AQIP Systems Portfolio

Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of graduates from all programs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Aligning common outcomes (institutional or general education goals) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.B.1, 3.E.2)
• Determining common outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.4)
• Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.1)
• Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes (3.B.3, 3.B.5)
• Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)
• Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)
• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes (4.B.2)
• Assessing common learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

1R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected at each degree level? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Responses

1P1: PROCESSES

OHIO's General Education Program is monitored by faculty. Faculty Senate committees determine learning outcomes, align them with the mission, articulate purpose, and ensure their relevance with student, workplace and societal needs.

A General Education Assessment Working Group conducted a comprehensive assessment of general education. Following the recommendations of the Working Group’s report, OHIO pursued two distinct processes. First, the General Education Review Committee was charged with identifying bestpractices in liberal education. The committee recommended that OHIO’s faculty leadership develop a clear process for vetting and adopting a revised general education curriculum.

Second, a General Education Task Force articulated Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs at OHIO. Based on the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes, Faculty Senate articulated, via Faculty Senate resolution,eight Common Goals, and makes clear in the opening paragraph, the alignment to OHIO’s mission, vision and values.

After adoption of the Common Goals, an expanded UCC General Education Committee developed learning outcomes. Members of the committee included representatives from the UCC General Education Committee, the AQIP Strategy Forum, and the General Education Task Force. Because the General Education Task Force developed the Common Goals using language from AAC&U’s LEAP initiative, OHIO’s Common Goals aligned closely with the AAC&U learning outcomes (AAC&U VALUE rubrics).

Alignment of OHIO's Common Goals with AAC&U's VALUE Rubrics

OHIO's Common Learning Outcomes

The UCC General Education Committee reviewed and passed these learning outcomes, presenting them to Faculty Senate in spring 2018.

OHIO articulates the purpose and content for general education in the General Education Requirements section of the Undergraduate Catalog. With transition to the newly identified Common Goals and learning outcomes, processes for articulating the level of achievement of the learning outcomes are currently underway. Maturing processes for general education assessment became an
identified category improvement initiative for our 2018 Strategy Forum and resulted in the AQIP Action Project, Supporting Faculty Communities to Assess OHIO’s Common Learning Goals. Through Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs), the Action Project pilots assessment plans that develop processes to assess student learning including using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics to evaluate
course-embedded artifacts for the achievement of learning outcomes and procedures for evaluating and communicating the results.

The General Education Program is a three–tiered requirement that baccalaureate degree students must fulfill prior to graduation. Tier I course requirements build quantitative and English composition skills; Tier II course requirements increase students’ breadth of knowledge; and the Tier III course requirement develop students’ ability to interrelate, synthesize, and integrate knowledge from different academic disciplines. The General Education Requirements section in the University Catalog provides the full curricular opportunities for how students can achieve the outcomes.

The expected student competencies enumerated for general education demonstrate that the institution engages students in the habits of mind work of collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments. Another example is the Arts and Sciences Curricular Themes, which are clusters of courses that aim to help students with challenges of the 21st century by building interdisciplinary and team-taught courses around a set of themes that provide students with the perspectives they will need as engaged citizens. Students also may engage in funded and non-fundedundergraduate research experiences through OHIO's Division of Research, which provides several robust student research opportunities.

As outlined in the Faculty Handbook “eligibility for tenure shall be…reserved for those who are engaged in academic activities, including teaching, research, and service”(p.22). This establishes faculty expectations for engaging students in scholarly and artistic activity at all levels of the studentexperience.

OHIO has used the AAC&U LEAP model as the framework for general education review and reform initiatives. OHIO adopted the AAC&U VALUE rubrics dimensions as learning outcomes for the eight Common Goals. As part of AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, AAC&U performs extensive and systematic employer survey and economic trendresearch. Every three years, AAC&U “conducts national surveys and/or focus groups to examine trends related to college graduates and the most important learning experiences and outcomes they need to successfully navigate the global economy” (AAC&U Website). OHIO uses the results from the AAC&U employer study as internal targets when comparing with OHIO seniors’ perceived learning development from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as well as with alumni’s perceived learning development from the Survey of Alumni.

OHIO also has internal processes that ensure the education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work. For example the Office of Global Affairs and International Studies oversees the Strategic Framework for Globalization tosupport interdisciplinary global programming initiatives in various areas including education, research, and creativity; mobility of knowledge and experience; diversity of campus life; and relations and profile. OHIO's Strategic Framework for Globalization

As part of this effort, The Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) offered the Teaching with a Global Perspective Faculty Learning Community to develop better classroom environments and learning experiences.

The Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) actively participates in the intellectual and personal development of OHIO students. It supports the University's strategic priorities by providing exemplary student support services and integrative co-curricular activities. The Division of Student Affairs' strategic priorities are summarized below:

Division of Student Affairs' Strategic Priorities

OHIO’s Division of Student Affairs’ (DOSA) focus is on student success. With 13 departments, 420+ professional and graduate-level staff and 3,200+ undergraduate student employees, the division exists to support and challenge students to become their best.

During the 2017-18 academic year, DOSA participated in a Strategic Planning process. The result was the 2018 Strategic Plan for Ohio University's Division of Student Affairs, which will guide decision-making, inform investments and direct the daily work of the division. The strategic plan identified eight student learning outcomes and a five-year time frame for the development andimplementation of a learning outcomes assessment model. DOSA’s learning outcomes assessment will align with and report to the Assessment Clearinghouse.

Additionally, DOSA actively participates in evaluation and continuous improvement through an annual program review process (Division’s Annual Report). In fall 2018, DOSA also participated in an external review in an effort to ensure that the Division was achieving the strategic planning objectives. DOSA is in the process of responding to 20 recommendations outlined in the Ohio University Division of Student Affairs External Review Report.

Academic and academic support units also provide integrated opportunities for experiential and co-curricular learning (see 1P2). OHIO provides all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) learning experiences for students. OHIO aspires forundergraduate students to participate in at least two HIPs over the course of their undergraduate experience, where at least one is done during their first year (NSSE, 2007).

OHIO also fully supports cultural activities and events that enrich the lives of our students, faculty and the community. OHIO offers an excellent Performing Arts and Theater series as well as numerous musical and dance performances. The Arts for OHIO program allows OHIO students to attend cultural events sponsored by OHIO free of charge.

The General Education Assessment Committee’s report established the process for tools and methods used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes, and until the adoption of the AAC&U VALUE rubrics, OHIO continued systematically assessing its general education curriculum throughparticipation in the Voluntary System of Accountability and the collection and review of data from the Office of Institutional Research’s (OIR) Survey of Alumni; ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) standardized tests of English writing and critical thinking; and the NSSE Survey.

Maturing our assessment processes became the opportunity identified for the 2018 Strategy Forum Category Improvement initiative, and resulted in the AQIP Action Project, Supporting Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) to Assess OHIO’s Common Learning Goals. Through FLCs, the Action Project pilots assessment plans that develop (a) processes to assess student learning, (b) measurement instruments to evaluate course-embedded artifacts for the achievement of learning outcomes, and (c) procedures for evaluating and communicating the results. The FLCs are piloting assessment plans for four of the common goals using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics in multiple courses across OHIO. Results and recommendations will be presented in Fall 2019.

Simultaneously, the TLA Committee General Education Assessment: Moving Beyond the Pilot Subcommittee is working during the 2018-19 academic year to provide recommendations to the EVPP regarding the institutionalization of the FLC assessment processes.

Category 1.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R1: RESULTS

Results from the assessment of common learning outcomes through the collection and review of data from OIR’s Survey of Alumni; participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA); ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) standardized tests of English writing andcritical thinking; and results from the Senior NSSE Survey as our multi-method approach to general education assessment are presented.

OIR administered both VSA CAAP Tests every three years until the tests were discontinued in 2018. The method for testing was prescribed by ACT and VSA, requiring a cross sectional design of freshmen during their first term of enrollment and seniors within 6 months of graduation.

OHIO’s VSA CAAP Longitudinal Results

The ACT CAAP Critical Thinking and Writing Essay tests provided OHIO with two important results. First, were results related to value-added assessment student’s learning. According to ACT CAAP Testing Services on all three VSA administrations (2009-10, 2012-13, and 2015-16), overall results of both the ACT CAAP writing essay testing and the critical thinking performance task
indicated that the increase in learning is at or near what would be expected at an institution testing students of similar academic abilities. Second, results indicate that OHIO students outperform the national norms on all administrations of the ACT CAAP writing essay, critical thinking and math
tests over all four test administrations.

Full results of OHIO’s participation in NSSE is available on OIR’s Student Involvement and Engagement Reports webpage. As a formal part of the University’s general education assessment plan, the NSSE survey is administered every three years. Results from the personal developmentsection of the NSSE are compared against two external benchmarks. Results are also compared with the AAC&U 2015 Hart Research Associates results released in a report, Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success, regarding employer’s priorities for skills and knowledge needed in the workforce.

NSSE Personal Growth External Benchmark Targets Summary

NSSE Personal Growth External Benchmark Comparisons 2008-2017

NSSE First Year to Senior Comparisons 2008-2017

OHIO’s external benchmark comparison on the NSSE Personal Growth items illustrate significant improvement over the four survey administrations. The 2008 NSSE administration provided areas to monitor. While students’ knowledge and skills had grown from the first year to the senior year,
seniors reported on average less knowledge and skills development than the selected peers on each of the ten items in the NSSE personal development construct. These results became part of the impetus for the General Education Assessment Working Group. The 2011 NSSE results show some
improvement, meeting or exceeding five external benchmark targets. In 2014 and 2017, OHIO met or exceeded nine out of the ten benchmarks. OHIO did not meet the analyzing quantitative problems/analyzing numerical and statistical information item benchmark in any of the years.

OHIO Alumni from the graduating classes 2008-2013 participating in the Survey of Alumni five to six years post-graduation indicated that their college experience substantially contributed to acquiring skills and knowledge. Compared with the perception of the need for these skills and knowledge intheir workplace, the results indicated that OHIO meets or exceeds those workplace needs on most outcomes in most years.

2008-2013 Survey of Alumni Results

OHIO Alumni’s perceived development of their ability to think analytically, communicate orally, evaluate and choose between alternatives, and formulate creative ideas and solutions did not meet or exceed the percentage of reported need for those competencies in Alumni’s workplace. Percentageswere still high, ranging between 89%-95%, and demonstrate positive results when compared with internal targets and results of the ACT CAAP Critical Thinking test. The institution will continue to monitor results, particularly as OHIO moves to a more authentic assessment method using the AAC&U Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric.

OHIO’s NSSE Seniors and Survey of Alumni Perceived General Education Learning Development Compared to Employer Priorities 

In an effort to align measures of student learning with workplace need, OHIO uses the results from the AAC&U employer study as internal targets for comparing with both the NSSE (seniors) and the Survey of Alumni (graduates) measures. AAC&U performs an employer study every three years. The survey asks employers to rate the importance of learning outcomes for recent college graduates to have. The study identified eight learning outcomes which are compared to OHIO’s senior 2017 NSSE results and the 2018 Survey of Alumni results (graduates from the classes of 2011-12 & 2012-13). These results indicate that both seniors’ and alumni's perceived general education outcomedevelopment on each of the eight learning outcomes exceeds the internal targets.

Results from the NSSE 2014 and 2017 High Impact Practices Participation Comparisons report yield very positive results regarding OHIO’s co-curricular programs.

OHIO’s First-year and Senior Participation in High Impact Practices Over Time

When comparing the results over time (2014 to 2017), the percent of first year students participating in at least one HIP remained consistent (47% and 48%, respectively), while the percentage of seniors participating in two or more HIPs increased from 75% to 79% over the same period.

OHIO’s 2017 NSSE HIP Participation External Comparisons

Results from the 2017 NSSE HIP Participation Comparison report indicate that OHIO is outperforming our selected peer institutions on all external benchmark comparisons. Forty-eight percent (48%) of first year students compared to 44% at selected peer institutions participated in at least one HIP. In addition, 32% of first year students compared to 17% at selected peer institutions participated in two or more HIPs. Therefore, 80% of first year students participated in at least one HIP during their first year, compared to only 61% at selected peer institutions. The results are also positive for OHIO’s seniors. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of seniors compared to 71% at selected peer institutions participated in two or more. Ninety-three percent (93%) of seniors participated in at least one HIP over the course of their undergraduate experience. 

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R1 are provided in response rate summary.

1I1: IMPROVEMENT

OHIO has been actively involved in the review of its common learning outcomes. Results from 1R1 were used to inform the work of all groups involved in the revision to assessment processes, revision to general education outcomes as well as anticipated revisions to general education delivery. While the results of the ACT CAAP testing were positive, there concerns with the ability to use the data which resulted in OHIO exploring another approach to the direct assessment. The declining response
rates of students taking CAAP tests resulted in smaller sample sizes. When sample sizes fall below the ACT CAAP recommended 200 students per group, questions arise about the reliability and validity of data. The second issue is that while direct assessment in the form of standardized testing does provide external benchmark comparisons, it does not yield actionable results. For these reasons, OHIO sought a more actionable direct assessment method through Faculty Learning Communities and the adoption of the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics. The VALUE rubric assessments will provide results for each learning outcome, provide better guidance to faculty about where improvements in
general education are needed.

As described in 1R1, NSSE results for analyzing quantitative problems/analyzing numerical and statistical information indicated an area of concern where improvements were needed. While mean students’ perceptions were lower than the means of our selected peers, the data do not provide faculty
with actionable results in terms of exactly what learning dimensions or outcomes of quantitative literacy students are not receiving through the general education curriculum. Therefore in order to make improvements, the institution seeks more authentic results from the AAC&U VALUE rubrics
assessments for direction. Because of the areas of concern identified in the NSSE results, the Quantitative Literacy common goal was selected as one of the initial four common goals to be assessed through the AQIP Action Project, Results and recommendations are anticipated from the Quantitative Literacy FLC at the end of fall semester 2019.

