Institutional Effectiveness Plan Coppin State University · Institutional Effectiveness at Coppin State University Institutional Effectiveness is the extent to which an institution

1

Institutional Effectiveness Plan Coppin State University Fall 2017 – Spring 2018

2

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 3

Institutional Effectiveness Model . . . . . . 3

Coppin State University Assessment Rubric . . . . . 4

Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . 5

CSU Goals (Updated 2015) . . . . . . . 5

Assessment Goals Aligned with Middle States . . . . 7

Institutional Learning Outcomes (SLOs) . . . . . . 8

Degrees Awarded Since 2006-2017 . . . . . . 9

Institutional Assessment Model and Feedback Loop . . . . 10

2nd Year Retention and Six-Year Graduation Rates . . . . 10

Assessment Feedback Loop . . . . . . . 11

Institutional Planning to Support Departments and Colleges. . . . 11

Student Involvement with Assessment . . . . . 12

Alumni and Assessment . . . . . . . 13

Annual Schedule of Assessment Activities . . . . . 13

Annual Data Collection Timeline (Revised 2017) . . . . 15

A Balance of Tools and Direct and Indirect Measures . . . . 15

Continuous Improvement . . . . . . . 15

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 25

3

Introduction

Institutional Effectiveness at Coppin State University Institutional Effectiveness is the extent to which an institution achieves its mission and

goals. The University’s planning and institutional effectiveness process is an on-going,

institution-wide assessment process for the purposes of continuous improvement and to regularly

provide evidence that the institution is effectively achieving its mission.

The following major questions are answered by outcomes through the institutional effectiveness

process:

1. Who are we (as a campus community)?

2. What are we trying to accomplish?

3. How well are we doing?

4. How can we improve what we are doing?

5. What is the evidence that suggests we have made improvements?

Progress made towards the mission are informed by key performance indicators (KPIs) and

accomplish the following:

Provide informative data on student success and continuous improvement as they relate

to progress towards assessment of academic and non-academic goals and objectives;

Serve to inform and support each unit’s annual budget submission approval process. This

process operationalizes the final stage of the linking planning, budget, assessment, and

continuous improvement on our campus. The “loop-back” of data and information are

continuous and sustained.

How will we know how well we are achieving our mission and other stated goals of the

University? We have adopted the Nichol’s model of Institutional Effectiveness in the illustration

below. The process at Coppin, like many other institutions in compliance with the Middle States

Standards of Affiliation, institutional effectiveness, has the following three components:

1. Strategic Planning (USM System level and Institutional Level)

2. Assessment of Outcomes (KPI’s at the unit/program/course levels)

3. Review of Program Effectiveness

4

The University is able to assess progress towards the mission and goals, which are aligned with

the SLOs using a rubric from the Middle States Commission. The rubric is designed to assist in

assessing all units on campus. The University’s Assessment Committee, currently known as the

Planning and Institutional Effectiveness Council (PIE), and the Academic Affairs Assessment

Committee have adopted utilization of the rubric below. Once the rubric is completed for all

units, recommendations are made to the President’s Cabinet and changes will be implemented no

later than the following academic year. The rubric assesses program design, implementation, and

impact.

Coppin State University Assessment Rubric

Aspect Element Goal Level 0: Not Evident Level 1: Emerging Level 2: Proficient Level 3: Excelling

Design

Plan

The institution has a formal assessment plan that documents an organized, sustained assessment process covering all major administrative units, student support services, and academic programs. .

There is no overall institutional plan for assessment. Assessment may or may not be conducted at the institution, but there is no plan in place to indicate who conducts assessment, when it is conducted, and who has access to assessment results.

There is no overall institutional plan for assessment. Individual areas have written policies

and plans that pertain to who, what, and when;

there is no evident coordination of or standard for

these area plans set by the institution as a whole.

The institution has a systematic approach to conducting assessment routinely and

regularly and for sharing results as

appropriate across functional areas; Each

area may have its own written policies and

procedures which pertain to assessment, but

there is no overall institutional plan for

assessment.

There is a written plan that specifies responsibility for conducting assessment at both unit and institution levels and that identifies reporting timelines and procedures. The plan also indicates how assessment data is channeled into the strategic planning and budgeting process.

Outcomes Measurable outcomes have been articulated.

Goal/outcome statements either have not been written, or where they do exist, they are not stated in ways that directly suggest how to measure them.

Some but not all units have their own outcomes statements. For example, academic affairs may

have identified specific learning outcomes, but no

other units have identified outcomes.

All units have goals/outcomes statements, but not all of these goals/outcomes are stated in terms that link to measurement operations.

All units within the institution have clearly stated and measurable goals/outcomes.

Alignment

Unit outcomes are aligned with institutional mission, goals, and values.

Goal/outcome statements either have not been written, or where they do exist, they are not linked or aligned with the institutional mission, goals, and values. In other words, there is little or no evidence of a common or shared institutional purpose evident in unit level outcomes statements.

Each unit prepares its own outcomes statements but most do not relate to institutional mission,

goals, and values.

All units have outcome statements. At higher levels of organization (divisional) these

statements are aligned with institutional

mission, goals, and values. At lower levels

of organization (department, program) the

indications of alignment are not as obvious.

All units indicate how their goals/outcomes are aligned with institution mission, goals, and values. The indications of alignment are specific and appropriate to the unit and its role in the institution. These statements indicate a strong sense of shared purpose within the institution.

