EFFICACY 

STUDENT SUCCESS

In the mid-1990s, President Ribeau identified student success as a fundamental criterion for strategic investment and decision-making. Whether it was a policy to be approved, a new program or major to be developed, or the addition of new personnel, it had to be justified in terms of its contribution to the students, who are at the center of the university’s purposes. At about the same time, the University established a Vision stating our aspiration to become “the premier learning community in Ohio and one of the best in the nation.” The combination of commitment to excellence and to student success provides the context and motivation for many of the changes and innovations that have evolved during the last decade.

Over the years, the university's students have graduated at a rate about 15% higher than would be predicted on the basis of their aptitude profiles [US2], evidence that our educational practices are effective. The BGSU Graduating Senior Questionnaire provides another global perspective on student success [GS2]. The majority of graduating seniors report being satisfied or very satisfied with their educational and social experiences at the University. The survey also shows gains, in comparison to previous years, in students’ self-perception of their achievements in speaking effectively, relating to others, making informed judgements, developing a better understanding of their career goals, understanding their own abilities, interests, and values, and connecting their academic learning to other experiences in their life.

Academic Programs
This section begins with brief descriptions and highlights of academic programs. To emphasize our efforts to integrate academic and student affairs, we then move to descriptions and highlights of student affairs programs, before treating assessment of student learning in all these programs.

General Education. The mission of the General Education Program [MG2] reads, in part:

Liberal Education at Bowling Green State University seeks to prepare students for self-reliant learning and effective participation in a democratic society. The realities of our interdependent global society require that students have knowledge of a wide range of subjects and disciplines, the ability to understand different cultures and modes of thought, and the capacity to investigate the forces which shape the social, scientific, and technological complexities of contemporary culture. The rapid growth of specialized knowledge necessitates a liberal education characterized by the integration of learning across and within disciplines. Therefore the curriculum for liberal learning should assist students to synthesize knowledge, to perceive relationships among various concepts and ideas, and to utilize a range of learning resources.

Each course approved for the general education curriculum emphasizes the development and enhancement of the following cognitive skills [CU1, page 5 and GE1]: information literacy, communication, analysis, and integration. The nine courses comprising the requirement must be distributed as follows:

• Two from the natural sciences;
• Two from the social and behavioral sciences;
• Two from the humanities and arts;
• One from cultural diversity in the U.S.;
• One remaining course from any of the four knowledge domains listed above; and
• ENG 112 (and ENG 110 or 111, if needed, as indicated by placement testing).

At least one of the courses from either the social and behavioral sciences or the humanities and arts must be designated as having an international perspective.

A great strength of the overall curriculum is that the University Learning Outcomes–which characterize learning outcomes common to all undergraduate majors–overlap broadly with the cognitive skills emphasized in the general education curriculum, revealing substantial coherence in the undergraduate curriculum as a whole. A weakness pointed out in the program review of the General Education Program is that many students, faculty, and advisors emphasize the distribution requirement side of the general education curriculum, often overlooking the skill components that are its real strength. Additional evaluation of General Education will be included in the discussion of assessment, below.

A Variety of Undergraduate Programs. One of the features of a larger university, which many of our students find attractive, is the fact that we offer a wide variety of academic programs and majors. The variety is particularly advantageous to students undecided about a major; it is also of advantage to those students who lack confidence in their academic ability or “fit” to higher education.

Motivated by our understanding of assessment, we have implemented new programs specifically designed to develop foundational skills and abilities of entering students. For instance, Springboard is a distinctive one-credit course for freshmen aimed at development of skills in self-assessment, investigating, making connections, writing, making presentations, participating, leading, and self-assurance [SD1]. The President’s Leadership Academy, established in 1997 by President Ribeau, is designed to nurture leadership potential in culturally diverse undergraduate students. The curriculum has four basic components: leadership development, community service, academic preparedness, and topical workshops. The program includes a different curriculum each of the four years, including a summer program before the first year [PL1].

The University has made a deliberate effort to expand the range of programs offered to facilitate the transition to university life. For instance, the First Year Experience Program deals with the new and challenging college environment that first-year students face. Program staff are responsible for developing new first-year initiatives; they work collaboratively with existing first-year programs in Student Affairs and Academic Affairs [FY1]. They are also responsible for University Success (UNIV 100), a two credit-hour course for first year students that introduces them to university resources and serves as an extended orientation to the University. It assists in the development of intellectual, personal, and social skills that contribute to students’ success in their university careers [US3].

Teacher Education, one of the largest and most comprehensive programs in the country, was totally redesigned in 1997-1998 to comply with the Ohio Department of Education’s change from certification to licensure. Changes include new programs in early childhood, middle childhood, adolescent/young adult, special education, and educational administration. Collaborations between the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Education and Human Development have helped to make the University a leader in teacher preparation reform. The Teacher Quality Success Initiative, which has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, was formed in 2000 to develop a collaborative strategy for enhancing K-12 teacher preparation and now includes over 100 faculty members [TQ1].

During the past decade, several new majors and degree programs have been implemented. The College of Arts and Sciences developed new undergraduate majors in Africana Studies and Neuroscience. The Department of Theatre and the College of Musical Arts developed a joint Bachelor of Arts in Communication degree program in Musical Theatre, combining theatre, music, and dance. These programs reflect the growing importance of interdisciplinary study and our commitment to interdisciplinary approaches to scholarship.

The Bachelor of Applied Health Science degree was approved in 1998. It consists of four specializations: Health Science, Allied Health, Applied Microbiology, and Pre-physical Therapy. The degree is designed to prepare students for a career in an allied health field and is articulated formally with graduate programs in Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Physician Assistant at the Medical College of Ohio.

BGSU Firelands has worked collaboratively with main campus colleges to offer select bachelor’s degrees such as a Bachelor of Applied Health Science, a Bachelor of Liberal Studies, and a Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Studies, among others.

The University Honors Program provides courses of study for students who seek an extra academic challenge [HP1]. There are currently about 940 students in the program – up from 630 in 1994. The Honors Program has one of the highest student retention rates at the University. Among the 266 students who entered the Program in fall 1998, 98.9% returned in spring 1999, 92.5% in fall 1999, and 88.7% in fall 2000. Not surprisingly, honors students’ academic performance is also very strong. Among the 249 students who entered the Program in fall 2000, 91.5% ended spring 2001 with a 3.0 grade point average or better; 63.5% earned a 3.5 or better. Student success also reaches beyond the classroom. Students nominated by the Program have had considerable success in the Goldwater, Truman, and Rhodes competitions. Since the Program began to nominate students in the spring of 1998, the University has had six consecutive Goldwater winners, a Truman national finalist, three Rhodes state finalists, and two Rhodes national finalists.

