) that demonstrate LEAP POEs to increase awareness and recruit a more diverse student population into the Launch Pad and iCorps.

Explored strategies to align all WhiP components with existing UW-Whitewater HIPs (i.e. Undergraduate Research experiences for iCorps, model Learning Community best practices in the iCorps, recruit iCorps participants from Learning Communities).

The LEARN Center sponsored a campus workshop on best practices in employing reflection papers to advance student learning in service learning courses led by Kim Jensen (Marquette University) in October 2013 with 24 faculty and staff in attendance.

Measure b. Entrepreneurship and Economic development: assess number of students, faculty, and community members involved; assess financial value There are examples of faculty and staff scholarship associated with outreach and

partnerships activities (technical reports, curriculum, research reports, policy reports, publications, etc)

UW-Whitewater is developing a Service Learning Curriculum. During the 2012-2013 academic year, seven faculty Community-Based Learning Fellows trained under coordinators Seth Meisel and Deilee Calvert-Minor. The goal was to "provide a year long professional development program for faculty interested in developing best practices in service learning courses and in assessing student learning." A second cohort of Community Based Learning and Teaching Fellows have been recruited and trained to develop service learning courses focused on civic engagement for year long projects, which will run from Spring to Fall 2014.


60

iHUB Showcases have featured presentations by participants in the Whitewater Incubation Program (WhIP): iHUB Fellows, Mentors, and Scholars. WhIP consists of a number of different programs designed to provide coaching, mentoring, support, and service to new business ventures linked to the Whitewater University Technology Park Innovation Center.

Whitewater Incubation Program (WhIP): Created a Whitewater Incubation Program mission that aligns with LEAP, entrepreneurship program/major learning outcomes, and the College of Business and Economic Outcomes Assurance of Learning (AOL) objectives.

Measure c: Identify Community and Regional needs

The group conducted an inventory of "service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development" activities based upon definitions and conducted a needs assessment of community/regional partners. This information was also used to assess the value of “service engagement, entrepreneurship, and economic development.” Below is a summary list of the institution’s strengths and weaknesses.

STRENGTHS

The institution indicates community engagement as a priority in its mission, vision and strategic priorities statement.

The executive leadership (Provost, Chancellor, Deans, etc.) explicitly promotes community engagement as a priority. Community engagement is emphasized in strategic planning, marketing materials (website, brochures, etc.), recognition through formal campus-wide awards, infrastructure support, budgetary allocations, staffing plan, targeted outreach programs for community, systematic campus-wide tracking/documentation/assessment and professional development support for faculty and staff.

There are institutional (campus-wide) learning outcomes for students’ curricular engagement with community. Service learning is integrated into curricular (for-credit) activities, diversity and inclusion work (for students, faculty, and staff). Community engagement is connected to efforts aimed at student retention and success.

WEAKNESSES

Limited external funding to support institutional engagement with community.The institution does not maintain systematic campus-wide tracking or documentation

mechanisms to record and/or track engagement with the community and its associated uses.

There are no or limited institutional, college/school and/or department level policies for promotion (and tenure at tenure-granting campuses) that specifically reward faculty scholarly work that uses community-engaged approaches and methods.

C. Looking Forward: Future Themes/Goals/Action PlansSummary of Accomplishments: 2012-2014 UWW Strategic Planning Goals

61

Increase efforts on assessing “engagement for student learning and identity”. There appears to be a disconnect between the value of an engaged university and how students’ perceive the value of their service learning or community engagement degree requirements.

Identify and increase funding to support community engagement activities: External funding is not generally dedicated to supporting institutional engagement with community. The institution should identify strategies to increase the amount of external funding dedicated to support community engagement, along with aligning existing funds to support these efforts.

Address deficiencies in systematic campus-wide tracking or documentation mechanisms to record and/or track engagement with the community and its associated uses. UW-Whitewater should identify mechanisms and individual(s) responsible for tracking community engagement efforts and outcomes.

Encourage faculty/staff personnel rules revisions to reflect recognition for scholarly work that uses community-engaged approaches and methods.


PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY

Goal 11: Develop a fair and reasonable structure for workload and compensation for faculty, staff, and students.

a. Measure: Define “fair and reasonable” workload and compensation Y/N1. For student workers2. For staff3. For faculty

b. Measure: Determine campus status related to benchmark/standard (to be identified) Y/N

c. Measure: Identify campus/unit targets

1. Course loads, advisee loads, case loads2. SCH/FTE3. Salary and Compression

Leaders: Mark McPhail (coordinator)

Team members: Ron Buchholz and Faye Schouten (Student Employment Advisory Committee); Denise Ehlen, George Clokey, and Curt Weber (Academic Staff Assembly); Denise Ehren and Amy Sexton (non-exempt classified staff); Susan Messer (Faculty Senate Executive Committee).