Implementation

Resources There is adequate (budgetary) support (resources) for assessment activity

Resources (budgetary or human) are not explicitly

designated to support assessment activities.

Some units have dedicated resources for assessment activities within their area, but there is

little evidence of support for assessment at the

institutional level

There is widespread budgetary support of assessment activities within units that

conduct assessment. There is no overall

institutional plan for providing resources to

support assessment

There is evidence that the institution and each unit has made a budgetary commitment to assessment and provides both financial and human resources for assessment.

Culture

All members of the faculty and staff are involved in assessment activities.

Assessment, if occurring, is done by lone individuals charged with assessment responsibilities.

Some units involve all faculty/staff in assessment

planning and collection and review of data.

All units involve all faculty/staff in some aspect of assessment, planning data collection, and/or review of data.

All members of the university community are involved in assessment activities in their

respective units. Institution leaders

frequently articulate assessment as an

important value/activity of the institution.

Data Focus

Data from multiple sources and measures are considered in assessment.

Assessment data are not collected. Assessment data is collected in one or more units but consists primarily of survey results and/or

anecdotal evidence.

All units collect some combination of direct and indirect evidence to assess performance.

Assessment of institutional performance is based on, where appropriate, multiple measures of performance, including direct and indirect measures and quantitative and qualitative data.

Sustainability

Assessment is conducted regularly, consistently, and in a manner that is sustainable over the long term.

The institution cannot document that there is sustainable assessment activity occurring within any functional responsibility areas (academic, student services/support and administrative offices).

The institution can document that sustainable assessment activity is regularly occurring

within several units of the institution, but

assessment practices are either not universal or

not sustainable for the long term.

Assessment is routinely conducted in most, if not all, units. The sustainability of the assessment activity varies in terms of how regularly it occurs or in how systematically outcomes/goals are assessed. Assessment activity is becoming a regular part of each unit’s functioning.

Assessment is routinely conducted in all appropriate units. The sustainability of the

assessment activity is evident in that

assessment occurs regularly and

systematically and has been ongoing for

many years. Assessment activity is a

regular part of each unit’s functioning.

Monitoring

Mechanisms are in place to systematically monitor the implementation of assessment activities.

There is little or no evidence that the institution has in place or is developing effective systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities within and across units.

Assessment plans are in place. Systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of

assessment activities is occurring within some

units, but not others. There is little evidence of

institutional level monitoring of assessment

activities.

Systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities is

occurring within most, if not all, units. The

institution has begun establishing a means

for ensuring that all units regularly conduct

and report assessment activities.

There is evidence of systematic monitoring of the quality and implementation of assessment activities within all units. The institution has an established mechanism for monitoring unit compliance with institutional assessment policies

Impact

Communication

Assessment results are readily available to all parties with an interest in them.

Assessment results, if they exist, “live” in the

individual unit and are not broadly communicated.

Assessment results are owned by the functional area and are shared with others on an as-needed

basis.

Units within the institution share assessment results routinely with each other or make

them accessible to others within the

institution. Public disclosure of appropriate

assessment data is limited.

Assessment results are disseminated to appropriate audiences at appropriate times;

data appropriate to external audiences are

available in easily accessible public

domains; data needed for internal decision

making are readily accessible to decision

makers.

Strategic

Planning

and

Budgeting

Assessment data are routinely considered in strategic planning and budgeting

Assessment data stay within the area in which they were collected. They do not factor into institutional strategic planning and budgeting.

One or more units use assessment results in budgetary requests and/or to inform strategic

planning.

Assessment data are used in strategic planning and budgeting, but there is no clear mechanism in place to ensure this is accomplished routinely.

Institution is able to demonstrate that strategic planning and budgeting processes have utilized assessment data in decision making.

Closing the

Loop

Assessment data have been used for institutional improvement.

There is little or no evidence that assessment results are used for institutional improvement.

There is evidence that assessment results are

occasionally used for institutional improvement.

There is evidence that all units regularly use

assessment results to inform improvements.

There is an institutional commitment to using results to inform improvements; all units regularly use assessment data to close the loop; the institution presents evidence that assessment results, including student learning assessment, are routinely used for institutional improvement, effectiveness and planning.

5

Coppin’s Mission Statement

Coppin State University is an urban, comprehensive, and Historically Black Institution. Building

on a legacy of excellence in teacher preparation in the metropolitan community, the university

offers quality undergraduate and graduate programs in teacher education, liberal arts, health

professions, technology and STEM disciplines.

Coppin as an anchor institution is committed to providing educational access and diverse

opportunities for all students while emphasizing its unique role in educating residents of

Metropolitan Baltimore, multigeneral, and first-generation college students. Coppin is committed

to community engagement and partnering with businesses, governmental and non-governmental

agencies to meet workforce demands; preparing globally competent students; strengthening the

economic development of Baltimore, Maryland and developing stronger strategic partnerships.

As a constituent institution of the USM, Coppin adopts and supports USM’s strategic goals.

Vision

Coppin State University aspires to be an exemplar of public, urban higher education by:

Educating our multigenerational student body through community engaged teaching and

learning.

Focusing on research and creative activities to enhance student learning; and

Becoming a leader in developing and using data analytics for continuous excellence in

student success.

Key Assets

Cradle to Career Education Continuum

Multigenerational Student Body

Underrepresented & Differently Prepared Populations

Urban Location

CSU Goals (Updated in 2015)

Increase Enrollment- In addition to recruiting students directly from high school and transfers

from community colleges, university enrollment efforts will target working adults seeking

degrees/certifications for career advancement and economic gain.