Sources

• 1.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• 2008-2013 Survey of Alumni Results
• 2015employerstudentsurvey
• 2017 NSSE HIP Participation External Comparisons
• AACU employer-survey-and-economic-trend-research
• AACUs VALUE rubric Development Project
• Alignment of Common Goals and AACU VALUE rubrics
• Arts for OHIO
• Arts-and-Sciences_Curricular_Themes
• BobcatDepot.pdf
• Campus-Involvement-Center
• CampusRecreation.pdf
• Career-and-Leadership-Development-Center.pdf
• CommonGoalsforOHIO
• Community-Standards-and-Student-Responsibility.pdf
• Counseling-and-Psychological-Services.pdf
• Culinary Services.pdf
• Current-Handbook-September-2018
• Division of Student Affairs Annual Reports.pdf
• DOSA Strategic Plan Final
• DOSAStrategicPriorities
• Event-Services.pdf
• FacultySenate-Resolution-General-Education-Common-Goals
• First-year and Senior Participation in High Impact Practices
• five year time frame
• GeneralEducationRequirements
• GeneralEducationWorkingGroupReport
• Housing and Residence Life.pdf
• NSSE External Benchmark Targets Summary.pdf
• NSSE First Year to Senior Comparisons 2008-2017
• NSSE Seniors and Alumni Perceived General Education Learning
• Development Compared to
• Employer Priorities.pdf
• NSSE-2007-Annual-Report.pdf
• NSSE-External-Benchmark-Comparisons- 2008-2017.pdf
• Office of the Dean of Students.pdf
• Office of the VP for Student Affairs.pdf
• OHIO Common Learning Outcomes
• OHIO-Mission-and-Vision.pdf
• Ohio-University-Student-Affairs-External-Review-11-15-18-3
• OII-FLC-Teaching-with-a-global-perspective.pdf
• StrategicFrameworkForGlobalization.pdf
• StrategicFrameworkForGlobalization2.pdf
• Student Involvement and Engagement Reports.pdf
• Student Research
• Survey Response Rates
• Survivor Advocacy Program.pdf
• VSA-CAAP-Longitudinal-Results

Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Aligning learning outcomes for programs (e.g., nursing, business administration, elementary teaching, etc.) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.E.2)
• Determining program outcomes (4.B.4)
• Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (4.B.1)
• Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)
• Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)
• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes (4.B.2)
• Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

1R2: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected in programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Overall levels of deployment of the program assessment processes within the institution (i.e., how many programs are/not assessing program goals)
• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained

1I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Responses

1P2: PROCESSES

The process of aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution at OHIO is the responsibility of the faculty and is coordinated through the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) via the Assistant Provost for Accreditation andAssessment Support and the Teaching Learning and Assessment Committee (TLA). The TLA Committee is comprised of faculty and administrative staff representing each academic college andregional campus. In response to feedback received from the 2015 AQIP Comprehensive Quality Review Team and through an AQIP Action Project, “Expanding Capacity for an Institution-Wide Culture of Assessment,” OHIO aligned program learning outcomes with the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA) Transparency Framework. NILOA’s model provides a framework for faculty to align program learning outcomes with OHIO’s mission, educational offerings, and degree levels. OHIO’s mission is central to all program learning outcomes as demonstrated by the Student Learning Outcomes Assessments landing page in the Assessment Clearinghouse. NILOA’s Transparency Framework also provides a model for centralizing the collection of evidence of student learning and use of those results.

All programmatic assessment processes, determining program outcomes, articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes and ensuring they remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs originate in each academic program or college and incorporate
contextual guidelines from college and department missions and goals. Every course and program is expected to include learning outcomes. These outcomes are included in the new course and new program proposal process, are determined by the faculty proposing the course or program, and are
reviewed at each step in the approval process. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop all programmatic assessment processes. Development of all assessment processes are informed by faculty's knowledge in the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum process the latest developments in their fields. Each academic college has unique programmatic assessment processes. Descriptions of college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Determining Program Outcomes, College-Level Processes for Articulating the Purposes, Content and Level of Achievement of the Outcomes, College-Level Processes for Ensuring the Outcomes Remain Relevant and Aligned with Student, Workplace and Societal Needs. 

In addition to the exemplary student support services and co-curricular opportunities provided by the Division of Student Affairs (DOSA), described in 1P1, academic programs and academic support units also develop and deliver co-curricular activities in order to provide integrated learning opportunities for students inside and outside of the classroom. 

As described in 1P1, OHIO provides all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) learning experiences for students including learning communities, undergraduate research, culminating senior experiences, internships, study abroad and service learning. HIPs are available through academic support units or through individual academic colleges or programs. Learning Communities are available to all first year students and are delivered through Learning Community Programs in University College. OHIO offers robust opportunities for undergraduate research through the Office of the Vice President of Research as well as through courses and programs in various colleges and academic programs. All undergraduate students are required to have a culminating senior experience delivered via a General Education TIER III capstone course offered within an individual students’ major. Internship opportunities are available through certain colleges and academic programs. OHIO study abroad programs are available through the Office of Global Opportunities in all majors through classes offered in specific disciplines. Service Learning at OHIO is structured experiential education linked to a course that intentionallysupports student learning and community-based organizations equally. The Center for Campus Community Engagement has been instrumental in the development of Community Engagement courses.

Each academic college also has distinct processes for designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning. Descriptions of these college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Designing, Aligning and Delivering Cocurricular Activities to Support Learning.

The academic departments/schools and individual faculty directly involved in the academic programs are charged with identifying appropriate measures for student assessment. Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes originate in each academic
program or college. Development of tools, methods and instruments used to assess program outcomes is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with theindustry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields. Some programs will utilize guidelines from their disciplinary accreditation organizations to accomplish this task. The Office of Institutional Research
(OIR) and the Center for Teaching and Learning can also provide support for development of these processes. Descriptions of college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Attainment of Program Learning Outcomes.

The process for assessing program learning outcomes at OHIO is the responsibility of the program faculty, while the Office of the EVPP provides oversight for academic assessment by:

• providing funding and infrastructure support,
• measuring progress and outcomes through OIR
• designing a system-wide process to capture and promote best practices.

Based on feedback received in the 2015 Comprehensive Quality Review report, OHIO has made significant changes to its program learning outcomes assessment processes. While the processes are still the responsibility of program faculty, in order to measure progress and outcomes at theinstitutional level and to develop a system-wide process to capture and promote best practices, the EVPP charged OIR with developing an Assessment Clearinghouse. After some internal restructuring within OIR, the position of Assistant Provost for Accreditation and Assessment Support Services emerged as the lead for this initiative and coordinates efforts in consultation with the Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA) Committee.

After considerable exploration and research regarding different program outcomes assessment reporting models and in consultation with the TLA Committee, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) Transparency Framework was selected as it offered the most flexibility in applying a centralized reporting model to OHIO’s decentralized assessment processes.

1R2: RESULTS

1I2: IMPROVEMENT

• To help ensure student success in the Geography capstone course, a series of important deadlines are set throughout the semester requiring students to submit a research topic, literature review, and research outline in a timely manner. Students must stick to a timeline in order to complete the “cumulative” project by the end of the semester. It became apparent that numerous students have been able to miss deadlines throughout their academic career, yet still meet expectations to complete their courses. Faculty are encouraged to challenge students in their own courses when they exhibit a lack of involvement, or seem satisfied working beneath
  their potential.
• Environmental and Plant Biology is implementing improvements in student internships to 1) ensure that students discuss with their advisor how the internship will be evaluated before undertaking the internship; and 2) to help ensure that students are well-prepared to present their internship experience in posters.

For both undergraduate and graduate programs, in the College of Business (COB) incremental improvements are made continuously while major improvements are made periodically (i.e., every 3-years). For example, in February 2016, the full faculty of the College of Business formally approvedthe revised core curriculum for all baccalaureate programs. The major changes included the:

• Copeland Core – which was a new, 7-course curriculum component for first year students that addressed business literacy, professionalism, communications, academic exploration, and career exploration;
• Sophomore Cluster – which was revised to include the development of knowledge, analytic competencies, socio-cultural competences, and communication competences;
• Analytics Course Sequence – which was revised as a mechanism for more efficiently delivering content to improve students’ quantitative reasoning capabilities; and
• Global Perspectives – which was revised to improve efficiencies across the curriculum to include a broader list of international coursework available to students.

The Patton College of Education has implemented a clinically based teacher preparation paradigm. Candidates spend much more time in clinical experiences, work to co-teach with mentor teachers, reflect and evaluate their teaching in an authentic way, and video record their performance to benationally assessed.

The programs across the College of Health Sciences and Professions (CHSP) have made recent improvements by revising courses, changing mode of instructional delivery (online to traditional or blended), additional learning communities and tutoring sessions, and improvements in instructional
technology and physical learning spaces. For example, a BSN curriculum revision was initiated and completed. All faculty members attended professional development activities with a focus on simulation debriefing to enhance student simulation experiences. Faculty also attended test writingprofessional development sessions in order to guarantee alignment with NCLEX (licensure exam) testing. New teaching methods include the use of a new clinical documentation system, and interactive social media systems in the classroom. All faculty members completed a joint comprehensive course mapping process to align both the original and revised curriculum plans with
the NCLEX test plan.

Sources

• 1.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components Mapped to Relevant UCC Academic Program Review Questions
• Articulating the Purposes Content and Level of Achievement of the Outcomes
• Arts for OHIO
• Assessment Clearinghouse Progress Reporting Metrics.pdf
• Assessment Clearinghouse Completed Milestones
• Assessment Clearinghouse Feedback Framework.pdf
• Assessment Clearinghouse Use of Student Learning Evidence
• Center for Campus Community Engagement
• Centers of Excellence
• College Level Processes for Determining Program Outcomes.pdf
• College-Level Processes for Designing Aligning and Delivering Cocurricular Activities to Support Learning.pdf
• College-Level Processes for Ensuring the Outcomes Remain Relevant and Aligned with Student Workplace and Societal Needs.pdf
• College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Attainment of Program Learning Outcomes
• Curricular Themes
• Evidence of Student Learning
• Learning Communities
• NILOA Excellence in Assessment Designation
• NILOA Student Learning Outcomes Transparency Framework
• Office of Global Opportunities.pdf
• Ohio Department of Higher Education’s Annual Performance Report
• Ohio Valley Center for Collaborative Arts
• Rural Urban Scholars Program
• Student Leanring Outcomes Assessment landing page
• UndergraduateResearch
• Use of Student Learning Evidence

Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders' needs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.C. and 4.A. in this section.

1P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
• Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
• Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders' needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic programs
• Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or discontinuing when necessary (4.A.1)

1R3: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution's diverse stakeholders? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results shouldalso include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P3: PROCESSES

OHIO continuously tries to understand its students' needs and adapt accordingly. Needs of students are identified through well-established processes of providing student services. These processes occur at all levels of institutional life. Identification of student needs begins with the admissions process, continues during students' educational experiences, and extends past graduation.

Formal needs assessments occur through regularly-conducted assessments by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). OHIO participates in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) every three years. Annually, the New Student Success survey, ACT Class Profile and Student Involvement Surveys provide data on changing needs of students. Two Follow-Up Studies of Alumni, one year and five years after graduation, are done to identify students' educational needs after graduation. OIR provides updates to inform the University community of new significant findings or changes in needs and are shared on OIR's website. OIR staff are members of the First-Year Council and provide educational needs results in order to implement improvements in student experiences.

Additionally, institution-wide processes for identifying student stakeholder groups and determining educational needs are housed in University College including Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO), Learning Community Programs, Allen Student Advising Center, Academic Achievement Center, Student Accessibility Services, and MyOHIO Success Network. Once identified through these various processes and services, University College provides specific programming for several student stakeholder groups, including first generation students, relocating students, transfer students, commuter students, and veteran students (see 2P1).

Academic colleges and departments have their own unique processes for identifying student stakeholders to determine their educational needs. These processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Identifying Student Stakeholders to Determine their Educational Needs.

Stakeholders communicate their needs to the University through systems established for that purpose. Student Senate, Graduate Student Senate, Faculty Senate, Administrative Senate, and Classified Senate all participate in University governance in a variety of ways. Each Senate communicatesregularly and directly with respective University leaders through regularly-scheduled meetings. Two student and one faculty representatives, as well as a representative of the Alumni Board, sit on the University's Board of Trustees. All senates are represented on the University's primary planning decision body, the Budget Planning Council.

Regular program reviews are designed to incorporate stakeholders' needs assessments. Programs and courses are evaluated on an ongoing basis by faculty in academic units and review committees, informed by internal and external guidelines and sources of information, including relevant disciplinary and interdisciplinary professional organizations at regional and national levels, peer institutions, students’ evaluations of courses, exit interviews with graduating seniors, alumni surveys, alumni boards, and other stakeholders and data sources. Over 100 academic programs at OHIO follow guidelines provided by over 40 specialized accrediting agencies.

Academic colleges have their own unique processes for identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs and those are detailed in College-Level Processes for Identifying Other Key Stakeholder Groups and Determining Their Needs.

The OHIO curricular process is led by the University Curriculum Council (UCC) along with Faculty Senate. Faculty from individual programs propose changes or new courses and curricula within their own departmental/school curriculum committees. All curricular changes (additions, deletions, prerequisite changes, new programs and major programmatic changes) must first be approved by the department or school curriculum committee, the chair or director, the college curriculum committee,and the college dean before the UCC will consider the proposal. Upon the dean’s approval, the proposals move to the UCC for final approval. The UCC employs a subcommittee structure (Individual Course, Programs, and Program Review) to review new courses and academicprograms, respectively, before presenting the proposals to the entire UCC body for consideration.

The curricular process for new programs and program revisions seeks to assure that programs will be sustainable, will serve the mission of OHIO, will provide high quality educational opportunities, and will avoid conflicts with university or external requirements or processes that will prevent the program from meetings its goals. As detailed in the UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures (pages 3-5), the process requires departmental, college, and UCC approval because each phase of the process brings different kinds of expertise and knowledge to bear. Throughout the process, stakeholders have opportunities to provide feedback and monitor progress through participation in department/school or college curriculum committees, and at UCC regular meetings.

Graduate courses and academic programs are also vetted through the Graduate Council, a university standing committee with similar functions as UCC but only for graduate education. Some new degree programs may need approval by the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP), the Board ofTrustees, and the Ohio Board of Regents.

UCC governs program review and improvement through the Academic Program Review process. All academic programs are reviewed every seven years (see 1P4). This intensive review process ensures that all academic programs undergo a continuous improvement process to provide responsiveprogramming to meet all stakeholders’ needs.

Innovations in curricula may originate from national specialized accreditation or professional standards, academic and professional organizations, input from external advisory boards or from potential employers, engagement in scholarly and creative activity inform curricular decisions. Faculty monitor industry trends and graduates' success in order to anticipate future trends or outside speakers brought to the University by existing programs may spark an interest in developing new programs. Conversations between faculty and students, either informally or through a formal exit interview process, reveal student-initiated ideas for innovations. In all colleges, academic programsconduct regular faculty meetings in which curriculum is a recurring topic. Thus, curricular revisions and updates are ongoing. Examples of recent curricular innovations in particular academic areas are provided in College Curricular Innovations.

Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program currency and effectiveness originate in each academic program or college. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop the tools and is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields.

In the university curriculum review process, all new courses are required to include measurable and observable learning outcomes, which are determined by faculty members in connection with the mission, goals, and learning outcomes of the academic program. Faculty members at OHIO have theautonomy to create course-specific assessments to measure student learning. Programs engage in discussion about data collected from courses to determine if modifications are needed. Also included in this process are faculty activity reports, student evaluations, committee reports, and outcome surveys, in combination with external accreditation reports, all toward the end of gaining the best understanding of the value and delivery of educational programs. Examples of processes used by colleges are detailed in College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess the Currency and Effectiveness of Academic Programs.

Programs and courses are evaluated on an ongoing basis by colleges, departments, schools, and programs, taking into consideration enrollments, student needs, faculty resources, developments in the field, feedback from alumni, advisory boards, employers, and other factors to modify or redesignprograms, or to recommend possible program discontinuation. Some changes are initiated based on accreditation compliance or by changes in the certification requirements of the associated degree programs. The Programs Committee (PC), a standing committee of the University Curriculum Council (UCC), oversees the process for deletion, relocation and changes in existing academic programs. The Individual Course Committee (ICC), another standing committee of the UCC, oversees the process for changes in existing academic courses.

The efficacy of program curriculum is monitored by the individual programs, with a comprehensive seven-year review occurring under the leadership of the UCC’s Program Review subcommittee (see 1P4). Academic program reviews include examination of the currency and viability of programs. This review process requires the program to prepare an extensive self-study and includes a site visit by a member of the Program Review subcommittee and an external reviewer with a documented academic background and expertise in the discipline under review. Reports filed as a result of the review must be vetted and accepted by the college dean, Graduate Council, UCC, the EVPP Officeand the OHIO Board of Trustees. Program chairs and college deans are allowed the opportunity to respond to the review. Programs in which significant concerns are discovered must address those concerns in an action plan developed between the program and the dean of the college before the next seven-year cycle. Proposals to discontinue programs are presented to the UCC and the Board of Trustees, along with strategies for phase-out developed by the programs.

