table of contents€¦ · we regularly e xceed people's expectations through creative programs...

Normandale Community College May 2015

Table of Contents INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 1 CATEGORY ONE: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN .......................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Common Learning Outcomes ................................................................................................................... 4

1P1: Processes ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1R1: Results .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1I1: Improvements ................................................................................................................................ 9

Program Learning Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 12 1P2: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 12 1R2: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 13 1I2: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 15

Academic Program Design ..................................................................................................................... 16 1P3: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 16 1R3: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 20 1I3: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 22

Academic Program Quality ..................................................................................................................... 22 1P4: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 22 1R4: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 25 1I4: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 26

Academic Student Support ..................................................................................................................... 26 1P5: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 26 1R5: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 32 1I5: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 36

Academic Integrity .................................................................................................................................. 37 1P6: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 37 1R6: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 39 1I6: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 41

CATEGORY TWO: MEETING STUDENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS ................................ 41 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 41 Current and Prospective Student Need ................................................................................................... 42

2P1: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 42 2R1: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 47 2I1: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 50

Retention, Persistence and Completion .................................................................................................. 50 2P2: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 50 2R2: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 53 2I2: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 55

Key Stakeholder Needs ........................................................................................................................... 55 2P3: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 55 2R3: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 57 2I3: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 58

Complaint Processes ............................................................................................................................... 58 2P4: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 58 2R4: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 60 2I4: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 61

Building Collaborations and Partnerships ............................................................................................... 61 2P5: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 61 2R5: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 63 2I5: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 64


CATEGORY THREE: VALUING EMPLOYEES ............................................................................................ 65 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 65 Hiring ...................................................................................................................................................... 66


Evaluation and Recognition .................................................................................................................... 72 3P2: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 72 3R2: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 75 3I2: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 76

Development ........................................................................................................................................... 77 3P3: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 77 3R3: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 80 3I3: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 81

CATEGORY FOUR: PLANNING AND LEADING .......................................................................................... 82 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 82 Mission and Vision ................................................................................................................................. 83


Strategic Planning ................................................................................................................................... 86 4P2: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 86 4R2: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 88 4I2: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 89

Leadership ............................................................................................................................................... 90 4P3: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 90 4R3: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 94 4I3: Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 95

Integrity ................................................................................................................................................... 95 4P4: Processes ..................................................................................................................................... 95 4R4: Results ........................................................................................................................................ 99 4I4: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 100

CATEGORY FIVE: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP .............................. 101 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 101 Knowledge Management ...................................................................................................................... 102

5P1: Processes ................................................................................................................................... 102 5R1: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 105 5I1: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 107

Resource Management .......................................................................................................................... 107 5P2: Processes ................................................................................................................................... 107 5R2: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 109 5I2: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 111

Operational Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 111 5P3: Processes ................................................................................................................................... 111 5R3: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 114 5I3: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 115

CATEGORY SIX: QUALITY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 115 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 115 Quality Improvement Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 116

6P1: Processes ................................................................................................................................... 116 6R1: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 120


6I1: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 121 Culture of Quality ................................................................................................................................. 122

6P2: Processes ................................................................................................................................... 122 6R2: Results ...................................................................................................................................... 123 6I2: Improvements ............................................................................................................................ 124


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW Founded in 1968 as a junior college, Normandale Community College (Normandale) is a public, nonprofit, nonresidential institution that grants associate’s degrees and certificates in the liberal arts and career programs. Situated in the highly populated southwest quadrant of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area, Normandale has an open admission policy and draws students from surrounding communities who come to the college because of its convenient location, affordable tuition, and rigorous programs that prepare them for successful completion of an award or transfer to a four-year institution. The college partners with local four-year institutions to provide a limited number of bachelor’s degrees on campus. We also provide non-credit continuing education services and customized training for business and industry. Normandale is part of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system, a legislatively-mandated statewide system made up of 24 two-year colleges and seven state universities. Normandale is the fourth-largest institution in MnSCU and the largest two-year institution, based on enrollments. Normandale serves over 14,000 credit students each year and over 6,000 non-credit students. Normandale has over 650 employees, including 186 unlimited full time (tenured) instructors, 173 adjunct instructors, and 305 staff. Table I-1 Student Profile, Fall 2012-Fall 2014

Category 2012 2013 2014 Full-time students 43% 43% 42% Part-time students 57% 57% 58% Full-time online students 9% 10% 12% Female 54% 54% 54% Male 45% 45% 45% Students of color 34% 35% 36% Under 25 65% 67% 68% Post-Secondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) students 8% 8% 9%

Normandale’s mission is to advance individuals’ intellectual, career, and personal development by providing outstanding teaching and support. Our vision is to be a recognized leader in academic excellence, student support, and community and workforce development. We are committed to accomplishing our mission and outcomes in ways consistent with the following values:

• Learning: We promote the learning and development of all members of the Normandale community.

