By: Dr. Jess Stahl, Vice-President Data Science & Analytics (NWCCU)
In May 2020, NWCCU member institutions responded to a survey from the NWCCU entitled “Institutional Data Capacity Survey” (IDCS), which was designed to provide insight into the capacity (e.g. data, technology, and resources) of institutions throughout our region to improve equitable outcomes through evidence-based approaches to meet the NWCCU 2020 Standards for Accreditation. Specifically, the standards (Standard One- Student Success, and Institutional Mission and Effectiveness: 1.D.2, I.D.3, and 1.D.4) require institutions to report disaggregated indicators of student achievement and engage in regional and national benchmarking using transparent methods for data collection and analysis to mitigate gaps in achievement and equity.
Thus, the IDCS covered a wide range of domains including technical resources, data staffing, data governance, and data reporting to inform our strategic planning about how best to support our member institutions. This article is the first in a three-part series discussing the key highlights of the survey results and our relevant initiatives. This article will present a summary profile of our member institutions and the technical resources used to manage institutional data.
The total number of institutions responding to the IDCS was 159, which was 100% participation.
Nearly 60% of our member institutions are located in Washington or Oregon. Two institutions reported geographic location in multiple states. (Note: “BC” = British Columbia, Canada)
Based on self-report using size designations from the College Scorecard, “Large” institutions represent 14% of our membership whereas 86% of our institutions are “Medium” or “Small”.
Four-year institutions comprise 60% of our membership and 20% of those institutions are designated as “Large” in size compared with only 5% of two-year institutions that are “Large”. The majority (59%) of our two-year institutions are “Medium” and 37% are “Small” in size.
A clear majority (70%) of our member institutions are “Public”, but there are also a significant number of “Private Non-profit” institutions. The size distribution for our Private Non-profit institutions is nearly identical to the overall distribution: 48% Medium, 39% Small, 13% Large.
Our largest institutions are 73% Public, 27% Private Non-profit, and 86% are four-year institutions. At the other end of the spectrum, our smallest institutions are 71% Public, 29% Private Non-profit, and 63% are four-year institutions.
The survey provided an opportunity for institutions to self-identify as any of the following (“unofficial”) designations: Hispanic Serving Institution, Tribal College or University, Native American Non-Tribal Institution, or Faith Based Institution. Our intention for these categories was to identify and understand any challenges and evidence-based approaches undertaken by institutions serving specific student populations. In total, 48 institutions identified as follows:
(One institution identified as both Native American, Non-Tribal and Hispanic serving.)
Faith-based institutions were asked:
“As a Faith Based institution, how do you evaluate (‘evidence-based’ approach) fulfillment of the faith-based aspects of your mission (e.g. faith, service, leadership, ethics, personal growth, reflection)?“
Institutions identified the following key dimensions as faith-based aspects of their mission that are reflected in their programs and courses: pastoral charity (e.g. concern for the poor, marginalized, and suffering), active engagement with persons of other religions, openness to persons of other cultures, integration of theology and pastoral practice, faith and values based decision-making, student behavior, service, leadership, ethical reflection, faith commitment, spiritual formation, and critical thinking regarding moral and ethical practices. Many indicated that their mission relates to lifelong demonstration, growth, and service across these dimensions.
Institutions use a variety of methods to measure the key dimensions that support mission fulfillment as a faith-based institution, including: evaluation (direct assessment) by formators and supervisors, opportunity to practice and develop in pastoral ministry placements, surveys, learning outcomes in core curriculum courses specifically tied to theological and ethical education, national benchmarking with similar faith-based institutions, participation in staff and faculty development related to specific faith-based pedagogical traditions, service requirements, course based rubrics, student feedback, course evaluations, student reflections and testimonials, each employee has a mission fulfillment discussion with their supervisor as a part of their annual performance review, capstone courses, engagement in chapel services, faith integration rubric for program assessment, faculty portfolios, specific surveys mentioned: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Christian Life Survey, faculty growth plans, and peer reviewed portfolios.
Hispanic Serving institutions were asked:
“As a Hispanic Serving Institution, what challenges have you had (or anticipate having) with regard to the Interim or Annual Report?“
Many institutions reported that they did not anticipate any challenges or were uncertain (as newly designated Hispanic Serving Institutions) about whether they would face any specific challenges. However, institutions reported that the most challenging issues are: interpreting federal data definitions (e.g. various FTEs), lack of institutional data capacity, difficulty measuring some of the performance measures identified in the initial grant proposal, technical problems with the Annual Performance Report (APR) website, lack of regular communication from the program officer, belief that number of Hispanic students is under-reported due to students identifying as ‘unknown’ race/ethnicity, difficulty obtaining information about “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) and undocumented students because identification is voluntary, and a need to engage in more workforce partnerships and establish continuity in transfer to other universities or colleges.
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) were asked:
“As a Tribal College or University, how do you evaluate (‘evidence-based’ approach) fulfillment of your mission (e.g. foster tribal values, culture, languages, self-determination, knowledge, and traditions)?“
Institutions identified the following key dimensions as important aspects of their mission as a TCU that are reflected in their programs and courses: knowledge of culture and language, traditional knowledge and traditions, history, cultural dignity, and Native lifeways.