Examples of curricular changes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Reviewing the Viability of Courses and Programs and Changing or Discontinuing When Necessary Curricular Changes.

Category 1.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R3: RESULTS

Results from NSSE’s Engagement Indicators reports are used by academic colleges and programs to assess the needs of student stakeholders. NSSE’s Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on a series of survey items on key dimensions of student engagement. There are ten indicatorsorganized into four themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment.

NSSE Academic Challenge Engagement Indicator

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Academic Challenge Engagement Indicators were mixed. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for higher-order learning and reflective & integrative learning were above the mean for peer institutions, while learning strategies and quantitative reasoning mean scores were both below the peer institution mean scores.

NSSE Learning with Peers Engagement Indicator 

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Learning with Peers Engagement Indicators were positive. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for collaborative learning and discussions with diverse others were both above the mean scores of the peer institutions.

NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

Also positive were the results for OHIO seniors’ reported Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for student-faculty interaction and effective teaching practices were both above the mean scores of the peer institutions.

NSSE Campus Environment Engagement Indicator

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Campus Environment Engagement Indicators were mixed. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for supportive environment were above the peer institutions mean scores, while quality of interactions mean scores were below the peer institution mean scores.

NSSE Engagement Indicator Overview

OHIO uses NSSE selected peer institutions as internal targets. OHIO met or exceeded nine of the ten student engagement internal targets for first year students. Quantitative reasoning engagement indicator in the Academic Challenge theme was the one target not met. OHIO did meet or exceed allten engagement indicator internal targets for senior students.

OHIO’s measure for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders is the University Curriculum Council’s academic program review process.

Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results

Over the last five academic years, 330 academic programs went through the academic program review process, and only seven programs were deemed in jeopardy. All of those programs were or have been given the opportunity to address the concerns noted by the external reviewers, and either were or will be re-reviewed within three years.

Each academic program review is performed by an external reviewer. External reviewers' reports provide recommendations for improvement to each academic program. Full results of external review reports are available on the UCC Program Review webpage. It is expected that each program will address any identified concerns before the next academic program review.

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R3 are provided in response rate summary.

1I3: IMPROVEMENT

The creation of the Arts & Sciences Scholars Program resonated with NSSE survey results, which found that first-year students felt less challenged in their course work compared to seniors. A central purpose of the courses in this multidisciplinary program for high-achieving first-year students is to introduce students to some of the more significant ideas and controversies from the past that shape contemporary life. Students who are accepted into the Scholars Program take a writing-intensive seminar, participate in a student/faculty colloquium series, and have the opportunity to interact beyond the classroom with students and program faculty.

Across the College of Business (COB), improvements have been made through a variety of techniques such as flipped classrooms, team-based learning, live client projects, experiential learning, and community-based learning.

During 2015 the UCC began the process of reviewing UCC policies and procedures. First, the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee (AHPC) was convened under the joint authority of the Faculty Senate and the UCC to review UCC policies and procedures. The committee identified three areas with significant opportunities for improvement:

1. articulating the goals and responsibilities of curricular approval processes and aligning practice with them;
2. improving communication and transparency; and
3. filling gaps that current UCC processes do not address.

Included in the recommendations from the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee’s Report, was a recommendation for UCC to create guidelines for temporary and/or experimental courses and programs. The rationale provided by the committee was, “External pressures and faculty desire for innovation in pedagogy and student experiences are both likely to produce new programs and kinds of programs—and, for the sake of both flexibility and responsibility, units should be able to pilot these experiments before committing large numbers of resources and students to them. The committee thus recommends that Programs Committee consult with appropriate stakeholders,including the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, the Associate Dean of the Graduate College, and EPSA, in order to establish appropriate guidelines and procedures for experimental programs”.

Second, the Certificates Task Force was created by the Programs Committee of UCC in order to address recurring questions about the definitions of certificates at OHIO, and to accommodate requests from units interested in new types of certificates. The Certificates Task Force sent recommendations to UCC to address these issues.

In direct response to the Certificates Task Force Recommendations and the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report recommendations, the UCC Programs Committee worked on the development of an exemption process. The policy exemption process is a mechanism for requesting, assessing, approving, and managing programs that violate university curricular policy. After review andapproval at the Academic Leadership meeting, the UCC Program Exemption Policy was approved on February 14, 2017 and is now a part of UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures. Programs in engineering and business are currently moving through this exemption process.

Sources

• 1.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• Academic Challenge Engagement Indicator
• Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results
• Academic Program Review Requirements Approved
• Academic Program Review Self-Studies.pdf
• Arts Sciences Scholars Program
• Campus Environment Engagement Indicator
• CertificatesTask Force Recommendations
• College Curricular Innovations
• College-Level Processes for Identifying Other Key Stakeholder Groups and Determining Their Needs
• College-Level Processes for Identifying Student Stakeholders to Determine their Educational Needs
• College-Level Processes for Reviewing the Viability of Courses and Programs and Changing or Discontinuing When Necessary Curricular Changes.pdf
• College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess the Currency and Effectiveness of Academic Programs
• Commuter students
• Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
• External review reports results
• First generation students
• Full Results of external review reports
• Learning with Peers Engagement Indicator
• NEOMED MPH Consotium
• NSSE Engagement Indicator Overview
• Pearson
• Relocating students
• Self-Study-Requirements
• Survey Response Rates
• Transfer students
• UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report
• UCC Program Policy Exemption Process
• UCC Programs Guidelines Policies and Procedures
• UCC Programs-Manual-of-Guidelines-Approved
• UCC Website.pdf
• Veteran students
  

Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities and locations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.A. and 4.A. in this section.

1P4: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses and learning they will pursue (4.A.4)
• Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia and dual-credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)
• Awarding prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3)
• Selecting, implementing and maintaining specialized accreditation(s (4.A.5)
• Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels (3.A.2, 4.A.6)
• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities

1R4: RESULTS

What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I4: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P4: PROCESSES

Admission requirements and admission criteria are communicated to students on the Undergraduate Admissions How to Apply as a Freshman webpage, the Admissions Requirements and Procedures section of the Undergraduate Catalog, and through direct contact with students during the recruitment processes. These criteria are evaluated through studies regularly conducted by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) such as ACT's prediction/research service and Class Profile Service to monitor the predictability of high school GPA and ACT scores on first-year college GPA.

Admissions criteria and policy for CC+, dual enrollment program, is communicated to students through the Admission Guidelines webpage. All applicants must demonstrate that they are remediation free. Information is communicated to students via the Remediation-Free Standards & Placement Testing webpage. Course eligibility and prerequisite information is available to CC+ students on the Course Eligibility page.

Admission criteria for graduate and professional programs are established by each academic program, reviewed regularly by a review committee and communicated to students on the Graduate College’s Admissions webpage and the Graduate Catalog. . Applications are reviewed individually within each graduate or professional program.

OHIO’s regional campuses have an open enrollment and access policy. First year students are placed in academic coursework based on standardized placement scores, utilizing the Accuplacer placement exam for students who do not have ACT/SAT scores. Some programs use supplemental placementinstruments.

College and academic program specific processes are detailed in College- & Program-Level Processes for Determining and Communicating the Preparation Required of Students for the Specific Curricula, Programs, Courses and Learning They Will Pursue.

Faculty engage in dialogue about the best modes of course delivery, based on student evaluations, course evaluations, surveys, formal interviews, informal conversations, student cohort characteristics, etc. The mode of course delivery is based on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and appeal. For
online programs, OHIO consults with faculty in the academic programs; shares insights from market analysis, helps the faculty examine the course content and the best delivery mode for the content. The goal of this consultation is to ensure that the same quality of instruction exists, the academic rigor iscomparable, appropriate use of technology is employed, and the learning experience is effective for distance learning students. For each College Credit + course that a high school teacher is approved to instruct, an OHIO faculty mentor is assigned by the respective academic department to ensure the
course is equivalent in rigor and quality to courses taught on campus. The faculty mentor is responsible for instructional oversight, on-site course observation and advisor for the teacher. CC+ Assuring Quality in the Classroom Guidelines details the process.

All degree programs are considered OHIO's degree programs. Regardless of delivery method or location there are no differences in evaluation and assessment processes. Program and course learning outcomes including those for dual enrollment are established by the academic departmentregardless of location or method of delivery.

All programs are evaluated through the University Curriculum Council’s (UCC) Academic Program Review process every seven years. The review process will:

• Ensure the review be completed in a timely manner.
• Provide sufficient information for the UCC to determine whether a program is viable, in jeopardy, or recommended to be discontinued.
• Convey any commendations or concerns that may affect a program’s future viability, and if it is in jeopardy, when a re-review should take place.
• Be integrated into a strategic planning process and provide both a history of the program's recent past and sufficient detail to serve for future planning.
• Expect programs to use outcomes-based assessment as a method of continuous improvement.
• Be open, transparent, and archived.

The Academic Program Review is an extensive 15-month process, and is detailed in UCC's Program Review Process document. Because OHIO has a single curriculum, the educational experience students receive is expected to be equivalent, and established learning outcomes are expected to be met, wherever the course is delivered and whatever mode of instruction is pursued. Program evaluation must also report on instructional delivery and professional work in the disciplines conducted on the regional campuses or online. Many academic programs offered at OHIO are accredited by disciplinary accrediting agencies and must adhere to regular reviews regardless of location or method of delivery.

The full transfer credit policy is communicated in the undergraduate catalog and on the Transfer Your Credits webpage. After acceptance, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions provides students with access to their online transfer credit evaluation report. The report contains information on courses equated automatically within OHIO’s student information system. The student’s academic college student services office is responsible for determining any remaining course equivalences and communicating the evaluation results with students. The Community College Partners webpageprovides information on how credits from each partner will transfer to OHIO. Many course equivalencies for public and private institutions nationwide are available via Transferology. Processes for awarding credits by exams are available on the Credit by Examination webpage. As a Military Friendly institution, The Military Guide, published by the American Council on Education, is used to determine what credit might be granted. An official military course transcript is required in order to conduct an official evaluation. OHIO has a Prior Learning Assessment for awarding credit. In order to earn experience-based credit, students must be currently enrolled in and successfully complete the UC 2030: Portfolio Development course. Only portfolios created through the UC 2030 course can be evaluated by OHIO faculty for credit. Faculty evaluators review the portfolios to determine whether the student should receive credit. OHIO also accepts some graduate level credit for transfer, which is detailed in Graduate Transfer of Credit Policy and the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Catalog.

The process for selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation is tied to the Program Development Process (PDP) and each college’s curriculum committee, as detailed in 1P3. Faculty seeking to create a new program include information in their proposal about the justification for specialized accreditation if this is sought, see UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures, page 12, Item E. Accreditation. Each college curriculum committee is included in the process to discuss the involvement of personnel in conducting self-studies, the expenses involved in accreditation visits and membership, and the value of the accreditation to the College and students.

OHIO’s disciplinary accreditations are monitored centrally by OIR in collaboration with the College Assessment Liaisons. OIR requests annual updates on status of disciplinary accreditations, through a Specialized Accreditation Report Form. Each College Assessment Liaison must also report any programs attempting to seek accreditation. OIR requests and collects annually evidence of current standing from each accredited program that within that year, completed an accreditation review or site visit.

OHIO assesses the level of outcomes attainment for its graduates using data collected from the student learning outcomes processes detailed in 1P1 and 1P2. Annually collected, and centrally housed in the Assessment Clearinghouse, program learning outcomes assessment are evaluatedthrough UCC’s Academic Program Review process every seven years. OHIO’s Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs are assessed using the newly designed Faculty Learning Community (FLC) model. Data are collected from FLCs using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics, the NSSE and the Survey of Alumni.

OIR conducts two follow-up surveys of graduates (one year and five years after graduation) to provide outcomes information to colleges and departments. The Career and Further Education (CAFE) survey measures short-term educational outcomes of all degrees graduates one year after graduation. The Survey of Alumni is sent to bachelor's graduates five to six years after graduation. College- and department-specific results are available on the OIR website. OIR centrally tracks Student Outcomes Data including retention and graduation rates, student job placement rates, and licensure pass rates.

Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes originate in each academic program or college. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop learning outcomes for students. Development of tools, methods and instruments used is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields. College-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Program Rigor Across All Modalities.

Category 1.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R4: RESULTS

OHIO utilizes eight outcomes measures along the educational continuum, from students’ first year to five to six years after graduation, for determining the quality of academic programs.

University-wide retention rates as well as retention rates by academic college and major for the past seven years are provided by OIR and are shared via OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage. University-wide retention rates have been consistent over the last five entering first year cohorts ranging between 79% and 82%.

OHIO’s First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets

First year retention rate external comparisons are made to both Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the Consortium Student Retention Data Exchange’s (CSRDE) public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s first year retention rate has been higher than both external comparisonsfrom 2012-2016, except for the 2014 cohort comparison with CSRDE. During this same period, OHIO maintained the fourth highest retention rate among the public four-year institutions in the state.

OHIO also uses internal targets for measuring first year retention and graduation rates. These targets were initially developed as part of the strategic planning process surrounding the OHIO Vision to become the best transformative educational experience in the country and aligned to the FourFundamentals. OHIO met or exceeded its internal targets for the 2012, 2013, and 2015 entering cohorts, while falling short of the targets for the 2014 and 2016 entering cohorts. Not meeting the internal target was impetus for the Student Success Task Force to begin implementation of a new early alert and first year student monitoring system, My OHIO Student Success Network (MOSN).

As described in detail in 1P2 and 1R2, all program learning outcomes assessment results are collected annually and housed in the Evidence of Student Learning section of the Assessment Clearinghouse, and used by each academic program during academic program review.

For those colleges that have academic programs with licensure, licensure pass rates are collected and shared on OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage.

Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Licensure Pass Rates

College of Health Science & Professions Licensure Pass Rates

Patton College of Education Licensure Pass Rates

Program licensure pass rates are consistently high. Osteopathic medical students’ licensure pass rates exceed the external benchmark and range between 94% and 98%. Health Science and Professions’ students also maintain consistently high licensure pass rates in 2017 ranging from 83% to 100%. Patton College of Education students’ licensure pass rates in 2017 ranged from 78% to 100%.

As described in detail in 1P3 and 1P4, all academic programs are evaluated through the UCC’s Academic Program Review process. Academic programs must provide program self-studies that document all of the program review requirements. All program review self-studies are shared online.

Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results

Over the last five academic years, 330 academic programs went through the review process. In this same time, only seven programs were deemed in jeopardy. All of those programs were or have been given the opportunity to address the concerns noted by the external reviewers, and either were or willbe re-reviewed within three years.

Each review is evaluated by an internal and external reviewer. Reviewers complete their reports, which provides recommendations for improvement to each academic program. Full results of external review reports are available on the UCC Program Review Committee’s webpage.

University-wide graduation rates by academic college and major for the past five years are provided by OIR and are shared via OIR’s Graduation Rates webpage. Over the last five entering cohorts OHIO’s University-wide four-year graduation rates have declined slightly from 48% for the 2008 entering cohort to 44% for the 2011 entering cohort. Six-year University-wide graduation rates over the last five entering cohorts have ranged from 64% to 67%.