Academic Transformation – Enhance the academic enterprise to ensure that students are

community engaged, graduate in four years or less, and are prepared to succeed in their future

careers and other post-graduation opportunities.

Student Experience- Address the needs of our multigenerational student population by creating

an environment that supports learning outcomes inside and outside the classroom.

External Relationships – Develop partnerships with community organizations, industry

professionals, corporations and incubator facilities to expand student career paths and networks.

Resource Development and Stewardship –Build upon relationships with alumni as well as

public and private stakeholders to strengthen fundraising capacity and ensure stewardship of

6

human, financial, and facility resources.

Information Technology – Maintain and strengthen IT infrastructure required to further enable

the current innovative uses of technology for operational educational excellence.

Middle States Reaffirmation – Strengthen assessment infrastructure required for Middle States

reaffirmation (site visit in 2018).

Data-Supported Decision Making – Develop a campus-wide culture of continuous excellence

by leveraging the use of descriptive and analytical data.

Communications & Market – Tell the Coppin story in a way that enhances the public

perception of the University; helps drive enrollment and increases fundraising results.

Goal Alignment and Compliance with Middle States

The mission of the University is aligned with the strategic goals of the State, the University

System of Maryland, and also the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Each

strategic goal is cross-walked on the following page, showing alignment with one or more of the

Standards for Accreditation. The Standards include:

Standard I – Mission & Goals

Standard II – Ethics & Integrity

Standard III – Design and Delivery of the Student Experience

Standard IV- Support of the Student Experience

Standard V – Educational Effectiveness Assessment

Standard VI – Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement

Standard VII – Governance, Leadership, and Administration

The following table depicts the alignment.

7

Institutional Assessment Goals and Middle States Alignment

Mission: Urban, Comprehensive

HBCU

MSCHE Standards

1.

Mis

sio

n a

nd

Vis

ion

2.

Eth

ics

and

In

teg

rity

3

. D

esig

n a

nd

Del

iver

y o

f th

e S

tud

ent

E

xp

erie

nce

4.

Su

ppo

rt o

f th

e S

tud

ent

Ex

per

ien

ce

5.

Ed

uca

tion

al E

ffec

tiv

enes

s A

sses

smen

t

6.

Pla

nn

ing

, R

eso

urc

es a

nd

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Impro

vem

ent

7.

Go

ver

nan

ce L

ead

ersh

ip a

nd

Ad

min

istr

atio

n

8.

Co

mp

lian

ce

1. Goal I: Enrollment- Enhance the enrollment

management enterprise X X X X

2. Goal II: Academic Transformation – Enhance the academic enterprise to ensure that

students learn, graduate in 4 years or less, and are prepared to succeed in their future careers

and post graduate opportunities.

X X X X X X X

3. Goal III: External Relationships –Maintain

and establish external relationships. X X X X X

4 Goal IV: Resource Development and

Stewardship – Develop an infrastructure for

continuous improvement of human and

financial resources and facilities

X X X X

Goal V: Information Technology – Maintain

and strengthen IT infrastructure to enable

innovative uses for technology for educational

and operational excellence.

X X X X

Goal VI: Student Experience - Address the

needs of our multigenerational student population by creating a campus environment

that supports learning inside and outside the

classroom, develops team member and leadership skills, fosters academic and career

success, and encourages community

engagement.

X X X X X

Thematic Emphasis: Community

Engagement. The University engages the

community by enriching scholarship, research,

and creative activity; enhances curriculum, teaching and learning; prepares educated,

engaged citizens; strengthens democratic values and civic responsibility; addresses critical

societal issues; and contributes to the public

good.

X X X X

8

Institutional Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

Guiding the assessment across the campus are guided by the KPI’s of the individual units, and

more importantly, the SLOs. Each division, service unit, academic or non-academic has goals

that are uniquely connected to the mission and the institutional SLOs. The SLO’s were last

modified in 2011 and have been assessed on a cyclical basis throughout the units. The regular

assessment of the General Education Program served as a conduit for getting program level

courses to fully embrace the culture of assessment across the campus. A review of General

Education programs and practices are revisited every two years or as needed. Assessment at the

program and course levels happens continuously throughout the semester as results are shared

broadly according to the Assessment schedule of activities.

Description of Institutional/Student Learning Outcomes

1. Written and Oral Communication

Writing clear expository and persuasive prose

Use of valid research based arguments to support written or oral positions

Expression of ideas in language appropriate to the topic and audience

Writing and speaking proficiently for various audiences

2. Analytical Reasoning

Thinking critically and analytically to respond to various issues and problems/concerns

Applying applications of classical and/or current theories and principles from specific

content areas

Using critical judgments from a combination of evidences and assumptions to reach

viable conclusions

Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data via computational literacy and scientific

reasoning

3. Information Literacy

Proficiency in the use of technology and its appropriate applicability

Use of multiple information sources such as online databases, videotapes, government

documents, and journals in conducting research and/or in problem solving (e.g.,

electronic and print periodicals, chapters in books, government documents, archival

material, and microfilm)

4. Social and Self Awareness

Understanding of self and responsibilities as an engaged citizen and leader of service in

the community

Awareness/understanding of economic, political, and organizational systems

Appreciation of diverse cultural heritages and global societies.

5. Reflective Practice

9

Personal responsibility for intellectual growth through reflective practice in order to

engage in continuous personal and academic development

Use of professional organizations to develop a comprehensive understanding of the

expectations of the chosen profession

Development of professional competence through continuous learning experiences.