Institutions use a variety of methods to measure the key dimensions that support mission fulfillment as a TCU, including: integrating Indigenous Assessment Metaphor into the overall Institutional Assessment plan (grounding assessment efforts in place-based values and beliefs); participation in cultural programming; culture/language requirements within each degree; AIMS Key Indicator System (AKIS); course level assignments with evidence-based rubrics detailing how culture and language are integrated and graded within each assignment; departments must articulate culture and language within student learning outcomes; “support cultural perpetuation, including language, culture and history” as a core theme; outcome data from language classes; evidence of Native language learning among faculty and staff and its contribution to their work, faculty and staff participation in campus cultural events; evidence of cultural exchange among students, faculty, staff, and community; historical and cultural library holdings and their usage.
Native American, Non-Tribal institutions were asked:
“As a Native American Non-Tribal Institution, what challenges have you had (or anticipate having) with regard to the Interim or Annual report?“
These institutions reported that they did not anticipate any challenges in reporting.
The IDCS survey utilized categories aligned with the purpose of the survey to examine data capacity. The (U.S.) federally designated categories for minority serving institutions are[i]:
Acronym | Description | NWCCU members |
AANAPISI | Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institution | 15* |
ANNH | Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian Serving Institution | 2 |
HSI | Hispanic Serving Institution | 12* |
NASNTI | Native American Serving, Non-Tribal Institution | 2 |
TCU | Tribal Colleges and Universities | 9 |
AAPI | Asian and Pacific Islander Serving Institution | — |
HBCU | Historically Black Colleges and Universities | — |
PBI | Predominantly Black Institutions | — |
MSEIP | Minority Science & Engineering Improvement Programs | — |
There are currently 39 NWCCU institutions federally designated as minority serving institutions and 44% of those are in Washington. There are no federally designated minority serving institutions in Idaho or Utah. One institution holds designation as both AANAPISI and HSI.
The IDCS also provided an opportunity for institutions to identify whether their institution has implemented or has key initiatives underway for the evidence-based practices. The most widely implemented initiative is “guided pathways” (36%) followed by “co-remediation” / corequisite (21%)[ii]. “Competency-based” (9%) programs are the least commonly implemented initiative.
Institutions implementing “guided pathways” were asked:
“How does your institution evaluate the success of its Guided Pathways (evidence-based approach)?”
Methods for evaluating the success of guided pathways initiatives include: statewide dashboard with common metrics (notably, the Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges dashboard), Voluntary Framework of Accountability (VFA), benchmarking with institutions with similar demographics, collaboration between institutional research and student affairs offices to identify and track key indicators such as advising appointments and registration in recommended courses, tracking Community College Research Center’s (CCRC) Early Momentum Metrics, analysis of declaration of pathway upon entry and program by second quarter, institutional scorecards, rubrics, signature assignments from selected classes, Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) multi-state collaborative, student perception feedback (e.g. quarterly College 110 student survey, Community College Survey of Student Engagement- CCSSE, Survey of Entering Student Engagement- SENSE, student focus groups), College Spark Guided Pathways Initiative, program maps evaluated annually during a faculty workday focused on assessment of learning, student self-reflection at each benchmark (developed by academic counselors), e-portfolio system.
Specific metrics that institutions use to evaluate guided pathways initiatives include: credits to degree, first year retention, graduation, completion, course success, credit accumulation (both making consistent progress and also fewer total credits accumulated to complete), post-graduate employment, transfer, continuous enrollment in math and English until general education requirements have been completed, shorter time to degree, completion of college level English and math within the first year of enrollment, admissions conversion rates, increase in number and percentage of students who have chosen a program pathway within two quarters or 30 credits.
Institutions implementing “co-remediation” were asked:
“How does your institution evaluate the success of Co-Remediation (evidence-based approach)?”
Methods for evaluating the success of guided pathways initiatives include evaluating transcript data, Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST), and enrolling students in a co-requisite support class.
Specific metrics that institutions use to evaluate guided pathways initiatives include: pass rates in key gateway courses, increased percentage of first-year students who successfully complete math requirements, time to graduation, student performance in subsequent courses, DFW rates, enrollment trends, grades earned by those enrolled in co-remediation courses compared with those in traditional math and English courses, grades earned by those in co-remediation courses compared with pre-university course grades, and year to year success rates.
Institutions implementing “competency-based” programs were asked:
“How does your institution evaluate the success of its Competency Based approach? (evidence)”
Methods for evaluating the success of competency-based programs include: student feedback within the class and course evaluations, institutional accountability plan, surveys, in-person and phone interviews, and evaluating portfolios.
Specific metrics that institutions use to evaluate competency-based programs include: graduation, licensure/certification exams, placements, retention, credentials awarded, student satisfaction measures, and enrollment and final grades over 3 semesters.
All institutions were asked:
“What are the most challenging aspects of data (collection, analysis, reporting) for your institution?”