OHIO’s Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets 

External benchmark comparisons are also provided with Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the CSRDE's public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s six-year graduation rate has been higher than both external comparisons every entering cohort from 2008-2011. OHIO maintainsthe fourth highest six-year graduation rate in the state. Despite the positive results with external comparisons, OHIO did not meet the internal targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts.

As described in 1P4, the CAFE annually measures short-term educational outcomes through a survey to all degree-level graduates one year after graduation. Summary placement rates are available on OIR's Student Outcomes Data page. University-wide placement rates for bachelor’s degree graduates ranged over the five year period from 86% to a high of 93% for the graduates of 2016-17. University-wide rates for bachelor’s degree graduates pursuing further education remained consistent 18%-22%.

Ohio Department of Higher Education Employment and Industry Outcomes report, also available on the OIR’s Student Outcomes Data page, provides employment outcomes. Because employment was identified by matching the individuals in Ohio's Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, these reportsonly track employment within the state. Graduates employed outside of Ohio or self-employed are excluded. The employment rate cannot be interpreted as an overall employment rate, however, it provides external benchmark comparisons for placement rates. OHIO bachelor’s degree placement rate of 65.1% was higher than the state-wide four-year university placement rate of 64.6%. OHIO’s certificate awards, associate’s degrees, and graduate degrees placement rates were all lower than the four-year statewide rates.

OHIO’s Survey of Alumni Employment Outcomes Five to Six Years After Graduation

Survey of Alumni provides employment outcomes rates from the graduating classes of 2008-2013 five to six years post-graduation. Over the six years, OHIO’s employment rate was consistent ranging from 93% to 95%. Full-time employment rates ranged from 87% to 91%. Results from the Survey ofAlumni are broken down for academic colleges and departments and are shared via OIR’s Survey of Alumni webpage.

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R4 are provided in response rate summary.

1I4: IMPROVEMENT

In response to not meeting internal targets for first year retention and six-year graduation rates, OHIO implemented a new early alert and first year student monitoring system, My OHIO Student Success Network (MOSN).

Due to decreasing response rates on OIR’s two follow up studies of graduates and in collaboration with the Career and Leadership Development Center (CLDC), a new split position, the Student Outcomes Development Assessment Specialist, was hired in August 2018 to develop a new process for providing more valid and reliable student employment outcome data. The new process will be three-pronged using:

1. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ quarterly unemployment insurance reports to provide placement rates within the State of Ohio
2. U.S. Census Bureau Local Employment Dynamics data to provide placement rates of graduates not employed within the State of Ohio
3. National Student Clearinghouse data to provide continuing education rates on all graduates

Surveys will still be utilized to track outcomes information on graduates that cannot be collected through ODJFS, U.S. Census Bureau or NCS.

Sources

• Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results
• Academic Program Review Self-Studies.pdf
• Admission Guidelines
• Admissions Requirements and Procedures
• AP Credit Guide
• Application Admission and Adding Degrees
• Assessment Clearinghouse
• Campus Resources.pdf
• Career and Further Education Survey
• Category 1.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• CC Plus Assuring Quality in the Classroom
• CHSPPassRatesNationalExams
• CLEP Program Guide
• College- Program-Level Processes for Determining and Communicating the Preparation Required of Students for the Specific Curricula Programs Courses and Learning They Will Pursue
• College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Program Rigor Across All Modalities
• COMLEX dashboard 2013-2018
• Community College Partners
• Course Eligibility
• Credit by Examination
• Evidence of Student Learning
• Full Results of external review reports
• Graduate College’s Admissions
• Graduate Transfer of Credit Policy
• Graduation Rates
• Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Catalog
• How to Apply as a Freshman
• International Baccalaureate Guide
• Office of Institutional Research
• OHIO Up Close Student Receptions Cultural Connections
• OHIOs First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
• OHIOs Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
• Patton College of Education Licensure Pass Rates
• Prior Learning Assessment
• Program Development Process
• Remediation-Free Standards Placement Testing
• Specialized Accreditation Report Form
• Student Outcomes Data
• Survey of Alumni
• Survey of Alumni Employment Outcomes
• Survey Response Rates
• The Military Guide
• Transfer Credit Evaluation Report
• Transfer Credit Policy
• Transfer your credits
• Transferology
• UCC Programs Guidelines Policies and Procedures
• UCC-Program-Review-Process-Approved-2015-1
  

Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.D. and 2.E. in this section.

1P5: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice (2.D., 2.E.1, 2.E.3)
• Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students (2.E.2, 2.E.3)
• Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty (2.E.2, 2.E.3)
• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity

1R5: RESULTS

What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often thedata is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures where appropriate)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I5: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R5, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P5: PROCESSES

For nearly a year, the University has been engaged in robust dialogue about the fundamental concept of the free and open exchange of ideas across OHIO’s campuses. In fall 2017, President Nellis appointed the Presidential Policy Advisory Group. This group was tasked with conducting research
and holding discussions to guide policy development. The Advisory Group’s draft recommendations were released March 2018, followed by a public forum, and the final report was released on April 2018. Based on these recommendations, the Executive Staff Policy Committee (ESPC) developed
draft policies, gathered feedback during the review period, and finalized three new policies, Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Indoor Spaces, and Use of Outdoor Spaces that affirm our commitment to free expression.

OHIO also subscribes fully to the Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors regarding academic freedom.

The Office of Research Compliance (ORC) within the Office of the Vice President for Research is committed to ensuring that all research adheres to federal, state, and university policy. The ORC ensures that policy on Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Programs and Employee or Student Participation in Authorized Private Companies Commercializing Ohio University Research areadhered to by requiring all faculty and employees complete a conflict of interest form before receiving grants from an external funding source. The form, completed annually, helps the university ensure that all research activities are in compliance with federal, state and university policies.

The ORC is also the chief administrative office of the OHIO Human Subjects Research Protection Program. This office administers, supports, guides and oversees the work of the OHIO Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to uphold ethical and regulatory standards and practices in human subjects research. ORC, through required Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative, CITI training, and oversight of the IRB, ensures that OHIO’s policy on research projects involving human subjects is followed. IRB submission procedures, ORC Policy / Procedure Guidelines, and ORC Standard Operating Procedures are available on ORC website.

All studies by faculty, students or staff that involve animal subjects are governed by university (Use of Animals for Teaching & Research) and federal policies. All faculty, students and staff must receive approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before animals can bebrought to campus. ORC's website provides detailed information on the adherence to this policy through the IACUC Processing Steps, IACUC Policy Manual and the IACUC Resources Guide. Investigators submit an animal use protocol and submit an annual report for each approved IACUC protocol using the electronic LEO IACUC system.

Expectations related to the ethical practices of students are governed by the Student Code of Conduct and the Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR). Community expectations of students are first communicated at the Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO), both during BSO and through the OHIO Guide Book. The conduct process is a learning experience that spans a continuum beginning with understanding community expectations, to being confronted for behaviors not in keeping with these expectations, through the formal adjudication of alleged violations, and, finally, through delivery and completion of sanctions as warranted. The CSSR Process Flow Chart diagrams the full CSSR process for students.

OHIO Libraries’ subject librarians and archivists collaborate with faculty across the disciplines to integrate information literacy learning into the classroom experience. OHIO has eighteen subject librarians and archivists, who are research experts and who partner with faculty to enhance research and the student experience, support teaching, and improve researcher efficiency with information. Each subject librarian is assigned to one or more of seventy-seven academic areas of expertise. Librarians and archivists provide information literacy instruction to more than 500 classes each year, as well as co-curricular opportunities such as workshops and events. Finally, the Plagiarism Information & Tutorial site includes instructional content on frequently asked questions related to paraphrasing and citing, as well as a complete tutorial with a quiz that faculty have integrated into their courses.

OHIO Libraries also supports ethical learning and research practices by providing a full video tutorial on the Research Process, which is available to all students through the University Libraries website. A resource called SafeAssign is available to all OHIO students as part of Blackboard.

Expectations for effective learning are set by multiple information sources, and methods.

Students involved in research must adhere to all applicable ORC policies and procedures outlined in 1P5 Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice.

The Faculty Handbook, in Section I.A.2., provides a Statement on Professional Ethics. The Faculty Handbook also specifies the expectations of content of course syllabi in Section IV.A.3.

The process for annual faculty evaluations are also explained in the Faculty Handbook in Section II.E.1. & 2. In addition, to evaluations from the department chair or school director, the Faculty Handbook, Section IV.A.8., ethical teaching practices of faculty are also monitored by teaching evaluations. Instructional evaluations contribute to faculty professional development and students' educational experiences. Instructors are expected to cooperate in all phases of their colleges' instructional assessments.

The Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility provides online resources for faculty to assist faculty with creating and promoting academic honesty and integrity in their classroom.

The Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) is involved with promoting innovative faculty and ideas in various ways. OII co-sponsors an annual event with the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee called the Spotlight on Learning Conference. Faculty and staff share approaches and seek insights that can help them be more successful as instructors.

Through workshops, programs, recognition, scholarly resources, and other support, the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), a unit within OII, provides professional development and programming to help instructors thrive. Services are available to all instructors. CTL collaborates with the Bruning Teaching Academy, whose purpose is to promote mentoring and networking opportunities for faculty interested in sharing best practices in instructional strategies. CTL is involved with promoting best practices in instruction by overseeing the selection of recipients of the University Professor Award and the Graduate Associate Outstanding Teaching Award as well as other teaching awards. CTL promotes best practices in teaching by conducting course design institutes, Small Group Instructional Diagnosis, teaching portfolio workshops, instructional development, and consultation and advising services to faculty, graduate students and staff.

The Instructional Design team in OII consists of instructional designers, instructional technologists and a production staff that partners with departments and faculty to design learning environments that enhance traditional, online, and hybrid classrooms. They work directly with departments to develop or transition programs to an online format; work with faculty on course design/redesign and development; support multimedia projects; research technologies and pedagogies with faculty as well as evaluate emerging technologies; assist with the integration of technology into teaching and learning; and facilitate and lead workshops and training that foster a culture of professional development that in turn advances student learning.

As outlined in detail in 1P5, ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice, faculty involved in research must adhere to all applicable ORC policies and procedures.

OHIO extensively uses the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the assessment and evaluation of student learning and engagement. Therefore, its use as a measure of academic integrity and information literacy was a natural progression as NSSE evolved and provided the addition of itsEngagement Indicators and the offering of special topical modules such as information literacy. Staff within the Office of Research Compliance (ORC) and the Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR) developed their own internal surveys to measure satisfaction with ORC training and protocols and CSSR processes, respectively.

Category 1.5 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R5: RESULTS

Results from NSSE’s Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator reports are used to assess the quality of academic integrity. NSSE’s Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on a series of survey items on key dimensions of student engagement. There are ten indicators organizedinto four themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment.

2017 NSSE First Year Students Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

Results from the 2017 NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator report indicate that OHIO first-year students indicate a higher level of interaction with faculty (mean=22.6) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=20.1). In addition, OHIO first-year students also indicatedthat faculty exhibit higher levels of effective teaching practices (mean=37.7) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=37.1). OHIO first-year students indicated higher frequencies on each of the Engagement Indicators items for both Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices.

2017 NSSE Seniors Students Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

As was the case with the first-year report, results from the 2017 NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator report indicate that OHIO seniors report higher levels of interactions with faculty (mean=29.1) than seniors at peer institutions (mean=23.8). In addition, OHIO seniors indicated that faculty demonstrate higher levels of effective teaching practices (mean=39.7) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=38.1). OHIO seniors indicated higher frequencies on each of the Engagement Indicators items for both Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices.

OHIO uses NSSE peer institutions as internal targets. OHIO met the Effective Teaching Practices internal target and exceeded the Student-Faculty Interaction internal target for first-year students, and exceeded both the Effective Teaching Practices and the Student-Faculty Interaction internaltargets for seniors.

Results from the 2017-18 & 2018-19 Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility's Post-Community Standards Conference Survey measures the effectiveness of CSSR’s process for ensuring the ethical learning of OHIO students charged with an alleged violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The Community Standards Conference is the first step in the Community Standards and Student Responsibility Process, as detailed in the CSSR Process Flow Chart in 1P5. Surveys are administered immediately after the Community Standards Conference using a mobile device. The 2017-18 survey collected 508 responses from 755 students for a response rate of 67%, while the 2018-19 survey has collected 223 responses from 347 students for a response rate of 64% to date.

CSSR Post-Community Standards Conference Survey Results

Results from the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Post-Community Standards Conference Survey indicate extremely high levels of agreement among students' understanding of the expectations for future behavior (99%); consequences of future violations of the Code of Conduct (99% and 100%,respectively); and how conduct impacts students' long-term and academic goals (98% and 97%, respectively).

In 2014, NSSE administered the Experiences with Information Literacy Topical Module along with 81 other institutions. According to NSSE (2014), this module was developed in collaboration with college and university librarians to assess students’ use of information and instructors’ emphasis of the proper use of information sources. The full 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module report is available in the student engagement section of OIR’s website.

OHIO's 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module

OHIO first-year and seniors both indicated with very high frequencies that their instructors emphasized at least some of the time all the NSSE components for the development of information literacy skills. Over 95% of both OHIO first year students and OHIO seniors indicated that their experiences at OHIO have contributed to their knowledge, skills and personal development in using information effectively.

OHIO’s 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module External Comparisons

External comparisons with the 81 other institutions participating in the 2014 Information Literacy Topical Module were also provided in the report. OHIO first year students reported the same or more instructor emphasis on “not plagiarizing another author’s work,” “using scholarly or peer-reviewed sources in course assignments,” and “using practices of a specific major or field of study,” than first year students from all module participating institutions. However, OHIO first year students reported less instructor emphasis on “appropriately citing the sources used in a paper or project,” “questioning
the quality of information sources,” than first year students from all module participating institutions. OHIO seniors reported the same or lower emphasis from their instructors on all of items. Both OHIO first year student and senior means were below the external comparison group means for “how much
their experiences at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using information effectively.

The ORC administered the Research Compliance Satisfaction Survey in 2017 to assess the various processes that ORC uses to ensure ethical research practices, including IRB training and protocols, IACUC training and protocols, and Conflict of Interest training or protocols. The full Research Compliance Results are available on the ORC website.

2017 Research Compliance Satisfaction Results

The results indicate that clients are moderately satisfied with the ORC’s training and protocols as the percent agreement was about 50% for each item for each type of ORC training/protocol process. However, the results do identify some areas on which to focus improvement efforts. For example, theLEO system has the lowest satisfaction levels with its design and ease of use across the three ORC training/protocol processes. However, the highest level of satisfaction across the three ORC training/protocol processes was for approvals occurring in a timely manner. While the implementation of the LEO system has provided satisfaction with timeliness, clients are least satisfied with the system’s design and ease of use.

Unless otherwise noted, survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R5 are provided in response rate summary.

1I5: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the NSSE Literacy Module senior results and internal assessments, OHIO Libraries updated the technology underneath the plagiarism tutorial to improve performance, meet faculty objectives, and make it more accessible to students with disabilities. OHIO Libraries also added workshops on understanding copyright and fair use with visual images and recorded and/or live-streamed Zotero (citation management tool) workshops to meet student demand and serve online students.