62

Other interested parties who attended some of the committee’s meetings: Aimee Arnold, Judi Trampf, Hephzibah Kumpaty, Elena Pokot, Brandi Neimeier, Connie Putland, Michael Sacco, and David Munro.

Frequency of the meetings: The committee met eight times between September of 2013 and March of 2014 (4-28-13; 4-22-13; 9-30-13; 11-4-13; 12-16-13; 1-26-14; 2-17-14; 3-17-14); Additionally, each constituency group representing the main committee held additional meetings within its units to address the charge.


The SPBC Workload and Compensation team brought together members from different constituency groups to determine how a fair and reasonable structure for workload and compensation could be developed and implemented at UW-Whitewater. The groups represented included Academic Staff Assembly (Instructional & Non Instructional); Exempt Classified Staff; Faculty Senate Executive Committee; Non-Exempt Classified Staff; and the Student Employment Advisory Committee. The group developed a set of definitions, key measures and objectives (outlined under measures and accomplishment section) to guide its work on “workload and compensation”. The committee also registered several other issues and concerns during its deliberations, that framed the broader conversations as well as the individual reports, and provided the foundation for future work related to Workload and Compensation. Summarized here, they are:

1). Differentiating Compensation and Workload Issues: The committee recognized that it could have little impact on compensation issues, since these were largely determined by legislative and budgetary functions beyond the university’s direct control. Consequently, much of the discussion focused on issues of workload and work environment quality, although the committee did recommend that more information regarding how budgets are determined and the constraints faced by the university in terms of compensation should be discussed more fully at various levels (e.g. Department Chair training,), and that more emphasis should be placed on communicating the efforts that the university has made in the past several years to addresses issues of compensation (i.e. compression & market adjustments, Discretionary Merit Adjustments, lump sum adjustments, etc.). The committee also suggested that the university consider establishing as a strategic goal achieving and sustaining an out of state student population at the limit established by the legislature, as the funds secured through out of state tuition are one of the few revenue sources that can allow the university to address compensation issues.

2). Realignment of Strategic Planning Efforts: The committee recommended that the university shift its strategic planning efforts away from the two year cycle presently utilized toward a more systematic five year planning cycle that focuses on establishing specific and measurable goals, reviewing the extent to which they have been achieved, and initiating action plans in the event that goals were not met in terms of expected outcomes. A five-year planning cycle allow for a


63

process which emphasizes reporting as a function of accountability instead of as an end in and of itself. A five year cycle that incorporated accountability based reporting would also help the university to prioritize and focus its strategic planning efforts by illustrating clearly when goals had been achieved, and providing specific directions in the event that they were not completed. This would effectively “close the loop” on the reporting function, and thus make the process more productive and meaningful for those directly and indirectly involved in it.

3). Data Access and Integration: The committee recommends that the university make data management and accessibility a strategic priority due to the numerous reporting demands placed on the institution and its various units. All of the constituencies represented on the committee agreed that the university should provide whatever resources are required to established information management systems that result in increased ease of use through technological means, as well as clearer and more carefully defined policies and procedures. Furthermore, reducing redundancies when possible, and providing information that is consistent, transparent, and accurate, would play a significant role in decreasing workload stress, improving work environment quality, and reducing the effects of what several members of the committee described as “mission creep,” the ever-increasing number of projects and reports that are demanded by both external and internal reporting requirements.

In addition to these broader recommendations, each of the constituency groups of the committee also presented an individual report that represented the specific issues, concerns, and recommendations presented by its area. The following reports were submitted by the Academic Staff Assembly, the Classified Staff Advisory Council, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee Subcommittee, and the Student Employment Committee

Measures and Accomplishments:

a. Measure: Define “fair and reasonable” workload and compensation: YES

1. For student workers2. For staff3. For faculty

Definition: A fair and reasonable structure for workload and compensation reflects a consistent, transparent, accurate, and equitable system of policies and procedures governing employment responsibilities and rewards that is appropriate to position, classification, and university goals, mission, and values and is consistent with best practices at peer and aspirational institutions.

b. Measure: Determine campus status related to benchmark/standard (to be identified) Y/N

1: Consistency & Accuracy


64

UW-Whitewater policies and procedures governing workload and compensation should be consistent with external entities (e.g. statutory, UW System, other comprehensive Universities), as well as internally consistent across administrative and academic units.