6. Responsive Citizenship

Participation with broader communities

Understanding of society and commitment to political and civic engagement

Understand and respect diversity of people, ideas, communities and cultures

Appreciation and awareness of environmental issues and initiatives

Continuous assessment culminating with specific capstone activities provide students with the

opportunity to demonstrate several levels of proficiency across all courses. In addition to the

SLOs, other measures of success at Coppin are demonstrated by the number of students retained

at the institution and the number of graduates produced. Annually, the institution graduates over

500 students, who are equipped with the knowledge necessary to obtain jobs and succeed in the

workforce. The current 2nd year retention rate is 66% and the six-year graduation rate is 24.5%.

DEGREES AWARDED SINCE 2006 - 2017

ACAD. YEAR Bachelor Master Doctorate Total

2006-07 407 109 0 516

2007-08 383 112 0 495

2008-09 392 91 0 483

2009-10 421 76 0 497

2010-11 439 83 0 522

2011-12 492 58 0 550

2012-13 462 75 0 537

2013-14 508 84 0 592

2014-15 453 80 0 533

2015-16 509 80 0 589

2016-17 428 78 2 508

Total 4920 900 2 5822

10

Current 2nd Year Retention and Six-Year Graduation Rates

Institutional Assessment Model and Feedback Loop

The goal of the University’s assessment process is to encourage institutional self-awareness, self-

understanding, and genuine self-improvement. The University has an institutional assessment

model that incorporates assessing student learning outcomes at the institution, program, and

course levels. Both the institution and program levels are informed by the mission and strategic

goals, which provide a blueprint for the future direction of the University.

The four college deans in collaboration with department chairpersons, and the Division of

Academic Affairs, lead efforts to improve student learning assessment in their respective

colleges and schools based on course and program level competencies. Each college has a

process for addressing course level performance, which includes the development of direct and

indirect measures using conceptual frameworks and learning management systems such as

Blackboard Learn, Blackboard Outcomes, and TK20.

The major divisions such as Administration and Finance, Enrollment Management and Student

Affairs, Information Technology, Institutional Advancement, and Athletics have established

measureable goals, objectives, and benchmarked KPIs. The goals are aligned with the campus

strategic goals, which are aligned to the Middle State’s Standards of Accreditation and

Requirements of Affiliation. Each year, each division reports outcomes to the Office of the

President in March. The results are shared and communicated with the four colleges and other

academic units to ensure a continuous loop of improvement of the university’s operations and

student success.

11

The CSU assessment process is also inclusive of comprehensive survey research, fiscal data,

student perception of teaching quality, skill acquisition, learning outcomes, technical

infrastructure, technical learning support, assessment, specialized studies, program level data,

and institutional learning. The departments within the four colleges have identified goals, which

are aligned with the campus’ strategic goals.

Data that inform achievement made towards the institution’s mission and goals are monitored

and reported by the institution’s Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (PIE) Council. In the

future, an assessment plan and schedule of assessment events will be shared with the broader

campus community throughout the academic year.

The diagram below shows a continuous process of assessment and institutional effectiveness.

The highlighted box below reflects the proposed strategy to enhance the assessment feedback

process to broader constituents, including the campus community. Implementation and data

sharing will occur through the proposed University Assessment Day.

Assessment Feedback Loop

Data and Report

Review

Division Review

Data and Report Review and Feedback

Institution Assessment Committees Review

Presentation &

Feedback

President’s Cabinet

Cabinet

12

INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING SUPPORT TO DEPARTMENTS AND COLLEGES

The University has several support systems to assist departments and colleges in assessment

initiatives. The Office of Planning and Assessment (OPA) supports, seeks suggestions from, and

provides data to the administration, faculty, and staff by collecting and supplying verifiable data

and information; conducting policy analysis; coordinating campus assessment and evaluation

activities; and facilitating strategic planning and implementation. Each year the OPA performs

analyses of the data collected on multiple performance measures and reports the results to the

USM. These analyses are then used within CSU to identify strengths and areas for growth with

strategies developed to improve performance or replicate success. The OPA also supplies data to

regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for

Education Statistics.

Annually, the OPA reviews the aggregate results of faculty course evaluations with the

Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and with individual faculty who seek support to

understand the students’ perceptions of instruction. Conversations regularly occur on the subject

of finding additional uses of the outcomes beyond the tenure review process. Annually, the

OPA conducts a series of college wide workshops designed to further engage faculty in the

process of program outcomes assessment. For example, a spring 2017 workshop assisted faculty

with updating curricular maps already aligned to department and college goals and to the

institutional learning outcomes.

Curriculum maps are used to show linkage to the student learning outcomes and the institution’s

mission. Institutional student learning outcomes that address written and oral communication,

analytical reasoning, information literacy, social and self-awareness, reflective practice, and

responsive citizenship are linked to academic programs. Program curriculum maps are a

component of program assessment plans. The university formally assesses 53 academic

programs (undergraduate, graduate, and certificate) and the general education program using a

7-year program review cycle. In addition, the mapping process reflects the alignments of the

courses within each program to the program outcomes, linked to the student learning outcomes,

and the institution’s mission. Faculty are required to include the student learning outcomes in

course syllabi. For example, academic programs have outcomes related to communication and

analytical reasoning. Furthermore, when faculty submit program course and curricula proposals,

the submission must demonstrate alignment to the student learning outcomes and the syllabus of

record.