Many university programs provide opportunities for motivated students to participate in undergraduate research. Through their participation in research, students develop research and analytical skills critical for success in graduate programs, professional schools, and the world of work. The Department of Chemistry has been especially committed to providing these enriched learning experiences to undergraduates. In 2000, the department received its third renewal of a National Science Foundation grant to support undergraduate research.

Graduate programs. The University has an array of 15 master’s degrees in over 60 fields and 16 doctoral degree programs. Doctoral programs with a national reputation include American culture studies, applied philosophy, communication disorders, higher education administration, industrial and organizational psychology, and photochemical sciences. Master’s programs recognized nationally include college student personnel, ethnomusicology, and popular culture. A challenge for graduate education is to develop programs where there is a demonstrated need and the necessary resources to provide the highest quality academic experiences.

Several new programs have been approved since the last NCA review. 

• In 1997, The Medical College of Ohio, The University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University collaborated to implement a joint Master’s of Public Health degree program.  
• In 1999, Technology Management was approved as a consortial doctoral program. Indiana State University awards the degree; Bowling Green State University is one of six institutions in the consortium.  
• Between 2000 and 2001, three new programs were approved and implemented: the Specialist in Education in School Psychology, the Master of Music in Ethnomusicology, and the Master of Science in Criminal Justice.
• In 2000, the Master of Arts in Teaching in Theatre was reactivated. 
• Also in 2000 and 2001, new graduate certificate programs were approved and implemented in Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies.

Beyond the Classroom
Resources are organized to contribute to student success in a wide variety of ways. Library and Learning Resources has a full-time First Year Experience Librarian dedicated to meeting the needs of first-year students and developing library resources to support first-year courses. The office of Disability Services for Students has developed a computing lab that is adapted for students with disabilities. The Center for Multicultural and Academic Initiatives (CMAI) facilitates the academic and personal adjustment of first-year students of color and has developed an Alumni Mentoring Program for sophomore, junior, and senior students. For instance, the CMAI administers the SMART program (Students of Color Mentoring, Achieving, Retaining, and Teaching), which is designed to provide social, cultural, and academic support to first year students of color living in the residence halls [DS1]. The CMAI, Career Services [CS1], and the Office of Campus Involvement all encourage students to use their in-house resource libraries.

The Office of Campus Involvement [CI2] provides a large number of resources and organizations that encourage student involvement and participation [GI1], including leadership development programs, community service opportunities, student organization services, and student activities. The staff in the Office of Campus Involvement advises the student-run University Activities Organization, which helps contribute to the rich variety of activities available for students.

Many of our programs designed to improve student success are the result of collaborative efforts between academic and student affairs. An excellent example of this is Orientation and Registration, which involves hundreds of faculty and staff throughout the summer, culminating in the convocation ceremony [OR2]. Similarly, student affairs staff have been regular participants in the New Faculty Conference and orientation activities [NF5], which helps make faculty aware of the support services provided for students in the wider university.

Timely graduation, a University priority, requires thoughtful advising. In an attempt to improve and refine traditional approaches to advising in college offices and departments, the Advising Network brings together faculty, staff, and students on a monthly basis, targeting action-oriented approaches to high quality advising across campus. Students who have not declared a major or who require additional attention can be advised through the Office of Academic Enhancement. This office provides academic advising support to new and continuing students, as well as high school students; it also coordinates learning labs in mathematics, study skills, and writing.

Commitment to academic success of all students is reflected in the creation and implementation of the University Program for Academic Success, which is designed for conditionally admitted, at-risk students. This main campus program includes intrusive academic advising coordinated by the Office of Academic Enhancement in addition to coordinated academic support through the three learning labs. Student Support Services is a federally funded grant program that provides comprehensive academic support service to students who are the first generation to go to college in their families, or who are from low income families, or who have disabilities [DS1].

Similarly, BGSU Firelands offers intensive academic advising support for all of its students [FA1]. Programs and services designed to help students achieve academic and personal success by nurturing their abilities and potentials are available [FT1].

At the graduate level, our orientation program has received national recognition: the Graduate Student Enhancement Program begins as a weeklong orientation prior to the start of classes, with additional programs offered fall and spring semesters. It provides support of teaching, research, and professional skills for incoming graduate assistants as they fulfill their academic and contractual responsibilities [GS1]. Graduate students also benefit from area social service agencies, schools, and businesses, which provide opportunities (and stipends) for graduate students to gain experience in their fields of expertise. The University has established more than 250 internships with over 80 different sponsors in the last six years, resulting in 2.5 million dollars in funding.

Residence Life. The University has a requirement of four semesters of on-campus living. Most new students satisfy this requirement as first- and second-year students. In an effort to address typical problems of adjustment to residence hall living, efforts have been made over the past ten years to improve the process of room selection (now on-line); increase the number of single rooms; eliminate three and four-person rooms in residence halls; make common areas more appealing, including acquisition of juried student art; expand quiet hours; develop a First-Year Achievement Program; develop a peer mentor program for at-risk students; improve opportunities for leadership training for first year students; increase services (e.g., expanded cable TV and free programs for video and newspapers); and improve kitchen facilities.

New professional positions were created with both line and program management responsibilities. The ratio of Resident Advisors to residents has been improved, especially in areas with higher concentrations of first-year students (down to 1:35 from 1:55). The number of post-master’s hall directors has been increased, more full-time staff have been added to Greek affairs, and two staff have been added in facility management.

Comparisons of items on the Residence Life student satisfaction surveys [RL1] in 1991 and 2001 indicate that students today are more satisfied with their residential experience. For instance, the percentage of students responding positively on the item, “a sense of community exists on my floor,” increased from 52% in 1991 to 71% in 2001. The percentage of students who report that regulations are enforced (from 62% to 81%), and who report that they feel safe in their residence hall (from 80% to 91%), also increased.

Residential Learning Communities. The university’s interest in residential learning communities is motivated in part by a literature that shows these types of experiences to be effective in contributing to student success, nationally. Since 2000, the University has made a deliberate, policy-driven effort to increase the number of residential learning communities [FR2]. Their creation and success has been possible because of close collaborative efforts of academic and student affairs areas. Although the current residential learning communities differ among themselves, they share the common goal of providing living and study environments, affording increased interaction among students, faculty, and hall staff; individual assistance; planned social activities; and peer support groups.