• Service: We focus on meeting the needs of our students and community. • Integrity: We hold ourselves accountable to the communities we serve and seek to model

personal and intellectual integrity in all we do. • Excellence: We set and model high standards for students and our faculty, staff, and

administrators. • Stewardship: We use our natural, financial, and human resources effectively and respectfully. • Collaboration: We bring together the skills and knowledge from our students, faculty, staff,

administrators, and community partners. • Inclusiveness: We create a safe, inclusive, and diverse college community which values each

individual. • Innovation: We regularly exceed people's expectations through creative programs and services. • Data-enhanced decision making: We use data and our collective enterprise to inform our

decisions.

Page 1


Normandale’s quality journey: Normandale staff, faculty, and administrators have always had a strong culture of excellence and quality, so joining the AQIP pathway in 2007 was a natural fit. Since then, we have learned a lot about continuous quality improvement. AQIP has stretched us to examine our processes and improve them to become more systematic, aligned, and integrated. One of the biggest challenges to staying on the quality journey is culture change. While excellence and quality were always Normandale priorities, the formal processes for examining our work for improvement were new and sometimes challenged our assumptions. This led to resistance to improvements. Through best practices of being transparent and including many stakeholders in projects, we have changed our employees’ mindsets to better understand and embrace the AQIP model for accreditation. The largest and most impactful work on quality in the last four years has been our assessment of student learning (1P1). In our last portfolio, our assessment results were identified as outstanding opportunities for improvement. Two AQIP Action Projects have focused on creating and piloting a systematic, repeatable process for assessing college-wide (core) learning outcomes. This process is now established and regularly evaluated and improved. All academic programs now participate in assessment at all times and we require regular reports that include reflection on how the information gained in assessment work will be used to improve instruction. Normandale’s processes and results for knowledge management were also areas of outstanding opportunity in our last portfolio, particularly related to selecting, managing, and distributing data to support programs, services, and planning. In the past four years, we conducted a data needs assessment of the entire college, which resulted in the annual publication of our institutional Fact Book and construction of a data mart to provide employees with ready access to data. Improvements to academic program review and the development of a process for non-academic program review have also influenced our growth as a data-driven institution. One of the other biggest improvements to our quality culture in the last four years is our annual planning and budgeting process. It has been a key process improvement for integrating many aspects of the college’s work (4P2). This process integrates the work of departments across the college to ensure institutional objectives are met. This process was recently created and has been followed four times. Additionally, our AQIP quality journey has highlighted the need for resources to support this new culture. Two Human Resources business partner positions and a performance improvement associate position have been created in the last four years. These positions offer trainings that support all areas of the college in embracing continuous quality improvement and coordinate some of our processes directly related to continuous quality improvement (e.g. non-academic program review). We have plans to continue progressing toward increased levels of maturity across all areas of the college. In particular, we plan to improve processes for aligning AQIP action projects with strategic issues identified through AQIP processes, improve communication about the role and importance of the AQIP pathway as a culture of continuous quality improvement at Normandale, and develop more explicit guidelines for selecting project managers for AQIP action projects.

Page 2


CATEGORY ONE: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN Introduction Normandale has focused a great deal of attention on improving processes in this category, particularly in the areas of college-wide learning outcomes (including assessments) and redesign of academic support services. Assessing student learning was an outstanding opportunity in our last portfolio, and we therefore focused efforts on improvements in this area. Through a series of AQIP action projects, we developed four college-wide learning outcomes called the Core Learning Outcomes and a process for assessing them across all academic and relevant student affairs departments. Improvements to academic program review and the development of non-academic program review further developed our ability to determine the effectiveness of our programs helping students learn. The redesign of student support services as a result of our Blueprint for New Student Success and redesign of developmental reading, writing, and mathematics have begun impacting the success of our most at-risk students. Overall, our process maturity in this category is best described as reacting, although we have made progress toward systematic and even alignment in some areas. Core Learning Outcomes assessment now follows explicit, repeatable processes that we have begun to evaluate for improvement. The assessment team and assessment leaders cross institutional units. Processes for program review and Academic Affairs and Standards Council ensure academic program design and quality with aligned processes that clearly relate to institutional goals and strategies. Processes for ensuring academic integrity are systematic, with more repeatable processes in areas such as academic conduct and educating students on avoiding academic dishonesty. However, our processes for assessing the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum (MnTC) and processes for developing, maintaining, and assessing curricular program learning outcomes are still reactive. In the case of the MnTC, which is legislatively mandated and encompasses ten goal areas, we have not yet developed methods for meaningful assessment that are appropriate for our student population. In the case of curricular program learning outcomes, we have developed systematic processes for curriculum mapping and program review. Co-curricular programs are also in the process of developing program-level learning outcomes. The next step will be the development of our assessment database so that processes in this area will become systematic and well on the way to aligned. Overall, our results in this category are still reacting. While the assessment of Core Learning Outcomes results in the systematic collection and analysis of data, assessment of curricular program outcomes will remain reactive until the assessment database is created. This database will give us the ability to collect, aggregate, and analyze these results at various levels and across institutional units and move results in all areas toward integration. In the area of academic integrity, our recent adoption of the Maxient database to track conduct cases will give us the ability to collect, aggregate, and analyze data on academic misconduct and will improve our maturity in this area as well. A key improvement where we will focus future efforts is the creation of the assessment database. While the database is being developed and adjustments are being made in our learning management system to support the database, we are completing work on the development of curriculum maps that link course learning outcomes to program learning outcomes and Core Learning Outcomes. When this work is completed, our maturity in this category will advance significantly. Our recent improvements to academic support services have set the stage to more strongly connect these services to our efforts to increase student retention, persistence, and completion rates. As we collect trend data on the impact these services have on student success, we will be able to set targets and also begin disaggregating data to fine-tune services and target students who will benefit most from specific services.