Objective #1: Evaluation and Alignment

The University should conduct a review and evaluation of existing policies related to workload and compensation, and where inconsistencies exist initiate the appropriate governance processes to revise and update such policies.

Objective #2: Clarification and Coherence

The review of existing policies should distinguish between policies as formal rules and procedures as commonly accepted practices to insure that they are coherent and clearly related, and to rectify inconsistencies between policies and procedures.

2: Transparency

UW-Whitewater policies and procedures governing workload and compensation should be easily accessible and available to all faculty, staff, and students.

Objective #1: Inventory & Consolidate

The University should conduct an inventory of all existing documentation related to workload and compensation and establish a centralized authority for the maintenance and dissemination of such documentation.

Objective #2: Accessibility & Availability

The University should assess and refine existing methods and mechanisms for obtaining information related to workload and compensation to insure that it can be easily accessed, and establish processes for improving accessibility and availability where these are inadequate or lacking.

3: Equity

UW-Whitewater policies and procedures governing workload and compensation should be applied equitably across divisions and units, and measures of assessment and accountability should be implemented to insure equitable personnel and budgetary decisions by supervisors and managers.

Objective #1: Minimizing Arbitrariness

The University should establish and enforce a consistent set of policies and practices for the merit and salary adjustments that is consistent across divisions and minimizes subjective or arbitrary decision-making.


65

Objective #2: Ensuring Fairness

The University should provide budgetary and personnel training for all individuals in supervisory positions to insure that financial and managerial decisions are consistent, transparent, and fair.

c. Measure: Identify Campus/Unit Targets

1. Course loads, advisee loads, case loads: specific targets have not been identified 2. SCH/FTE: an excerpt from Faculty constituency report.

Faculty workload includes teaching, scholarship and service responsibilities and expectations. While SCH/FTE calculations may be useful in regard to some aspects of faculty work, that ratio alone misses many components of faculty workload. “Teaching” itself is not a unitary factor. However, the hours devoted to teaching go beyond those classroom hours. In some instances, outside-of-classroom teaching involves new work assignments that provide support for University mandated initiatives related to providing support for student learning activities: Undergraduate Research Mentorship; increased engagement in Leadership and Community Outreach activities; creation and/or revision of curriculum; and First Year programming activities.

An Illustrative List of Faculty Activities in Addition to SCH/FTE:

Teaching Activities

Write study guides, instructor’s manuals Present programs in continuing education, executive development, or certification Give faculty workshops (e.g., Learn Center) Write instructional software Develop online and digital instructional resources for courses Develop new programs, new courses Teach off campus – e.g. Madison and Waukesha Maintain safe instructional and learning environments Maintain and upgrade discipline specific equipment Support community engagement in instructional and educational activities Develop and conduct international travel study courses (overload) Oversee and replenish inventories of equipment and supplies utilized in classes by

students Develop Lab Mod proposals for enhancement of instructional spaces Create and/or revise program curriculum Develop and implement assessment plans for all degree programs Participate in re-training and other educational activities (e.g. technology delivery

systems, D2L, new software)


66

Scholarship Activities

Publish books, monographs, or chapters in books Publish refereed journal articles Publish professional journal articles Write grants Present papers at conferences Member of a discussant panel at conferences Editor of a professional publication Editorial board member of a refereed or professional publication Professional consulting Attendance at professional meetings (not presenting or discussing) Reviewer of articles for publication in refereed journals

Department, College, University, and Professional Service

Faculty advisor to student organizations Officer, leader or active committee member in a professional organization (discipline

related) Member of University, College and Department committees Officer of a community organization or an active member of a public advisory committee

(based on expertise and unpaid) Student Advising – academic and career Help prepare students for professional exams Supervision of students in a project for an outside organization Supervision of students in a project inside the university e.g., ISBM senior projects,

McNair Scholars, undergraduate research Supervision of independent studies Mentor to faculty Evaluate junior faculty and academic staff for retention/promotion/tenure Serve on Search and Screen Committees to hire new faculty Develop and lead targeted student recruitment activities Maintain and provide content for department websites Serve as Judge for student and community based competitions Write recommendations (e.g. job and graduate school) and give verbal recommendations

(e.g. when contacted by companies) Participate in University Initiatives: e.g. LEAP, Undergraduate Research, Leadership

Initiatives, PIE program with area high schools, Community Engagement projects College Initiatives: e.g., integration of the core, assessment, accreditation, integration of

technology, distance education Attend meetings – University, College, and Department Provide service to the community (public readings and lectures, literacy instruction,

language translation work, presentations to the media, etc.