We received strikingly similar descriptions of common data challenges from most institutions: data efforts are excessively time-consuming; data is siloed, decentralized, and has multiple ‘owners’; fragmented data efforts; limited data is available; lack of best practices for analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data; questionable data quality or accuracy; outdated data systems and tools; insufficient data staffing; unclear data collection (e.g. what, how, sample size, definitions, process, tools); lack of resources for data preparation; data definitions (e.g. different definitions of ‘success’); outdated IT infrastructure; integrating different data systems and multiple platforms; lack of data literacy; unclear data governance; balancing internal data requests with external reporting requirements; missing data; inconsistent (or non-existent) data workflows and processes; keeping up with industry technology, infrastructure, skills, and talent; lack of resources to pay for data skillset; difficulty retaining data staff; and lack of formal roles for data analysts. These concerns were consistently cited across institutions of all size and type.
We appreciated the candid and extremely informative responses to this question that reflected the real-world challenges in working with data faced by nearly all institutions. You will likely find your own experience(s) reflected in the Bonus Section[iii] (at the end of this article) that describes the challenges that are commonly experienced by most institutions, which also informs our work.
The “Technical Resources” section of the IDCS focused on the specific technical resources (data tools) used by our member institutions to manage and work with institutional data. The purpose of this section was to understand the range of technical resources and identify areas for support.
Nearly all (99%) institutions are using a Student Information System (SIS):
The most widely used student information systems are: Banner (31%) and PeopleSoft (28%). Almost an equal number of institutions use Jenzabar (11%) and Colleague (10%). It is interesting to note that one institution reported maintaining a 45-year-old mainframe computer while another reported not using a student information system at all.
Nearly all (98%) institutions are using a Learning Management System (LMS):
Canvas (53%) is the most widely used learning management system followed by Moodle (25%), Blackboard Learn (10%), and Brightspace D2L (6%). One institution reported using a “home grown LMS” and three institutions reported not using any learning management system at all.
Among those maintaining an on-premises database, the majority are using Microsoft SQL Server (63%) followed by Oracle Database (31%) and MySQL (15%).
There is an almost even split between the number of institutions that reported using a data warehouse (48%) and a slight majority (52%) that are not. The most widely used data warehouse tool is MS SQL Parallel Data Warehouse (8%) closely followed by Microsoft SQL Server (7%) and Oracle Autonomous Data Warehouse (6%).
Most (67%) institutions reported not maintaining a cloud database. But, among the institutions that are using a cloud database, there is a relatively even distribution among Amazon Relational Database (9%), Microsoft Azure SQL Database (8%), and Oracle Cloud Database (8%).
Survey results regarding the technical resources used by our member institutions is helpful for planning future programming, annual conference topics/speakers, and other initiatives. They also help us understand the technical capacity of our member institutions to implement high-quality data analytics to support evidence-based approaches to achieving equitable outcomes.
For example, a “modern data stack” in most industries consists of an application database or other data sources, customer relationship management system, and advertising platform from which data flows into a data warehouse/lake. Then, “extract-load-transform” (ELT) is performed to prepare data for use with business intelligence (BI) tools for data analytics/visualization, ad-hoc analyses, and (increasingly, within higher education) artificial intelligence/machine learning.
This data also provides insight into potential institutional data capacity gaps among our member institutions for which we may be able to provide resources through grant-funded initiatives such as the PDP Accelerator, which is currently serving a cohort of about 50 member institutions that are working toward onboarding to the Postsecondary Data Partnership.[iv]
We encouraged participation from relevant stakeholders across the institution in completing the IDCS, including staff from institutional research, information technology, human resources, assessment/effectiveness, accreditation, data governance, data ethics, and data analytics teams.
In our next issue, we will discuss IDCS results regarding data analytics and data staffing (HR).
“We are a data centered institution. Our challenges are similar to many institutions our size. Data quality is our largest challenge. We have a central information system that has been in place many years and we are generations from the original implementation so we have evolved in ways that the system was not designed and therefore data quality is challenged. Many users are narrowly trained and have little understanding of the interfunctionality of the system. This delays reporting and analysis because data needs to be cleaned and contextualized prior to higher level review.”
“We are currently transitioning from a legacy ERP to a more modern data system. At the same time we are also doing rapid work to develop a culture around utilizing data to inform our decision-making process. This is both an opportunity and a challenge in that staff are being asked to configure a new system in ways that impact what data will be collected and how it will be available while simultaneously learning how data can be utilized.”
“One challenge area has been the collection of student stories. In an effort to strengthen our assessment efforts, the collection of student stories has been added to our strategic plan. We are actively working on best practices of how to collect these stories.”
“Agreeing on the right questions to ask and setting the priority to persist in asking those questions; having the right data for complex questions like ‘what did your students learn’; integration of data from multiple systems and data sets across the institution, some siloed, some very old, some very new (enterprise-level, department-level, office-level); data management (getting clean and clear data suitable for analytical use); reconciling data definitions (every external requestor has their own ‘spin’; every internal requestor has their own ‘spin’; reconciling changes in definitions over time; maintaining continuity in the face of institutional change; integration and liability around data that from outside sources (like state government unemployment records); security infrastructure to ensure that data can be share only as is appropriate”
“Data definitions, consistency, analysis, collection, organization, and use are the most challenging aspects. This is so for multiple reasons, but in part because the IR team lacks resources such as the software tools, training, sufficient staffing, and time to provide routine, clear access to standard data points in a stable location. We need dashboards to review standard data points and to communicate effectively about how to identify and close information gaps. Using data to close equity gaps, improve the institution and for decision making is another challenge and growth opportunity.
