Skip to main content

Being a peer reviewer was by far the most empowering and satisfying professional experience I have had in quite a while. I became part of a team of people who are strong in assessment within their area of expertise, who work at institutions similar to mine, and who are passionate about student learning. If that weren’t enough, we trusted and relied on each other’s expertise and knowledge and supported and encouraged each other throughout the process. Our team consisted of nine people: six of us had participated in at least one other peer review process, three of us were new reviewers. Our team chair is a provost at a peer institution, and a very experienced reviewer. Because I volunteered to travel to a campus in the Middle East with him, I learned from him and became more confident as he trusted me and my knowledge of student affairs/student development as well as my abilities to evaluate and assess the campus. This was a very helpful introduction to the larger main campus review process and I am glad I agreed to do it.

Aside from a couple of brief and awkward phone conferences, the first time our team officially met each other was at our hotel near the main campus. We had begun working together on our smaller standard teams, and I had met the chair on our Middle East visit, but otherwise we were unknowns to each other; and we were expected to work together very intensely for the next several days! No time for ice breakers or team builders; the work itself became our team builder. After a brief orientation, a student took us on a campus tour that ended with a reception with all of the campus leaders who had been part of the self-study process. By the end of the week, we knew these people very well! After the reception, we had a formal dinner with the leaders where we were introduced and began learning more about the campus. We ended the day with a team meeting to plan out the rest of our time together.

Throughout our visit, we were treated like royalty (this was also true for my international visit): we rode in the bus generally used for the Board of Trustees, we had good food and comfortable accommodations everywhere we went, we were introduced to campus leaders and students as valued colleagues, and we had access to resources and leaders as needed. During the day, we attended meetings organized around the campus’s response to each of the standards of accreditation, and for the standards we each reviewed, we led the conversation by asking questions and reflecting back what we were learning. We also met with different campus constituencies including student leaders, students, faculty, staff, and administrators. The chair met separately with members of the Board of Trustees and the president. All of these meetings were designed to help us have a clear understanding of how the campus met the standards.

After dinner each day, we reconvened as a review team to revise and complete our final report, which was to be shared with the campus in an oral presentation at the end of the visit. We were given tight deadlines and some guidance about content. The last night, we walked through every line of the report to edit it for both content and grammar and so that it was written in one voice rather than nine! As you can imagine, this was a laborious process that sometimes resulted in silliness and lots of laughter. When we finally finished, several of us met at the hotel bar to celebrate our good work. The chair’s responsibility was to pull all of our work together into a cohesive whole, consult with campus leadership on their expectations as well as letting them know what we were learning, and share the report on the final day.

On the last day, after packing up our belongings and departing the hotel, we gave our final presentation to the campus. This was a chance for the campus to thank us for our work and for us to let them know what we learned about them and their alignment with the standards for accreditation. After brief remarks from the president, the team chair read the entirety of our report (about 25 pages single-spaced) to the assembled community members. He had already shared a summary of the report with the president prior to this larger presentation. Once the report was read, we had to depart immediately – no questions or comments. I was a tad anxious about leaving this way, because it seemed very abrupt and borderline rude, but that is part of the process, and it was explained to those assembled that we would be leaving immediately. We collected our boxed lunches and departed for the airport.

The review process was over for the team members, but there was more work for the chair. He submitted the final report in writing to MSCHE, and then will attend a meeting in the summer where the MSCHE commissioners make a decision about whether to continue the institution’s accreditation. In the meantime, we cannot have contact with anyone at the institution until that decision has been made. This is to protect us as well as the process. It is also awkward. I look forward to being able to reconnect with some of the colleagues I met while I was on this visit once the period of silence ends.

As a peer reviewer, I was treated with respect and considered an expert in my field. I met campus leaders from the region as well as the campus we reviewed, and was treated as an equal to them. A big part of the reason I chose to become a peer reviewer was because I love being at Cornell AND I wanted to expand my horizons without having to move to another campus. I have achieved that and more: by leaving and becoming part of a team from other schools, I was reminded of my own expertise and knowledge that is sometimes taken for granted here at Cornell by me and my colleagues. As with attending conferences, this reminder of what we know can be a powerful motivator and confidence booster. I am so glad someone recommended it to me and I said yes!