3. Salary and Compression:


67

The university shall effectively communicate efforts made in the past several years to addresses issues of compensation (i.e. Compression & Market adjustments, Discretionary Merit Adjustments, lump sum adjustments, etc.).

Establish a strategic goal-achieving and sustaining an out of state student population at the limit established by the legislature, and use the surplus funds secured through out of state tuition as one of the few revenue streams to address compensation issues.

Identify long-term plans to address pay plan inequities and deficiencies across all employment designations.

Improve public perception of compensation issue; seek strategies to share the impact on A) the recruitment of highly qualified and diverse faculty and B) the retention of experienced and proven faculty, and the impact of A and B on the quality of student instruction and the vibrancy of the institution.

The awarding of discretionary merit compensation (DMC) at Whitewater shows inequities between divisions, classes, and departments for the awards given as in comparison to other UW System schools. Requirements to receive a DMC and the documentation needed to apply for one are not available on the UW-Whitewater website. (review full report from classified staff council for a detailed analysis of DMC awards at UW-Whitewater and other UW system schools).

Include specific information regarding campus policies which define salary adjustments based on compression, retention, and merit. Policies included should address these questions:

o What are the campus policies regarding compensation? o Where does authority for this policy reside within campus structure? o How are decisions being made on compression and retention salaries? And, when

does the money become available for these adjustments?o Knowing that the definition of FTE varies among departments and constituencies,

who is responsible for this definition? o How do current compensation issues play out in relationship to current hiring

practices? i.e., how these policies impact and shape guidelines for hiring.

C. Future themes/goals/action plans:

Academic Staff Assembly:

The group completed an inventory of University of Wisconsin / System policies and procedures governing performance review, titling, retitling, and promotion of academic staff, and those of other UW System institution and reviewed UW-Whitewater’s current policies and procedures for weaknesses and gaps.

The Subcommittee completed a preliminary analysis of UW-Whitewater’s Titling policies and procedures as compared to best practices at other UW System institutions. The committee recommends adopting La Crosse policy as an effective addition to Whitewater policies, by both enhancing the retitling process and addressing deficiencies in the annual review process. The Workload and Compensation Subcommittee will continue review of academic staff titling, retitling, evaluation, and promotion processes and best practices.


68

Classified Staff Council:

Create a central location for all policies and procedures applicable to classified staff and make department-specific policies and procedures available to all.

Define clearly the definition of policy versus procedure. Update the Classified Staff Employee Handbook to include all policies affecting classified

staff and to reflect additional work-related policies by department. The awarding of discretionary merit compensation at Whitewater shows inequities

between divisions, classes, and departments for the awards given as in comparison to other UW System schools. Requirements to receive a DMC and the documentation needed to apply for one are not available on the UW-Whitewater website. (review the full report for complete analysis, section D, supporting materials and links).

Request the Office of Human Resources & Diversity implement mandatory supervisor training that is comprehensive with updated information disseminated to supervisors and employees in a timely manner.

Faculty Senate:

Develop a dedicated repository to include an inventory of data related to compensation that includes reports on comparative analysis of salaries within the UW-System and among peer institutions and within disciplines. This information should be available to employees of the university.

The committee identified a list of institutional best practices on faculty compensation: Read the full report, Faculty Senate, section D, supporting materials and links.

Follow-through on the list of recommendations presented in the SPBC #11 Workload and Compensation Workgroup final reports; include a prioritized list of proposed and/or completed responses and actions.


1. Academic Staff Assembly Report: 2. Classified Council Report3. Faculty Senate Report4. Student Government Report5. Faculty Activities: COBE Handbook; http://www.uww.edu/Documents/colleges/cobe/Faculty%20Staff/Documents/Faculty%20Handbook_11_02_10.pdf

Goal 12: Assess and enhance the campus culture where respect, civility, personal responsibility, and honesty are valued, modeled, and affirmed.

Measure: Operationally define term: DefinedMeasure: Based on definitions, identify existing initiatives. Produce a list of initiatives currently in place.

Team Leader: Mary Beth Mackin, Dean of Students


http://www.uww.edu/Documents/colleges/cobe/Faculty%20Staff/Documents/Faculty%20Handbook_11_02_10.pdf

http://www.uww.edu/Documents/colleges/cobe/Faculty%20Staff/Documents/Faculty%20Handbook_11_02_10.pdf

69

Team Members: Barbara Beaver, James Bronson, Ron Bucholz, Hephzibah Kumpaty, Mary Beth Mackin, Mark McPhail, Mary Pinkerton, Linda Yu.