Generally, we have sufficient data, but it is often incomplete, inconsistent, or unavailable and is usually under the direct control of units across the college, who may not follow consistent procedures or document their methods. Some data is not collected for the purposes of research but instead to support ongoing business practices. Data collection is also challenging because it relies on self-reporting.
For internal reporting we need access, and clear direction from leadership. External reporting requires staff time, which is at capacity. Broad-based data literacy is an issue in order to organize, analyze and use data meaningfully. We need to align expectations and assumptions with the reality of institutional research.”
“We struggle the most with collection, due to the many different avenues of data collection (e.g., different systems, individuals’ personal spreadsheets). We do not have a single comprehensive system or a set of systems that easily talk to each other.”
“We have a good collection, analysis, and reporting structure, but education is our next challenge: ‘What does the data mean?’ ‘Why does this data not match that data?’ “
“1. The student information system is different than the human resources and finance system. This makes it difficult to look at the business side of instructors to classes with our disparate information systems.
2. The non-credit side of our institution is housed in a different platform than the credit side, making it hard to track our entire student body.
3. With respect to HSI data, the current issues surrounding DACA students’ fears around participating in the Census are all challenging aspects of collecting data, especially concerning our undocumented and Hispanic student populations.”
“Being a community college, we have students entering our system at pre-college, GED/ESL, community education, and collegiate level. Data needs vary at each entry point and become difficult to manage when a student transitions from one entry point to another. This creates incomplete data sets as a student for instance transitions from community education to collegiate.”
“Some data collection is difficult because the college’s legacy data systems do not have fields for all information that the college would like collect. Some of that data is needed for better decision making and predictive analytics.
Data quality is also an issue because the college’s legacy system does not have field-level controls; definitions have changed over the years without documentation; and processes have not been consistently followed across the organization. As a result, some longitudinal data is almost impossible to read or use because codes have changed; data is inconsistent and messy; and some data elements have been used differently, over time, for different purposes.
Data reporting is also fairly comprehensive, but our college has been challenged with data literacy. Another challenge is forming evaluation and assessment plans before implementing student success initiatives. As expected, it is difficult to assess the impact of something if proper evaluation steps were not first considered and implemented.”
“We don’t have an Institutional Research Office or a designated full-time IR person (one mid-level administrator currently has 1/6 of his load allocated for institutional research). While the university realizes IR is an important need, intentions to create a staff level position to assist with this have been put on hold the past couple of years due to budget constraints. For the most part, data collection is decentralized on our campus, although in the last several years we have made efforts to make data more widely available and easily accessible to decision-makers on campus. In addition to personnel, perhaps the most challenging aspect of data collection, analysis, and reporting is the limitations of our ERP. We are currently using … (a system no longer being actively developed by our vendor) and we do not have a data warehouse, so our ability to extract live data and create data reports and visualizations is limited. We also have many different data repositories and they don’t all talk to each other and frequently contain conflicting and different information, which at times leads to a lack of trust in our data.”
“Limited human resource capacity; lack of real-time data availability; lack of data warehouse and working without data governance and standards. Multiple reporting options and constantly changing approaches to data views.”
“Limited collection of data on student demographics/profile (e.g. race, ethnicity, socio-economic indicators), which is an issue in all [similar] institutions.
– Having several independent data sources to meet the needs of individual business units creates a challenge of consolidating information and ensuring consistency across the institution.
– Data privacy creates a challenge around how much and what types of information can be published.
– Inconsistent business practices across different units is also a big challenge e.g. department use course waitlists in different ways so it is impossible to gauge student demand.
– Understanding the business practice of how data enters the information system. Without a complete understanding of a department’s business practice, it is easy to misinterpret data.
– Inconsistent data definitions across business units e.g. a part-time student is defined differently for different purposes or by different departments. Some of it may be reduced with implementing a standard data dictionary.”
“Disaggregation of data is challenging because of our small size. Many of our demographic and other groupings yield small numbers of students, and as a result, several years’ worth of data is required in order to have meaningful information.”
“The growing volume of data; matching up data resources with the institutional growth. Keeping up with high demand for data analysis, reporting and visualization”
“1) Lack of institutionalized Data Governance and Data Management to maintain consistent data entry and information system definitions. Currently working on implementing and addressing college-wide, establishing a Data Governance Committee, and creating a Data Catalog.
2) A history of bottom-up and silo-ed approaches to data usage that do not align with strategic planning and strategic institutional priorities and initiatives.
3) Prior to 2019, limited resources to provide data reports and insights. Now working on increasing data literacy across different levels of the organization and improving data management and usage for decision support.”
“Niche data storage by departments in the institution and data quality concerns when new systems are implemented with insufficient planning.”