Academic areas access EagleAnalytics to review live data on students in programs, which

include such measures as grade point averages, enrollment history, and registration information

for the purposes of monitoring and outreach. For example, outreach may be facilitated through

the use of call centers by academic units and cohort management fostered through faculty and

staff within the Academic Success Centers established in fall 2017. Data are provided through a

dashboard powered by Pyramid Analytics with multiple views. As a result, departments are able

to increase enrollment of new students, persistence of returning students, and graduation rates.

The Enrollment Action Team, an ad hoc committee called by the president during registration,

includes members of the functional units, and uses data to enroll new students and retain current

students. The Team meets weekly during the summer and at the beginning of each semester to

https://www.coppin.edu/planningassessment

https://www.coppin.edu/facultysenate

13

monitor the enrollment process, which includes identifying next steps and progress towards

achieving enrollment goals.

STUDENTS INVOLVEMENT WITH ASSESSMENT

Coppin has student facing analytics in which real time data are available to provide students with

insights into their academic performance. Real-time access to data enables students to seek

support from faculty or academic resources to improve academic performance. Students are able

to self-assess and compare their performance to other students within their enrolled courses.

Students are also able to receive real-time classroom performance feedback.

The four academic deans, in collaboration with department chairpersons and the Division of

Academic Affairs, lead efforts to improve student learning assessment. Each college addresses

course level performance, which includes the measurement of direct and indirect measures using

learning management systems, such as Blackboard and TK20. The OPA provides assistance to

departments with specialized accreditation by administering and interpreting surveys, providing

program level data on assessment of learning outcomes, and interpreting the standards for

reaffirmation. The institution provides support for learning management systems such as

Blackboard Learn and TK20 through which student performance data are captured, evaluated,

and maintained. The Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs provides

support for external programs reviews.

Through the OPA, input from stakeholders is encouraged and integrated for many of CSU’s

accredited programs. For example, the Master’s in Rehabilitation Counseling Program (RCP),

which is accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational

Programs (CACREP), uses an external advisory board as a tool to review program data. The

RCP advisory board is comprised of state vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors, faculty,

alumni, and employers, and is an excellent source of indirect assessment. State VR counselors

and employers provide indirect assessment through feedback, based on their perceptions of

students when they enter the workforce.

ALUMNI AND ASSESSMENT

Alumni members provide indirect assessment through constructive feedback regarding the

efficacy of teaching, based on their ability to obtain/maintain employment, get promoted within

their agencies, and pass licensure and certification exams. Data obtained through annual advisory

board meetings are shared and used to modify courses to better prepare students for the

workforce.

14

ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

Assessment Tool Description Key Measures Collection

Schedule

Reporting Unit

NSSE National Survey of Student

Engagement

Senior

Perceptions;

Attitudes;

Value Added

Bi-Annual;

January

Institutional

Research

BCSSE Beginning College Survey

of Student Engagement

Freshmen

Perceptions;

Attitudes;

Preparedness

Annually;

August

Institutional

Research;

Freshmen Seminar

GSS Graduating Senior Survey Value Added;

Job Placement;

Experience;

Grad/Prof.

School Prep.

Bi-Annual

fall and

spring

graduations

Institutional

Research

Alumni Survey Alumni – 1-yr after

graduation

Value Added;

Job Skills;

Affirm

Learning

Outcomes;

Grad/Prof.

School Prep.

Every 3

Years;

MHEC

USM/MHEC

Access and Success

Report

Retention on Male and

Female Students

Retention/Grad

rates by special

programs;

Mentoring

Annually;

April

Institutional

Research

Title III Annual Report Report of Retention

Activities by Division

Student

Support

Services;

Academic

Prep.

Annually;

December

VSA Voluntary System of

Accountability

Value of

Education

Annually;

October

Institutional

Research

SAM Student Assessment

Measures

Retention and

Graduation;

longitudinally

Annually;

October

Institutional

Research

Performance

Accountability Report

Managing For Results

Institutional Core Data

Institutional

Goal

Attainment

Annually;

August

Institutional

Research

Faculty Course

Evaluations

Instructor and Course

Effectiveness

Faculty and

Course

Effectiveness

Bi-Annually;

End of

Fall/Spring

Semesters

Institutional

Research

Divisional Effectiveness

Reports

Strategic Effectiveness

Goals and Outcomes

Strategic Goal

Attainment

Annually;

March

Office of the

President

Retention/Graduation

Report

2nd Year Retention and 6th

Year Graduation Rates to

USM and MHEC

All students

vs. Students in

the State

Annually;

June

Institutional

Research;

Enrollment

Managemnt

Enrollment Projections USM/MHEC Projections

for Budget and Planning

Actual vs.

Projections;

Annually;

February

Institutional

Research;

15

informs budget

and planning

Enrollment

Managemnt

PRAXIS Education Licensure Exam Pass Rates for

Education

Annually;

October

MSDE; SOE

NCLEX Nursing Licensure Exam

Pass Rates for

Nurses

Annually;

November

MBON; CHP

Academic Program

Review

Cyclical Review of

Selected Academic

Programs

Faculty

Resources,

Student

Success,

Mission

Annually

internally;

Every 7

Years by

USM

APRC; Provost;

Institutional

Research

Annual Report of

Academic Units

Annual Report of the Four

Colleges

Enrollment,

SLO’s,

Teaching

Annually,

June

Deans, Provost

ANNUAL DATA COLLECTION TIMELINE (New; Revised 2017)

January – -April Budget Hearings/Internal Budget Processes on Campus Based on Data

