The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

 

Compliance StatusIn compliance

Narrative

 

East Carolina University (hereafter, ECU or the institution) uses a systematic and institution-wide, research-based planning and evaluation process (termed the ECU Model of Institutional Effectiveness) to guide decision-making towards fulfilling our mission. This model incorporates a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, outcomes, and results in continuous improvement in institutional quality to assist in demonstrating how ECU is effectively accomplishing its mission.

 

This narrative will:

  1. Describe the institution’s framework for institutional effectiveness and the processes that contribute to the accomplishment of ECU’s mission,
  2. Identify the University of North Carolina system requirements that impact ECU’s planning and assessment processes,
  3. Describe the relationship of the university’s budget process and master planning process to institutional effectiveness and provide evidence that the institution is committing significant resources to ensure institutional quality,
  4. Describe the ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation process, and
  5. Provide selected examples of the research-based systematic review and use of data and information to ensure continuous improvement.

I.                    Institutional Effectiveness at ECU

ECU’s Model of Institutional Effectiveness presents the core and enabling processes that accomplish the ongoing planning, assessment, and quality enhancement work of the university.  Since strategies and priorities change over time, the model is dynamic and responds to the needs and expectations of internal and external customers and stakeholders while remaining true to the mission of the university. Critical components of the ECU Model of Institutional Effectiveness are the development and ongoing review of plans outlined in the University Dashboard.

Responsibilities for establishing mission-based outcomes and for continually assessing progress toward these outcomes are institution-wide, distributed throughout the university’s many units, activities, and programs and managed by the Executive Committee of the Strategic Planning Committee and the Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research (IPAR).  This integrated approach effectively positions the institution to assess progress toward the accomplishment of the institution’s mission; ensures a broad representation of stakeholders on planning committees; and drives the institution-wide use of assessment data to support a culture of evidence (use of results) and ongoing improvement and quality enhancement. Evidence of a research-driven approach that focuses on continuous improvement is evident in the East Carolina University Annual Report 2010-2011, Points East, and the report entitled, ECU: Examples of Key Accomplishments Toward the ECU Mission .

With a focus on the ECU Mission, institutional goals to support and advance the model of institutional effectiveness are established through the ECU Strategic Planning Process that is ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide, as detailed in Organization of the Process. A series of Planning Principles and a Communication Plan support this work.  The components of the strategic planning and assessment process are discussed in more detail later in this narrative.

These institution-wide processes are coordinated and supported by IPAR and the Office of Academic Program Planning and Development (formerly Academic Program Development).  IPAR also provides institutional and unit-level data and analysis in support of these aspects of institutional effectiveness, and encourages evidence-based decisions in support of the mission, as discussed later in this narrative.

Review of the Mission

At ECU, the mission’s importance is emphasized in its placement as the central focus of all institutional planning.  As presented in detail in the reports for CoreRequirement2.4 and ComprehensiveStandard3.1.1, strategic planning at ECU begins with the review of the mission.  As part of the institution’s commitment to institutional effectiveness, the ECU Strategic Planning Committee reviews the mission statement annually, as outlined in the Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes, September 15, 2011. The regular review of the institutional mission is also a requirement of the UNC, as outlined in the next section of the narrative.

Program Reviews (Academic and Non-Academic)

A university-wide organizational framework for program review has been developed and has been consistently implemented by the Office of the Provost. The Procedures for Unit Academic Program Review and the Program Review Guidelines for Administrative and Support Units outline the steps in this process which include attention to the coherence of the program and its ongoing relevance to the mission of the institution.  Unit program reviews consist of a self-study conducted by each program, followed by a review by a committee comprised of representatives from both within and outside the university.  The outcomes for program reviews include the identification of program strengths and weaknesses with a determination of overall program quality and specific recommendations for improvement.  Reviews are also used as a basis for a more effective allocation of resources by using the program quality metrics as indicated by the review.  Twenty-five programs have been reviewed since spring 2009.  Program Review reports are tracked on the Academic Program Review SharePoint Site.

As discussed, all academic programs participate in the review process; although, it is recognized that some programs and/or academic units at ECU hold accreditation reviews that include a review of both undergraduate and graduate programs. In these instances, the accreditation self-study substitutes for the required self-study of the Unit Academic Program Review.  This process is described in detail in CoreRequirement2.7.2.

Specialized Accreditation

As documented in the East Carolina University Program Accreditation Cycle, a majority of the university's professional academic programs are accredited by national and international specialized professional associations who review those programs for coherence. The periodic self-study for accreditation requires that faculty members compare their existing programs with standards established for the discipline. Those reports require that the programs demonstrate appropriate sequencing and integration of content. Examples of completed accreditation processes are:  Social Work, Business, Engineering, Nursing, Construction Management [undergraduate], Physical Therapy, and Physician Assistant. 

State licensure requirements for some professions (nursing, education, social work, engineering, business, marriage and family therapy, restorative therapies, etc.) have established curriculum mandates, which provide content guidelines in the respective degree areas. ECU students from these discipline areas have a successful pass rate annually on licensure examinations.