Page 3


Common Learning Outcomes 1P1: Processes Determining and aligning common learning outcomes: Normandale has our own set of common, college-wide learning outcomes, which we call the Core Learning Outcomes (CLOs), as well as a set that are established by the state legislature, called the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum (MnTC). Our common learning outcomes are designed for every Normandale student, regardless of their academic goals. Prior to adoption of the Core Learning Outcomes, we had nine Philosophy of Liberal Education goals and eight co-curricular Student Development Outcomes. There were two notable problems with this approach. First, not all of the Liberal Education outcomes were truly college-wide (e.g. “actively engage in the performing arts”). Moreover, 17 learning outcomes would have been very difficult for us to assess. In Academic Year (AY) 2010, Normandale launched the first AQIP action project to determine and assess these college-wide learning outcomes. We conducted research into what other institutions were doing and held campus-wide conversations focused on streamlining 17 learning outcomes into a more manageable number that were truly college-wide. Our curriculum committee, the Academic Affairs and Standards Council (AA&SC), recommended adoption of four Core Learning Outcomes to the vice president of Academic Affairs and the president, who approved the recommendation. Through this vetting, stakeholders ensured the CLOs aligned with our mission, educational offerings, and degree levels. (3.B.1, 3.B.2) Normandale Core Learning Outcomes: Our students will…

• Think critically and creatively • Communicate effectively • Develop personal responsibility and life skills • Demonstrate social responsibility

These learning outcomes are well-aligned to our mission since they are all key components of intellectual, career, and personal development. Our mission does not speak to any unique educational experiences beyond those offered by a liberal arts and career education. Our mission and our Core Learning Outcomes provide the foundational skills and knowledge that will benefit students in their academic, personal, and career lives. We will revisit and, if necessary, revise our Core Learning Outcomes in conjunction with college-wide strategic planning every four years. We would also revisit them if we ever sought a change in our mission. (3.B.1, 3.B.2, 3.E.2, 4.B.1)

Articulating and assessing the common learning outcomes: The CLOs are communicated via our website to students and other stakeholders. We also post cards printed with the Core Learning Outcomes across campus. Assessment Leaders (Figure 1P1-1) are also central to communicating them to faculty and staff.

In AY2011, we launched another AQIP action project to develop a standard process for CLO assessment across academic and relevant student affairs departments. The team conducted extensive research, including literature reviews, investigation of exemplary two- and four-year institutions’ practices, and the practices of other MnSCU institutions. They sought input from internal stakeholders both prior to and during the development of the Core Learning Outcomes assessment process. One of the key findings of the stakeholder interviews was that faculty and student affairs professionals felt strongly that this process should be driven by the departments rather than by administration. The resulting Core Learning Outcomes assessment process reflects the team’s learning. Prior to launching the assessment process, we vetted and secured endorsement of it from Barbara Walvoord, Ph.D., a nationally recognized consultant on assessment and author of Assessment Clear and Simple: A Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education. The Core Learning Outcomes assessment process is described below. (4.B.4)

Page 4


All departments that claim learning as an outcome of their work (all academic programs and some student affairs programs) must continually investigate a question about student learning that is connected to one or more of the Core Learning Outcomes. The department selects which Core Learning Outcome it wants to assess, how to assess it, and a timeline that reflects the complexity of the work required. Departments determine what constitutes evidence of the CLO within their disciplines as part of this process. Departments need to assess one Core Learning Outcome at all times but may assess more than one simultaneously if they choose. Department assessment leaders (described below) submit status reports on their departments’ work in October and February, providing updates to the following:

• The question(s) about student learning they will investigate • The related Core Learning Outcome(s) • Their plan for collecting student learning data • Collection of the data • Analysis of the data • Decisions about how to proceed based on their analysis of the data (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.3, 4.B.4)

Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning: The Office of Student Affairs and the co-curricular programs it provides play a significant role in student achievement of the Core Learning Outcomes. Student Affairs promotes and supports Normandale’s mission through high quality, learning-centered services and programs that enhance the development and success of students. The division’s activities are guided by Normandale’s mission and developed in response to student characteristics and needs. Through close collaboration, Student Affairs works with the Office of Academic Affairs to identify specific co-curricular needs and design programs to address them. The Student Affairs departments that participate in CLO assessments are Advising and Counseling, Student Life, Office for Students with Disabilities, Tutoring Center, Veterans’ Resources Center, and Center for Experiential Education. (3.E.1, 4.B.4, 4.B.2)

Central to Core Learning Outcomes assessment are the assessment leaders. Each academic department has a department assessment leader (32 in all), as do each of the afore-mentioned Student Affairs departments (six in all). Additionally, we have seven division assessment leaders (at least one for each academic division and one for the Student Affairs division). Leaders serve renewable two-year terms and are responsible for facilitating the assessment work of their departments (Figure 1P1-1). Many more faculty and staff are involved in assessment than shown in the figure, through their work with their department and division assessment leaders. (4.B.4)

Figure 1P1-1: The Assessment Leaders and Assessment Team (--- denotes assessment team)

Student Learning Assessment Coordinator

Business and Library Division

Leader

Department Leaders (3)

Social Sciences Division Leader


Humanities Division Leader


STEM/Ed Division Leader


Health Sciences Division Leader


Student Affairs Division Leader


VP of Student Affairs

VP of Academic Affairs

Director of Research 1 Academic

Dean

Page 5


Normandale provides training for all first-time assessment leaders. We developed a handbook for the leaders that covers the basics of good practices in assessment and our Core Learning Outcomes assessment process. The student learning assessment coordinator also conducts an in-person orientation with all new leaders. Annually, we ask leaders what additional support they need and assist them if possible. For example, in AY2013, many leaders were requesting help with change management, so we contracted with a subject matter expert to deliver a two-part workshop in AY2014. (4.B.4) The assessment team (Figure 1P1-1) was formed to support the Core Learning Outcomes assessment process and to guide other assessment-related initiatives and ongoing assessment work. It meets once every three weeks. The student learning assessment coordinator is a faculty member who has full release from teaching to coordinate the college’s assessment work and chair the team. (4.B.4) We successfully piloted the Core Learning Outcomes assessment process in AY2012. This pilot was the third and final action project related to the Core Learning Outcomes. We have presented on our assessment process three times: in 2012 at the Assessment Institute annual conference hosted by Indiana University-Purdue and at the MnSCU Academic and Student Affairs Officers annual conference; and in 2013 at the HLC annual conference in Chicago. The value of the good practices that we employ in our assessment is evidenced by the acceptance of each of our conference presentation proposals. (4.B.4) Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess attainment of common learning outcomes: In addition to our direct assessment, Normandale administers the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) every two years. The CCSSE is based on decades of research that show engaged students are more likely to persist and complete a degree while in college. In 2011, when Barbara Walvoord was on campus for our CLO assessment process launch, one of the things that she told us was that we should use our CCSSE data to supplement our direct assessment of learning outcomes. We now track nine CCSSE questions that relate to students’ self-reporting on their achievement of the Core Learning Outcomes (Tables 1R1-1, 1R1-2, 1R1-3). (4.B.2, 4.B.4) Minnesota Transfer Curriculum: Our general education requirements are legislatively mandated for all public institutions of higher education in Minnesota and are called the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum (MnTC). The MnTC was specifically designed to ensure ease of transfer for students attending state colleges and universities. This benefits students because credit for courses that are part of the transfer curriculum are accepted by any other Minnesota Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) institution as credit in the goal area designated by the sending institution. These courses are also often accepted by the University of Minnesota (our largest transfer-out institution) and many private colleges. (3.B.2) Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes: There are ten goals in the transfer curriculum, and each goal has between four and seven associated competencies that have been established by MnSCU, so both the learning content and the associated level of learning for each competency are pre-determined. For a course to meet a goal, it must satisfy at least 51% of the associated competencies. There are two exceptions: Goal One, effective communication, can only be met by completion of Freshman Composition and one of four Communications courses; and Goal Two, critical thinking, is met by completion of the 40-credit transfer curriculum (Table 1P1-1). (3.B.2, 4.B.1) Table 1P1-1: MnTC Goals and Normandale Course Offering Count

Minnesota Transfer Curriculum Goals Number of Program Areas Offering Goal Goal 1: Communication 2 Goal 2: Critical Thinking All Goal 3: Natural Sciences 5 Goal 4: Mathematical/Logical Reasoning 3