January – -April Strategic Planning Processes at Unit Level; Review Measures

March -- Cabinet reports to the President on Unit-Level Goals and Measures

April Unit Levels Present Budget Requests for Next Fiscal Year; Priority Revisions

May - August: Institutional Research Reporting Out to External Constituents during the

proposed University Assessment Day

June- August: Institutional Research Supports/Trains; Reviews Measures and Program

Improvement Plans with Chairs

September 30th Administrative/Academic Data Used in New Fiscal Year Plan

October 1 – Campus Assessment Units Engage in Review

November 15th – New IE Plans, Annual Reports Data Due; Units Update Blackboard,

Tk20, SharePoint with current data and projections

December 15th – IE Plans and Data Reports Accepted, Reported Out by Assessment

Committees; Recommendations and Implementation Timeline for Improvements Made

A Balance of Tools and Direct and Indirect Measures The School of Education utilizes TK-20 to access the campus’ student information management

system known as EagleLinks and the School of Nursing and College of Business, along with the

rest of the university community use BlackBoard Learn for Assessment. These systems

collectively satisfy the reporting requirements related to the outcomes developed by the units in

collaboration with accreditation requirements. Each of the systems provide a direct linkage to the

institutional learning outcomes as well as help measure progress towards the university’s

mission. A role of the PIE Council is to identify a software package that will serve academic and

non-academic units, which will facilitate closing the assessment loop in a more efficient manner.

Course Level Assessment Systematic review of curriculum structure, content, and outcomes is

managed by the Academic Program Review Committee (APRC), Curriculum Policy and

Standards Committee, Faculty Assessment Committee, and the General Education

Subcommittee. These committees are responsible for content and assessment affecting the

16

educational programs in the University. Ultimately, all actions and recommendations made by

the committees are approved by the faculty. These committees are also responsible for reviewing

course and programmatic assessment data to ensure that expected abilities and competencies are

being met in each year of the specified program. The General Education subcommitte has been

charged with assessing the course and program level performance of General Education at CSU,

has been very active in providing administrative oversight for documenting and evaluating

assessment outcomes.

Continuous Improvement

Each Division within Coppin State University implements strategies and tactics to effectively

accomplish the University’s strategic goals. Outcomes are achieved by leveraging key

performance indicators that provide ongoing assessment of how we are meeting or exceeding

each strategic goal. The University regularly assesses and evaluates outcomes and assesses

whether each tactic is effective in providing adequate movement toward desired outcomes as the

University strives for continuous improvement.

CABINET LEVEL KPIs (Includes colleges, units, department, program KPI’s)

Annually, in March, the President’s Cabinet convenes assessment meetings to review unit-level

KPIs. The measures typically point to enrollment, retention, and graduation data. However, each

year, vice presidents are required to update their unit-level plans to ensure congruency and

alignment with the President’s goals. These goals are those in which the Chancellor of the

System uses to view the success of the leadership and mission attainment of the University.

17

Institutional Goals and Key

Performance Indicators by

Division

CSU Institutional Goals for FY 2018

Goal I: Increase Enrollment

1.0 Improve call response, information delivery and communications

Dr. Michael Freeman

Tactic(s) Desired Outcomes Key Performance Indicator(s) (KPI)

Implement a Coppin Solution-oriented call center with Blackboard

Increase service and satisfaction Reduce dropped calls by 60%

Enhance campus admitted student events

Increased interest in Coppin among prospective students and families

Increase visitors to campus by 15%

Leverage merit scholarship and need-base financial aid

More effective use of financial aid. Students awarded earlier

Improve yield rate from admit to enroll by 5%

Streamline registration processes Continued use of data to make decisions and improved applications

rates Continue Royall Partnership to target

potential students

1.1 To enhance student support services to athletes ensuring academic success, retention and graduation

Mr. Derek Carter


Expand the Athletic Academic Resources Initiative by providing comprehensive academic services through the entire

calendar year

To graduate student athletes in four (4) years

To report an NCAA 70% graduation rate, and to provide a progress rate report score of 950

Assist student-athletes in graduating within four years or less of initial

collegiate enrollment

1.2A Improve transfer pathways

Dr. Michael Freeman


Complete Articulation Agreements Increase enrollment of transfer students # of transfer students in fall 2018

Complete Dual enrollment activities with area High Schools

18

1.2B Improve Transfer Pathways

Dr. Leontye L. Lewis


Articulation agreements or 2+2 programs

1) Increased enrollment of transfer students

1) Increased Enrollment of Transfer Students in Fall 2018

Curricular Reform 2) Increased retention of transfer students

2) At least 13 signed articulation and Reverse Transfer (RT) Agreements with BCCC,

CCBC

3) Increase Dual Enrollment at Coppin Academy High School and other area high

schools to 100 50 with 2017-2018 enrollment numbers serving as baseline data

Evaluation and coordination of transfer resources in the following units:

Enrollment Management, College of Business, College of Health Professions, College of Arts, Sciences & Education,