These numerous accreditations, as discussed in detail in Comprehensive Standard3.3.1.1, further demonstrate the University's commitment to institutional effectiveness.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

As part of the UNC system, ECU adheres to UNCPolicy400.2.2 Accountability/Goals and Assessment Measures.  Section 116.30.5 of the Act provides that:

The Board of Governors shall require each special responsibility constituent institution to include in its institutional effectiveness plan those assessment measures that are determined by the Board to be measures that will assure some standard measure of student learning and development in general undergraduate education at the special responsibility constituent institutions.  The intent of this requirement is to measure the impact of G.S. 116-30.1 through G.S. 116-30.5, establishing and administering special responsibility constituent institutions, and their implementation on undergraduate student learning and development.

 

ECU has a process to identify desired student learning outcomes for each of its degree programs, assure that assessment measures are routinely put into place to determine attainment of outcomes, and continually assess ways to improve programs and their assessment measures. Oversight of this process is the role of the ECU Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Council that is comprised of several small working groups. The IE Council’s charge includes the following components:

       establish guidelines and processes for comprehensive assessment of educational programs, academic and student support services, administrative, research and public service units;

       provide a forum for the exchange of program review and assessment information and strategies of quality enhancement among graduate and undergraduate programs as well as support units;

       encourage innovative approaches or best practices in assessment of student learning and provides guidance for student outcomes assessment throughout the institution; 

       review assessment plans and reports including those required by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) with an emphasis on using data to inform and guide decision-making toward the improvement of student learning;

       collaborate with all units on campus to ensure that integrated planning and assessment efforts sustain the work of institutional effectiveness at ECU.

 

ECU faculty assess all educational programs in a total of 302 assessment units in our institutional tracking system.  At the college level, associate deans for assessment and academic deans work directly with faculty and are heavily involved in the assessment of student learning.  The Provost and Chancellor have provided institutional support and vision for continual improvement of educational programs.  Starting in 2007, the then new Provost spoke at faculty meetings of each college and met with each academic dean separately to emphasize the use of assessment results to improve academic programs. Overviews of Assessment Reporting for 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11and 2011-12 are located on the Institutional Assessment website

This process is another key component of ECU's integrated planning, evaluation, and quality enhancement process. That process is described in detailed in connection with the discussion of ComprehensiveStandard3.5.1 Comprehensive Standard3.3.1.1.

The critical components of ECU’s framework for institutional effectiveness are supported by a significant commitment of resources as outlined in section III of the narrative.

II. University of North Carolina requirements and critical components of institutional effectiveness

The University of North Carolina system (hereafter, UNC or the UNC system) is governed by a 32-member Board of Governors (BOG) which, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 116-11, is responsible for the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the university’s constituent institutions, one of which is ECU.  UNC requires progress reports towards accomplishing strategic goals in support of ECU Tomorrow and UNC Tomorrow on a regular basis.  Examples of these reports include the Phase I Report, May 1, 2008, Phase II Report, December 8, 2008, and the Executive Summary of the Report on Globalization in response to UNC-Tomorrow Prepared: October 12, 2010In 2008, UNC required that all of the constituent institutions review their mission statements to ensure alignment with UNC Tomorrow, UNC’s strategic plan. In response, as part of the Phase II sub-committee work, ECU formed a mission statement committee to guide the development of the current mission statement that was approved by the ECU Board of Trustees and the UNC-BOG as outlined in the November 13, 2009 Board of Governor’s meeting minutes.

UNC has also established external data reporting requirements (see Reporting Schedule for 6/1/11 through 6/30/12) and regularly requests ad hoc data reports. This information is published on the UNC Institutional Research and Analysis webpage in a variety of reports including The University of North Carolina A Profile Based on Trend and Accountability Data Dec 2011, and is used to inform and guide strategic planning and assessment efforts across the system.

As required by the University of North Carolina, ECU integrates strategic and financial planning and follows the guidelines of the University of North Carolina Budget Process.

III. Budget planning, master planning, commitment of resources in support of institutional effectiveness

Budget Planning

Planning and budgeting are complementary processes at ECU.  In accordance with the ECU budget planning process, a series of meetings are held at the divisional level to prepare a list of budget priorities aligned to the university’s strategic action plan as outlined in the Academic Directions and Funding Priorities.  Examples of resources aligned to the established priorities for 2010-2011 are outline in the Examples of Resource Allocation Based on Planning Processes, 2010-11.  This proposed budget also includes institutional mandates set forth by the UNC. 

The draft budget request is then presented to the Chancellor’s Executive Council that is tasked with providing a university-wide perspective on planning and budgeting. The budget is then submitted to the University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC-GA) and, through a collaborative process that includes the UNC President, Chancellors, and key staff members, a system-level budget is prepared and presented to the BOG for approval. Once approved, the budget is submitted to the Governor and the General Assembly. 

More detailed information about the budget planning and allocation process can be found in CoreRequirement2.11.1.

Master Planning

ECU’s development of capital and major facility projects is guided by a dynamic campus master plan that builds upon previous master plans, thereby contributing to institutional effectiveness. The master plan goals are aligned to the ECU Mission. Strong evidence of an inclusive and research-based approach is found in the overview of the master planning process.