The Chapman Learning Community is designed for ambitious learners who want a dynamic education within a supportive community. Some specially designed courses are offered only in Chapman; Chapman faculty have offices in the residence hall and interact with students on formal and informal bases. The Chapman experience includes a large amount of extracurricular programming. By contrast, the Health Sciences Residential Community focuses less on curricular programming and more on academic support (such as tutoring, review sessions, and academic advising) in the residence hall. And where Chapman serves students from any major, the Health Sciences community is designed for students in health-related programs. A different kind of academic focus is represented in the Integrating Moral Principles and Critical Thinking learning community (IMPACT). The focus of IMPACT students and faculty is to determine the role of morality in shaping the thought and behavior of rational, thoughtful people. Other residential learning communities are described in the Learning Communities Brochure [LC1].

Recently, the Office of Institutional Research completed a study on the effectiveness of our first year programs, including the residential learning communities [FR3]. The report concludes “that the Chapman Learning Community, the Honors Program, the Literacy Serve and Learn Program, the Springboard Program, the UNIV100 class, and the University Program for Academic Success are contributing the most at this time towards retention, graduation, grades, and credit hours earned.” Although there are issues surrounding the costs of these programs, we are encouraged to add opportunities of this nature in the near and mid-term.

Connecting Students with the Larger World. Internships, both national and international, are offered through several individual colleges, and centrally through the Cooperative Education and Internship Program office, which is nationally ranked in the top 10% of cooperative education programs in the United States, without engineering programs, in the number of student placements [CE6]. Students can participate in exchange opportunities through the National Student Exchange, and in internships in Washington, D.C. through the Washington Center. Another program notable for its effective use of internships is the College of Technology Cooperative Education Program, which includes three semester-long assignments; it is the fourth largest in the United States and Canada. Finally, the Academic Year Abroad programs in Salzburg, Austria and Tours, France include internship opportunities for language majors.

Making Improvements for Student Success: Assessment
The NCA site visit report in 1993 noted a major concern: “…the University still has a long way to go before it will have in place an institutional assessment program and can begin implementation of it.” (p. 55) The NCA team recommended that the University’s efforts and progress be reviewed in three years.

The last five years have seen a growing university-wide commitment to assessment, a process that has led to improvements in curriculum and pedagogy as well as to insights about the structure of the students’ educational experience.

The Student Achievement Assessment Committee (SAAC) was appointed to create an overall assessment plan and to promote effective teaching and learning at the University. SAAC filed its plan and a progress report early in 1996, and the Higher Learning Commission accepted the report. Stephen D. Spangehl, Associate Director, wrote:

Although ambitious and institution wide, the assessment plan seems to be moving this large institution in the right direction. The statement of general education goals has a clarity and coherence rarely found in comprehensive universities; if the institution can assure itself, its students, and its publics that it can assist its students in achieving the goals it sets for them in this statement, it should achieve much deserved attention from peer institutions. A variety of statements of learning goals for sample departments and programs were appended to the plan, and the goals identified appear to be serious, challenging, and appropriate to a higher educational institution. However, much additional work needs to be done in identifying means of the achievement of these goals, and of using the information gathered to inform improvements in curriculum, teaching, and other activities at the departmental, college, and university levels.  

The plan outlined a decentralized strategy, starting with creating assessment plans for academic majors and expanding from there to the implementation of assessment in courses, the general education program, graduate programs, the Library, and the multitude of activities covered by the Division of Student Affairs. SAAC sought to build faculty involvement and ownership, and adopted a model of the assessment cycle that reinforced the roles of faculty and staff in identifying and defining learning outcomes, specifying the means of assessment, gathering and interpreting assessment data, and implementing curricular and program changes based on assessment findings. The risk in pursuing a decentralized strategy was fragmentation of responsibility and dispersion of effort; the benefits have turned out to be large and tangible, as shown in the collections of assessment reports [AR2], available to all on the assessment web site [AW1]. A few highlights are provided here:
 

• A college-wide committee assesses the Bachelor of Science in Business Administration program using surveys (freshmen, seniors, alumni, and co-op employers), capstone course performance measures, faculty evaluations, and interviews with faculty in prerequisite programs (e.g., math). Many curricular requirements have been revised, and a new freshman course in business has been introduced in response to information obtained through assessment.

• As part of its assessment procedures, the College of Musical Arts administers an entry test for knowledge of music theory. Its use during recruitment, orientation-registration, and other campus visits has allowed students to test out of a remedial music theory class, one which necessarily delays normal progress toward a degree. Study materials and re-testing are provided as needed. A year ago, 80 students had to take the remedial course, but with the implementation of the screening assessment and its supporting policies, this year the course was required of only 30 students.

• The Department of Popular Culture has laid the groundwork for cumulative portfolios in which student development can be traced. Assessment is firmly embedded in courses, with essay questions showing proficiency related to departmental learning outcomes.

• The report from the Department of Physics and Astronomy presents an analysis of student achievement on a national test, along with recommendations on strengthening pedagogy in physics. Assessment results have motivated the Department to put greater emphasis on recitation sections.

• The Department of Theatre holds an annual major event, which is an audition-like series of presentations by theatre majors, assessed by two external professionals. Students get valuable feedback about their own performances, and the Department has obtained information that has guided curriculum revisions.

• Assessment of student learning outcomes is not just the domain of academic programs. Many departments within Student Life have made productive use of assessment [SL2]. For instance, assessment was used productively to help design services and allot space in the Bowen-Thompson Student Union. The Office of Campus Involvement has used assessment in its leadership classes (UNIV 210, UNIV 220) to strengthen the connection between classwork and the work of student leaders in student organizations.

A thorough review of department assessment reports reveals many innovative uses of assessment, each customized to the particular learning outcomes of the major. However, such a review also reveals unevenness of achievement among the departments, which is in fact the weakness of the decentralized approach that we had anticipated. There are a number of departments that have not made much progress with assessment, either through avoidance or misunderstanding. Program review has helped focus these departments’ attention on assessment, and with the help of college offices, we are working to make assessment a component of teaching and learning in all areas of the University.

A major result from this work was the discovery that the learning outcome statements, provided by departments and programs to describe the expectations for their graduating students, could be sorted into several broad categories reflecting underlying dimensions of ability and skill. These dimensions now number six, encompassing proficiencies in investigating, making connections, writing, presenting, participating, and leading. They are known as the University Learning Outcomes, and are defined in the Undergraduate Catalog, as are learning outcomes for each major [CU1]. They also appear in the Student Handbook [HS1]. SAAC has created a set of prototype rubrics for their assessment, and is working to integrate the rubrics into the learning and assessment processes of courses, departments, and co-curricular programs. The identification and evolution of the University Learning Outcomes is described in the publication, Student Learning: A Central Focus for Institutions of Higher Education [SL1].

Assessment of General Education. The General Education Program presents challenges for assessment that differ from the challenges of assessing student learning in the major. Two approaches have been undertaken, one predating the university-wide activities guided by SAAC, and a second more recent approach that is more in line with assessment practices in the majors.