College of Behavioral and Social Sciences

Implement cohort tracking of transfer

students by major

1.3 Enhance support services for at-risk student populations



Enhance or expand the following: Orientation, Academic Advising,

Tutoring, Early Alert System, Mentoring Programs, BridgeEdU, Student Success

Council

Better academic performance for at-risk student populations

1) Establish baseline for the following: D,W,F grades at midterm, Number of

withdrawals, Number of dropped classes, Number of academic probations, Number of

dismissals 2) Redesigned Freshman Seminar course to

reflect activities designed to improve retention of first time freshman

Redesign Freshman seminar course and First Year Experience, formerly University College, for fall 2018

implementation

1.4 Target Enrollment Mix

Dr. Michael Freeman


19

Partner with Royall to focus on increasing FTFT freshmen, transfer and

out-of-state students

Create and optimal enrollment mix for sustainable growth

Increase FTFT freshmen by 7% over fall 2017

Increase transfer students by 5% over fall 2016

Increase out-of-state FTFT freshmen students by 2% over fall 2017

Goal II: Academic Transformation

2.0 Develop University-wide student learning outcomes



Provost/VPAA and VP for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs will hold joints meetings with faculty and

staff to develop outcomes assessment framework for aligned to the university-

wide student learning outcomes

A framework for embedding student learning outcomes in the general

education program, academic programs and co-curricular experiences to ensure

all students, regardless of major and transfer

1. Record of at least 6 monthly meetings between VPAA and VPEMSA designed to

develop assessment framework aligned to university SLO

status, graduate with the university’s unique stamp

2. Record of SLOs embedded in all GE course

3. Evidence of program SLOs posted to website

2.1 Enhance use of technology to support online program offerings and increase options for new and continuing students



Provide support for faculty certification in online teaching

1) An organizational structure that supports online instruction and an

1) Hire a new director of eLearning and an instructional

increase in online and hybrid course offerings

designer by June 30, 2018

Goal III: Student Experience

20

3.0A Drive student engagement, retention and graduation through enhanced academic and career-related activities

Dr. Michael Freeman


Promote student engagement by including students in program planning

and implementing activities

Student co-curricular programs tied to institutional learning outcomes

Documented # of programs tied to learning outcomes

Encourage coordinated and collaborative programming within the division and

with other

Student developing leadership skills # of Programs tied to career –related skill building

Divisions

Increased engagement in the Baltimore local community

# of community service or service learning activities

Promote career-related activities in the residence halls

Promote career related activities

connected to colleges/departments

3.0B Drive student engagement, retention and graduation through enhanced academic and career-related activities

Mr. Derek Carter


Promote student engagement by including students in program planning

and implementing activities

Increase the numbers of shadowing, internship and service opportunities for

student athletes

10% increase in career center student contacts for student athletes

Encourage coordinated and collaborative programming within the division and

with other divisions

10% increase in partnerships with academic & other career-assisting offices for student

athletes

Promote career-related activities in the residence halls

Promote career related activities connected to colleges/departments

10% increase in the numbers of community service projects for student athletes

3.1 Increase the numbers of evening and weekend office hours

Dr. Michael Freeman


Implement a centralized student services center

Improved access to services for a multi-generational student body

Establish baseline for day and evening student contacts

Incorporate and implement a generalist philosophy among student affairs staff

21

Cross-train staff in student services activities

Improved student engagement and involvement

3.2 Improve Advising through professional development



Define role of and provide training for professional advisors – both faculty and

Academic Advisement staff

1) Increased student retention and graduation rates

2) Established equity among ASC Coordinators

1) At least 3 workshop designed to improve advising quality for all advisors

Standardize competency goals and expectations and compensations for all

ASC staff

3) Increased internship and job placements

2) Determine baseline data on number of D grades earned each semester with intent to

decrease by 25%

3) At least 50% of majors receiving advisement at least once in each newly

established ASC Monitor D grades earned early in

program to determine potential for successful degree completion

4)

3.3 Use data to improve advising



Ensure all students with a declared major is assigned a faculty advisor

reflected in EagleLinks

Increase in number of declared majors in EagleLinks with assigned Advisor;

1) Decrease the average number of repeat courses and unused credits

2) Decrease in number of undeclared majors by 25%

Goal IV: External Relationships

4.0 Increase external funding for athletics

Mr. Derek Carter


Set priority on basketball season ticket sales

Identify new prospects for ticket sales, alumni, and corporate sponsors.

Increase season ticket sales by 50%

Alumni and Corporate Annual Giving Increase alumni donors by 50%

Naming Rights for the PEC

22

4.1 Increase current external relationships and increase the number of donors and new advocates for CSU

Mr. Doug Dalzell


Increase personal solicitations Golf Tournament plus the addition of a Weight Quake event led by the CSUDF

Board

Increase alumni participation rate to 10%

Add 8 new Foundation Merit Scholarships and conduct 4 legacy events

Raise $80,000 for the SOS program

Complete 100 Development calls and 8 Coppin Sundays

Submit 30 quality proposals

Implement Communications Plan

Implement Reunion Giving Program for 4 CSU classes

Raise $2,000,000

Goal V: Resource Development and Stewardship

5.0 Increase effective dialogue among employees who should be “connected” by a shared mission and associated goal congruence

Mr. Steve Danik


University faculty and staff professional development

Improve skills of employees for the performance of their responsibilities

Develop a schedule of activities for the year

Improve communication and transparency of the process

Develop a schedule for regular quarterly meetings

Continue engaging the university’s budget committee

Provide a process for input from all stakeholder groups to ensure buy- in and

a comprehensive set of specifications

Develop a process for RFP and Bid document development

Allows departments to plan their budget development process and

Develop a timeline and schedule for budget development

Develop a cohesive interdepartmental collaborative process for development of

RFP’s and Bid documents

solicit input from their constituents and information submission

Develop a timeline for the annual budget development process

Become less reactionary and more proactive in decision making

Identify financial KPI’s to help target areas of strength and areas of need

Develop data driven analysis of financial data to aid in budgeting and financial

projections

5.1 Decrease the backlog of unmet need for facilities improvements

Mr. Steve Danik


23

Compile a comprehensive inventory of deferred maintenance and facilities

renewal requirements

Improve and maintain the functionality, reliability, safety, and

Reduce the backlog of unmet need for facilities

Prioritize projects and develop a funding plan and timeline for completion

attractiveness of the Coppin campus improvements by 15% per year on average

5.2 Increase the opportunity for entrepreneurial initiatives

Mr. Steve Danik


Decentralize “ownership” of certain revenue generating activities and

positive budget variances

Improve the ability of managers to plan spending and “investment”