The current master plan, approved in spring 2012, serves as an effective framework for the physical development of the campus.  Recent and future examples of master planning are outlined below:

       In 2012, construction of the ECU School of Dental Medicine will be completed on the Health Sciences Campus. This 188,337 gross square footage (GSF) building will house the educational, clinical, and research functions of the School. The project cost associated with this building and satellite locations is $60 million. 

       In 2011, ECU completed building a new Family Medicine and Monk Geriatric Center on the Health Sciences Campus to house faculty and staff offices, exam rooms, clinic support space, teaching rooms, patient services, and building support space.  The 117,185 GSF building was built at a cost of $45 million.

       In 2010, ECU completed a renovation and addition to Scott Residence Hall.  With a total construction cost of $28.5 million, an additional 55,520 GSF of residence space was obtained. 

       In 2010, the 5,842 GSF Croatan, located in the heart of the academic area of Main Campus, was demolished and, with an $8.2 million budget, an 18,659 GSF dining facility was constructed at the same location. An application for LEED certification at the Silver Level has been submitted. 
 

As resources are secured, the master plan outlines a series of future building opportunities including a new student union with a supporting satellite building on the Health Sciences Campus, a conference center, a parking desk, and additional offices.

The master planning process is described in detail in CoreRequirement2.11.2. Other examples of ECU’s commitment to an ongoing, integrated master planning process are outlined in ComprehensiveStandard3.11.3.

Commitment of Resources

ECU considers the SACSCOC process to be a continuous approach to quality improvement, not a process of evaluation implemented at five or ten-year intervals. Accordingly, the practice of continuous evaluation of compliance with the SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation has received significant institutional support. To this end, ECU is committed to developing an aligned learning organization characterized by collaboration and communication to meet the needs of students and stakeholders as evidenced in the ECU Model for Institutional Effectiveness. To accomplish this objective, the institution has committed significant resources and has adopted strategies that continue to enhance ECU’s ability to provide a transparent and sound basis for budget decisions, resource allocations, and plans for continuous improvement. Examples of institutional commitment of resources include:

 

       Establishment of the ECU Honors College to afford a diverse intellectual community for academically talented students

       Creation of a new position entitled, Executive Director for Retention Services and Undergraduate Studies to more strategically align retention and graduation efforts across the university.

       Investment in a renovation of Joyner Library to accommodate a 3,800 GSF Math Lab that will provide customized instruction.

       Investment in a renovation of space in the Old Cafeteria Building to accommodate the ECU Pirate Tutoring Center.

       Four full-time professional positions in IPAR dedicated to assessment.

       The purchase and university-wide utilization of TracDat and iWebfolio to support an integrated model of planning and assessment.

 

Other examples of resource commitments include the institutionalization of the SACSCOC process and the adoption of the Baldrige Education Criteria for Excellence. Clearly, the Baldrige Educational Criteria meet  ECU Tomorrow and the SACS and have, and will continue to enhance our commitment to institutional effectiveness.

In 2010, ECU adopted the Baldrige Model for Performance Excellence. This continuous quality improvement program offers a vision of the ideal organization and identifies criteria of quality to guide self-assessment and goal-setting. 

During the summer and fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011, ECU conducted a meta-assessment of the institution, incorporated the work of more than 150 administrators, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders, and included the following steps:

       Careful consideration of the institution’s mission and core competencies

       Review of student learning outcomes and measures of student and stakeholder satisfaction

       Analysis of the quality of institutional plans, goals, leadership practices, programs, and services

       Review of processes to deliver information and knowledge

       Review of budget, financial, and market results

 

A number of unanticipated outcomes of the Baldrige meta-assessment included broadened faculty, staff, and student participation in organizational review and strategic planning, and a proactive and constructive response to demands for increased assessment. In May 2011, ECU submitted the Application for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and received the Baldrige Feedback Report in November, 2011. In response to this report, a 2012 Project Charter has been developed to address the “opportunities for improvement” outlined in the report.

IV. Ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes

ECU has participated in a long history of ongoing strategic planning as outlined in the Brief History of Strategic Planning at ECU, 2002-Present. In 2009, due in part to the global economic decline, ECU’s Chancellor Steve Ballard appointed a University-Wide Strategic Planning Committee, comprised of administrators, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders, to “develop a three-year plan to advance the mission and strategic directions of the institution, building upon the previous work and accomplishments.”  Of particular note are several key outcomes as a result of this work. For example:

       Response to receipt of new rules from UNC-GA on retention and graduation rates and their use for enrollment increase enrollment funding. Data analysis identified high-performing freshmen as part of a group that came to and then relatively rapidly left ECU. ECU’s response was thoughtful and data-driven, and resulted in the creation of Foundations of Excellence (FoE) and a new and expanded ECU Honors College.

       Proposal of a Bachelor of Science in University Studies that will be presented to UNC-GA in fall, 2012.

       Rapid implementation of an educational enhancement plan in the mathematics department.  The Department of Mathematics redesigned the delivery of Math 1065, College Algebra, based on data that was reviewed to address the need for support for math courses with high student enrollment . This work has resulted in the Fall 2012 opening of a new math lab.The Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Planning and Reporting for 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 provided planning and evaluation guidelines for recent reporting years.  Assessment reports demonstrate institution-wide, integrated, and ongoing use of results in academic programs, support services, and units supporting the institution’s research and service mission as described in narratives for Comprehensive Standards Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1, ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.2, ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.3, ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.4, and ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.5.