In 1991, the General Education Committee began an effort to establish a comprehensive review of all general education courses. The intent was to have faculty describe how their general education courses were in fact addressing not only the distribution requirements, but the cognitive skills expected for general education courses. Pedagogical criteria were also reviewed. Several years were consumed in designing the form, and there was a hiatus in which proposals to add courses to the general education curriculum were not accepted. When the review got underway, there were some useful outcomes, prompting departments and faculty to pay closer attention to the cognitive skills and pedagogical approaches expected by the General Education Committee. However, the faculty found the form long and tedious, and the approach in general was compliance-oriented. With the retirement of the Director of General Education in 2002, we intend to shift efforts away from this approach and toward one based on assessment of student learning.

Attempts to assess student learning in the general education program as a whole are confounded by the fact that the learning outcomes in the majors (as represented and summarized by the University Learning Outcomes) overlap so broadly with the learning outcomes for the General Education Program. So, for instance, if an assessment of student writing in the senior year uncovered problems, would we attribute those problems to the majors or to the General Education Program, both of which establish excellent writing as a valued outcome? Similarly, analysis and integration are shared broadly as student learning goals for the majors and the General Education Program. Given our understanding that a critical feature of assessment programs should be the use of information about student achievement to make effective curricular and pedagogical changes, we believe that assessment of student learning in the General Education Program as a whole would be too confounded with learning in the majors to be useful.

For a while, the SAAC had considered relying on the assessments of the majors to understand student learning in the General Education Program, given their shared learning outcomes. Although such a holistic approach has its strengths, it would not yield useful information about the impact of general education courses on students’ academic growth. Instead, the SAAC and the General Education Committee agreed to undertake a course-level assessment of General Education.

Five pilot assessments were completed in the academic year 2001-02 [GE2]. One of the common strengths of these pilot course-level assessments was that they engaged the students in intentional, self-reflective assessment activity, a component often lacking from our program-level assessment of student learning in the majors. The reports are rich in detail and in several instances have led to productive curricular or pedagogical changes. They are not yet, however, numerous or comprehensive enough to piece together a mosaic assessment of the General Education Program as a whole. We are encouraged by these early results, and plan to continue with this course-level approach to assessment of student learning in the General Education Program.

Supports for Assessment. SAAC has sponsored several special events that were open to the entire university community as a means to spotlight the role of assessment in improving student learning:

• An Assessment Fair, January 1997–exhibits by 30 departments and programs showing their assessment practices.
• "Visions of Learning Outcomes for BGSU," November 1997–a “town meeting” hosted by President Ribeau, at which four visions were presented: a view from the Ohio Legislature, by Rep. Randall Gardner; a view from the "Qualities of an Educated Person" project, by Roger Sell from the University of Northern Iowa; a view from corporate America, by Craig Decker, manager of worldwide recruiting for Procter and Gamble; and the view from BGSU, by Milton Hakel, chair of the Student Achievement Assessment Committee.
• An Assessment Showcase, April 1998–presentations by five departments showing local assessments, followed by an AACSB teleconference.
• Connections for Learning, March 2002–30 small group conversations with three external consultants followed by an assessment recognition dinner.

• Student Learner in Focus is a newsletter issued for two years early in the development of our assessment program to build a knowledge base and to support best practices.
• The assessment web site [AW1] presents a rich array of information, including links to off-campus assessment resources. A special feature is the collection of best assessment reports, some of which are mentioned above.
• Travel support to assessment conferences/meetings (AAHE, etc.). Over the years, 90 faculty and staff members have visited Alverno College, as have President Ribeau and four members of the Board of Trustees.
• Assessment seed money grants have been available annually to departments and programs since 1997 [AS1].

• The Undergraduate Council and the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Affairs adopted a policy statement, “Commitment to Assessment” (1996) [CA2].
• The process for curricular changes, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, incorporated a section on assessing student learning outcomes (1996) [CM2].
• Assessment of student learning outcomes was given major emphasis in the template for academic program review (1998) [PR9].
• Undergraduate Student Government adopted a resolution endorsing the University Learning Outcomes (1996) [UG1].
• President Ribeau’s use and endorsement of the University Learning Outcomes to structure the text of his Opening Day Address, August 2001.

The Office of Institutional Research supports assessment of student learning and development through ongoing administration of a series of student questionnaires, including the First Year Student Questionnaire [FY2], the National Survey of Student Engagement, and the Graduating Senior Questionnaire [GS2]. These and many other studies [IR1] are available publicly on the World Wide Web. The results are compared over time and with those of peer universities and are used to inform university planning and decision making processes. The Office also provides assessment consultation services throughout the University.

Levels of Implementation. We have used NCA’s Levels of Implementation as a vehicle for self-assessment of our work on assessment of student learning outcomes. We polled the members of the Student Achievement Assessment Committee in 2000 (n=7) and again in 2002 (n=14). We also polled the President’s Expanded Cabinet (n=21) in 2002. There is close agreement between the two groups polled in 2002, and both sets of scores are higher than the poll taken in 2000 [LI1]. Average scores for all items improved from 2000 to 2002, except for “efficacy of assessment,” which remained unchanged with an average score of “2.” Our self-assessment reveals that we do least well on characteristic 5, “student shared responsibility.” Our interpretation is that student shared responsibility for assessment is low because our assessment efforts were designed to begin with program level assessment. We would like to add a developmental aspect to our assessment efforts, so that assessments would allow students to take stock of their individual personal growth. The recent pilot projects in assessment of general education courses provide an opportunity to include this developmental approach to assessment.

Progress on Assessment. The self-study process has identified four challenges to be met with regard to the role of assessment of student learning outcomes. First, there is substantial variation among units in the degree to which assessment is a self-conscious element of their programs. This is, as mentioned above, a consequence of the decentralized strategy adopted in 1995, but the University expects that continuation of the cycle of annual reporting and feedback will help to reduce this variation. Second, a special instance of the first challenge is seen in the relative de-emphasis of assessment of student learning outcomes in graduate programs, where only a few departments have reported substantial progress. Third, the University is working to strengthen the connections between general education outcomes and those in undergraduate majors and programs. The development of course-level learning outcomes in general education courses is a major step forward, and continuing attention will be needed to make the links between general education and the majors clear to faculty and students alike. Finally, there is a growing understanding among the faculty that program-level assessment of student learning and program review are important tools, but that they do not completely address the importance of individual performance assessment in student learning and development. The challenge ahead is to find ways to integrate individual performance assessment seamlessly into the pedagogical practices of the University. Electronic portfolio technology has great potential in this regard, and the University will be exploring its implementation in the coming years.