Continue to improve the financial position of the University – i.e., Increase unrestricted

fund balances by 15% annually

Develop a formula based allocation methodology for discretionary budget

allocation

over multiple fiscal periods. Eliminate “use or lose” budget mentality at year

end

Develop a formula for discretionary spending budgetary

Improved financial closing and reporting process timelines

resource allocation by June 30, 2018

Goal VI: Information Technology

6.0 Upgrade IT Infrastructure

Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan


Upgrade large lecture halls IT technologies

Improve students learning experience 2 lecture halls will be upgraded

Upgrade PeopleSoft HCM to current version, v9.2

Stay current with ORACLE HCM Release and provide additional

On time, on budget seamless upgrade

functionality for managers 'self-service

Expand E-Payment options to campus community

Make it more convenient to make business with Coppin.

Add 3 more options for ePayment campus wide

Upgrade IT E-storage Infrastructure Protect Coppin's Data Integrity Ensure high data availability and business continuity

Implement Windows 10 IT Security best practices

100% compliance of Windows 10 security best practices

Comply with the accessibility standards

Devise accessibility planning for instructional technology

Plan is 100% developed

6.1 Provide for IT Development & Innovation opportunities

Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan


Conduct staff IT Summer Institute Increased efficiency and productivity by using technology in operations

Train 15 staff

24

Provide virtual training opportunities Improve IT Skills for faculty, staff, and students

Conduct 3 sessions

Conduct Adjunct Faculty IT Development Saturday

Improve faculty skills for Academic Transformation

Conduct 1 session in the Fall

Conduct Faculty IT Innovation Institute Increased proficiency in using technologies for teaching and learning

14 faculty will be trained

Launch IT Innovation Center Improve faculty, staff, and students skills for Academic Transformation

Support 3 innovation projects

Conduct TechKNOW Squad sessions Improve students familiarity with current technologies

conduct 15 sessions each semester

Conduct Faculty Digital Design Camp Improve faculty skills in course design and Bb usage

14 faculty will be trained

6.2 Improve IT Security

Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan


Rollout mobile security for Coppin owned mobile devices

Protect Coppin owned mobile devices Cover 75% CSU owned mobile devices

Deploy PII

Comply with FERPA requirement 80% success rate of end point scanning

Align CSU IT Security program with the new BOR 4.0 IT security standards

Comply with the new BoR IT Security Standards

Meet 80% of the new standards

Enforce IT Data retention policy related to files and email services

Comply with Coppin's Data Retention Policy

100% Enforcement

6.3 Support Data-Supported Decisions at Coppin

Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan


Deploy Financial Aid analytics Provide data insights into Financial Aid Provide 100% access and training to enrollment

Provide data analytics tool to improve Student Success

management team

Provide IT support for deployment of Phase 1 CIVITAS predictive analytics

Provide an analytics tool to manage cost of instruction

100% IT infrastructure for Phase 1 predictive analytics

100% IT infrastructure completed

Provide IT Support for the Cost of Instruction Analytics

Provide an analytics tool to improve class scheduling to shorten time to achieve

100% IT infrastructure completed

Provide IT Support for Course Scheduling Analytics

6.4 Improve the Students Experience

Dr. Ahmed El-Haggan

25

Conclusion

The continuous improvement process at Coppin provides an opportunity to conduct a thorough

introspection of established processes and data to assess the effectiveness of strategies to achieve

its mission. The process not only affirms Coppin’s relevance, progress, and achievement, but

also determines areas where additional attention must be provided if the institution is to maintain

its positive trajectory of success and continuous improvement. There is no doubt that Coppin is

current and relevant. Meeting workforce demands with qualified graduates, providing

community service initiatives, employing highly-credentialed personnel, and collaborating in

strategic partnership efforts are a few proven examples of how Coppin State University

demonstrates its effectiveness, currency, and relevance. More importantly, students continue to

be successful, gaining invaluable experience and becoming essential contributors to the

workforce.


Upgrade the Eagle Mobile App to include Degree audit

Improve the students experience in meeting their degree requirement

100% accessibility to all students

Upgrade EagleMobile app to include course scheduling

Increase Wireless Capacity in Student Areas

Improve the students experience in scheduling their classes

100% accessibility to all students

Upgrade student video services for residential students

Expand Digital Displays in student areas Improve the students experience in accessing resources in open areas

Increase Wireless capacity by 50% in open student areas

Deploy Wi-Fi Printing campus wide Improve the students experience in residence halls

100% increase of campus cable TV services

Improve the students engagement in campus events

Add 15 Digital Displays to relay student communication

Improve the students experience in mobile device printing

100% Wi-Fi printing campus wide

Documents

Institutional Effectiveness Plan Coppin State University · Institutional Effectiveness at Coppin State University Institutional Effectiveness is the extent to which an institution