Page 6


Goal 5: History and the Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 Goal 6: The Humanities and Fine Arts 11 Goal 7: Human Diversity 10 Goal 8: Global Perspective 18 Goal 9: Ethical and Civic Responsibility 12 Goal 10: People and the Environment 8

There are three MnTC goal areas specifically related to human and cultural diversity: Goal Seven (Human Diversity), Goal Eight (Global Perspective), and Goal Nine (Ethical and Civic Responsibility). A student must take one course from each of these goal areas to complete an Associate of Arts degree or the MnTC. Normandale offers 123 courses that meet one of these goals. (3.B.4) Aligning common outcomes and ensuring their relevancy: At Normandale, academic departments planning to add, remove or change MnTC goals in a course do so via our AA&SC curriculum proposal process (1P3), which requires identification of the goals that the course supports. All courses in a discipline undergo a thorough review for currency and relevance, including a review of associated MnTC goals, every four years as part of the academic program review cycle (1P3). (3.B.1, 3.B.2)

Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes: Students complete at least some of the MnTC as part of their coursework in pursuit of a degree. Per MnSCU procedure 3.36.1, at least three goals must be completed to earn an Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degree, six goals for the Associate of Science (AS), and all ten goals for all Associate of Arts (AA) degrees. The goal areas that are required for the AS and AAS vary by emphasis. We also offer Associates of Fine Art in Art, Creative Writing, Music, Theatre Performance, and Theatre Production and Design, and MnTC goal completion requirements vary across them as well. (3.B.3, 3.B.5) Information about the MnTC is communicated to students in a number of ways, including in the college catalog (both print and online), during advising and registration, by counselors and advisors in one-on-one meetings with students, and in common course outlines and course syllabi. (3.B.2) 1R1: Results Core Learning Outcomes assessment: We are now in our fourth year of using the assessment process. In that time, participating departments have documented 87 projects about student learning related to the Core Learning Outcomes, falling into three basic categories:

• Related questions: 74% were directly related to a course or program student learning outcome. • Preparatory work: 10% were related to reviewing and revising course or program learning

outcomes or similar preparatory work. • Unrelated questions: 16% were questions that may be important to a program, but aren’t directly

related to student learning. (4.B.2)

The assessment team was not surprised by the number of unrelated projects because we track departments’ work via regular communication with department assessment leaders and via their status reports. Initially, we purposefully took a hands-off approach to guiding the assessment process because we were concerned about departments interpreting any unasked-for guidance as evidence that the initiative was being driven by the administration. However, in fall 2014 we began work on reducing the number of projects in the “unrelated” category through more targeted assistance and guidance (1I1). Sixty-four questions related directly to student learning outcomes. Figure 1R1-1 depicts the percent of the related questions that assessed each Core Learning Outcome. The total of all percentages exceeds 100%

Page 7

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/336p1.html


because some student learning questions address more than one outcome. The assessment team is very interested in the distribution of questions and will bring this information to the college community next year for discussion. (3.B.4) Figure 1R1-1: Percent of Questions Related to Each Core Learning Outcome

Figure 1R1-2 shows the results of assessment projects that were directly related to one or more student learning outcomes. The total of all percentages exceeds 100% because some assessments fall into multiple categories. In all instances except those that were abandoned without follow-through, departments’ assessment work conforms to good practices and has either confirmed satisfactory levels of student learning or has led to improvements and re-assessment. In fall 2014 we began work to more proactively address the issue of projects that were started but abandoned (1I1). (4.B.3) Figure 1R1-2: Status of Student Learning Questions: Fall 2011 - 2014

Normandale uses the CCSSE as another tool for evaluating students’ attainment of the Core Learning Outcomes. Specifically, we identified nine questions related to the CLOs (Table 1R1-1). Table 1R1-1: CCSSE Questions Mapped to Normandale Core Learning Outcomes

How much has your experience at this college contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas? Core Learning Outcome

a. Writing clearly and effectively Effective Communication b. Speaking clearly and effectively Effective Communication c. Thinking critically and analytically Critical and Creative Thinking d. Using computing and information technology Personal Responsibility e. Working effectively with others Personal Responsibility f. Learning effectively on your own Personal Responsibility g. Understanding yourself Personal Responsibility

10%

12%

16%

18%

30%

33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Re-assessments

Dissatisfied with results, new interventions

Abandoned/no follow-through

Modification(s) to plan

Satisfied with results, continue interventions

On-going

9%

14%

38%

61%

Social Responsibillity

Effective Communication

Personal Responsibility and Life Skills

Critical and Creative Thinking

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Page 8


h. developing a personal code of values and ethics Personal Responsibility i. Contributing to the welfare of your community Social Responsibility