“Most of our institution’s challenges relating to data are connected to our student information system (SIS). Our SIS is predominately designed for for-profit proprietary schools, and we are one of the few traditional undergraduate institutions utilizing the product. In conjunction with that, there has been a lack of training with the SIS for new users, which leads to a long and steep learning curve, and, at times, an over-reliance on more adept users of the system. Reports are exported to Excel and often must be combined with other database exports (few reports are customizable), and as such, users with little experience or technical knowledge of Excel are often frustrated and then rely heavily upon a few experienced users.
In addition, at times there appears to be a lack of vision/communication between departments regarding data requests and usage. We often receive multiple requests for information that are very similar but just different enough that the same data cannot be used for both request- hence, a doubling of work often occurs.”
“We have limited [human resources] (i.e., just one research analyst) to analyze and report the data for our college. Also, it will be more challenging and time-consuming, and less meaningful (e.g., colleges will have inconsistencies in coding and underlying institutional processes), to compare and benchmark our indicators with regional and national peer institutions.”
“The most challenging has been our institutional technology’s infrastructure and ability to provide the data in a timely manner with limited resources. It would be a better system for the institutional research department to have direct access to the data sources on campus but all sources are currently managed by the IT department.”
Navigate the articles below, or go to the current Beacon directory.
Taking the approaches used yesterday to budget reduction in today’s volatile environment no longer works. Institutions need new strategies that are dynamic, comprehensive, and practical. This session will introduce participants to The Budget Reduction Tool designed to help budget decision-makers take a student-centered approach to implementing a consistent and effective budget reduction strategy that considers streamlining processes in addition to allocating resources effectively. The Budget Reduction Tool helps budget decision-makers assess and make decisions to invest in initiatives and programs that align with strategic initiatives, have the greatest positive impact on student success and creates the least amount of disruption to realizing operational efficiencies.
Session Date/Time: Friday, November 10, 10:00 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. PST
Link to Budget Reduction Tool.
Institutional Speakers:
Dr. Ana Karaman is an accomplished higher education administrator with broad, deep, and diverse experience and expertise in institutional planning, finance, and operations at both public and private non-for-profit universities. Ana’s expertise and experience include developing multi-year financial plans to support implementation of strategic plans, overseeing annual operating budgets in access of $400M and endowments in access of $300M, working with various budgeting models including RCM, financing institutional needs via various vehicles including bond issuances, PPPs, and other financial facilities. Ana led successful legislative requests, developed and implemented master plans and oversaw delivering diverse major capital projects. In addition, Ana has overseen offices of human resources, public safety, procurement, enterprise risk management, facilities management, and others.
Ana serves as Vice President for Finance & Administration and CFO at Western Oregon University.
Tressa is passionate about helping institutions of higher education become more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and efficient deliverers of education. In addition to being a higher education strategist, Tressa is also a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) thought partner and influencer. Tressa helps organizations create long lasting systems and policies that identify and remove barriers that impede student success and institutional effectiveness. Tressa currently serves as a Project Director with Sova helping build capacity for large-scale change in higher education and workforce development.
Tressa has more than 20 years of middle and senior level leadership experience at various types of higher education, private industry, and non-profit institutions. Prior to joining Sova, Tressa served in various capacities including, Senior Consultant at Anderson Blake Consulting; Vice Provost at Strayer University; Vice President for Administration and Director of Institutional Research at Arkansas Baptist College; Campus College Chair for Graduate Business Programs at the University of Phoenix, Vice President of CFA International, and President of Detroit BAEO.
Tressa earned a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Political Theory & Constitutional Democracy and a Master of Arts (MA) in Higher Educational Administration from Michigan State University. She also earned a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and a Doctor of Management (DM) in Organizational Leadership from the University of Phoenix.
In 2020, Washington State University’s general education program launched Core to Career, a faculty development program that helps faculty recognize how a focus on career readiness can increase student engagement and equips faculty with the language and facilitation strategies to deliver a classroom and curricular experience that students see as intentionally focused on their career and self-development. However, with its focus on faculty, the program has often been less-than-intentional about its relationship with student-facing career professionals. Audience members will learn about and discuss the challenges to and steps for growing career readiness campus-wide in intentional, equitable, sustainable, and meaningful ways.
Session Date/Time: Friday, November 10, 10:00 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Thabiti Lewis is Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at WSU Vancouver and Professor of English whose books include Ballers of the New School: Race and Sports in America and Conversations with Toni Cade Bambara. Dr. Lewis earned his Ph.D. from Saint Louis University, in St. Louis, Missouri, where he is also from, and joined the faculty at WSU in 2007. At WSU Vancouver, Dr. Lewis leads campus-wide efforts to foster cultures of inclusion and equity for students, staff, and faculty alike. Dr. Lewis teaches courses in multi-cultural and Black American literature.
Amanda Morgan is Associate Director of the Academic Success and Career Center at Washington State University, where she leads the Career Services and Employer Relations team. Morgan is a first-generation college student who earned a master’s in education administration and has over fifteen years of student services experience.