        Strategic Planning Process

The ECU Mission serves as the foundation for ECU’s ongoing, integrated strategic planning and assessment process. The current processes, on a broad scale and working in teams, requires that ECU conduct a situational analysis that includes data, information and feedback from administrators, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders regarding progress made towards the current stated goals and to identify future opportunities for accomplishing the ECU Mission. The feedback gathered is used to develop a series of broad goal statements and measurable objectives. The current plan was approved by ECU’s Chancellor Steve Ballard in April, 2010 and is entitled the ECU Strategic Action Plan, 2010-13.

ECU’s Strategic Action Plan, 2010-13 and the associated unit plans are posted and managed online using TracDat, the institution’s assessment tracking systemTracDat’s functionality allows the institution to define and align goals among all levels of the university to the five strategic directions and ECU Mission. The process, managed by IPAR and overseen by the Strategic Planning Committee, includes a semi-annual review of results and annual quality enhancement plans as outlined in the Memo from the Provost, Strategic Planning Guidelines for 2011 and Mid-Year Meetings, June 1, 2011. Examples of strategic plans include those of the Division of Academic Affairs, Division of University Advancement, the College of Nursing, the College of Business, and Academic Library Services - Joyner Library.

Four primary groups provide support to the ECU ongoing strategic planning process.

1.       The Chancellor’s Executive Council is the key leadership group, aligning planning with resource allocation and deploying agreed-on action plans.

2.       The Strategic Planning Committee, which consists of administrators, faculty, staff, student, and stakeholder representatives, is responsible for maintaining viable mission, vision, and values statements and long-term goals. The group also develops strategic objectives under each goal area, aligns performance measures to objectives, and monitors the implementation of action plans.

3.       IPAR provides administrative support for strategic planning and assessment and provides the institutional data and information to inform and drive the ongoing, research-based strategic planning processes.

4.       Financial Services, located in the Division of Finance and Administration, includes the functions of fiscal analysis, annual operating budget, and capital budget development.  Working collaboratively, this combination of functions has strengthened the use of data in planning and decision making, aligned resources with strategic objectives and their accompanying action plans, and supported the process to measure university performance against key performance indicators.


On an ongoing basis, the university's website has featured regular updates on activities across campus that supported each goal of the plan. Also, in his annual
State of the University address, ECU Chancellor Steve Ballard highlights each year's strategic achievements, and refocuses attention and reprioritized resources, as needed, as the university prepares for the coming year.

With the development of the ECU Strategic Action Plan, 2010-2013, IPAR introduced the East Carolina University Annual Report 2010-2011 which outlines key accomplishments and quality enhancement efforts underway in response to the assessment of results. The report is delivered to senior administration for use in decision-making and resource allocation and is made available online.

V. Selected Examples of Research-Based Systematic Review and Use of Data and Information

Converting strategic objectives into action plans, establishing goals relative to benchmarks, and measuring the success of strategic plans through the ongoing monitoring of data and information are important aspects of ECU’s process of institutional effectiveness. ECU’s process of institutional effectiveness is demonstrated by the University Dashboard (a primary mechanism used by ECU to summarize and distribute information).  This work is supported and enhanced through multiple research efforts including (but not limited to) the development of both recurring and ad hoc data reports; selected examples of the use of data in areas of student retention and graduation, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and ECU’s Program Prioritization process.

Selected examples of the research-based systematic review and use of data and information to ensure continuous improvement are outlined below and described the next section of the document:

       The University Dashboard

       Student Retention and Graduation

       National Survey of Student Engagement

       Program Prioritization

       Faculty Salary Practices

       University of North Carolina EPA Salary Resolution

       The Delaware Study

       Student Satisfaction with Online Learning

       Title III Grant – Strengthening Institutions Program

 

The University Dashboard

In 2010, at the request of the Strategic Planning Committee, IPAR and Information and Technology Computer Services (ITCS) began work to develop an interactive web interface to enhance the institution’s ability to monitor progress towards accomplishing the five strategic directions and the ECU Mission. The resultant work is the University Dashboard that includes a series of institutional level performance measures outlined in Table 1, ECU: Example Measures from the University Dashboard, below.  These measures were developed by stakeholders following the development of the 2010-13 Strategic Action Plan.

  

Table 1. ECU: Example Measures from the University Dashboard

 

ECU Mission and Strategic Directions

Example Measures

 

Education for a New Century

The Leadership University

Health, Health Care, and Medical Innovation

Economic Prosperity in the East

Art, Culture, and Quality of Life

Research

Public Service

Diversity

 

The University Dashboard and key data are available on the IPAR website. The measures selected provide a robust and accurate way to monitor patterns of change and access to real-time data to make decisions in a timely manner regarding strategic planning and resource allocation. 