DEVELOPING IDENTITY: VALUES EXPLORATION

The University has taken a decisive step by resolving to incorporate critical thinking about values into the University’s academic and co-curricular activities. During the past six years, values exploration and civic engagement have become important goals for undergraduate education.

There are a number of indications of the university’s focus on values, including development of
 

• University Core Values and their integration into the Undergraduate Catalog, Orientation and Registration, staff orientation, and other aspects of campus life;
• Residential learning communities such as Chapman and IMPACT, which encourage critical examination of values and civic education;
• Service learning opportunities such as Literacy Serve and Learn, GEAR Up, America Reads, Music Plus, and BGSUrve. The Office of Campus Involvement publishes a calendar of service events [SS1] and a book, Volunteer Yourself, containing a complete list of service organizations in which students can volunteer for community service [VY1].
• Partners in Context and Community, which seeks to enable the teacher preparation programs to benefit from the knowledge, insights, and experience of P-12 teachers, administrators, and community members.

• an orientation for first-year students, which will set the stage for thinking about the role of values in a university education, and
• a general education course that focuses on critical thinking about values. There are five courses being developing during the summer of 2002, one in each of five different disciplines, but each adopting a common set of three learning outcomes regarding critical thinking about values [LO1].

While it is important to continue to expand its efforts, the University also realizes the importance of assessing its progress. In order to see how well the institution is doing with the values initiative, a university-specific assessment tool has been developed [BG2] and will be used to assess skills as they relate to critical thinking about values.

FACULTY AND STAFF SUCCESS AND SATISFACTION

In the wake of the Ohio budget crisis in 1991, faculty and staff development programs were cut back; programs were restored slowly once the crisis eased. Today faculty and staff members enjoy a wide variety of development opportunities. With more than 200 new faculty members recruited in the past three years, new faculty orientation has become a major activity. For the new staff hires during that same interval, a similar program is in place. Both programs are routinely evaluated and revised to meet the needs of their participants.

Faculty Development
Programmatic faculty development opportunities are offered on a continuous basis through the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology [CT1]. The activities of the Center are extensive and have involved about three quarters of all full-time faculty. Support for individually initiated developmental activities comes through the Faculty Research Committee and the Faculty Development Committee, including the Faculty Improvement Leave (sabbatical) program.

From time to time, special programs are offered in response to community needs; sexual harassment briefings, and human subject research requirements are two instances of such programs. Several series of programs provide training in the use of software packages and other information technology systems, and are open to both faculty and staff.

Staff Development
The University supports and encourages professional development and educational growth for its staff members. In addition to the specific programs described below, fee waivers are available for those who wish to take classes for credit.

Internal Training and Development. Internal Training and Development, within the Office of Human Resources, works with vice-presidential divisions to identify the training needs of administrative and classified staff. Each division selects a training topic of interest once a semester and provides training sessions for the entire division typically within a two-day span. The training is supported by higher management and mandated for all employees. To date, the total number of employees involved is approximately 1200. Each divisional training team conducts an evaluation of the training.

BGSU Computer Training Center. The Computer Training Center is the university’s primary provider of computer training for university employees. Through a partnership with Information Technology Services, employees are able to keep up with the ever-changing technology environment. Training sessions are available to employees year-round. BGSU Firelands offers similar computer training programs for its employees.

Orientation for New Employees. A new program began three years ago for staff members new to the University. Included in this day-long program are training on fire safety and sexual harassment.

Department-specific Training. The BGSU Training Center emphasizes training for business and industry. It also provides workshops for professional growth and development of university staff. For instance, staff working in the Student Health Center, nurses, physicians, and paraprofessionals, require evidence of completing continuing education units in order to renew their licenses to practice. Therefore, this Center works on a training plan to meet the needs of the staff and the state boards for these units.

Faculty and Staff Satisfaction
With the re-establishment of the Office of Institutional Research in 1996, the University became able once again to survey faculty and staff satisfaction. The Office uses both national surveys, such as the UCLA Faculty Survey, and special purpose questionnaires. In general, faculty and staff satisfaction is both positive and improving, as is evident in the results of successive surveys (see, for example, the summaries of results for the UCLA Faculty Survey for 1998 [FS1] and 2001 [FS2], and the BGSU Staff Questionnaire for 1999 [ SQ1] and 2001 [SQ2]).

From time to time, highly focused surveys are used to gather information that is used to promote continuous improvement. For example, one of the first such efforts was a survey of satisfaction with the performance of the Office of the President. It dealt with issues such as the timeliness of responses, the accuracy of information, and courteousness of the office staff. The self-examination set a positive example that has helped other units to be open to formative feedback.

Overall, the self-study process has found that faculty and staff are well served by the University and are generally satisfied with their opportunities for professional development. However, we regard this area as requiring continuous attention, as such positive gains could easily be lost through inattention.

DIVERSITY AND GLOBAL AWARENESS

The university’s programs help its students gain understanding and sensitivity to different cultures, both within and beyond our nation’s borders. For every undergraduate this begins with curricular requirements within the General Education Program. The Cultural Diversity in the United States requirement is designed to develop awareness of the multicultural nature of our society. The General Education Program also has an International Perspectives requirement that explores the significance of diverse cultures and addresses international issues and connections.

Beyond the General Education requirements, the University provides opportunities for its students and faculty to become further engaged in intellectual study and first-hand experience of diversity and globalization. Illustrations of these efforts include the following:
 

• interdisciplinary programs in Africana Studies, Ethnic Studies, Asian Studies, Canadian Studies, and Women’s Studies provide rich curricula for study and engagement;
• the Academic Investment in Math and Science program, a pre-college experience, provides mentoring and scholarships for women and students of color who are pursuing bachelor's degrees in mathematics, computer science, or the natural sciences;
• the Center of Multicultural and Academic Initiatives provides diversity programming in residence halls, classrooms, and student organizations. The Center also sponsors lectures and conferences that address cultural diversity in a global society;
• the undergraduate International Studies Program was completely revised, as an outcome of program review. A revised curriculum will prepare students for graduate or professional work in the international arena;
• at the graduate level, students can obtain a Master of Music in Ethnomusicology or a Ph.D. through American Culture Studies in a track named Ethnicity, Gender, and Social Identity; M.A. degrees in French, German, and Spanish each require a full year of study abroad.
• the Center for International Programs provides support to academic programs to help them recruit and admit highly qualified international students;
• study abroad programs provide for international study and exchange throughout the world. The major Academic Year Abroad programs sponsored by the University are in Salzburg (Austria), Alcala de Henares (Spain), and Tours (France, with a component in Burkina Faso, Africa). A complete listing of programs is provided in the Resource Room [SA1]. Students can gain practical training while experiencing another culture through internships connected to study abroad programs in locations such as London, Madrid, Salzburg, and Paris. They can also fulfill student teaching requirements in international sites in Brazil and Canada.