Clif Stratton is Vice Chancellor for Academic Engagement at WSU Pullman and Associate Professor of History, whose books include Education for Empire: American Schools, Race, and the Paths of Good Citizenship and Power Politics: Carbon Energy in Historical Perspective. Dr. Stratton earned his Ph.D. from Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia, where he is also from, and joined the faculty at WSU in 2010. The former director of WSU’s University Common Requirements program, Dr. Stratton led efforts to design and implement Core to Career at WSU Pullman. Dr. Stratton teaches courses on modern American and global history with emphases on histories of race and empire.
Our project, the Course Learning Outcomes Worksheet tool, brings evidence together regarding student achievement of program and course learning outcomes. In addition, the worksheet asks the user to look at the student DFWI rates along with disaggregated class data all in the same class. The user looks for achievement gaps and is asked to make improvement decisions based on this data. Those improvement strategies are documented and implemented prior to the class being offered again.
Session Date/Time: Friday, November 10, 11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Dr. Afjeh’s research successes include increasing departmental external research funding to over $4 million annually; building an on-site research program with more than 20 researchers at the NASA Glenn Research Center; recruiting faculty and providing resources to enhance strength in advanced materials and biomedical engineering; and developing a master’s degree program in engineering with an energy engineering focus, with participation of faculty and industry partners; and developing professional master’s degree programs for industry, as well as a multi-disciplinary, collaborative energy engineering program in partnership with the colleges of Business and Law.
Dr. Afjeh’s research projects have been sponsored by industry as well as leading federal agencies such as NASA, Department of Energy and National Institutes of Health. His research focus areas include computational fluid dynamics in turbomachinery, propulsion systems, experimental investigation of bearings and rotating components, wind turbine design and analysis, and aerodynamics of phonation, a research project sponsored by the NIH.
Dr. Afjeh earned his Ph.D. and MS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Toledo; and his B.S in Mechanical Engineering from Arya Mehr University of Technology (now Sharif University of Technology) in Iran. He is also a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Dr. Janette Isaacson is a graduate of Seattle University, where she earned a doctorate in educational leadership plus a Masters in Counseling (2001), a graduate of the University of Phoenix, where she earned a Master’s in Education teaching diverse learners (1986), and a graduate of the University of Washington where she earned a Masters in Health Informatics and Health Information Management (2023).
20+ years Medical Imaging / Health Sciences, Online Program Director, OIT Teacher Excellence Nominee (2021-2023), Past Institutional Assessment Chair, Accreditation Committee Member, DEI Data Scorecard Committee, NWCCU Mission Fulfillment Fellow, NWCCU Data Equity Fellow, NWCCU Accreditation Site Visitor, spearheaded the development of on-campus faculty data dashboards to present disaggregated underrepresented student data for all programs to aid in the identification of institutional equity gaps in student retention, graduation, DFWI, and post-graduation success.
The Idaho State Board of Education recently adopted major amendments to its policy on academic freedom – the first substantive updates since the 1980s. The revised policy now defines the academic freedom and responsibility of students. Clear policy language provides a framework to institutional leaders for navigating the complex intersection of academic freedom and learning environments in politically fraught times. Students can boost their understanding of academic freedom to become successful in their endeavors, and to participate as engaged citizens in today’s world. How can we, as administrators, leaders, and instructors, facilitate student empowerment by increasing their literacy of academic freedom?
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 3:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
TJ Bliss is a higher education administrator and educational researcher. He is the Chief Academic Officer for the Idaho State Board of Education and a member of the alumni board for Brigham Young University. Bliss was formerly the Chief Advancement Officer at the Wiki Education Foundation, an Education Program Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Director of Assessment and Accountability at the Idaho State Department of Education. Bliss’ writing, research, and advocacy for Open Educational Resources has been reported on in various outlets, including the Washington Post, EdSurge, and Inside Higher Ed.
Torrey Lawrence is the Provost and Executive Vice President of the University of Idaho. In this role he serves as the university’s chief academic officer, directly responsible for the general direction of all academic programs, endeavors, and instructional services on the Moscow campus as well as the university’s statewide academic, outreach, and research initiatives. He has served in this role since 2020 but has been a faculty member at UI since 1998. He earned music degrees from Northwestern University and the University of Oregon.
Amy Vecchione is the Assistant Director of Research and Innovation at eCampus Center, Boise State University. As an educational leader, Amy works to improve student success through emering and high-impact practices. She recently co-authored the book From At-Risk to At-Promise: Academic Libraries Supporting Student Success.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 3:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Kate is an associate professor in the School of Biological Sciences. She received her PhD in Biochemistry from the University of South Carolina and completed postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Washington and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory before joining the faculty at WSU. Dr. McAteer attended the HERS Leadership Institute in 2019 and in 2021 completed the first AASCU Student Success Institute for Provosts, a program designed for provosts ‘to lead and implement the type of transformational change necessary to meet the evolving needs of today’s increasingly diverse student body.
Rilie supports rpk’s clients in fulfilling mission and student success under a sustainable financial model. Her work with clients focuses particularly on optimizing academic portfolios and developing best practice academic and administrative business processes, along with applying a deep understanding of change management and support for capacity building.