Student Retention and Graduation

 

IPAR tracks and publishes reports on student retention and graduation rate data that is disaggregated and used across the institution for planning and assessment purposes.  Data has been used to track Retention and Four-Year and Six-Year Graduation Rates by Ethnicity. Findings indicate that, while African-American males return to campus for their sophomore year, the four-year and six-year completion rates for this population are too low. In response, ECU is conducting an action research project, outlined in the African-American Male Retention Project Charter and Executive Summary that includes a comprehensive review and analysis of ECU’s academic and support services programs. The goal of this ongoing analysis is to catalogue the academic and social support services and benchmark them against similar programs designed to support student success. The recommendations are being used to attain and exceed the benchmarks for retention and graduation detailed in the UNC Accountability Plan and Performance Measures, Phase 1:  Proposed  Performance Measures .

 

The use of this data is critical to improving student retention and graduation rates and has been disaggregated and continues to be used to drive several planning processes. Examples of how university stakeholders have used retention and completion and rate data and information to improve student achievement are provided below:

       The Provost appointed a Retention Committee in spring 2012 with an initial charge of reviewing student support programs and policies.

       More than 150 administrators, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders are engaged in the African-American Male Success Project, mentioned earlier, to establish core measures for monitoring the key processes that students must participate in during the continuum of the first-year experience.

       The Pirate Tutoring Center has been established to provide additional student support. The center currently serves 5,000 students per year with over 300 volunteer peer tutors. Research indicates that those active tutees who take three or more tutoring sessions receive higher grades in tutored courses.

       The investment in an academic early warning and connect system embraced by faculty and staff resulted in almost 60,000 flag notifications sent to students during the inaugural 2011-2012 implementation.  As outlined in the Starfish Retention Solutions Implementation and Assessment January 2012 Report, 95% of students who received a “kudos” notification indicated that it was motivational to receive recognition from the professor, and 85% of students who received an academic warning notification “took action” (changed study habits, talked to a professor or advisor, and sought tutoring).

 

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

 

When used in combination with other assessment tools, NSSE provides information regarding undergraduate cohorts and is used to facilitate conversations between faculty, students, and administrators about activities and environments conducive to student learning.  As indicated in the NSSE Results by Domain and Year Relating to Institutional Effectiveness (SACS Principle 2.5) table, the means of ECU first-year and senior students’ ratings are higher than mean ratings for both our Southeast public and Carnegie Classification peers in response to three questions related to institutional effectiveness:

 

1.       Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your institution?

2.       How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

3.       If you could start over, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

 

In comparison to 2005, ECU’s 2012 NSSE results show a positive trend for the questions related to institutional effectiveness.  This is true for both the first year and senior students.  As shown on NSSE Results by Domain and Year Related to Academic/Student Support Services table, ECU first-year and senior students’ mean ratings exceed the mean ratings for both our Southeast public and Carnegie Classification peers in response to “provides the support you need to help you succeed academically.” [Note:  ECU now administers NSSE every three years].  Specific uses of NSSE results are included in compliance narratives for CoreRequirement2.8, ComprehensiveStandard3.4.9, Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1, and ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.3.

Program Prioritization

In mid-February, 2011 and due in part to the budget crisis, Chancellor Ballard charged the Educational Policies and Planning Committee(EPPC)  to develop two preliminary reports, with separate, but interrelated objectives: 1) define criteria for potential prioritization of programs, departments, units, schools, and colleges; and. 2) develop a list of potential consolidation options of colleges, schools, and/or departments that may reduce administrative costs with minimal or no losses of faculty and staff positions. Chancellor Ballard also emphasized to the EPPC that his intent was to avoid implementing consolidation procedures unless absolutely necessary.

Subsequently, the Program Prioritization Committee (PPC) was appointed by the Chancellor in April, 2011 with very broad structural representation, including six faculty members. The PPC’s first objective was to refine the EPPC’s prioritization framework by considering important feedback from the campus community and to develop an inclusive and transparent prioritization process as we moved forward in prioritizing our academic programming. Departments, schools, and colleges were directly involved in prioritizing their own programs as we considered alternative futures. The PPC developed several investment/reorganization scenarios and encouraged campus-wide conversation as we assessed the academic effectiveness and financial efficiencies associated with varied reorganization options. Because academic programs are the heart of the university and provide its building blocks, program prioritization was the first order of PPC business. Only after priorities were established could the building blocks be assembled into appropriate structures for campus consideration. As a result, the PPC provided final recommendations on program priorities on January 16, 2012 and a recommendation on potential academic reorganization on April 30, 2012.

As part of this PPC process, a meta-analysis of data has been conducted of all ECU programs. The process examined the current status of educational offerings, assessed the future potential of those programs, and identified opportunities for program alignment and reinvestment to strengthen the university.

The Phase I and Phase II Recommendations Report, April 30, 2012 revealed potential tangible and quantifiable methods for prioritizing academic areas, and presented potential consolidation scenarios that result in administrative cost savings while protecting faculty/staff positions as well as the academic core of the university.  Program prioritization will enable ECU to take control of its resources and direction, ensure quality, and chart its future. Vice Chancellors in the academic divisions (Academic Affairs, Health Sciences, Research and Graduate Studies) are currently (AY 2012-13) implementing many of these recommendations.  For example, some departments are being down-sized, merger of several is underway, centers and institutes are being moved into appropriate academic homes, two library systems are being more carefully integrated, and colleges are developing plans to reduce administrative costs by at least one million dollars through reorganization and centralization of some services.