FUNDING FROM NON-ENROLLMENT SOURCES

As an Ohio public institution, where state support of higher education hasn’t increased at a rate commensurate with inflationary and enrollment pressures, the University has had to become more aggressive and creative in its efforts to meet funding needs for student financial aid, research, and creative activity. Two major areas have served as the primary conduit for orchestrating these efforts. The Division of University Advancement’s Office of Development has become more successful in garnering private support for students and faculty. In the past four years, the Office of Development has centralized its operation to allow its staff to focus on fund-raising and to connect to a wider base of alumni. On the academic side, the Office of Sponsored Programs and Research has addressed the funding needs of the research environment.

Development
Through the concentrated efforts of the Office of Development, the University has enjoyed improved individual, corporate, and Foundation funding to support the mission of the University. In 1997, private gifts totaled $5,229,700. The most recent figures for 2001 show the level of giving increasing to $10,570,000. These gifts are critical for enriching the academic and campus experience for all members of the university community. 

With the continued decline in state support, the Office of Development will need to become more aggressive in identifying and securing private resources to support enhanced teaching and learning. Within the next few months, the University will receive a feasibility report that will determine the level at which the institution will begin a major comprehensive fund raising campaign. The entire university community will need to grow in its level of involvement with and knowledge of development and fund raising.

Sponsored Programs and Research
The level of funded research and sponsored program activity at the University remained steady for more than a decade at about eight million dollars. A significant increase in activity has taken place in the last three years because of a focus on specific programs in areas of research growth [GC1]. During the last ten years, the annual level of proposal submissions has increased from 300 to 380 while the total number of awards has risen from 157 to 214, showing an overall increase of 36%. Accordingly, funding amounts have increased from 7.5 million dollars in fiscal year (FY)91 to over 17 million dollars in FY02.

Two hundred fifteen faculty members submitted proposals during FY01 [GC2]; of those, 171 received awards [GC3]. During FY01, there were 584 faculty members constituting the pool of possible institutional investigators. Of that number, 36.8% were active in submitting proposals, and 29.2% received awards. Five years ago in FY97, the pool exceeded 625 qualified individuals and the award amount totaled 7.5 million dollars, the same amount as FY91. Given early retirement incentives and statewide budget cuts, the University has had the opportunity to make strategic hiring decisions designed to support and promote the research enterprise. Resulting research and sponsored program activity records indicate that the plan is working: federal awards have increased and their importance to the future of research and sponsored program activity continues to be emphasized at the department, college, provostial, and presidential levels.

As positive as these trends are, the University sees this as an area with potential for even better performance. The University is making inroads in identifying federal, state, regional, and industrial opportunities for faculty to become involved in funding initiatives [RC1]. Established incentives include reassigned-time options, summer salary for research activities, and the return of a portion of indirect costs to both the department (20%) and the college (10%). One challenge comes in coordinating large-scale projects that include other institutions and industrial partners. The growth of technology in the state depends in part on the collaboration between higher education and business. The Office of Sponsored Programs is prepared to negotiate contracts and to provide guidance to faculty members who are dealing with industry for the first time.

One of the important outcomes of basic and applied research efforts is intellectual property for which patent or copyright protection most clearly should be sought. The support for patent process and subsequent licensing efforts should be balanced with other needs, and in collaboration with area organizations/businesses that support and promote the knowledge economy.

RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

The University is classified as a doctoral-research intensive university. It must maintain its primary emphasis on its teaching mission while striving to enhance the research environment, requiring strategic hiring of new faculty members and creation of environments where research and creative activity is performed and rewarded. The University strives to link its teaching/learning mission with its research mission by supporting and recognizing faculty who bring new ideas, creative expression, and informed research into their teaching. Undergraduate research is an area receiving current emphasis and support. The university policies on distribution of returned indirect costs and the return of salary recovered from grant-related reassigned-time have provided incentives to faculty, chairs, and deans to engage in research and sponsored program efforts. The following programs and research-supported policies recognize research and scholarship at the University:

• The Scholars Assistance Program offers assistance to research-active faculty members. This program is divided into four distinct fundable activities: Bridge Funding, Research Travel Grants, Research in Difficult-To-Fund Areas, and Small Grants for Unanticipated Expenses.
• Faculty Research Committee Research Incentive Grants are designed to reward and encourage probationary faculty members who are attempting to obtain significant external grant support for their scholarly activities.
• The Technology Innovation and Enhancement Grants, funded through the Ohio Board of Regents Research Challenge Fund allocations, are designed to foster partnerships between the University and industry in emerging technology areas.
• The Graduate College developed a strategic plan for graduate education and research in 1998 that included establishment of funds to reward quality research and creative achievements.

EXTERNAL PARTNERS

Commitment to university outreach activities grows from a conviction that outreach affords students rich learning opportunities connecting our emphasis on scholarship to values and engaged citizenship. Faculty view outreach with a sense of professional responsibility to employ scholarship and creative activity to address community needs.

Students are very proud of the success they have had with the annual Dance Marathon, which is held to raise money for Mercy Children's Hospital. It is the largest, student-run, philanthropic organization in the state of Ohio, raising $274,000 in 2001 and $300,000 in 2002 [DM1]. Literacy Serve and Learn is another outreach activity that involves large numbers of students. It is a service learning program that involves nearly 400 university students as literacy tutors in eight Toledo Public elementary schools each year. Outreach through the arts is represented through the Department of Theatre’s Treehouse Troupe, a touring theatre company for young audiences that performs annually and conducts workshops in area public schools, reaching 50 schools in 12 counties or over 15,000 students annually. Other service programs and contributions are described in Resource Room materials [VY1, SS1].

Since 1993, the University has significantly increased its outreach efforts in urban and regional P-12 education. Unique to this undertaking is the firm commitment of all colleges in the university community to assist in the educational process of the region. A number of grant-funded outreach initiatives during this decade have been successful and visible.

• The Toledo Area Partnership in Education: Support Teachers as Resources to Improve Elementary Science (TAPESTRIES), funded by the National Science Foundation, brings faculty from Education and Human Development together with faculty from Arts and Sciences to provide training for public school teachers in the use of innovative science curriculum materials.
• A three-state partnership, U.S. Department of Education grant, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP), has created The University GEAR-UP Learning Center, designed to address educational and performance deficits of high poverty students, in active collaboration with Toledo Public Schools.
• Another funded project is the Partners in Context and Community initiative, which is intended to improve teacher quality. It relies on forming partnerships among the Colleges of Arts and Science, Education and Human Development, Technology, Musical Arts, and Business; a high need urban school system in Toledo, Ohio; and local community agencies and businesses.