The Oregon Transfer Pathways to the Liberal Arts grant has been exploring innovative ways to facilitate transfer from community colleges to private liberal arts institutions. As we talk with students and review data, we have come to understand that many community college students believe a private college education is out of their reach. This is particularly true for culturally diverse students who often rely on trusted friends and family members for information. Reaching the right audience with the right message at the right time is challenging. Doing this well is a goal of our grant. We will share our progress.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 10:55 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Linda Samek is a former faculty member, dean, and provost at George Fox University. She is currently the project director for the Oregon Transfer Pathways to the Liberal Arts project. Samek has experience in PreK-12, community college, and public and private four-year post secondary education.
Gerardo Ochoa is vice president for enrollment management and student success at Linfield University. He has served Linfield in multiple capacities since 2004. Ochoa holds a formal appointment as an officer of the board and has served in various university-wide committees, including the President’s Diversity Advisory Committee (chair) and the university strategic planning and budget council.
In addition to being a college administrator, Ochoa is a co-author and independent consultant of Path to Scholarships®, a college readiness curriculum. Since 2006, he has worked with thousands of diverse students from urban and rural high schools, community colleges, private colleges and state universities on college access and affordability. He consults with higher education institutions on the inclusion of Latinx students, best practices to engage and serve undocumented students, and teaching strategies that draw on talents and address the needs of first-generation students. He believes in the power of personal stories to build empathy, create opportunities and influence change. As keynote speaker, his story of perseverance has reached audiences convened by organizations such as the Hispanic Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Northwest Public Employees Diversity Conference, the Ford Family Foundation, Portland State University, including a TEDx Talk.
Ochoa holds an Education Master from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Arts in sociology and minor in Latin American history from the University of Oregon. He is an American Leadership Forum Fellow and an alumnus of the Senior Leadership Academy sponsored by the Council of Independent Colleges and the American Academic Leadership Institute. He is a contributing author for Latinx/a/os in Higher Education and a guest education writer for the Somos Timbers Magazine.
Erika Masaki is an instructor of political science at Lane Community College . Her teaching and research interests are political theory, international relations, and environmental politics.
Teamwork and collaboration are among employers’ highest-rated skills. However, the act of teaching and assessing these skills is often limited to courses explicitly addressing them. We envisioned creating a toolkit from a multifaceted team of faculty that can help ANY instructor understand some of the fundamentals of teaching and assessing student teamwork and collaboration in their courses. This toolkit has built-in ready-to-go components that can be deployed by any instructor that wants to more effectively teach and assess student teamwork and collaboration skills. Our group will share the toolkit we made as well as the process of creating it.
Session Date/Time: Friday, November 10, 11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Elaine is a full-time instructor in the Basic and Transitional Studies Department and Co-Chair of Ensure Learning, Seattle Central’s program review and assessment committee.
Who defines “success” for students at any institution? Shouldn’t it be the students? Following Board-approved guidelines and well-defined outcomes, this session will discuss what can happen when students are allowed and expected to take charge of their educational experience. Results and evidence will be presented describing the significant learning and transformation that took place in a General Education College Success Course. Participants will be engaged in imagining the “what ifs” at their own institutions when control shifts from faculty to learners. Could that be what success in college is really all about?
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 2:35 p.m. – 3:35 p.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Alynda Kusch currently serves as the First Lady of Ensign College. At Ensign College since 2016, Alynda has led a variety of studies focused on improving the student experience. In addition she has taught courses in Culinary Arts, Religious Education, and Student Success. Alynda holds a bachelor’s degree from BYU-Idaho and served there as an adjunct faculty member in the Culinary Arts program.
Bruce C. Kusch, Ensign CollegeThis presentation discusses the challenges small, non-profit colleges and universities face in developing processes aimed at closing student achievement gaps and systematic inequities in learning outcomes. Overworked faculty, weak assessment data, lack of technological infrastructure, conflicting priorities, and strategic confusion all conspire to keep institutions entrenched and student achievement inequitable. Yet despite this landscape, Bastyr University devised and embarked on an ambitious one year plan to identify and begin closing equity gaps for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) students in recruitment, retention, completion and learning related to information literacy, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and professional behavior.
Session Date/Time: Friday, November 10, 11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Erika Del Villar, Bastyr University Dr. Erika Lorenzana Del Villar (she/her/siya) is the Associate Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Bastyr University. She is a DEI practitioner, educator, and sociologist specializing in human rights, international relations, social movements, and building inclusive climates in higher education. Erika earned her Ph.D. and M.A. in Sociology with a Certificate in Human Rights from the University of Connecticut, her M.A. in International Relations from New York University, and her B.A. in Political Science, minor in French Studies from the Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. She is a proud Filipino-American, wife, and mother of two beautiful daughters.
Wendy Gordon is an associate professor and Chair of the Department of Midwifery at Bastyr University in Kenmore, WA. Dr. Gordon’s teaching and research interests include the provision of midwifery care in home and birth center settings; the role of racism in perinatal health disparities; and the ability to translate and evaluate research. Dr. Gordon holds a BS in Chemical Engineering, an MPH from Oregon Health & Sciences University with a focus in health disparities, and a Doctorate in Midwifery from Jefferson University in Philadelphia.