Faculty Salary Practices

Annually, IPAR provides the Faculty Senate with a salary study in compliance with Faculty Senate Resolution Number 05-35. The ECU Faculty Salary Reports benchmark ECU faculty salary data against College and University Professional Association for Human Resource (CUPA-HR) and American Association of University Professors (AAUP) salary data.

A Chancellor-appointed committee meets to compare ECU’s salary structure with its peers and public PhD granting universities to determine which, if any, departments have significant salary imbalances as demonstrated by highly compressed, inverted, or depressed salaries. In response to findings, the committee then meets with appropriate deans to address the origins of salary imbalances. The committee reports annually to the Faculty Senate on progress in mitigating salary imbalances.  

University of North Carolina EPA Salary Resolution

In July 2003, the University of North Carolina (UNC) Exempt from State Personnel Act (EPA) Salary Resolution designated the that salary ranges for selected administrative positions be calculated using CUPA-HR salary data from the University’s peer institutions, as identified by the BOG. Annually IPAR provides the Chancellor and senior administrators a salary study of the Chancellor’s direct reports, EPA staff, academic deans, and other positions for which the university must report salary information to UNC-GA as part of its management flexibility provision.  Average and median salaries for the UNC institutions, all public research and doctoral institutions, and Carnegie Classification doctoral/research university institutions are included.

The Delaware Study

Used by the constituent institutions that comprise the University of North Carolina, this report provides a comparative analysis of faculty teaching loads, direct instructional cost, and separately budgeted scholarly activity and is used for management and policy decision-making. The Faculty Teaching Workload Report is required by the UNC BOG to monitor teaching workloads as required by statute HB229 entitled, Rewarding Faculty Teaching. UNC-GA uses Delaware data for numerous reports and monitoring mechanisms. The Faculty Workload Advisory Group Report to the Board of Governors, April 13, 2012, is a recent example of the use of data to review existing faculty workload policies, data collection systems, and campus- based processes for monitoring workload expectations.

Student Satisfaction with Online Learning

In 2005, ECU participated in the Noel-Levitz Priorities Survey for Online Learners to assess the satisfaction and priorities of students in distance learning and online programs.  This research helped ECU examine student transactions with all major aspects of their experience, including academic registration and customer service.  Satisfaction with an institution included a combination of academic factors as well as areas related to other campus services. These include student interaction with faculty as well as the service students receive from staff and administrators; the resources provided to students; policies that are in place; and students’ overall feelings about the value of the total educational experience. Satisfaction assessment was refined by capturing students’ levels of importance (or expectations).  Importance ratings provide institutions with valuable data on the areas that matter most to students.

As shown in the Institutional Summary Priorities Report, in each of the five categories surveyed, ECU exceeded the national norms.  However, one of the benchmarks in which ECU scored lower than the national norms was: “Registration for online courses is convenient.” In fall 2007, ECU completed the Banner Student implementation allowing all ECU students to register conveniently online.

Extensive analysis of student satisfaction with online learning is included in 3.13.4a  Policy Compliance:  Distance Education.

Title III Grant – Strengthening Institutions Program

Recent evidence that ECU has developed, enhanced, and is using a systematic and institution-wide, research-based planning and evaluation process to guide decision-making towards fulfilling its mission came in spring 2012 from the US Department of Education.  In 2010, ECU secured a five-year, $2million Title III Strengthening Institutions Grant “to expand ECU’s capacity to serve our students by improving and strengthening academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability (institutional effectiveness).”  This grant supports projects and initiatives in four main areas: 1) student learning outcomes assessment; 2) the use of data and information to inform and guide key planning decisions; 3) assessment of and support for student retention and graduation; and, 4) campus space planning. The US Department of Education is heralding ECU’s work nationally as a “best practice” in institutional effectiveness. Highlights of the work underway are outlined in the April 16, 2012, Title III Strengthening Institutions Grant, Welcome Conference PowerPoint. 

Conclusion

Building from our enterprise model, each of the six university divisions, all of the 13 colleges, and other major ECU administrative units have developed strategic plans that align with the goals set forth in the 2010-2013 Strategic Action Plan. Academic Programs have defined plans for authentic assessment of student learning driven by the ECU mission statement, linked to our University Strategic Plan and Strategic Action Plan.  These plans, outcomes and use of results are also stored in our university data warehouse. The warehouse allows us to report and demonstrate results towards accomplishment of the institutional mission. These results are documented and progress monitored on a semi-annual basis. The specific purposes of the process are to:

1.       Optimize the student experience

2.       Encourage and facilitate development of operational plans that will drive each program to improve and advance so that programs will be at the forefront of their disciplines in five years;

3.       Tie program priorities to the budgeting process at ECU; and

4.       Maintain an integrated planning and evaluation process by drawing explicit links between the two areas and resource allocation. 