Based on the results from the ORC customer satisfaction survey, ORC revised the template language that is provided to researchers to ease their understanding of the requirements and facilitate movement through the system. These type of changes were done for the IRB, IACUC, and COIprograms. In addition, ORC posted new guidance documents on their website. Additional updates to the programs have been made as needed. In January 2019, the LEO IRB program was modified to be in compliance with the new federal regulations. Finally, ORC launched the new and improved electronic LEO IACUC system. The new system addressed numerous deficiencies in the previous LEO IACUC program.

As described in 1P5, for nearly a year, OHIO has been engaged in robust dialogue about the fundamental concept of the free and open exchange of ideas across OHIO’s campuses. From the yearlong University community conversations and work of the Presidential Policy Advisory Group and the Executive Staff Policy Committee (ESPC) the University has three new policies, Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Indoor Spaces, and Use of Outdoor Spaces that affirm the institution’s commitment to free expression.

Sources

• 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module External Comparisons
• 2017 Research Compliance Satisfaction Results
• AAUP Academic Freedom 1940 Statement
• Academic Innovations Accelerator
• Approved-Guidelines-for-Ohio-University-IACUC-updated-4-2-2018
• Bruning Teaching Academy
• Category 1.5 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• Center for Teaching Learning
• CITI training
• Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Programs
• CSSR Post Community Standards Conference Survey Results
• Current-Handbook-September-2018-signed-Formatted
• Employee or Student Participation in Authorized Private Companies
• Commercializing Ohio
• University Research
• EthicsPoint
• Expectations for Effective Learning
• Final Report
• IACUC-policy-manual-2018-revised-4-2-18
• IACUC-processing-steps
• Innovation Showcase of Faculty Stories
• InternalAuditProcess
• IRB submission procedures
• NSSE First Year Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
• NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module
• NSSE Seniors Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
• OHIO 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module
• ohio-guide-book
• OHIOs Teaching Awards
• ORC Policy Procedure Guidelines
• ORC Standard Operating Procedures
• Plagiarism Information Tutorial
• Policy on research projects involving human subjects
• Presidential Policy Advisory Group
• Process Flow Chart
• Research Process
• Research-Compliance-Survey-Results
• resources for faculty
• rights and responsibility
• Spotlight on Learning Conference
• Statement of Commitment to Free Expression
• Student-Code-of-Conduct-082417
• Subject librarian academic area of expertise
• Survey Response Rates
• University Policy 01001
• Use of Animals for Teaching Research
• Use of Indoor Spaces
• Use of Outdoor Spaces
• workshops and events

Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff and administrators to ensure that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are provided. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. in this section.

3P1: PROCESSES

Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff and administrators. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Recruiting, hiring and orienting processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required qualification, skills and values (3.C.6)
• Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual credit, contractual and consortia programs (3.C.1, 3.C.2)
• Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and non-classroom programs and activities (3.C.1)
• Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services 
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting practices ensure effective provision for programs and services? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. Allresults should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P1: PROCESSES

Faculty and staff hiring at OHIO utilizes the applicant tracking system, PeopleAdmin. Hiring departments define job descriptions along with minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Rigorous standards for staff qualifications are set by each academic support unit and are consistent with prevailing professional standards from student personnel and student services organizations. Before beginning any search process, departments are required to have approved staffing plans and a completed position description form evaluated by the Compensation office. After approval, the departmental hiring manager must submit a requisition in PeopleAdmin with all information about
the position and search including position details, estimated expenses, and recruiting information. Once completed, an approval process follows, depending on the planning unit and position type. Once the requisition has been approved, it will be posted to OhioUniversityJobs.com by UHR and a
variety of other industry resources and local outlets. Departments are responsible for all other recruitment efforts.

Once a position is closed, but before the pool of finalists is submitted for approval, the department or search committee will be responsible for pre-screening all applicants. The list of finalists are identified and the hiring manager works with the search committee to complete the “Pre-InterviewCandidate Selection Form,” update applicant workflow statuses, and submit the interview pool for approval. Departments are responsible for arranging and conducting final interviews. Once a finalist has been selected, a verbal offer may be extended and salary may be negotiated. Then, the hiring manager will complete a hiring proposal in PeopleAdmin and submit it to UHR for processing. Official offer letters for staff are sent by UHR and official offer letters for faculty will be sent by the college. Once the formal offer has been accepted, the hiring manager updates the finalists’ workflow status in PeopleAdmin and moves the requisition to “filled.”

The orientation process provides critical information, resources, and support for new staff and faculty. A more in-depth onboarding process also occurs to ensure employees have the tools they need to succeed and to connect with institutional missions and values, employee resource groups, mentorship opportunities, and more. Full details, process and steps of OHIO’s inclusive onboarding is shared via the UHR website.

All new benefits-eligible faculty and staff are automatically registered for new employee orientation and the date for day-long orientation will be included on their official offer letter. Supervisors utilize the Departmental New Hire Checklist and establish an itinerary for the first day that a new employeewill be in the office. Orientation for new staff happens several times throughout the year and participants are surveyed post orientation on the materials, content, and usefulness.

Academic department heads and deans are strongly encouraged to have new faculty attend OHIO’s “New Faculty Welcome,” an event providing critical information, resources, and support for new faculty. The event offers information regarding critical processes and procedures, student support andsuccess, promotion and tenure, tapping resources that support teaching and research, and key introductions to University contacts.

Rigorous standards for faculty qualifications and experience are established by incumbent faculty in each academic department and are consistent with prevailing academic standards. OHIO adheres to all faculty credentialing requirements and standards from the State of Ohio, the Higher Learning
Commission and over 40 disciplinary accreditors. Specific credentials and skills desired for faculty are identified by the department when a position becomes available and are documented in the position descriptions that define the specific faculty roles. Once hired, faculty are expected to adhere
to a set of criteria that were given when hired and expected to follow in regard to maintaining credentials and knowledge in the field. Guidelines for awarding of faculty status are set forth in OHIO's Faculty Handbook. Rules governing the tenure process, academic rank, and type of contract are well-defined and followed by all University academic units.

Faculty teaching in dual enrollment programs must meet the same requirements as faculty teaching at the University, as documented on the Teacher Approval page of the dual enrollment website. Some OHIO departments may require credentials above and beyond the state minimums and are detailed in the Minimum Criteria for Teacher Approval document.

Faculty numbers and the needs of the department are evaluated every term. When preparing the schedule for the upcoming term, using information from the Registrar’s office such as current faculty to student ratios and past course enrollments, each department is responsible for indicating in advance if additional faculty or teaching assistants will be needed. The faculty to student ratio is also monitored on the University and College Dashboards.

For non-classroom activities, OHIO has a full array of programming that requires a faculty advisor. In some cases, the department will assign the advisor, or the students may select the faculty member. Faculty may or may not be given release time, depending on the activity. Tracked in the Office ofInstitutional Research’s (OIR) Fact Book (pp. 33-44), faculty members in all four groups are sufficiently distributed to carry out the classroom and non-faculty roles supporting the purposes of the colleges and the comprehensive mission of the institution.

Academic advising is handled initially by the Allen Student Advising Center during Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO) for incoming students, but as the students matriculate in their major, a faculty member will be assigned to assist those students. Faculty are trained and eased into the advising role, with new faculty being given a lighter load, as well as a variety of online resources to be used as part of the teaching and service components.

Staffing levels are established based on division/presidential strategic priorities, federal requirements, and to meet student demands. These staffing levels fluctuate based on institutional funding, student enrollment, and demand. The Division of Student Affairs recently went through a thorough external review process, and the review team recommended several realignments to departments within student affairs. The VP for Student Affairs is working with staff within the division to respond promptly to these recommendations by holding listening sessions and gathering feedback from staff.

OHIO ensures it has sufficient faculty and staff to carry out its instructional and student support services operations through the budgeting and academic planning processes. The faculty analyze departmental faculty needs based on instructional loads and enrollment trends annually to determine prioritized needs for additional faculty and/or staff. In order to ensure that academic strategy is driving financial decisions, academic leadership of each college presents analysis, including enrollment and staffing trends, which are used in the budget process to justify any recommendations for new hires. OIR assists in both the academic and budget planning processes by providing the central sources of data that faculty and academic college leadership use in the analysis of enrollment and staffing trends.

3R1: RESULTS

In addition to results for ensuring that OHIO has sufficient faculty and staff, results for satisfaction with and measuring the effectiveness of OHIO’s new Orientation for New Faculty & Staff and new Onboarding: Engaging Employee information has been successful.

Orientation Information Topics Results
Orientation Information from University and Community Constituent Groups Results
Orientation Experience Results

Results of the overall orientation experience indicated that the most recent orientation was well received. The efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and guidance of HR professionals were all rated 72% or higher as excellent or good, and exceptionally high 98% rating for the guidance of HR professionals. Another particular strength, was high agreement among respondents, 95% or higher, that all of the information topics presented were considered helpful by new employees during orientation. High levels of agreement among respondents, 86% or higher, that the information provided by different campus and community constituents was helpful to new employees duringorientation.

There were comments, available in the full survey results, that will help shape the next session, including more information on retirement and possibly moving to two day event in order to provide more time to absorb all of the information.

3I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the results of employee feedback and review of UHR’s processes, three main areas of improvement have been identified and prioritized.

First, continue to improve the orientation process for new employees and those changing jobs within OHIO as well as at the departmental level. In particular, to consider expanding the orientation to two days to allow for more time for employees to absorb, understand, and ask questions about theinformation presented.

Second, to work with University Communications and Marketing (UCM) to develop tools to inform new and prospective employees about OHIO's culture, mission and vision as well as living in the Athens area, thereby helping employees make a successful transition to the university and acculturatethem to both the university and its surrounding community.

Third, form a committee to review OHIO hiring and orientation and benchmark with best practices of other institutions in OHIO’s peer group as well as in the region.

Sources

• 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Orientation Satisfation by Employee Type(2)
• Category 3.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• Current-Handbook-September-2018-signed-Formatted
• Departmental_New_Hire_Checklist
• factbook
• Full-Time Employees Eligible to Retire by Type 2018-19
• Group Information
• Minimum Criteria for Teacher Approval
• New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Campus
• New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Planning Unit
• OHIO Inclusive Onboarding
• Ohio-University-Student-Affairs-External-Review-11-15-18-3[1]
• OIR Annual Compendium
• OIR Faculty and Staff
• Online Survey Built with Qualtrics Experience Management™
• Orientation Survey Results Aug_2018-Jan_2019_V2
• Orientation Topic
• OrientationExperience
• OUSalaryStudy 39
• Teacher Approval
• Total Employee Headcount by Type 2004-05 to 2018-19
• University Dashboard.pdf

Evaluation and Recognition focuses on the assessment and recognition of faculty, staff and administrators' contributions to the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. within this section.

3P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and administrators' contributions to the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees
• Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff and administrators
• Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-instructional programs and services
• Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff and administrators (3.C.3)
• Establishing employee recognition, compensation and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance
• Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R2: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees' contributions to the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P2: PROCESSES

OHIO participated in the Modern Think 2014 Great Colleges Survey. The Campus Climate Task Force, and a representative from Modern Think, evaluated the results and made four key recommendations:

• University-wide internal communication
• Professional development and departmental leadership
• Senior leadership/strategic direction
• Work environment and work/life balance

A cross functional Performance Management Steering Committee (PMSC) was formed to guide the development of a new campus-wide approach to performance management (PM) and reports to the Compensation Partner Group. Working through 2016 and 2017, PMSC designed and piloted a newUniversity-wide PM approach, which included features such as ongoing performance feedback, employee training, simpler forms, added efficiencies, and automated systems.

In Phase Two, the PMSC has incorporated feedback from the Administrative pilot group, as well as Classified staff, to make improvements including implementing a consistent performance management process with common tools, forms, and timelines for all administrative and non-bargaining unit classified employees. Supporting the goals of consistent, productive, and goalaligned PM, several training modules were developed with a broad audience in mind. Individual faculty receive written notification of their evaluation results performed within the department relative to salary and promotion. Faculty who do not agree with their evaluations are encouraged to discuss with their chair or follow their departments written appeal process.

In announcing his Strategic Priorities, President Nellis recommitted OHIO to “supporting the outstanding faculty and staff of OHIO by investing in them.” As a key part of the new strategic planning process (see section: 4P2), this priority has given additional attention to the changes in the performance evaluation process and policies.

Additionally, as part of OHIO’s and faculty’s commitment to effective assessment, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) tracks faculty instructional productivity in terms of credit hours taught, individual faculty load data, as well as aggregations at the campus, college, and department/school levels to inform the faculty evaluation process. Annual evaluations of faculty provide opportunities for faculty members and department chairs to reflect on the quality and/or quantity of the past year’s performance and strategic alignment of goals.

All institutional policies and procedures used to evaluate faculty, staff, and administrators are reviewed and updated regularly to reflect current practices in a competitive market. Policy 18.009: Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation establishes the requirement for annual evaluation of all faculty. Following written procedures to evaluate faculty activity in the areas of teaching, research, and service, these reports are reviewed by a department committee. For tenure probationary faculty and/or those eligible for promotion in rank an annual evaluation is conducted by the Promotion and Tenuren Committee following the departmental written criteria. The general process and timelines are specified in the OHIO Faculty Handbook.

Policy 40.042: Performance Evaluation for Classified Employees establishes procedures for the annual evaluation of classified staff. Classified staff are evaluated through a PM system involving year-end reviews where the employee’s goals, accomplishments and progress are reviewed. Staff goals are aligned with unit, division, and University priorities and connected to OHIO's larger mission and priorities. Completed by their immediate supervisor, the report is reviewed with the employee and the original copy of all completed evaluations are sent to UHR and become part of the employee’s permanent record.

Policy 40.005: Performance Management for Administrators sets procedures for the annual evaluations of administrators by their direct supervisors. Administrators are now using the new annual performance evaluation form. The process requires supervisors and employees to follow a model of setting goals and reviewing goal attainment regularly. Deans are evaluated annually bytheir respective faculty in a process defined in the Faculty Handbook and carried out jointly by Faculty Senate and the EVPP. The Board of Trustees evaluates the president annually.

As a result of the Compensation 2014 pay & wage study, a framework was developed to classify jobs into groups involving similar types of work. Three distinct career tracks were created to further clarify the nature of the work being performed. This framework provides consistent position levelingbased on requirements, impact and complexity of the role versus an incremental task orientation.

OHIO’s compensation philosophy includes a biennial review of administrative and non-bargaining unit classified employees’ compensation, leveraging a rigorous statistical approach to ensure that compensation is determined on a non-discriminatory basis and to promptly remedy any risks identified. In 2017, OHIO engaged Mercer to conduct a biennial equity review of compensationpractices, allowing OHIO to manage pay differences through a process that is accurate, proactive, and defensible and to build the foundation for a sustainable process for ongoing pay equity management.

Following their department’s written procedures, chairs annually evaluate all faculty members employing a departmental committee to review and make recommendations surrounding faculty salaries. For tenure track faculty, a committee receives these reviews along with other materials in the form of a Digital Measures report. All faculty are expected to receive an individual yearlyevaluation of their teaching, research, and service including merit score that may be used for salary consideration.

OHIO is strongly committed to its employees and has long standing programs for recognizing and rewarding their contributions. Recognition programs have been established for faculty, administrative, and classified employees and winners may receive monetary awards, bonuses, public recognition through ceremonies, and other awards bestowed by the units.

OHIO offers generous benefits programs for employees and eligible dependents, including retirement options, health care such as: preventive care; a health care network; vision, dental, life, and short-term insurance availability; domestic partner coverage; adoption assistance; a wellness and fitness facility; educational fee waivers for employees and dependents; access to the Libraries; and technological resources.