Based in Kenmore, WA, Ann Kenady is Senior Instructional Designer for Bastyr University. Ann holds a certificate in instructional design and a certificate in online teaching and is an active member of Quality Matters. Ann works collaboratively across divisions to establish metrics and mileposts for creating equitable, accessible, and inclusive online learning experiences, while assisting faculty with online and hybrid course design and instructional best practices.
Susan Seymour is the Director of Institutional Effectiveness at Bastyr University. Her entire career has been focused on learning assessment and she is particularly interested in measuring learning that is “difficult”. Her dissertation investigated learning related to social consciousness and her current interests are in ensuring diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are tied to observable and measurable outcomes rather than performative activities and aspirational statements that lack accountability and impact. She earned her B.S. in Construction Management and M.S. in Technology Education from Colorado State University and her Ph.D. in Education – Curriculum and Instruction from Utah State University.
As a way to combat the college completion crisis, particularly among the most underserved student populations, BYU-Idaho and Ensign College have taken a certificate-first approach to help students stay on track and complete their degrees. Learn how placing the focus on skills first has yielded increased retention & persistence rates.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 10:55 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Boyd Baggett serves as the Accreditation Liason Officer. He came to BYU-Idaho in 2008 to teach Religious Education and received the Exemplary Faculty Award in 2017. Boyd earned a Bachelor of Science from Brigham Young University and a Juris Doctorate degree from the J. Reuben Clark Law School, graduating Cum Laude.
Previous to Brigham Young University-Idaho, Boyd practiced law in Idaho and Utah. He also taught seminary for the Church Education System.
Jon Nichols serves as the Assistant to the President for Strategy, Planning, & Assessment at Ensign College. He received his bachelor’s in Marketing and his Executive MBA from the University of Utah.
Jon spent over ten years at the University of Utah overseeing their Professional, Online, and Executive MBA programs. He led the design, development, and launch of the Online MBA program, the first fully online program at the University of Utah. He would go on to become a senior product manager for WGU Labs, where he worked closely with early-stage ed-tech companies and community colleges around the country.
Drs. Aman and Barber will explore the critical role of both futuring and strategic planning in improving institutional effectiveness. Attendees will be presented with insights into the differences between futuring and strategic planning approaches and how they complement each other. Futuring allows colleges and universities to anticipate potential changes and disruptions, fostering creativity and adaptability. Strategic planning provides a structured framework for implementing specific goals and ensuring efficient allocation of resources toward mission fulfillment. The presentation will emphasize the importance of prioritizing futuring before strategic planning in higher education institutions to develop comprehensive and achievable strategies toward fulfill of Standards 1.B.3 and 1.B.4.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 2:35 p.m. – 3:35 p.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Lori Barber is Vice President of Academic & Student Affairs at College of Eastern Idaho (CEI). Prior to this position, she served in various leadership roles at the College. She led the creation of the General Education transfer degrees at CEI, first as Dean of General Education. She holds a doctorate in Educational Leadership and Innovation from Arizona State University. Lori completed her Master’s Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies where she researched the history and anthropology of food. She serves on numerous state level education committees in Idaho, including the Idaho Workforce Development Council and Council on Academic Affairs and Programs (CAAP).
In 2017, a delegation of community members from Cottage Grove, Oregon came to see the president at Lane Community College to explore how the college could help southern Lane County create a FQHC to address a lack of affordable, accessible healthcare. Data showed there was a decline in students coming from that area as well as a shortage of healthcare workers. The college brought together stakeholders to discuss the idea and by 2022, plans were established to create a FQHC/Allied Health Training Facility. This presentation will demonstrate how the power of collaboration can help colleges solve even the most insurmountable problems.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 2:35 p.m. – 4:35 p.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
Dr. Margaret Hamilton retired from Lane Community College in Oregon in 2022 as President Emeritus after a 40 year career in higher education. While at Lane, Dr. Hamilton led the college through a new Strategic Plan, a seven-year Self-Study leading to full accreditation, and a successful $121.5M bond campaign-all during a pandemic. Dr. Hamilton holds a Ph.D from Widener University, a MSN from University of Delaware, and a BSN from SUNY, Plattsburgh. Her collaborative work with the community led to the development of a Federally Qualified Health Center in southern Lane County. Dr. Hamilton now serves as an independent consultant.
Metrics of institutional success have been based on student completions, and completions are based on finishing prescribed degree programs. What if there were a category for helping students complete exactly what they needed in the first place? Shouldn’t that be a “success”? This session describes a new way of thinking about 1.C and redefining success for the future of higher education.
Session Date/Time: Thursday, November 9, 10:55 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. PST
Institutional Speakers:
As VP of Compliance & Accreditation at Western Governors University (or “WGU”—America’s leading competency-based, online, non-profit university with 140,000+ students and 305,000+ graduates in each of the USA’s states and territories), Lucas Kavlie’s team of compliance professionals maintains trust through engagement between the university and external agencies (i.e., accrediting bodies, state authorization bodies, professional licensing/certification agencies, and other quality frameworks) in all American jurisdictions (states, commonwealths, territories, and the District of Columbia). In his career, Lucas has overseen the submission of hundreds of compliance or regulatory affairs applications—without rejection. He is a member of CHEA’s Committee on Recognition.