Table 1R1-2 depicts the change in our composite CCSSE results related to the Core Learning Outcomes. There was a significant jump in 2012 over 2010, which correlates to the launch of our CLO assessment process and the promotion of the CLOs. The assessment team believes that these numbers reflect the initial emphasis that we placed on the Core Learning Outcomes to students, and that the level of emphasis has been largely unchanged since their introduction. (4.B.2, 4.B.4) Table 1R1-2: Composite CCSSE Results Related to Student Learning

Core Learning Outcome (CCSSE question(s) in parenthesis)

Composite 2010 Mean1

Composite 2012 Mean

Composite 2014 Mean

Change 2010 to 2014

Critical and Creative Thinking (c) 2.79 2.95 2.97 +0.18 Effective Communication (a, b) 2.58 2.66 2.67 +0.09 Personal Responsibility (d-h) 2.24 2.66 2.65 +0.41 Social Responsibility (i) 1.88 2.07 2.08 +0.20

We also benchmark our scores against those of other large colleges (Table 1R1-3). Our current focus is on improving our own results over time although it is notable that our results do not differ significantly from those of other large colleges. (4.B.2, 4.B.4) Table 1R1-3: Composite CCSSE Results Normandale vs. Other Large Colleges, 2014

Core Learning Outcome (CCSSE question(s) in parenthesis)

Normandale Mean2

Other Large Colleges Mean Difference

Critical and Creative Thinking (c) 2.97 2.96 +0.01 Effective Communication (a, b) 2.67 2.75 -0.08 Personal Responsibility (d-h) 2.65 2.69 -0.04 Social Responsibility (i) 2.08 2.06 +0.02

1I1: Improvements Assessing the Core Learning Outcomes: In AY2015, the assessment team developed and deployed an executive summary template to summarize each department’s CLO assessment project. The template requires a department to respond very specifically to the six status report questions described in 1P1. We explicitly tell departments that simply discussing the findings does not constitute acceptable action. They must decide to either make some kind of change or maintain the status quo. They are also prompted to identify any lessons learned as part of the project. (4.B.3, 4.B.4)

The assessment team also began offering the new executive summary format to department assessment leaders to use for their half-yearly assessment status reports as well, since the new format is more directive and therefore more likely to promote good assessment work. We will make adjustments to the format based on their feedback and will transition all departments to this format in AY2016. Now that departments have become comfortable with the assessment process we are in a position to be more directive in our assistance to departments. The assessment team has identified four common areas of weakness in departments’ assessment work:

• Asking a question that doesn’t relate specifically to a student learning outcome • Starting a project and abandoning it without explanation

1 Scale: 1 = “Very little” / 2 = “Some” / 3 = “Quite a bit” / 4 = “Very much” 2 Scale: 1 = “Very little” / 2 = “Some” / 3 = “Quite a bit” / 4 = “Very much”

Page 9


• Asking a question that was too large in scope to be actionable • Creating a flawed data collection plan (e.g. data doesn’t address the question or isn’t actionable)

To begin to address these problems, we have developed a checklist with nine criteria for good practices in assessment, seven of which address these common weaknesses. Departments now use the checklist in planning and executing their CLO assessment work. (4.B.4) We are also seeing more requests for guidance in defining the Core Learning Outcomes. Currently we offer the relevant Association of American Colleges and Universities’ Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) rubrics to departments who request more detail. However, the assessment team has begun to monitor the number and nature of requests from departments who are asking for more guidance and will develop a plan for providing additional guidance if there is sufficient demand. (3.B.2, 4.B.4) Communicating the Core Learning Outcomes: We have identified an opportunity to improve communication with our stakeholders regarding the CLOs. In AY2016, the assessment team will launch a CLO awareness-building campaign that will be directed at students and all employees. To ensure that students are aware of the CLOs, the assessment team will submit a proposal to the AA&SC in AY2016 that will require inclusion of the Core Learning Outcomes in the course syllabus. We will also create a sample syllabus that demonstrates how faculty can connect the CLOs to the learning outcomes for their courses and a list of resources they can use to help students connect coursework to the CLOs. (3.B.2, 4.B.4) For employees, particularly faculty and student affairs staff, CCSSE data will play a role in the assessment team’s campaign. The team’s goals are to start a campus-wide discussion about the relative importance of each of the CLOs, to encourage faculty and relevant student affairs professionals to identify through research-based inquiry and incorporate more activities that promote achievement of the CLOs into the student experience both in and out of the classroom, and to be explicit with students about why they are asked to do what we ask them to do. (4.B.3, 4.B.4)