Frequency of the meetings: Bi-weekly meetings during spring semester, 2013.


During the 2013 spring semester, an ad-hoc committee (Beaver, Bronson, Bucholz, Kumpaty, Mackin, McPhail, Pinkerton, L. Yu) met every other week to discuss team’s charge. The work focused on defining relevant terms, identifying and reviewing existing campus documents and policies relevant to campus culture, and formulating recommendations for continuous improvement. Key definitions include “Respect”: Recognizing and demonstrating the worth or value of persons, property and community; “Civility”: Demonstrating respect by behaving towards others as you would desire them to behave towards you; “Honesty”: Sincere expression of the truth; and “Personal Responsibility”: Fulfilling individual and organizational obligations and commitments with equity, integrity, accountability, and acceptance of the consequences that come from our actions as well as an understanding of how those actions affect others.

The committee spent considerable amount of time reviewing a variety of online UWW documents and policies related to the terms defined in the goal and assessed them for consistency, clarity, availability and relevance. This review process illustrated the fact that the institution’s policies are sometimes difficult to identify and often lack clarity to be able to interpret and execute to a particular scenario. Additionally, some of the policies do little to insure the tenets of respect, civility, personal responsibility and honesty.

The committee identified a broad range of existing campus initiatives and programs that relate to the identified terms and recommends several action plans for consideration in the future.

b. Measures/Accomplishments: Summary Table

Measures Accomplishments

1. Operationally define terms

Respect: Recognizing and demonstrating the worth or value of persons, property and community.

Civility: Demonstrating respect by behaving towards others as you would desire them to behave towards you

Honesty: Sincere expression of the truth Personal Responsibility: Fulfilling individual and organizational

obligations and commitments with equity, integrity, accountability, and acceptance of the consequences that come from our actions as well as an understanding of how those actions affect others


70

2. Identify existing initiatives. Produce a list of initiatives currently in place.

Student Conduct Process Make a Difference Day Residence Life programs NSS Academic Integrity sessions Student Organization Conduct Process Anti-hazing webinar/hotline/education CARE Team Sexual Harassment Webinar COBE Student Honor Code MapQuest Learning Communities Anti-hazing quiz Hazing training done for police ADA Compliance Fund Greek Community Standards Process Panhellenic Council statement on Roommate Contracts transgender students Pride Center Warhawk Connection Center Student Employment Practices/training Career counseling and advising model Intramural Sportsmanship Ratings Establishment of Classified Staff Council Inclusive Excellence Work Sexual Assault Prevention work (SASA) Sexual harassment training video Annual Safety & Security Report Warhawks CARE campaign Student employee online integrity quiz Student Affairs Programs Diversity Advocate Program Bystander Intervention Program Outreach programming regarding student behavior LEAP ELO – Personal & Social Responsibility Center for Global Education’s work with international students

c. Future Goals/Recommendations

The committee recommends the following action items for future work to improve campus culture and values of integrity.


71

Promote the “Guide for Citizenship” throughout the campus. Include in orientation for students and faculty/staff, New Student Seminar classes, Learn Center sessions, Department meetings, Chancellor’s staff, AAS, Dean’s Council and others.

Combine the Student Handbook and Undergraduate Catalog so that expectations and policies for students are all presented together in one place and are more accessible.

Include training on integrity issues for all student employees. Review the Honor Code in the College of Business & Economics and consider creating

similar codes for each college (or University-wide). Form workgroups to create shared and understood definitions of “Academic Freedom”

and “Shared Governance” for UW-Whitewater. Explore the possibility of having Learn Center workshops related to shared understanding

of Academic Freedom and Shared Governance. Infuse topics of respect, civility, personal responsibility and honesty into sessions at

student orientation and new faculty/staff orientation. Infuse this goal (or an expanded statement of civility) throughout the student culture, as

well as the faculty and staff cultures. Examine the intersection of “professional responsibility” and the various sets of

personnel rules in use. Consider how to infuse the five university values into performance reviews. Consider adding the university values statement to position descriptions (or at least a

modified statement). Create employee awards that recognize personal responsibility and integrity.

d. Supporting material and links: click here for the entire report


http://www.uww.edu/campus-info/about-uww/mission-and-goals

http://www.uww.edu/campus-info/about-uww/mission-and-goals

http://www.uww.edu/cobe/aboutthecollege/codeofconduct

http://www.uww.edu/studentaffairs/citizenship-for-uw-w

72

Thank YouSummary of Accomplishments: 2012-2014 UWW Strategic Planning Goals