As described in the Resources chapter, one strategy for developing external partnerships has relied on centers and institutes that emphasize research capabilities with potential applications in business and industry. Some of the successes of these efforts are described in a research magazine entitled, Partnering Knowledge & Industry [PK1]. Another measure of success in this area is that the University was recognized by the Regional Growth Partnership for efforts in research and development of technology. A “Partner Award” was presented in June, 2001 symbolizing the institution’s leadership in encouraging regional economic development.

The programs offered through Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs have been successful in expanding the population served by the University:

• Arts Unlimited: For the past twenty-one years, Arts Unlimited has trained an average of 250 teachers per year and exposed thousands of K-12 students to professional performances in music, dance, and theater. Arts Unlimited instructors also visit teachers in their own classrooms to help support and improve the use of aesthetic education across the curriculum.
• Off-Campus Programs: Over 470 teachers and school administrators are enrolled in one of the university’s off-campus master’s degree programs, which are offered at more then 14 sites in northwest and north central Ohio, including BGSU Firelands. Master’s degree and graduate certificate programs are offered in Special Education, Classroom Technology, Curriculum and Teaching, Educational Administration, and Gifted certification.
• Computer Training Center: Over 4000 clients enroll in introductory, intermediate, or advanced non-credit computer courses for professional development purposes, skills enhancement, or certification preparation geared toward industry leaders like Microsoft and Comptia. The Center is the designated computer training provider for UAW employees at the GM Powertrain plant in Toledo, Ohio.
• The Training Center: This Center is contracted to develop and administer the Ohio Department of Administrative Services “Human Resources University,” providing HR and related coursework to ODA’s human resource professionals throughout the state of Ohio.

Among its various business and industry training programs, BGSU Firelands’ Office for Educational Outreach offers a Business Strategy, Technology, and Operations Program (BusSTOP) designed to help participants increase their knowledge, competency, and understanding of those business concepts used to improve the productivity and profitability of their organizations.

Partnering with external organizations and communities establishes a social context for university activities. It also forges opportunities for collaborative research ventures. Our efforts here are relatively new; commitment to external partnerships is a long-term strategy that must be actively supported by the University before it becomes part of the structures and processes governing university life.

TECHNOLOGY FOR LEARNING, TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND UNIVERSITY OPERATIONS

With the recent completion of the BGSupernet project, the University has a complete voice, data, and video fiber optic network that creates opportunities for enhancing teaching, learning, and research for the university community. The University has also been active in preparing its students and faculty to take advantage of technological advancements.

Technology for Instruction
The Student Technology Center serves as a focal point for technology support services for students. A survey distributed to students who were involved in the Laptop Loan Program or who had utilized Student Tech's services over the past year indicates a high level of user satisfaction with the Center.

Faculty provide a great deal of direct technology instruction and support in classes. For instance there are special sections of our required English composition courses (ENG 111X and 112X) that employ computer labs and computer-based instruction. At BGSU Firelands, all sections of ENG 110, 111, and 112 are taught using computer labs. There is tremendous student interest in digital video and audio assignments recently added to many classes. Student Tech and Instructional Media Services provide digital equipment for students and faculty in support of such assignments. The programs in Digital Art (in the School of Art) and in Visual Communication & Technology Education (in the College of Technology) are cases in point; student demand in these areas has been high and continues to grow.

The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT), established in 1996 as part of the President’s Community Building Initiative, provides training opportunities for faculty and graduate students to learn new approaches, including technological ones, to teaching and learning. During the last academic year, over 600 faculty and graduate students participated in the CTLT’s workshops, institutes, conferences, and consulting.

Distance Education
Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs (CEISP) has been actively involved in promoting and developing distance education at the University and in the northwest Ohio region since 1994 through faculty development seminars, financial and technical support for innovative projects, and the promotion of educational partnerships on and off campus. Recently, the CEISP has implemented the Interactive Distance Education for All Learners (IDEAL) center, designed to promote the development of online courses.

Although both the CTLT and the CEISP have been working to develop distance education, their approaches have been somewhat different. The CTLT advocates a “blended” approach to traditional and technology-based pedagogies, all aimed at achieving better student learning. Consequently the CTLT’s training programs have helped faculty add online tools to the traditional range of educational practices for students taking classes on campus. As a result, since 1997, faculty have developed more than 400 web-enhanced and web-assisted courses and approximately 17 web-based (completely online) courses, with support from the CTLT. Through the academic year 2001-02, the CTLT has conducted training and supported course development on the WebCT platform. CEISP has been charged with developing completely online courses and programs, to be made available to new, off-campus constituencies, and to support the education progress of current students (e.g. by developing on-line summer courses). CEISP is using the Blackboard platform for this purpose. With the advent of the Blackboard portal on the university intranet in 2001, an agreement was reached to move all our support for web-assisted, web-centric, and web-based courses to Blackboard. The training and transition will occur in 2002-03.

The CEISP has played an expanding role in developing web-based courses using the Blackboard platform. The newly established distance development team, IDEAL, is actively engaged with faculty and program directors to create web-based courses and degree programs; it provides a new venue to address faculty interest in distance education. IDEAL has provided Blackboard courseware development training for the campus community since April 2001, resulting in over 200 new course and organization shells developed for web-enhanced pedagogy; and fifteen new (or newly migrated) completely online courses.

While distance education courses have become more numerous and CEISP is working to develop a strategic plan for the University’s direction in this area, the self-study identified some areas of concern. Our efforts in distance education would benefit from greater coordination among the several programs working in this area. We have recently solved problems regarding the course approval process and revenue sharing, but we still must address policy development in the area of intellectual property rights and faculty welfare issues. Communication among administrators, faculty, and support staff on distance initiatives could be improved, allowing us to maximize the impact of our offerings on current students as well as prospective populations to be served by new distance education initiatives. Finally, planning efforts in distance education should be expanded to include such things as extensive market analysis, and regional alliances with other campuses for strategic curriculum planning and development, thus increasing the university’s ability to deliver whole degree programs on-line. CEISP is vigorously involved in addressing these issues.

Information Resources
Libraries and Learning Resources, including the BGSU Firelands library, continues to explore new and emerging technologies and electronic resources to assist students and faculty. Participation in OhioLINK, a statewide library and information network, offers a variety of services electronically, including access to online research databases and journals. In a continuous effort to provide innovative and user-centered library services, traditional place-bound, reference services have been expanded to include e-mail reference services and, more recently, “chat with a librarian.” The newest service of the library is E-reserves, which allows online access to reserve materials for courses anytime, anywhere.