 

Do you wonder how people become peer reviewers for regional accreditation organizations? I always thought it was through a nomination process, but it turns out that you apply! When I learned this, it was like the curtain had been pulled back and the Wizard of Oz had been revealed. Not only does having an application process make a more diverse pool of reviewers more likely, it also makes it accessible to more of us. Of course, if people aren’t aware of the option to apply, then the previous statement will not come true. So APPLY! Go to the home page for your regional accreditor and submit an application. My regional accreditor is the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE).

OK, now that I got that PSA out of the way, here’s what I really want to tell you about: being a peer reviewer is a powerful professional and personal experience. It is extremely challenging, a LOT of work, and so worth it! I highly encourage you to look into it.

This year, I served as a peer reviewer for a campus that also has locations around the world. In this case, MSCHE determines which of those locations will also be visited as part of the review process. Once determined, the review team must send team members to those locations. We sent team members to five different locations including the Middle East, where I traveled. While not on my bucket list, I was still really curious and eager to learn more about this part of the world. As a novice reviewer, I was reluctant to volunteer for this role, but the team chair encouraged me, so I said yes. So in March, I traveled 24 hours for a campus visit that lasted 60 hours, and then traveled another 24 to get home. A week later, I went on the US campus visit with the rest of my team (only the team chair accompanied me to the Middle East). The US campus visit was two full days and two half days and less travel time!

So what do you do as a peer reviewer, other than travel all over the world? I found it to be a mysterious process that was difficult to understand until I was doing it. Even though there is quite a bit of training to prepare reviewers, the training is focused on the standards and how to apply them rather than what you are actually doing. I’d like to try to unmask some of the mystery so that you have a sense of what to expect if you choose to do this amazing work. Here goes:

Once I was accepted as a reviewer, I attended a training in Philadelphia where I learned about the different roles peer reviewers can play as well as the standards and how to apply them. This training is now primarily online, which is a great money saver, although you lose out on developing relationships with other peer reviewers. About eight months after that training (this was in August, I think), I was invited to serve on a review team the following March. The team was assembled and we had our first meeting via conference call in January. At this meeting, we learned more about the timeline, including when we could expect materials from the institution and what our expectations were:

  1. The campus visit would be in late March.
  2. Some of us would need to visit several international locations.
  3. We would be receiving the campus’s self-study report in early February.
  4. We would be assigned to teams based on the standards and would be expected to write our team report prior to our campus visit in March.

That wasn’t a lot to go on, and I wanted more information! I began by looking at Cornell’s most recent self-study report to get a sense of what we would be receiving from the campus and then at the review team’s report about Cornell to have a better understanding of what we were to produce. I still had a lot of questions, but this was a good place to start. The training we received says that we should expect to read the entire self-study report through three times (it is generally about 100 pages single-spaced) prior to writing our recommendations/team report. Because I was also taking a separate trip to an international campus, I also had to read that campus’s report and identify questions, recommendations, etc.

The reason for all of the reading and writing in advance of the visit is that our time on the visit is spent learning more about the campus, answering questions that were not addressed in the self-study, and getting to know the culture, community, and educational experience of the campus. There is little time to write once you are there. I am very glad we did all of the preparation work in advance, and now feel more confident about the next time I have to do it.

I was assigned to be the lead on a standard that was not my area of expertise, which required me to get to know that area really well and quickly. I asked a lot of questions along the way! Ultimately, we were expected to complete a template that is provided by MSCHE as succinctly as possible. For us, this meant no more than two pages per standard, and preferably shorter. My collaborator and I shared our thoughts and reflections in advance of the visits, and submitted them to the chair about a week before we were due on campus. I was also assigned to be the co-writer on a standard that was more familiar to me, and I was able to provide leadership on the writing of that report.

My biggest questions were about how to write the report. I finally figured out by the end of the process who the audience was for the report! That would have been helpful to know from the outset, and might be obvious to others, but it was not to me. The audience is the MSCHE/accrediting agency, since they are relying on us to thoroughly examine the campus and its alignment with the standards of accreditation. This meant that we had to provide a different type of context than if the campus were the audience, for example. Once I got clear on the audience, the writing became much easier – although brevity when assessing a complex institution remains a challenge! We really had to maintain a focus on the standards and how they were being met and set aside the “nice-to-know” information for a future conversation.