 

In summary, through integrated strategic, academic, financial, master, and space planning, East Carolina University engages in ongoing and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes.  As documented in this narrative, these processes (1) incorporate a systematic review of ECU’s mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate that East Carolina University is effectively accomplishing its mission. 

 

Documentation

 

Reference Title

Location

2008-09 Overview of Assessment Reporting

3.3.1.1 Overview-of-Assessment-Reporting-for-2008

2009-10 Overview of Assessment Reporting

Overview of Assessment Reporting for 2009-10

2010-11 Overview of Assessment Reporting

Overview of Academic Assessment Reporting for 2010-11

2011-12 Overview of Assessment Reporting

Overview of Academic Assessment Reporting for 2011-12

2012 Project Charter

2012 Charter for Performance Excellence

Academic Directions and Funding Priorities

AcademicDirectionsandFundingPriorities

Academic Library Services - Joyner Library

Joyner

Academic Program Review SharePoint Site

Academic Program Review Sharepoint Site

African-American Male Retention Project Charter

AA Male Retention Project Charter v6

Application for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

Baldrige2011 Application

Approved by the ECU Board of Trustees

BOTMissionStatement11-21-08

Awards per FTE

3.1.2

Bachelor of Science in University Studies

University Studies Degree

Baldrige Education Criteria for Excellence

BaldrigeAdoption

Baldrige Educational Criteria meet ECU Tomorrow and the SACS

BaldrigeMap

Board of Governors

BOGMissionApproval

Brief History of Strategic Planning at ECU, 2002-Present

ECU History of Planning 2002 to Present

Business

COBaccredletter

Carnegie Classification

ECU NSSE 2012 Carnegie Class

Chancellor’s Leadership Academy - Faculty

2.1.5

Chancellor’s Leadership Academy - Staff

2.1.6

Communication Plan

CommunicationPlan

Comprehensive Standard 3.1.1

ComprehensiveStandard3.1.1

Comprehensive Standard 3.11.3

ComprehensiveStandard3.11.3

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.2

ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.2

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.3

ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.3

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.4

ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.4

Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.5

ComprehensiveStandard3.3.1.5

Comprehensive Standard 3.4.9

ComprehensiveStandard3.4.9

Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1

ComprehensiveStandard3.5.1

Construction Management

Construtionmanagemtaccredletter

Core Requirement 2.11.1

CoreRequirement2.11.1

Core Requirement 2.11.2

CoreRequirement2.11.2

Core Requirement 2.4

CoreRequirement2.4

Core Requirement 2.7.2

CoreRequirement2.7.2

Core Requirement 2.8

CoreRequirement2.8

Croatan

https://collab.ecu.edu/cmte/sacs/CorrespondingDocuments/2.5/ECU%20News%20Feature%20-%20Building%20Experience.pdf

Degrees Granted in Programs that Target High Need Areas

4.1.6

Division of Academic Affairs

AcademicAffairs

Division of University Advancement

UniversityAdvancement

East Carolina University Annual Report 2010-2011

ECUAnnualReportforStrategicPlanning2010-2011

East Carolina University Program Accreditation Cycle

Accreditation Cycle 7-24-12

ECU Budget Planning Process

ECU Budget Planning Process

ECU Faculty Salary Reports

IPAR - Research - Faculty Salary Reports

ECU Faculty Salary Reports

IPAR - Research - Faculty Salary Reports

ECU Graduates in the State and National Workforce

4.1.1

ECU Honors College

Honors College

ECU Mission

 

ECU Mission Statement

ECU Model of Institutional Effectiveness

Framework for Institutional Effectiveness

ECU Strategic Action Plan, 2010-13

Strategic Action Plan 2010-2013

ECU Strategic Planning Process

ECUStrategicPlanningProcess2009

ECU: Examples of Key Accomplishments Toward the ECU Mission

ExamplesofAccomplishmentstowardstheECUMission

ECU’s Framework for Institutional Effectiveness

Framework for Institutional Effectiveness

ECU’s Program Prioritization Process

ProgramPrioritization

Engineering

Engineeringaccredletter

Examples of Resource Allocation Based on Planning Processes, 2010-11

Examples of Resource Allocation Based on Planning Processes 2010-11

Executive Committee of the Strategic Planning Committee

Executiive Committee of the Strategic Planning Committee

Executive Committee of the Strategic Planning Committee

Executiive Committee of the Strategic Planning Committee

Executive Summary

Executive Summary - v7

Executive Summary of the Report on Globalization in response to UNC-Tomorrow Prepared: October 12, 2010

Executive Summary of the Report on Globalization - Oct122012

External Funding for Public Service

5.1.9

F & A Production

6.1.3

Faculty Productivity

2.1.2

Faculty Senate Resolution Number 05-35

FS Resolution 05-35

Faculty Service to the Community

7.1.5

Faculty Teaching Workload Report

Faculty Teaching Workload Report

Faculty Workload Advisory Group Report to the Board of Governors, April 13, 2012

FacultyWorkloadAdvisoryGroupReport

Family Medicine and Monk Geriatric Center

FamilyMedicine

First Time, Full Time Freshman Retention Rates

8.3.1

Foundations of Excellence (FoE)