Normandale has a great deal to communicate to internal and external stakeholders regarding our progress in the assessment of student learning at all levels. In academic year 2016 the student learning assessment coordinator will develop an assessment presence on the college website so that it conforms to the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s Transparency Guidelines. Curriculum mapping: In AY2014, a project team developed a standard process and supporting resources that all academic departments now use to map the course student learning outcomes to the learning outcomes for their degrees and certificates, and the degree/certificate outcomes to the Core Learning Outcomes (Tables 1I1-1, 1I1-2). All academic departments will complete the initial curriculum maps by the end of fall semester 2015. In AY2016, the assessment team will sponsor a curriculum proposal requiring that curriculum maps be included in proposals for both new programs and changes to existing programs. Table 1I1-1: Sample Curriculum Map for AA with Emphasis in Geography, Program Learning Outcomes to Core Learning Outcomes

Critical

Thinking Effective

Communication Personal

Responsibility Social

Responsibility 1) Advocate for the distinctiveness and value of a geographical X X X X

Page 10


perspective for understanding our world 2) Use appropriate tools including maps, remotely sensed images, tabular data and graphs to analyze problems from a spatial perspective X X 3) Portray the fundamental interrelatedness of bio/physical systems and socio/cultural systems X X X X 4) Interpret a social, economic, or environmental interaction and interdependence between world regions X X x

Table 1I1-2: Sample Curriculum Map, Human Geography Course Learning Outcomes to Program Learning Outcomes

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 1) Select and use appropriate maps, census and other statistical data to critically analyze geographical problems practically and conceptually X 2) Use concepts of spatial organization such as distribution and diffusion to interpret the world’s culture and their landscapes X X 3) Critically evaluate alternative solutions for instances around the world in which cultural, economic, and political change that is rooted in historical geographic processes has resulted in economic disparity, conflict and suffering X X 4) Critique a variety of conceptual perspectives surrounding the dynamics of human population – its cultural traditions, diseases, languages, religious faiths, and livelihoods X 5) Describe the interrelationships between cultures and physical environments X 6) View oneself as an integral part of humankind, sharing responsibility for its welfare X x

Course learning outcomes are reviewed every year. Beginning in 2015, program learning outcomes and the associated curriculum maps will be reviewed (and revised, if necessary) as part of the academic program review cycle (1P3) to ensure that awards address each of the Core Learning Outcomes to the degree appropriate. (4.B.1) Assessment database: These curriculum maps will form the basis for an assessment database to help us better understand student achievement of both program-level outcomes and the Core Learning Outcomes via course-embedded direct assessment. It was noted in our 2011 portfolio that we need to be more systematic in the gathering and use of assessment data. We now provide training, reinforce good assessment practices, and ensure data is used to inform improvements to teaching and related co-curricular activities. Our next step is to improve student learning by capturing and aggregating student learning data through an assessment database. (4.B.1, 4.B.3) In 2014, a project team conducted a pilot to track achievement of student learning outcomes in our learning management system (LMS) for three courses. Since our LMS license is for the MnSCU system, MnSCU is working with LMS company technologists to develop the analytics that will enable us to aggregate information across course sections to understand and improve student achievement of course- and program-level outcomes and the Core Learning Outcomes. We intend to have the data schema and a

Page 11


plan in place so that we will be ready when the analytics become available. Developing this database is a college priority, as reflected in the student learning assessment coordinator’s work plan and budget of $10,000 per year for this fiscal year and the next. We have also added a database architect position that will be responsible for providing support in this area. (4.B.1, 4.B.4) Minnesota Transfer Curriculum: We know that the awarding of a degree or completion of the transfer curriculum does not constitute true evidence of student learning. While it is difficult to assess the extent of students’ achievement of the MnTC because very few of our students move through programs as a cohort, we have mapped the competencies associated with each of the MnTC goals to the Core Learning Outcomes and determined that students who complete the MnTC have engaged in learning associated with each of the CLOs. (4.B.1, 4.B.4)