There is so much more to say about this experience, but since this is already getting long, I will save it for another post. In the meantime, if you are interested in learning more about being a peer reviewer, check out the websites for regional accreditors listed on the Council for Higher Education’s website. You can also do a search for “Middle States Reports” (or WASC accreditation reports, or NEASC accreditation reports…) to find campus self-study and peer review reports and learn more about what they look like and contain.

Next time I’ll write about what the campus visit was like and why I liked the experience so much.

One of the ways I engage with my local community is through helping to plan and support Women Swimmin’, Hospicare and Palliative Care’s annual fund raiser. I have been involved as a swimmer and/or volunteer and planning team member for every swim (that’s 14 years of swimming across the lake!), and this year is no different.

As the planning team began its work this winter, we identified several goals for ourselves, which were broader than our usual fund-raising goal. This year’s goals focused on the planning committee’s composition, increasing involvement from an adjacent county, updating older materials, and improving an aspect of the swim experience. While these goals are all over the place, they are all our work!

I was really glad to see us developing goals for ourselves, but was concerned with how or if we’d be able to say we were successful by the end of the summer, so of course I asked! I began to wonder how we would measure each goal, and what it would take to get us to success. Because I have been using logic models with several teams at work, I decided to create one for Women Swimmin’. I started with the goals, asked myself what it would look like if we achieved each one, and then asked the leadership to think about what it would take to get us there.

At the next meeting, I shared the model with the committee (who were, by the way, convinced that I was going to insert a lot of metrics or “unnecessary and burdensome” assessment mumbo-jumbo into our work), and they were pleasantly surprised. I had broken down our goals into manageable steps, most of which we were already committed to or at least talking about. Now those steps were connected to a meaningful goal that they had identified so they could see how our work leads us toward our goals and what it takes to get us there. It felt like a breakthrough! But more than that, it is a useful tool that we can (and do) refer to throughout planning and implementation.

I don’t know about you, but I find people initially very resistant to assessment, either out of fear, exhaustion, or ignorance. When I break it down, I also see that most people I work with don’t “start with the end in mind” and work backwards toward an action. They start with the action and hope it leads us where we need to go (which is often note well defined). I spend a lot of time “forcing” a conversation about the outcomes and impacts (what do you want to change/see happen; what would success look like?), which takes diligence and firmness. Once they can clearly see their destination, though, they become MUCH better at figuring out how to get there, and logic models are very helpful in this process. In this case, the committee had a general sense of their destination (their goals), which helped. I was able to organize the goals for them in a way that was understandable, meaningful, and didn’t require (much) extra work on their behalf! Go logic models!

I have been talking with a number of groups recently about how to plan with the end in mind, as Steven Covey encouraged in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. This approach, while challenging, has produced meaningful conversations about what we are trying to achieve, what that will look like, and how we will know when we get there. Once the team has identified where it is going, it becomes much easier to determine how to get there. Just like when you’re planning a trip. If you know where you are going, you can map out your route. Some people will choose the scenic route, some the quickest, some prefer to stay off the highway. There is no “right” way to get to your destination; what’s important is that you’ve identified where you are headed. The same is true for planning. Each of us may have a different way to get to our destination (increased sense of belonging, for example), but if we know where we are headed, we can find our way there AND assess whether we were successful at getting there.

As I discussed in my previous blog, a logic model is a way to help define a destination in order to create a plan for how to achieve it. As a reminder, the model looks like this, and even though it looks like you would work from left to right, in fact, you start on the right first (Y) and then address the planned work (X) (from Kellogg, p. 1):

Most recently, a team has been looking at how to live the values as a division (See Ryan’s most recent blog post for more about the values: (https://blogs.cornell.edu/vpscl/, with password SCL2018.) Instead of starting with programmatic ideas for instilling the values into our work, we are starting with fundamental questions about what it would look like for us to be living these values. How would we know if we were doing it? As you can imagine, these are not easy questions to answer, but if we can’t answer them, we won’t be able to tell Ryan about our successes in making these values part of our daily work lives.