FoE

Four-year Graduation Rates

8.2.1

Full-Time Faculty

8.5.1

future building opportunities

Master Plan

Graduate Enrollment

8.1.2

Graduation Rates

1.3.2

Grants and Contracts Awarded

3.1.1

House Bill 229, Section 15.9

HB229

Institutional Assessment website

IPARAssessmentwebpage

Institutional Summary Priorities Report

Noel Levitz Institutional Summary Priorities-08012012112751

 

Licensure Examinations

1.7.1

Licensure Exam Pass Rate

3.1.11

Master Plan

Master Plan

Math 1065, Course Algebra

MATH1065

Math Lab

MathLab

Nationally Standardized Tests

1.1.5

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

NSSE

North Carolina General Statute 116-11

NCGeneralStatute116-11

November 13, 2009 Board of Governor’s meeting minutes

UNC BOG

NSSE Results by Domain and Year Related to Academic/Student Support Services

NSSEbySACSprinc-3-3-1-3-(2012)

NSSE Results by Domain and Year Related to Institutional Effectiveness (SACS Principle 2.5)

NSSEbySACSprinc-2-5-(2012)

Nursing

Nursingaccredletter

Office of Academic Program Planning and Development

OfficeofAcademicProgramPlanningandDevelopment

Office of Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research (IPAR)

IPARwebsite

Ongoing and integrated

OngoingandIntegrated

Organization of the Process

ECUStrategicPlanningProcess2009

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Planning and Reporting for 2009-2010

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Reporting for 2009-10

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Planning and Reporting for 2010-2011

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Reporting for 2010-11

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Planning and Reporting for 2011-2012

Overview of Non-Academic Assessment Reporting for 2011-12

overview of the master planning process

Master Plan

Phase I and Phase II Recommendations Report, April 30, 2012

PPC_PhaseIandII_04272012

Phase I Report, May 1, 2008

UNC Tomorrow Response Phase 1

Phase II Report, December 8, 2008

UNCTomorrowResponsePhase2

Phase II sub-committee

2008MissionReviewCommittee

Physical Therapy

Ptaccredletter

Physician Assistant

PAaccredletter

Pirate Tutoring Center

PTC

Planning Principles

GuidingPrinciples

Points East

PointsEastFinal

Previous Master Plans

UniversityMaster PlanWebsite-PreviousPlans

Procedures for Unit Academic Program Review

UNIT-ACADEMIC-PROGRAM-REVIEW-6-10-2

Profile of Faculty (Health)

3.1.7

Profile of Undergraduate Student Population

3.1.6

Program Review Guidelines for Administrative and Support Units

Non-Academic Program Review Procedures

Report on Globalization, October 12, 2010

Executive Summary of the Report on Globalization - Oct122012

Reporting Schedule for 6/1/11 through 6/30/12

ExternalReportingRequirements

Retention and Four-Year and Six-Year Graduation Rates by Ethnicity

Retention Graphs

Retention Rates

1.4.1

Review Their Mission Statements

MissionStatementReview

Salary Study

Salary Study

School of Dental Medicine

SchDentalMed

Scott Residence Hall

construction

Situational analysis

ECUStrategicPlanningProcess2009

Six-year Graduation Rates

8.2.2

Social Work

SocialWorkAccredletter

Southeast Public

ECU NSSE 2012 Southeast Public

Sponsored Programs Awarded per FTE

6.1.2

Starfish Retention Solutions Implementation and Assessment January 2012 Report

Starfish

State of the University address

Chancellors SOUApr42012

Strategic Action Plan

ECU SAP

Strategic Action Plan  2010-13 College of Business

COB

Strategic Action Plan 2010-13 College of Nursing

CONSAP

Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes, September 15, 2011

SAP Committee Mission Review 9-15-11

Strategic Planning Guidelines for 2011 and Mid-Year Meetings, June 1, 2011

Strategic Planning Guidelines for 2011_06_01_11 (5)

Students Performing Service to the Community

7.1.3

The need for support for math courses with high student enrollment

Support for students in high enrollment courses

The University of North Carolina A Profile Based on Trend and Accountability Data Dec 2011

UNC Profile Key Trend and Accountability Report 2011

Tickets Sold

5.1.7

Title III Strengthening Institutions Grant

TitleIIIAbstract

Title III Strengthening Institutions Grant, Welcome Conference

Title III Welcome Conference April 16 2012

Total External Research Grants and Contracts Awarded and Expenditures

6.1.1

Transfer Completion Rates

1.3.1

UNC Accountability Plan and Performance Measures, Phase 1:  Proposed  Performance Measures

Proposed Core and Campus Specific Performance Measures (Goals)

 

UNC Institutional Research and Analysis webpage

UNCInstitutionalResearchandAnalysis

UNC Policy 400.2.2

UNCPolicy400.2.2

UNC Tomorrow

UNC Tomorrow

Undergraduate Enrollment

8.1.1

University Dashboard

University Dashboard

University of North Carolina (UNC) Exempt from State Personnel Act (EPA) Salary Resolution

Employees Exempt From the State Personnel Act

University of North Carolina Budget Process

UNC BUDGET PROCESS

University – Wide Strategic Planning Committee

University Strategic Planning Committee