Employee appreciation events sponsored by the “Grateful for You” Committee are held throughout the year to promote employee satisfaction within the OHIO community. Employees are also invited to participate in events that recognize their contributions to their field and the University.

Shared governance is a core value of OHIO and employees have the opportunity to participate in committees, taskforces and constituency-based shared governance senates. Sharing and solicitation of information is expected to occur at all levels of the organization. Staff meetings, open forums and an internal, web-based newsletter of university activities, relevant news and recognition of employee achievements provide opportunities for organizational productivity and inclusion. Processes and products are evaluated periodically to measure effectiveness and consistency with best practices through professional affiliations.

OIR performs and participates in several employee salary studies including the AAUP Faculty Salary Study, College and University Professional Association (CUPA) Faculty and Staff Salary Studies, the Oklahoma Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline, and the OHIO Comparative Faculty Salary Study. In addition, the Biennial Equity Review is performed to identify salary outliers on a non-discriminatory methodology in order to promptly remedy any risks. Finally, OHIO participates in the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey every five years.

Category 3.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

3R2: RESULTS

Each year, OIR gathers comparative data on average faculty salary and compensation data for our full-time tenure-track faculty as well as OHIO’s set of peer institutions and all 4-year public Ohio universities and publishes a Comparative Faculty Salary Study to their web site.

OHIO University Comparative Faculty Salary Study

Average compensation for OHIO faculty remained the same or increased at each faculty rank for 2017-18. In addition, fringe benefits as a percentage of average salary for OHIO was ranked 4th compared to the Ohio 4-year public institutions and 2nd compared to our peer institutions. The survey data also show that OHIO faculty rank higher in average salary among many of its academic disciplines in comparison to institutions in Ohio, as well as by Carnegie Classification.

OIR provides salary data for many administrative and staff positions for the College and University Professional Association (CUPA) Staff Salary Surveys. Each year, OIR collects CUPA data on staff salaries from three surveys from the 4-year Ohio public institutions and compiles statewide salary comparison studies (Higher Education Administrators, Non-Exempt Staff, and ProfessionalAdministrators), that are then distributed to university stakeholders to ensure that OHIO remains competitive in the salaries of our employees. Results from the 2017-18 statewide studies show that OHIO staff salaries meet or exceed the statewide mean salary in over 50% of the salaries reported.

In 2017, OHIO concluded its biennial equity review, and as part of our commitment to fair, competitive, and equitable pay, in June of 2017 the university invested $443,715 across 62 administrative and classified non-bargaining unit employees. These adjustments reflect the University’s regular biennial internal equity review that is a critical component of the University’soverall compensation philosophy. Pay equity will continue to be reviewed, and adjusted as warranted, on a biennial basis with the assistance of a third-party expert. The next review will be completed by end of FY19.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Evaluation and Recognition Item Response by Emploee Type

Results from the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey evaluation and recognition items indicate different levels of satisfaction with evaluation and recognition processes. Overall, employees had higher level satisfaction with feedback from their supervisor (mean=3.58), than with the review process (mean=3.20). Classified staff had the lowest levels of satisfaction for both the recognition and evaluation processes, which adjunct faculty had the highest level of satisfaction across the three items. Full Results of the 2014 Modern Think Survey are posted on OIR’s website as well as the Campus Climate Task Force website. Response rates are also shared on OIR’s website.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Policies, Resources & Efficiency External Benchmark Results

Results on the Policies, Resources & Efficiency section of the Great Colleges survey indicated that OHIO was in the warrants attention rating at 47%. OHIO’s rating was also below the 64%, fair to mediocre rating for the other 2014 Carnegie Research institutions that participated in the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges survey administration. These results were the impetus for the successful implementation of a new performance management process as well as the compensation framework, pay structure, Pay Administration Guidelines, and ongoing equity analysis.

The Employee Evaluation Pilot study included College of Health Sciences and Professions, University College, Undergraduate Admissions, Office of Information Technology, and University Human Resources from 10/2016 – 6/2017. All Administrative employees in the pilot group were invited to participate in a baseline and follow-up survey to measure changes in perceptions, behaviors, and confidence. The survey included several questions from the campus climate survey, so the pilot survey data were also used to predict changes in Campus Climate Survey results if the larger campus community was exposed to the new PM process with the same degree of success. Based on % changes in survey responses from the pilot group (post v. pre-survey), projected changes in campus climate survey responses to the same questions are shown below:

Employee Evaluation Pilot study

Responses from 300 employees were analyzed to determine impact on performance feedback, administrative time, experience with forms, and supervisor confidence in performing key performance management behaviors. Results indicated improved feedback (45% to 68% at least monthly) and interaction (from 31% to 65%) between employee and supervisor. Results alsoindicated less time in writing evaluations (from 17% to 28% in less than 30 minutes) and prep time (from 26% to 46%). Respondents reported increases in the improvement of evaluation forms with the new process accurately measuring job performance from 30% agreement to 41%. The results indicated increased supervisor confidence in five areas including providing meaningful on-the-job development from 54% to 70%.

Three performance management training modules were created for the pilot program and are now available for all employees: Module 1 Foundations and Goalsetting; Module 2 Coaching and Feedback; and Module 3 Evaluating and Recognizing Performance.

Post Pilot Training Survey

All modules were highly rated by participants, scoring between 4.4 – 4.8 out of 5 on “eagerness to apply” and “good use of time”. Pre- and post-pilot surveys were conducted to quantify results.

3I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the results from the Employee Evaluation Pilot study, new streamlined forms and “Tip Sheets” were created, resulting in less administrative time and more effective interaction between employees and supervisors. Year-end evaluation forms have been simplified, “Check-in” worksheets were created to assist supervisors in providing regular feedback, and additional tip sheets provide ideas and reference information for each step in the performance management process. Continued focus on form design, on-going and constructive performance feedback, supervisor training, and employee awareness about their role in the performance management process will be necessary to improve overall effectiveness over time.

By June 2019, all planning units will have transitioned to the new PM system. During Phase 2, UHR is working closely with Classified Senate to ensure that the system is effective and accurate in terms of driving and measuring performance for classified staff. HR Liaisons will work with their planningunits to create a transition plan outlining use of the new form, timing and delivery of training, and communication. The Liaisons will have a goal to have the transition plans with action steps and timing for the transition to be determined by the units.

Phase 3 is expected to begin in July 2019 and will expand the process to include all administrative and classified employees. During this phase, OHIO will offer merit-based increases or Pay-for-Performance for the first time to Classified Staff. Performance appraisals from the 2019 cycle will be utilized to inform such merit-based increases for both administrative and classified staff, which will go into effect July 2020.

In the effort to maintain competitive compensation levels based on comparisons to appropriate external labor markets, OHIO will partner with an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive market analysis every five years, with the next analysis occurring in FY2020. This analysis will include a review of comparison markets, pay position, and benchmark jobs. As a result of the market analysis, jobs may be re-slotted into the pay structure with no change, a lower pay grade or higher pay grade. As a result, employee compensation may need to be adjusted to the minimum of the new pay range or will be red circled if above the corresponding pay grade maximum. The salary structure pay range width and midpoint differentials will also be reviewed during this analysis. Pay Administration Guidelines and compensation practices will be reviewed against best practices and updated as needed. After establishing consistent processes, forms, and training to improve performance management effectiveness, we will have a much better foundation to support the introduction of pay-for-performance into our compensation programs.

Pay equity will continue to be reviewed through biennial equity review, and adjusted as warranted, with the assistance of a third-party expert. The next review will be completed by end of FY19.

While the Climate Survey is intended to be repeated on a 5 year cycle, the spring 2019 administration was postponed due to leadership changes until spring 2020. Repeated survey administration will provide valuable feedback on improvements in the recommendation areas and continued external benchmarking.

Sources

• 2014 Modern Think Evaluation Evidence
• 2014 Modern Think Survey External Benchmark Results
• 2014OU_Response Distribution Report--ModernThink
• Campus Climate Task Force
• Category 3.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
• College and University Professionals Association_CUPA_Staff Salary Studies
• Current-Handbook-September-2018
• framework
• Higher Education Administrators Statewide Study
• January 2019 Agenda-HR Biennial Equity Review
• Modern Think
• Non-Exempt Staff Statewide Study
• OUSalaryStudy
• Performance Management Pilot Results Summary
• Performance_Evaluation_Form
• PM 1 - Foundations and Goalsetting
• PM 2 - Coaching and Feedback
• PM 3 - Evaluation and Recognition
• Policy 40042 Performance Evaluation for Classified Employees
• Policy 18009 Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation
• Policy 40005 Performance Management for Administrators
• Post-pilot survey highlights of evaluation form
• Post-pilot survey highlights working draft-2 5
• Professional Administrators Statewide Study
• response

Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers at the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 5.A. in this section.

3P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for training, educating and supporting the professional development of employees. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees (3.C.4, 5.A.4)
• Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical processes (3.C.4)
• Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their areas of expertise (e.g. advising, financial aid, etc.) (3.C.6)
• Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R3: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P3: PROCESSES

In November, 2017, University Human Resources (UHR) announced a new initiative to significantly improve the professional development infrastructure for university staff. The Professional Development Pathways (PDP) initiative leverages a close partnership between UHR and the Office of Change Management and Communication to identify competencies required for success in six “primary roles,” encourage on-the-job development opportunities, create new classroom and on-line learning experiences, drive skill improvement in targeted areas through a certification and badgingprogram, and to implement a Learning Management System (LMS) to promote e-learning and track training history.

The PDP is based on OHIO’s Competency Model. OHIO’s Competency Model was built from an extensive gap-analysis process and includes 56 competencies that have been linked to successful performance at OHIO through in-depth conversations with successful University employees. Each
competency is grouped into one of nine development categories, focusing on interactions with PEOPLE, management of work and TASKS, and characteristics or knowledge associated with SELF effectiveness. The PDP workgroup is comprised of 25 employees selected by leadership teams from
76% of university planning units.

Phase 1 was completed in August, 2018 with the launch of the first two PDP certificate programs. During this phase, the structure for creating and accumulating “badges” in order to earn a certificate was established, and the Blackboard Learning Management System, currently used to track and support academic courses, was configured to deliver training materials, track participation, and issue badges for the completion of learning experiences for staff development. A website for professional development was established, and on-line registration tools were created to make it easy for employees to sign up. Two new certificate programs, “Accounting” and “Purchasing”, were created in order to build functional expertise for many employees who have, or desire to have, accounting and purchasing related responsibilities at OHIO.

Phase 2 began in May, 2018 and is focused on developing tools, processes and infrastructure to provide ongoing support for professional development and assist in building a learning culture for staff. Following a successful launch of the first two certificate programs, UHR began partnering with OHIO’s Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) to develop courses for the PDP program. PDP Phase 2 Infrastructure Development outlines the ideas developed for the Phase 2. This partnership will help achieve the goal of “improving access to effective, interactive, and ADA compliant learning experiences” by ensuring that PDP courses are developed using the same innovative techniques andrigorous instructional design processes that are used to develop academic courses. UHR and OII are piloting this relationship by developing an “HR Operations” certificate which will be the third certificate focused on building functional expertise for employees.

Progress and effectiveness of the PDP program will be reviewed periodically by a panel of senior leaders, and a Training Advisory Council made up of a cross-section of university employees who will continue to provide input and guidance on the creation and prioritization of learning content. Policies related to professional development are being reviewed in order to clarify and reaffirm the university’s support for professional development.

OHIO continues to support the faculty and administrators in their professional development and encourage those in supervisory roles to support the professional development of their direct reports. Travel opportunities to professional meetings and workshops and fellowship leaves are also providedto faculty and many other employees to promote professional development and career advancement.

Faculty are required to maintain a level of currency in their academic disciplines. While some areas are research article driven, others must produce books, films, or artwork. In some fields there is an expectation of research leading to a review of what grant opportunities the faculty member appliedfor and what was the success rate. Additionally, faculty members are required to report on what conferences have been attended, what they presented, as well as if they are they taking advantage of other professional development opportunities offered by their college or the discipline itself (i.e. summer seminars, online or short courses by disciplinary experts on pedagogy or specialized subject matter).

Part of faculty’s yearly evaluation (see Faculty Handbook, Section IV, A, 8) looks at the individual faculty member’s teaching as well, to assure that the faculty member continues to show excellence in the classroom. For those that need additional help or those that wish to improve or enhance their ownpedagogy, OHIO also supplies opportunities for training with Blackboard & the use of technology in the classroom as well as symposiums that faculty can attend or apply to be participants in relative to current and new approaches to pedagogy. The Center for Teaching & Learning also allows for faculty to explore new ways of looking at pedagogy to assist in improving their teaching experience. OII assists faculty in designing or redesigning courses, advance instructional practice and deepen student learning, launch online classes or programs, help support and engage distance learners, and help increase visibility for innovate teaching practices.

Every position has a job description with minimum education and work experience requirements. Hiring departments define job descriptions as well as minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Frequently these are benchmarked with other postings from similar institutions, or with similarpositions at OHIO.

Every full-time employee is expected to set annual professional goals with their supervisor. These are reviewed twice throughout the year to ensure that they are on target and realistic. Support is provided to ensure staff have access to the expertise they need, either on campus or off campus. Support isprovided via regular staff meetings, individual meetings with supervisors and funded conference attendance. Many student support services staff travel to attend and present at national, regional, and local conferences to stay up-to-date on best practices in the field.

In support of each employee’s pursuit of excellence, continuous improvement, and professional growth, UHR offers a comprehensive framework for professional development. The PDP provides tools, guidance, and learning opportunities for employees and supervisors who want to invest in talent development and career growth. Through this program, competencies required for success are clearly defined, specially-designed training and certificate programs add structure to the development journey, and meaningful development discussions and on-the-job learning experiences areencouraged.

The PDP was designed to support OHIO’s vision of being transformative in the lives of faculty and staff, as well as each employee’s pursuit of excellence, continuous improvement, and professional growth, by providing tools, on-the-job experiences, and guidance and learning opportunities for those at OHIO who want to invest in their talent development and career growth.

Policies related to professional development are being reviewed in order to clarify and reaffirm the university’s support for professional development, and in October 2018, Professional Development Pathways received recognition and funding in support of President Nellis’ Strategic Pathways Initiative. This funding provides access to “off-the-shelf” e-learning courses and micro- learning tools that will address a wide variety of professional development needs over the next three years.

Academic colleges have contracted with Digital Measures to capture data on the full range of faculty activity, including scholarship and service. Through a collaborative effort of the Administrative, Classified and Faculty Senates and the Executive Vice President and Provost, OHIO participated in Modern Think’s 2014 Great Colleges Survey. The results of the survey were analyzed by the Campus Climate Task Force. Repeated survey administration will provide valuable feedback on improvement and continued external benchmarking.

To promote skill development in targeted areas, badges are issued for various learning experiences, and specified collections of badges will lead to certifications. Certifications will be structured in a way that encourages and recognizes staff for learning and demonstrating new skills effectively. A project supporting this certification program has been initiated and milestones are being developed to involve and inform campus of project progress.

To support implementation of the competency training framework and certification & badging programs, Blackboard will be used as a learning management system (LMS) for employees. Blackboard can keep a record of employee learning experiences, both those that are instructor-led and those offered in an online interactive format. This will allow employees to track and demonstrate their learning experiences through one primary system.