If you have a new project, program idea, or initiative, give me a call so we can start planning together with the end in mind. Together, we will be able to create better programs that are designed to accomplish our goals. And we will be able to see if they achieve those goals because we will be able to measure them based on the initial work we have done to plan backwards.

 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Used with the permission of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Planning something new?
Need a way to think it through before you get started?
Want to be able to show evidence of your success over time?

Have I got the tool for you! It is called a logic model, and it can help you design an initiative based on existing or new resources. It can also help you define your short, medium, and long-term expectations for the new initiative. All of that in one tool. Pretty amazing! Essentially, it helps define X and Y more clearly in the following statement:

“If I create X, then Y will happen.”

You will be able to fully flesh out what X is and how it will be resourced AND define Y; including how you will know when you have achieved it, and what success looks like. In addition, you will be able to determine over time whether the resources put toward the initiative should continue to be placed there, based on its success.

Of course, there are other uses for logic models, which include program redesign, introducing a new supervisor or staff member to your work, helping outsiders understand the theory and assumptions underlying your work, managing declining resources by connecting planning and assessment, and to “facilitate thinking, planning, and communications about program objectives and actual accomplishments.” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, p. III) This summer, Laura Santacrose and I worked with a student to develop a logic model for Cornell Minds Matter. For her, this was an excellent way to identify goals using a theoretical framework, an action plan, and outcomes based on existing resources.

“Basically, a logic model is a systematic and visual way to present and share your understanding of the relationships among the resources you have to operate your program, the activities you plan, and the changes or results you hope to achieve.” (Kellogg, p. 1) There are a variety of formats you could use to develop a logic model. The simplest is here.

The Kellogg Foundation published a Logic Model Development Guide that provides step-by-step instructions for how to build a logic model. There are many other resources available both at Cornell and electronically to support your creation of a model for your initiatives. Another resource is The Netway, a Cornell-developed tool for logic models and program development.

Now that you know a little bit about what a logic model is, my next post will be about how to use them, including some examples. If you are already using this approach, send me a note. I’d love to have you write a guest blog or share your own examples with our colleagues.

 

Resources:

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Used with the permission of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

Theories about staff development come in a variety of packages, and measuring staff effectiveness is an ongoing process for supervisors and human resources professionals. Much of what I have been reading recently is about creating more inclusive work environments where staff feel engaged and empowered to do their jobs. Specifically, I have looked at the following resources:

  1. The Outward Mindset by the Arbinger Institute
  2. Ryan Lombardi’s dissertation on person-organization and person-job fit
  3. Measuring the benefits of employee engagement” article by Kumar and Ansari
  4. Transformative learning theory” by Taylor

As we think about the culture of SCL and making SCL the place to work at Cornell, it is important for us to examine the components of work that bring staff satisfaction and success. Each of these resources addresses that in a slightly different way.

The Outward Mindset encourages all of us to approach our work with other people in mind. One example they provided in the book was in a hospital where a non-English speaker was a patient. There were no translators sought, and the patient became increasingly unmanageable. Once a staff member shifted the conversation toward the patient’s experience and away from the staff’s frustration, they were able to provide the patient with familiar foods, a translator, and the comfort and care necessary for healing. And then they were able to do that throughout the hospital, which changed the culture of the organization in a very positive direction.

Lombardi (2012) described five recommendations for improving person-organization fit:

  1. Create opportunities for advancement
  2. Provide monetary support for professional development
  3. Help staff who work directly with students find support for balancing their student commitments with their administrative tasks
  4. Recognize the importance of organization-job fit
  5. Appropriately prepare employees for professional life in student affairs

Similarly, Kumar and Pansari (2015) described five elements that contribute to staff engagement:

  • Employee satisfaction: “the positive reaction employees have to their overall job circumstances, including their supervisors, pay and coworkers” (p. 68)
  • Employee identification: “the emotional state in which employees identify as part of the organization” (p. 69)
  • Employee commitment: “A committed employee guards the organization’s secrets and works for its best interests” (p. 69)
  • Employee loyalty: “creates a positive attitude about the organization, which can motivate employees to do more than expected” (p. 69)
  • Employee performance: “can be seen in the quality of goods and services the company produces and in customer interactions and feedback” (p. 69)

Finally, Taylor (2008) describes transformative learning (the learning that happens in adulthood) as “the revision of a frame of reference in concert with reflection on experience” (p. 5). In other words, adults learn by taking their past experiences and reflecting on them to inform their current experiences. Both the reflection and the shifting of perception are required for learning to occur.