NON-TRADITIONAL LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES 

Continuing Education, International and Summer Programs (CEISP) is a unique interdisciplinary, multifunctional academic and support unit. Its mission is to strengthen the community, region, and state through creative on-campus and off-campus programs that link organizations and individuals of all ages with university academic programs and personal and professional development offerings.

CEISP’s Office of Adult Learner Services & Evening Credit Programs (ALS) offers a wide range of academic, information, and support services to adults seeking a change in career, a return to the work place, or post-secondary educational opportunities in northwest Ohio. New students recruited and advised by ALS usually have strong academic skills and add diversity to the campus. Measures of success for ALS over the past five years include the following:

• serving as the primary advocate for increased flexibility in class scheduling. Through partnerships with academic departments, ALS has increased the number of undergraduate evening class offerings nearly 25%, from 365 in fall 1996 to 454 in fall 2001.
• increasing the number of students taking at least 50% of their classes in the evening by 42.8% (i.e., from 905 students in fall 1996 to 1,293 students in fall 2001).
• developing retention strategies to show adult students that “they matter.”
• increasing campus awareness of the needs of adult students by serving on university committees to ensure university policies and procedures consider and reflect the unique needs and perspectives of adult learners.
• enhancing its recruitment effort through the development of relationships with regional two-year institutions.

Over the past seven years significant progress in distance education has been made as CEISP’s efforts have complemented other units’ efforts to regularly offer interactive video and web-based course work. During this time, 90 interactive video course sections, representing 62 unique courses that have been offered. The majority of these courses have been delivered to BGSU Firelands, but interactive video courses have also been delivered to Terra Community College, Lima Technical College, Miami University, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Toledo, and Toledo’s St. Francis High School. In addition, CEISP has used innovative instructional delivery methods to reach out to nontraditional student populations and enhance the university’s image as a technologically competent and forward-thinking institution of higher learning. CEISP has been an active partner with WBGU-TV, the Northwest Ohio Educational Television Foundation, and several colleges, especially the College of Technology, in furthering access to the university’s degree and certificate programs through distance education offerings.

CEISP also offers off-campus credit programs, which provide undergraduate and graduate credit courses leading to competency, certification, or a degree. Cohort programs at the undergraduate and graduate level have experienced high enrollments and high levels of success. Opportunities for further expansion result from changes in laws regarding teacher liscensure.

BGSU Firelands’ Office for Educational Outreach offers a wide variety of lifelong learning opportunities, courses, workshops, and seminars for the purpose of providing area residents with non-credit opportunities to develop new skills or to stimulate new interests.

STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO PLANNING, BUDGETING, DECISION-MAKING, AND COMMUNICATION

The University relies on a variety of strategies to assess its effectiveness and use those assessments to improve. The Planning chapter will explore these strategies in much greater depth, but a few comments are worth noting here, in the context of evaluating our effectiveness in accomplishing our education and other purposes.

A variety of planning efforts are connected directly to the Student Success theme of the self-study. Enrollment management has been a major effort, involving all aspects of the University community. The Enrollment Network, a campus-wide group comprising faculty, staff, and administrators, meets monthly and works directly with the Office of Admissions to identify and implement innovative recruiting. This year, a Strategic Enrollment Management Committee is developing a comprehensive enrollment management plan, which will be detailed in the Planning chapter. The First Year Summit is a group consisting of 25 providers of first year programs, ranging from faculty and staff associated with residential learning communities to academic advisors at the BGSU Firelands campus. The group meets three times each semester and provides opportunity to plan collaborative efforts for first year programs.

Academic program review was implemented in 1997; between six and eight reviews have been completed each academic year since that time. Meaningful responses to academic program review include curricular revisions, refined focus of departmental mission, and reconfiguration of schools and departments. For example, the School of Art completed a comprehensive revision of its curriculum, has implemented an enrollment management plan in the School, and has directed resources towards a more focused mission. There are also positive outcomes from program review of support units. For instance, the review of Judicial Affairs resulted in changing the hearing process from an adversarial, legalistic process to one based on conflict mediation.

The Office of Institutional Research, re-established in 1996, provides a comprehensive array of routine and ad hoc, internal and external, longitudinal and comparative studies of the university's operations and the environment in which it functions in order to support planning and decision making. In addition to support of assessment activities described earlier in this chapter, the Office supplies basic descriptive information about the University through the production of the Fact Book [FB1]; provides information to support program review; and participates annually in the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. Enrollment management efforts are facilitated through the provision of multiple versions of the Student Flow Model, the College Migration Report, numerous student questionnaires listed earlier, research involving the role of student financial aid in enrollment management, and staff membership on numerous committees. The Office does a variety of reporting to federal, state, and commercial agencies and works closely with the university's marketing and communications staff to respond to media requests. Support for human resources management efforts involves ongoing administration of the UCLA Faculty Survey and the BGSU Staff Questionnaire as well as employee salary benchmarking and other efforts supporting the President's compensation plan committee. The Office also directs university strategic planning efforts, as will be discussed in the next chapter.

SUMMARY

Guided by the Vision to become “the premier learning community in Ohio and one of the best in the nation,” the University has established its focus on student success through a large number of academic and support programs. These programs provide enhanced learning while engaging students in character development. The values initiative, although in its early stage, holds potential for setting the University apart as a public institution. Our efforts in assessment of student achievement have grown substantially over the last seven years. Assessment results have guided curricular revisions and are beginning to affect pedagogy and classroom activities. As detailed earlier in the chapter, self-assessment of our assessment efforts has contributed to a climate of continuous improvement.

Increased external funding and private giving have helped support the research, scholarship, and creative activity of the university learning community. Clearly, however, efforts to increase non-enrollment sources of revenue are a priority. The emphasis on outreach beyond the boundaries of the campus, through the establishment of research centers, institutes, and educational partnerships, serves as an important network to build greater collaborative ties while responding to social, cultural, and economic trends and opportunities.

Technology, since 1994, has had a major impact on how the University meets its educational purposes. The recent addition of BGSupernet, the establishment of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology, the establishment of the Student Technology Center, the infusion of web-based learning, and ever-changing instructional technology all contribute to prospects for innovative instruction and learning. Developing online degree programs is a near-term goal for the University; Continuing Education, International, and Summer Programs is taking the leadership to coordinate the development of those programs, in collaboration with faculty in interested departments. At the same time, there is the continual challenge to maintain and support state-of-the-art equipment and facilities.

Assessment and evaluation are critical to good planning and decision-making. These strategies are embedded in the fabric of the university learning community, including curriculum revision, program review, learning outcome assessment, recruitment, and advising. The University has developed, and has come to depend on, a culture of evidence to guide decision making in all areas of the University.

Next Page