Category 3.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

3R3: RESULTS

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Job Support Item Response by Employee Type

Results from the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges job support items indicate high levels of satisfaction with support with overall means at or above 3.49 out of 5.00 on the three items. Very high means overall and for all employee groups were received for employees’ understanding of how their job contributes to the institution’s mission. While still good at or above 3.37 out of 5.00, the lowest means across the job support results were received for employees being provided the resources they need to be effective. These results were the impetus for the development of the PDP. Full Results of the Modern Think Survey are posted on OIR’s website as well as the Campus Climate TaskForce website. Response rates are also shared on OIR’s website.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Professional Development External Comparisons

Results on the Job Support section of the Modern Think survey indicated that OHIO was in the fair to mediocre rating at 63%. OHIO’s rating was below the 73% rating of good for the other 2014 Carnegie Research institutions that participated in the Modern Think survey administration. These results were the impetus for the successful implementation of a new PDP program. Since August 2018 and the launch of the first two certificate programs, almost 1,000 university employees have registered for at least one of 13 instructor-led or e-learning classes that are currently offered through PDP.

3I3: IMPROVEMENT

While not fully implemented, continued progress and effectiveness of the PDP program is being and will be reviewed periodically by a panel of senior leaders, and a Training Advisory Council made up of a cross-section of university employees will continue to provide input and guidance on the creation and prioritization of learning content.

Phase 3 will begin in July, 2019 and span a three-year period through July, 2022. During this time, blended learning content consisting of instructor-led courses, e-learning courses, micro-learning tools, and peer learning networks will be created to support the development of 8-10 new certificate programs that were recommended by the Badging and Certification workgroup. Certificates in relationship-building, supervisory skills, personal productivity, customer service, and operational leadership are included in the PDP roadmap. The “operational leadership” certificate will be linked to a revised senior leadership development program that will be piloted in the fall of 2019.

OHIO believes the new PDP program will show engagement in professional development across the board as well as overall improvements in staff morale and a greater ability to communicate between departments and administrative units at OHIO as demonstrated by increased employee satisfaction oninstruments such as the ModernThink Campus Climate Survey.

Sources

• 2014 Modern Think External Benchmark
• 2014 Modern Think Full Results
• 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Job Satisfaction Support
• External Comparisons
• Campus Climate Task Force
• Category 3.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
• Center for Teaching Excellence Website
• Competency Training Framework - Gap Analysis and Training
• Recommendations v3d
• Current-Handbook-September-2018
• Growth in PDP participants chart
• OHIO Badges
• OHIO Certificates
• OHIO Competency Model
• OHIO FYE presentations 2019
• OHIO Vision
• PDP Phase 2-Infrastructure Development
• PDP Website
• Professional Development Pathways (PDP) timeline
• response

Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution.

5P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Selecting, organizing, analyzing and sharing data and performance information to support planning, process improvement and decision making
• Determining data, information and performance results that units and departments need to plan and manage effectively
• Making data, information and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning and improvements
• Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability and security of the institution's knowledge management system(s) and related processes
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or contracted services)

5R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P1: PROCESSES

The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) is charged with selecting, managing, and distributing data to support programs and services. Reporting directly to the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP), the mission of OIR is to provide central information and analytical support for university planning, management, decision support, strategic initiatives, and assessment activities to help OHIO fulfill its mission. Serving stakeholders both internal and external to OHIO, OIR responds to directives from the EVPP, who works with OIR to set performance and project goals.

OIR is responsive to stakeholder needs both internal and external to OHIO. OIR staff sit on most major University committees and are, therefore, aware of strategic and day-to-day needs. In addition, OIR also seeks feedback and communicates changes to reporting and data availability from the Institutional Research Data & Reporting Users Group (DRUG). As a result, a wide variety of studies and information resources are made available and are kept current on the OIR website and in response to direct requests. OIR also provides data to external stakeholders such as the Ohio Board of Regents, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the federal government (e.g., IPEDS), andprivate agencies such as US News and World Report, and others.

Operational and planning data are available at the University, college, and individual department level both on the OIR website and through Oracle Business Intelligence Executive Edition (OBIEE). The Office of Information Technology (OIT) partners with functional units of Admissions, Financial Aid, Human Resources, Finance, and the Registrar's Office to provide fixed and customizable data reports. OIR coordinates closely with OIT determine the collection, storage, and accessibility of information needs of academic and academic support units. OBIEE provides as an efficient tool to help OIT and the functional units respond to requests for day-to-day data. OIT collaborates closely with the administrative functional units determining data requirements. While all offices are committed to transparent sharing of data, appropriate access to data is strictly controlled under the supervision of data stewards. Accounts are provisioned and roles are granted on a case by case basis, with documented approvals. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other laws restricting access to sensitive data are strictly followed and users must first agree to abide by FERPA, to only use the data for their intended purpose, and to securely maintain it.

OIR also provides institutional effectiveness, student assessment and planning information to support student academic assessment and assumed accreditation related responsibilities in 2016. Centrally, OIR collects data on many indirect measures and some direct measures. OIR surveys students on
academic involvement and engagement, campus climate and satisfaction. OIR partners with other units to conduct regularly-conducted assessments including students, faculty, and employee surveys. Student surveys including first year experience studies, student involvement, new student success, Alumni at one and five years post-graduation, campus climate, employee climate, and administrator evaluations. Surveys are run on consistent cycles which may be yearly or longer consistent with the goals, purpose, and assessment needs of the individual units. OIR updates the university community to inform them of new significant findings or changes in needs from these studies. The appropriateness of survey tools for the intended purpose are also reviewed at regular intervals and new tools explored if needed. Results and findings are made available on the OIR and/or individual
unit websites. Openness of information on institutional effectiveness is a unique aspect of OHIO’s culture. Few restrictions are placed on access to University information, as long as FERPA laws and University policy on appropriate use are satisfied.

OIR publishes annual updates to the Compendium of Planning Information and the Fact Book. The Compendium contains over 25 performance indicators for academic units on performance and productivity (enrollment, credit hour production, retention and graduation rates, instructional resources, admissions statistics, degree production, etc.) while the Fact Book contains information including comparisons with other state universities. The content of the Compendium and the Fact Book changes in response to requests from the EVPP and/or the academic colleges and departments. For academic and academic-support units, customizable reports are available with edited data sets and ad hoc studies can be fulfilled by consulting with OIR staff.

The Compendium and Fact Book are used in planning at all levels of OHIO. OIR also updates the University and College Dashboards which provide metrics aligned with the University’s 4X4 Strategic Plan. The president and EVPP give performance updates at each Board of Trustees meeting which includes information on the University Dashboard. Budget meetings are held by the EVPP and the Vice President for Finance and Administration, in which University and college dashboard data and Compendium data are used for discussions about performance and efficiency as resource allocation decisions are made.

The RCM budget model places incentives and accountability with the colleges who have required additional reporting to monitor their financial impact and the quality of their academic activity to ensure financial incentives are balanced with academic quality goals. Dashboards and queries are now available to provide financial data, student record data and human resources data. The Budget and Planning Office and budget and finance officers from the academic colleges also provide input into this process.

OHIO’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) has a well-documented and mature system for data storage and security. Nightly backups of all data from OHIO’s systems – SIS, accounting, course management, etc. are performed and stored at different off-site locations. These transmissions are sent securely over the network to secure data servers. OIT staff operate the equipment at all the locations and ensure the integrity of the data when the back-up is happening as well as its encryption when it is in the designated storage, generating a unique key to ensure that there is no change to thebackups. All information is stored in a “read-only” format and keeping personally identifiable information encrypted.

OIT’s Information Security Office runs a formalized information security program and NFIT network fed structured risk management program. OHIO’s robust technology monitors activity on servers and network and if/when detects anomalous patterns notifying security staff to take swift response. Additionally, university enterprise applications also have a number of technical safeguards with protection systems that are kept up to date as required. These applications, such as People Admin, Oracle HRMS and Oracle eBusiness Suite have an additional firewall specific to the application. The Security Office also provides tools for University stakeholders to identify sensitive data and determine if sensitive data is located in unsecure locations. The office also provides security awareness training to the University.

OIT monitors all technology contracts, services, and administrative technology tools on a regular and ongoing basis. For example, see the Gartner OHIO Admin Capability Disposition review from 2017. OIT also runs and manages the OHIO network and monitors costing vs. purchasing similar services. Cost reviews have found running an institutional network costs roughly one-tenth of the cost of paying a network provider.

5R1: RESULTS

The University and College Dashboards resulted from a collaborative process run by the EVPP to provide metrics to monitor progress toward the 4X4 Strategic Plan and to enhance academic quality (see 6P2 for details). The Dashboard was requested by the Board and developed by the EVPP inconsultation with OIR, academic deans, and other University leaders. Most data originate from OIR, who work with the EVPP office and Academic Deans’ Offices to update regularly.

A major redesign of the Academic Program Review process by the University Curriculum Council (UCC) in 2016, required OIR to update its data support to academic programs by developing and launching new OBIEE reports. In addition, and as described in 1P4, the new academic program review criteria and requirements incorporated student learning outcomes assessment, assessment results, and continuous improvement efforts as part of the program-review process. OIR designed the Assessment Clearinghouse process to work in partnership with the Academic Program Review process (see Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components Mapped to Relevant UCC Academic Program Review Questions).

OIR regularly evaluates data and information support needs with our Data & Reporting Users Group (DRUG), as described in 1P5. Through DRUG, data super-users regularly ask for changes to ongoing data collection projects. These changes result in improvements in OIR's information systems. OIRrecently surveyed members about data topics or themes users would like to review, discuss and give feedback at upcoming meetings. The response rate on this survey was 32%, n=75.

An overall measure for determining the level to which data are used in the decision-making process is provided by OHIO’s participation in the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey in 2014 and received an overall 54% response rate. One of the OHIO custom questions assessed the use of outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness. Results indicate that OHIO is using outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness at fairly high levels.

5I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on increased levels of use of outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness as demonstrated by the results from the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey and feedback received from various committee work and the DRUG, OIR is currently undergoing both restructuring and visioning. OIR began the restructuring process in the summer 2018. The first phase of therestructuring process resulted in the creation of three distinct areas within OIR: Assessment & Accreditation; Reporting, Planning & Support; and Analytics & Research. The second phase of the restructuring process was to develop Strategic Goals. Both are represented in OIR Strategic Goals and Structure.

Once the strategic goals and structure were established, an IR Visioning Taskforce, co-chaired by the Associate Provost for IR, was charged by the EVPP with reviewing all aspects of the office to ensure that OIR can meet the increasing institutional need for data. The Taskforce has begun to benchmarkthe office with their peer schools and other Ohio Public institutions. The IR Visioning Task Force is to conclude its work with a report to the EVPP at the end of spring 2019 with recommendations for creating the future state of OIR based on its increasing demand and importance to institutional decision-making.

Sources

• Academic Quality and the University Dashboard
• Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components
• Mapped to Relevant
• UCC Academic Program Review Questions
• DRUG Survey Results
• factbook
• Gartner OHIO Admin Capability Disposition 20170117
• IR Visioning Task Force Charge from EVPP
• Modern Think Outcome Data Usage
• OIR Committee Membership
• OIR Compendium of Planning
• OIR office overview
• OIR Website
• OIT Information Security Tools by Data Type
• OIT Network Strategy Update to the BOT
• OIT Security
• Peer IR Offices
• University Dashboard

Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational programs and operations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in those processes. Thisincludes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Maintaining fiscal, physical and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations (5.A.1)
• Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging needs (5.A.3)
• Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that educational purposes are not adversely affected (5.A.2)
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

5R2: RESULTS

What are the results for resource management? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P2: PROCESSES

OHIO has several planning processes across campus that are involved in major resource allocation efforts with a number of individuals or committees responsible for carrying them out. Strategic Planning for OHIO is the responsibility of the President and EVPP using groups such as Deans-
Executive Staff Council, Academic Leadership (Athens, RHE deans, vice/associate provosts) and the Board of Trustees. The budget construction process involves groups such as the Budget Planning Council, Student General Fee Committee, Course Fee Committee, RCM Governance Committee, and Strategic Alignment Initiatives Group. Committees dealing with the enrollment management plan include the Enrollment Management Advisory Committee and the Strategic Enrollment Steering Committee. Planning for facilities and space occurs in multiple groups including Facilities PlanningAdvisory Committee, Capital Planning Team, Space Management Committee and Capital Funding and Priorities Committee. Planning for information technology needs uses groups such as the Information Technology Governance Committee, Student Administrative Systems Governance
Group, Small IT Systems Committee, Student Advisory Group, Faculty Technology Advisory Council, Data Stewards Group and Web Advisory Group. The Office of Information Technology has recently completed a planning cycle in support of the University’s Strategic priorities (see 5P3).

Overall, OHIO has a well-supported and integrated planning and budgeting model that provides the University with a clear focus on growth, innovation and continuous improvement. Institutional practices focus on measuring effectiveness through dashboard reporting and support for innovationmade possible by the linking of the 4x4 Strategic Plan and Responsibility Centered Management (RCM).

The Capital Improvement Plan, approved by the Board of Trustees in June 2017, includes the capital-expenditures priorities of the colleges, schools and administrative departments, including the Athens, regional and extension campus facilities; infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; informationtechnology; and University initiatives. The CIP, supported by the Utility Master Plan, Comprehensive Master Plan and Building Condition Assessments, is anticipated to serve as a blueprint that will address the University’s capital, funding and financing needs over the next six years.

The University’s campus comprehensive master plan, completed in 2016, provides an integrated framework to guide the long-range physical development of the University to meet present and future demands on facilities. The CMP is guided by the University Strategic Plan and the FourFundamentals. It is a roadmap that provides a long-term vision balanced with what is achievable to guide day-to-day decisions for the next ten years of development on the campus. It integrates previous planning efforts such as the Housing Development Planning Strategy and current planning efforts such as the Utility Master Plan and Campus Wayfinding and provides a framework for future project development.

In addition to the University's strategic priorities, the planning principles that University Planning utilizes also guides the overall direction of campus development as well as helps define OHIO’s values. The planning principles are crafted to clearly communicate the intent of the Comprehensive Master Plan.

With the CIP and CMP acting as guides, the Budget Planning Council (BPC) deliberates to annually set University planning priorities. In setting those priorities, resource availability and resource needs play an important role. The planning taking place by BPC and other planning entities places a priority on strategies that move the university forward on the four Fundamentals, Four Supporting Priorities, and the Strategic Pathways while continuing to support the day-to-day needs and infrastructure of the University.

The Budget Planning Council (BPC) plays an important role in the cost analysis of new initiatives and goals, prioritizing these projects based on their compatibility with the University budget and 4 x 4 strategic plan, and serves in a critical advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic and financial priorities that align with the mission, vision and values of the institution as outlined in the University strategic plan. Additionally, in the RCM environment, the academic colleges establish their own processes for resource allocation to meet their academic missions, within the framework of the University's overall mission and strategic priorities. Budget hearings areconducted with every planning unit in the university. Hearings with central cost centers focus on the strategy of those units for delivering services to the colleges as efficiently as possible. Their allocations of resources are justified in the context of service level agreements and any additional resources they need can be requested. The RCM Governance Committee reviews the RCM model every five years to help ensure that the colleges follow the University's 4x4 Strategic Plan.