Perhaps one or more of these theories helps you think about how to support your staff to grow and develop as professionals. We will begin to see some tools emerge that will help us measure staff engagement and commitment so that we have data to inform our progress and where we need to put our energies as we continue to aim for higher engagement and better person-organization fit.

 

 

References cited:

Arbinger Institute (2016). The outward mindset: Seeing beyond ourselves. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kumar, V. & Pansari, A. (2015). Measuring the benefits of employee engagement. MITSloan Management Review, 56 (4). Reprint #56404 http://mitsmr.com/1R4Unsb

Lombardi, R. T. (2012). Examining the impact of fit on the job satisfaction of midlevel managers in student affairs. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/8284

Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008: 5–15. doi:10.1002/ace.301

What is the connection between student development theory and assessment? In many ways, they cannot be disconnected from each other. My next post will talk about staff development and other types of theories!

Here’s what some others have to say:

  • THEORIES “try to explain the way students develop, grow and mature during the years they are enrolled in a higher education institution (Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998)”
  • “DEVELOPMENT is a process in which individuals expand their capacities and present a growth in abilities and knowledge. This growth is based on experiences and can be psychological, social, and intellectual.” – Sonia Dávila-Cosme, slide 3
  •  “ASSESSMENT is the process of gathering and discussing information from multiple and diverse sources in order to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand, and can do with their knowledge as  a result of their educational experiences; the process culminates when assessment results are used to improve subsequent learning” (Huba & Freed, 2000, p. 8).

So, theory is one of the foundational documents that informs what we know about how students learn/what impacts student learning/development and leads to the development of programs and services designed to help students learn. This in turn guides our planning for how to measure/assess if they are learning what we expect them to learn. Once we have measured learning, we can identify whether we have been successful, and where we need to put our energies to improve learning and development.

Student and Campus Life: We Inspire Transformation

What do theories tell us about transformation in college? A lot! Here are a few:

  • Identity development (Chickering, Josselson, Cross, Helms, Phinney, Cass, D’Augelli, Schlossberg)
  • Cognitive development (Perry; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule; Baxter-Magolda; King and Kitchener)
  • Moral development (Kohlberg, Rest, Gilligan)

And here are some that describe how interventions/environment impact transformation:

  • Astin, Input-Environment-Outcome
  • Tinto, student departure/attrition
  • Pascarella, assessing change
  • Weidman, undergraduate socialization
  • Kuh, High Impact Practices

What theories inform your work? And how could you be using them more intentionally to assess the effectiveness of your programs and services? Let’s talk!

Reading the assigned materials about ethics, politics, and cultural competency in assessment in preparation for my assessment class this week, I became very agitated and annoyed. In a National Institute on Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) white paper about culturally responsive assessment, Montenegro and Jankowski (2017) define culturally responsive assessment as:

 … assessment that is mindful of the student populations the institution serves, using language that is appropriate for all students when developing learning outcomes, acknowledging students’ differences in the planning phases of an assessment effort, developing and/or using assessment tools that are appropriate for different students, and being intentional in using assessment results to improve learning for all students. Culturally responsive assessment involves being student-focused, which does not simply mean being mindful of students. (p. 10)

This definition makes sense to me, and begs the question, why isn’t this the definition of ASSESSMENT? Shouldn’t it be? Isn’t this what we are charged to do as student affairs professionals? At the core of student affairs is being student focused in our work. In order to do this, we need to think about all of our students, not just those who fit into one cultural framework. To me, Kitchner’s (Timm & Lloyd, 2013, p. 54) five principles of ethics in research and assessment and the definition of culturally responsive assessment are the same thing:

  • Respect autonomy (honor privacy, avoid coercion)
  • Do no harm (do not put students at risk)
  • Benefit others (fair treatment of all participants)
  • Be just (equal access and distribution of resources; impartiality)
  • Be faithful (revealing the truth)

So, I brought this frustration to class on Wednesday, to see how the students would respond to my thought process. We had a fantastic and robust discussion about the two concepts and concluded that the culturally responsive assessment definition is an internal process (how we think about our work) that should inform the more external process of ethical decision-making (how we do our work). We can’t separate the two and still make ethical decisions, can we?

