PRINT AS PDF
As Lehman College’s Institutional Effectiveness Coordinator, I develop an annual institutional effectiveness report each year. The report, which is completed in November, contains recurring items related to the College’s assessment process, its assessment activities, and its PMP outcomes. It also contains topical items in its appendices.
This year’s report followed the conclusion of the College’s successful Periodic Review Report (PRR) process. Therefore, the PRR outcome was discussed in the introduction to the report.
For an idea about the contents of such a report, the below chart contains an outline from my 2013-2014 report:
This year’s annual report contained a new indicator on the “Use of Technology” in response to the changes that have been taking place throughout Higher Education. With colleges and universities confronted by pressures to slow the growth in the cost of education, improve student learning outcomes, and boost retention and graduation rates, even as challenges confront primary and secondary education and the college population grows more diverse (ethnicity, age, prior work experience, etc.), technology offers the potential for colleges and universities to more effectively and efficiently meet those challenges and opportunities. At present, the major indicator on this topic is the percentage of FTEs offered partially or totally online (PMP Target 1.3). One of the related charts is below:
This report provides a snapshot of the year’s institutional effectiveness activities and outcomes. In general, an annual institutional effectiveness report can serve at least three purposes. First, it can sustain a focus on continual institutional improvement. Second, it can provide a source of information to myriad units concerning matters related to assessment, accreditation, and practices across the campus, helping reduce the impact of any “silo effect.” Third, it can help lay the groundwork for subsequent accreditation reporting, while providing a degree of evidence concerning the existence of a “culture of assessment.”