The Campus Master Plan is driven by academic priorities, providing a set of guidelines for decision making related to the locations of the University's research, teaching, and residential programs. It also provides a campus-wide perspective for developing the University's capital plans to ensure fiscalresponsibility. While the CMP provides the long-range guide for the campuses, implementation of everyday decision making begins first with appreciating OHIO’s Four Strategic Priorities:

• Inspired Teaching & Research
• Innovative Academic Programs
• Exemplary Student Support Services
• Integrative Co-curricular Activities

Additionally, the BPC counts among its main tenants the responsibility to ensure overall financial policies and budgetary guidelines are consistent with and promote institutional priorities, such as academics. Investments in programs, faculty/staff, and facilities are important components of sustainable financial health. While this can be particularly challenging in an environment with flat, or declining, revenues from undergraduate enrollments and state support for instruction, it underscores why investments in academics are so critical. Academic units have strategies for investments in and growth of programs. Strategies are unique to each unit and are based upon the
opportunities and programs of the specific disciplines. Colleges and departments have developed plans that are reviewed and approved by the Provost’s Office so that they can measure and track progress and outcomes. Additionally, there are centrally-driven investment strategies, the StrategicOpportunity Reserve (SOR), intended to position the university to remain relevant and competitive. The underlying premise of RCM is that the decentralized nature of the model entrusts academic leaders with more control of financial resources, leading to more informed decision-making and
better results or outcomes for the University as a whole without disruption to the core mission of the University or the intellectual and personal development of its students. By allowing responsibility centers to control the revenues they generate, decision makers are better able to understand both the academic and financial impacts of their decisions, especially as resource distribution will impact progress toward unit-specific and University-wide objectives.

The University’s CIP incorporates programmatic faculty investments, addresses deferred maintenance priorities, and encourages strategic investments in the university. It includes metrics that help the University community understand the impact of investments such as reduction indeferred maintenance backlog and campus age balance. Using data informed planning, the University community, led by the Board of Trustees and the President, are able to measure the impact of campus investments.

Category 5.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

5R2: RESULTS

The comprehensive planning that has taken place in the last several years has allowed OHIO to close the gap on some of the deferred maintenance on campus and improved the overall profile of the University. The University utilizes the deferred maintenance inventory database to develop a thorough understanding of deferred maintenance liabilities across the entire campus. The deferred maintenance inventory, updated continuously, is used as the basis for the backlog calculation and for conceptual estimating of project costs. Full results are summarized in the Campus Planning Results document.

• At the end of FY2018, the deferred maintenance backlog is projected to be $62 per gross square foot (8.3M GSF) given project investments to that point in time.
• With the implementation of the FY19-FY24 six-year CIP, the estimated backlog is expected to reduce to $47 per gross square foot (8.2M GSF).
• University is investigating the ideal deferred maintenance range for the campus which will inform concentration of investments moving forward.

The FY17 annual plan, approved by the Board in August 2016, provided that guiding plan for the work that has taken place over the past two years. In FY17, there were 253 total projects, 82 of which were over $500k, and 1,010 under $500k (see Examples of FY17 Capital Improvement Projects).

5I2: IMPROVEMENT

Results from the CIP process has provided a structured means of evaluating the University’s priorities in order to advance the mission through investments in physical infrastructure. The plan has the support of the University community and has been well researched and documented, however
as OHIO continues to move forward with its mission, the budget and planning processes, actions taken must be understood in the financial context of constrained resources. FY19 will be the 4th year of a 0% tuition cap for state universities of Ohio, and the 2nd year of 0% state-wide appropriation
growth to universities. OHIO’s undergraduate enrollments are facing growing pressures from state of Ohio demographic changes, in-state competitions for students and the respective growth of student financial aid budgets to attract students. The regional campuses have experienced their 8th straight year of declining enrollments and credit hour production. Each of these pressures on OHIO resources forces difficult trade-offs in how OHIO invests and reallocates funding.

Results from comprehensive resource management processes have provided budgeting processes to move funding for the Strategic Pathways from Strategic Operating Reserves (SOR) funds to the Operating Budget, where funding for each pathway will be moved from “one time” support into baseoperating budget lines for those priorities/pathways. In addition, current resource management planning has served the institution well as OHIO strives to continue to improve its planning processes. OHIO seeks and integrates extensive stakeholder input into the development of several planning processes intended to maximize existing resources, leverage potential growth, and build capacity to meet future needs. These include: 

• The Regional Higher Education Study Committee Recommendations presented to the President in November 2018 and presented to the Board of Trustees in January 2019 was the result of an intensive and inclusive planning process to review OHIO’s regional campuses in light of the challenges they face to their long-term sustainability. The resulting principles both reaffirm the importance of the regional campuses and set forth principles for maximizing both academic and administrative efficiency across the entire OHIO operation while enabling the generation
  of new revenue streams through curricular innovation.
• The University Planning office is developing a Parking Master Plan effort to better understand and utilize the parking portfolio on the Athens Campus to better prepare for future changes as University needs change and new projects arise. A planning team was convened and feedback from the university community was solicited via an online survey in summer/fall 2017. In March of 2018, the University selected a consulting firm to assist the planning process

Sources

• 2. BPC Introduction
• budget-book-fy19-1
• Campus Master Plan-2016
• Category 5.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
• Examples of FY17 Capital Improvement Projects.pdf
• FY19-FY24-Six-Year-CIP-Booklet-Final
• Housing Development Planning Strategy Update to BOT March 2018
• OHIO Campus Planning Examples\
• Utility Master Plan-accepted June 2017
• Wayfinding and Signage guidelines

Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals
• Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets (5.A.5)
• Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly
• Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly
• Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness
• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

5R3: RESULTS

What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a briefexplanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
• Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P3: PROCESSES

The annual budget process begins in September when updated models, guidance, and tools are released by the Office of Budget Planning & Analysis (BPA) for use by the planning units to develop their budgets. Along with unit specific knowledge, units provide financial forecasts (current year), a budget (following year), and forecasts (three additional years). When returned to BPA in October, BPA staff review and compile OHIO's budget. Financial review meetings provide units and leadership the opportunity to review the projected financial forecasts and budget projections.

After the fall financial review meetings are complete, BPA, in conjunction with leadership, revise the planning assumptions and guidance. Revised guidance is provided to planning units in January/February. Units have until March to revise their current year forecast and future year’s budgets.

After the spring budgets are compiled, leadership makes final budget decisions and communicates any changes to planning units. Final budgets are then “locked down” in April/May. BPA prepares the final budget recommendations in the form of the Budget Book and submits it to the Board of Trustees (BOT) for approval in June. The Budget Process Timeline provides a visual representation.

The Office of Budget Planning and Analysis (BPA) is responsible for coordinating the annual University budget process, collecting and analyzing data to support the budget presented for Board approval, and monitoring the budget/forecast throughout the fiscal year, providing support to units on the development of their budgets. To provide Leadership and the BOT a current year forecast of financial position, BPA and the Controller’s Office develops a consolidated University financial forecast that incorporates both of the following: the consolidated financial projections as developed by every unit; and a “top-down” projection to ensure these projections are realistic and accurate when compared to financial and operating results. Updates on the University’s financial position and adjustments are made available to the Board and the University community throughout the year.

OHIO’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) has a well-documented and mature system for data storage and security as well as a robust technological data infrastructure, ensuring data quality and verification. Nightly backups of all data from OHIO’s systems are performed and stored at off-site locations. These transmissions are sent securely over the network to secure data servers. OIT has a strong data recovery plan and disaster response set-up that is reviewed annually. OIT staff operate the equipment at all locations and ensure the data integrity when the back-up runs and its encryption in the designated storage, generating a unique key to ensure there is no change to the backups. All information is stored in a “read-only” format and keeps personally identifiable information encrypted.

OIT’s information security office group runs a formalized information security program and NFIT network fed structured risk management program. OHIO’s robust technology monitors activity on servers and network and if/when detects anomalous patterns notifying security staff to take swift response. University enterprise applications also have a number of technical safeguards with protection systems that are kept up-to-date as required. These applications, such as PeopleSoft and Oracle have an additional firewall specific to the application.

OHIO has a sophisticated means to protect the identity of the students, which includes a multifaceted identification system requiring several levels of authentication. This process is above what is normally required when compared with peer institutions, determined through state-wide informationtechnology monthly meetings.

OIT has been well supported and with cost reduction measures maintains infrastructure that is up-to-date and sufficient to support the operations of the University community.

OIT supports a robust document and information management system hosted by Blackboard. This system is managed, backed up and cloud-hosted. Other cloud-hosted enterprise systems include collaboration platforms, document storage, email, and One-Drive.

Discussed in 5P2, the Campus Master Plan (CMP) exists to guide translation of the strategic plan into a physical plan to meet present and future demands on facilities. The CMP, guided by the strategic plan, provides the long-term roadmap for the next ten years of development. Alongside the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan, the capital-expenditures priorities of the entire University;infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; information technology; and University initiatives, are well documented.

OHIO is strongly committed to the accessibility on all campuses, including housing and the technology infrastructure. Through the Office for University Accessibility, OHIO strives for inclusion and accessibility by providing resources and support to individuals with disabilities who may encounter barriers as well as assisting faculty, staff, and students to be part of reaching their goals.

The division of risk management and safety within the VPFA area supports OHIO in managing and avoiding risk and the University Risk Management Initiative has expanded to an all-encompassing definition of risk to include all types of risk and not just those which are insurable. Compliance, operational, reputational and economic threats, or core risks, are identified, assessed and either mitigated or negated before they disrupt the strategic objectives. Data are collected from individual interviews and surveys, ultimately producing a heat map. This initiative engages University leadership in reviewing and evaluating risk assessments and prioritizing negating risks that may pose a threat to the institution.

OHIO maintains a conservative financial strategy that budgets only 98% of projected tuition and subsidy revenue and does not budget investment returns. This allows OHIO to have a buffer for events such as enrollment downturns and when targets are met, creates a positive fund balance thatcan be invested in strategic priorities. This approach of ensuring that OHIO is strengthening its financial resources has allowed for the creation of an investment pool, which is enabling the University to make strategic investments. During the FY19 Budget development, the forecasted balance of the pool at June 30, 2018 was $24.6M.

OIT tracks customer service and interactions through the service management process and annual review, and through updated technology roadmaps and coordinated feedback with customers. OIT maintains an accessible list of the status of all operations and applications available to the community for reference and status tracking. OIT tracks larger goals and projections via status reports made available to the University leadership.

Actual analysis of the budget is based on modeling and updating projections as enrollment or other forecasts change. Activity changes are tracked through data supplied by the Office of Institutional Research. Meetings with colleges and budget projects by the BPA help in communicating these changes and refocusing forecasts as necessary.

The capital improvement planning process incorporates several metrics and measures that are used to evaluate our plan and measure the results:

• Facilities condition index, Building Age Balance, and Deferred Maintenance Backlog: Prioritization of projects; Measuring impact of our capital investments
• Cash forecasting and Internal Bank modeling: Forecasting use of cash to minimize financing costs and ensure liquidity
• Debt Metrics: Modeling impact of capital plan on our balance sheet and how it compares to comparable institution

Category 5.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

5R3: RESULTS

As OHIO developed and analyzed impacts associated with internal and external pressures and the initial FY19 budget planning assumptions in fall 2017, an imbalance between revenues and expenses emerged. The following principals were established to guide corrective actions:

• Every area will focus on identifying ways they can contribute to being a part of the solution. Solutions will not be across the board, but tailored to the academic or support unit’s ability to contribute to revenue generation, increased efficiency, and/or reduction of operating expenses;
• Administrative & Central Support Units will continue their goal of reducing funding 7% over the 3-year period FY18-FY20;
• Auxiliary operations will increase their support for undergraduate financial aid to maximize the net tuition allocated to the Athens colleges; and
• Academic unit strategies will focus on: promoting and preserving student success; program and revenue preservation, innovation, and growth; expense management; and efficiency.

As academic units developed planning scenarios, Faculty Senate passed a resolution requesting University leadership to establish proportionality when establishing operating impact targets (revenue growth/ expense reduction) for academic units (as compared to administrative and support units). This recommendation became the basis for establishing the targeted reductions to be achieved by the Athens colleges and were shared in the FY 19 Budget Book in Exhibit 1.1 Proportionality in Establishing Saving Targets.

When comparing financial strength, OHIO uses the four-year public institutions in the state of Ohio, KPMG and NACUBO Endowment Study. The University Dashboard, which is presented at every Board meeting, includes four financial strength indicators: Senate Bill 6 composite, primary reserveratio, debt burden ratio, and investment performance.

Senate Bill 6 of the 122nd General Assembly is designed to increase financial accountability of state colleges and universities by using a standard set of measures to monitor the fiscal health of campuses. Using the year-end audited financial statements submitted by each, the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) annually applies these standards to monitor individual campus finances. In addition, Senate Bill 6 requires state universities to submit quarterly financial reports to the ODHE at the end of each fiscal quarter.

OHIO’s Senate Bill 6 score has been 4.4 for the last two years. This score was in the top quartile of State of Ohio Institutions in FY17 (final results have not been released for all Ohio Institutions). OHIO’s primary reserve ratio, 59.7%, meets the statewide peer average, 59.7%. OHIO debt burden, 7.2%, is slightly above KPMG’s recommended debt burden of between 5%-6%. And, OHIO’sinvestment performance is currently a 12.7% return, outperforming the NACUBO Endowment Study average of 2.4%.

S&P Global Ratings affirmed its 'A+' long-term rating on OHIO’s various series of outstanding general receipts and subordinated general receipts bonds and assessed OHIO's enterprise as very strong and financial profile as strong.

Recent review by Gartner, a third-party expert provider of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) services, of OHIO’s ERM services and support was completed to assist in developing a plan for enhanced and comprehensive ERM program for the university. The report, including short- and long-term goals for OIT and OHIO, OHIO’s desire to increase competitiveness and enrollment.

5I3: IMPROVEMENT

The Gartner Review on OHIO’s ERM will help OHIO build a new process. Gartner will be assisting OHIO in achieving several ERM objectives such as program design, risk assessment, evaluation of controls, development of risk management plans, and establishment of a governance structure.

After an internal review, OIT is working toward role clarifications within OIT to define internal technology, application management, and business analysis processes, making sure there’s substantial staffing levels to carry out the plans and initiatives. OIT's primary focus is on service management, work coordination and planning.

In 2019, OHIO will transition to a mandatory travel provider to book travel for faculty and staff. The travel provider will create efficiencies and consistency in booking and processing travel and will leverage its scale to get the most cost effective rates.

Sources

• 2. BPC Introduction
• Accessibility
• Blackboard.pdf
• BoT Budget Financial UPDATE
• budget-book-fy19-1
• Business Forum Presentation February 2019
• Campus Master Plan-2016
• Category 5.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
• Customer Service
• Exhibit 1.1 Proportionality in Establishing Saving Targets
• February_Goal_Report
• FY19-FY24-Six-Year-CIP-Booklet-Final
• FY20 SPRING Budget Timeline
• Gartner OHIO ERP Strategy Executive Summary
• Gartner OHIO Findings Detail Report 20170117
• Housing
• Office of Accessibility
• OIT Accessible List
• OIT Data Forensics
• OIT Formalized Information Security Program
• OIT Identity Protection
• OIT Security
• OIT Technical Data Infrastructures
• SandP Global Ratings of OHIO
• Spring Planning Assumptions
• Technology Infrastructure
• University Dashboard
• Updated Models Guidance Tools