I remain angry that we need to have a separate statement that reminds us of our responsibility to all of our students, AND I am also glad that it exists, since clearly we do need it. What do you think?

 

References cited:

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017, January). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment (Occasional Paper No. 29). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Timm, D. M, & Lloyd, J.  (2013). Ethical Assessment. In Timm, D. M., Davis Barham, J., McKinney, K., & Knerr, A. R. (Eds.). Assessment in Practice: A Companion Guide to the ASK Standards (pp. 54-62). Washington, DC: ACPA.

 

Student development theory is a critical component of learning outcomes assessment. It informs the design of both programs and assessments, and without it, we can be operating without a manual. Theory helps us answer the questions, “why are you doing this program this way? And what do you expect students to learn?” by providing guidelines about how students learn, grow, develop, identify and understand themselves and experience the world. Without it, we are challenged to describe and measure what we want students to learn.

Since I have been at Cornell, there has not been a strong focus on incorporating student development theory into our work with students primarily because of the amazing diversity of educational backgrounds all of us bring to our work. Many of us did not study college student development, and therefore have learned through practice what works and what does not. This practice is critical to our work as professionals, but without a conversation between practice and theory, we are missing an important piece of knowledge that can help us design programs and services that support the learning and developmental needs of our students.

Here is a chart that lists some of the key student development theories that have emerged in the last 50+ years of studying college students. Those theories that have been considered fundamental to the building of future theories were developed based on research on white men and were assumed to apply all people. Carol Gilligan was one of the first researchers to examine the relevance of these early theories to people other than white men. Instead of deciding that those who didn’t fit the particular theory were aberrations, she did her own research and developed a new theory, and in this act, she started a movement. Check out this interview of Gilligan. Since 1982, when Gilligan’s In a Different Voice was published, many theories about students from a variety of backgrounds have emerged. The most provocative theory I have found takes identity away from western psychology all together and describes black identity development through an Afrocentric lens. Check it out here.

We need to begin to incorporate learning about and using theory in our practice. How do we do this? I will begin by referring to relevant theories whenever I can in my work with you. I will also make resources available to help you apply theory to your work with students and your assessment of that work. And for those of you who have a background in student development theory, it is time to start talking about it with your peers! Let’s start a new movement in SCL to engage with theory and make it a part of our program planning and design. Are you with me?

This spring, I started working with my colleagues in Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) to explore ways to share more institutional data with you. As I hope you are aware, the university collects mountains of information primarily from our students, but also faculty, staff, and alumni. All of their surveys, results, and reports can be found here. If you take a few minutes to wander around their site, you will quickly see that there is so much information it is difficult to take it all in and make sense of it. I agree! I think we have the beginnings of a good plan for how we will open up the data to you in ways that we hope make them more useful (If not, please let me know what would be more useful!).

Here’s our plan so far:

Step One
Starting next Friday, April 21, William Searle (IRP) and I will be offering quarterly information-sharing presentations on strategic topics for SCL. The first one will be hosted by the Dean of Students Office during the first half of their staff meeting. You are invited to attend. The topic is

Genuine Sense of Belonging

Here are the details:

Date:     Friday, April 21, 2017
Time:     9:00 – 10:00 AM
Place:    Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I’d love to hear your ideas for future topics. As a reminder, our priorities are:

Health and Wellbeing
Diversity and Inclusiveness/Campus Climate
Student Housing and the Residential Experience
Career Development

If you’d like to have your unit host a future meeting on a specific topic, let me know that, too!

Step Two
I have begun cataloging all of the IRP surveys and tagging them with themes/topics so that we can sort both by theme and across surveys. This way, if you are interested in a particular topic, like belonging, you can search the surveys to see which ones have questions relating to that topic and also see the actual questions. This will take me some time, but once it is completed, I think it will be a really useful tool for us and the campus.

What else would be useful to you? Please send along your ideas and I’ll share them with our colleagues and see what is possible!! The more we can take advantage of this rich resource, the better off we’ll be (and we won’t be asking our students for information we already have!).

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Skip to toolbar