Program Learning Outcomes 1P2: Processes We define an academic program in MnSCU Procedure 3.36.1 as “a cohesive arrangement of college level credit courses and experiences designed to accomplish predetermined objectives leading to the awarding of a degree, diploma, or certificate.” Normandale’s academic programs include Associates in Art (17), Associates in Science (14), Associates in Applied Science (7), Associates in Fine Arts (5), and certificates (26). A full list of our programs can be found on our Degrees and Certificates webpage. Our mission does not make any special claims about our students’ educational experience beyond those offered by a liberal arts and career education. (3.E.2) Determining, aligning, and articulating purposes of program outcomes and ensuring they remain relevant: Normandale uses two key processes to determine program outcomes; align them to our mission, educational offerings, and degree levels; articulate the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes; and ensure that they remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs. These processes, outlined below, are curriculum mapping and academic program review. Curriculum mapping: In AY2014 we began mapping the student learning outcomes from the course level to the program level and from the program level to the Core Learning Outcomes for each award that we offer. This is foundational work for our assessment of program learning outcomes. As part of this process, we identified programs for which there were no program learning outcomes and program faculty were charged with crafting them. As of AY2015, 64 of 69 awards have associated program learning outcomes (Table 1R2-1), and some programs have begun assessing program learning outcomes as part of their assessment of CLOs. We will complete the initial curriculum mapping, including writing learning outcomes for the five remaining programs, in fall 2015. We have mapped the MnTC to the CLOs, and students who complete the MnTC will have experienced courses in three goal areas related to multiculturalism and human diversity. (3.B.4, 4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4) Academic program review: The other process for determining program outcomes, articulating their purposes, and ensuring that outcomes remain relevant is academic program review (1P3). Academic program review requires an assessment section that addresses assessment of student learning outcomes at all levels (course, program, and Core Learning Outcomes). While programs are not currently required to conduct program-level assessment work, we encourage them to do so as part of their CLO assessment work. Programs also report on their Core Learning Outcomes and how course-, degree-, certificate-, and/or program-level outcomes align to the CLOs via the curriculum maps, which will be required as part of the program review. As we operationalize the assessment database, we will revisit the requirements for program review to reflect the work that the database allows them to do. (4.B.1)

Page 12


http://www.normandale.edu/degrees-and-certificates


Programs requiring licensure or registration: The Community Health Worker and Navigator, Dietetic Technology, Dental Hygiene, Law Enforcement, Nursing, and Nursing Assistant programs each have program competencies or learning outcomes that are externally mandated, and all but two systematically assess their learning outcomes. Some of these programs do, in addition, write their own program learning outcomes and fold the mandated outcomes or competencies into them. (4.B.1, 4.B.2) Co-curricular programs: Normandale’s co-curricular programs are part of the Office of Student Affairs and include Phi Theta Kappa, Student Senate, Program Board, clubs, Lions’ Roar student newspaper, volunteering, and Leadership through Service. Our college mission and strategic plan give overall direction to our co-curriculum. With the exception of clubs, which exist solely on the basis of student interest, every program surveys its key constituent stakeholders as part of regular, data-driven evaluation. The results of these surveys, other data collected, its analysis, and resulting changes to programs are documented in both annual work plans (4P2) and non-academic program reviews (6P1). (3.E.1) In AY2012, the co-curricular program staff developed a common survey instrument to measure the impact on student learning that resulted from participation in their programs and to connect that learning to the four Core Learning Outcomes. They use the instrument to measure student participants’ self-reported development in the following areas (associated Core Learning Outcome in parentheses):

• Problem solving (critical and creative thinking) • Communication: verbal, written and listening (effective communication) • Interpersonal skills: ability to interact with others, to work as part of a group (personal

responsibility and life skills) • Leadership (personal responsibility and life skills) • Time management (personal responsibility and life skills) • Social responsibility: civic engagement, service to the community, respect for cultural, religious,

lifestyle differences and differing viewpoints (social responsibility) (3.E.1, 4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Selecting the tools, methods, and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes: In the academic division, we do not yet have a systematic process for program-level learning outcome assessment. As discussed in 1I1, this will be addressed through the new curriculum mapping process and assessment database. Using our learning management system, we will have the ability to collect and aggregate data on the course-embedded assessments to determine the extent of student achievement of learning outcomes. This data will be used to continually improve achievement of learning outcomes at all levels, from course-specific up to program and college-wide. (4.B.2, 4.B.3) 1R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: We track the number of awards with program learning outcomes, the number of programs assessing program learning outcomes, and co-curricular assessments of student learning. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Normandale has been focused on ensuring that all academic programs have program learning outcomes (Table 1R2-1) and that they will be regularly reviewed for relevance, appropriate content, and level of learning. Table 1R2-1: Academic Programs with Program Learning Outcomes

Award Type Number of

Awards Number with Program

Learning Outcomes Percent with Program

Learning Outcomes Associate in Liberal Arts 1 1 100% Associate in Arts with Emphasis 16 16 100%

Page 13


Associate in Science 14 13 93% Associate in Fine Arts 5 5 100% Associate in Applied Science 7 6 86% Certificate 26 23 88% Total 69 64 93% (4.B.1) Assessing academic program learning outcomes: As discussed elsewhere, some departments are engaged in assessment of program-level outcomes as part of the Core Learning Outcomes assessment work, but this not systematic. Since the Core Learning Outcomes assessment work began, nine academic departments have asked 14 program-level assessment questions. (4.B.2) A relatively small number of our students are awarded a degree or certificate by the college, while many transfer to a four-year institution without completing an award here (2R2). Of the ASs, AASs, and certificates that are conferred here, programs requiring licensure or registration to work in the field after graduation account for a large number. From AY2009-2013 we had the following distribution:

• AS in Nursing, Law Enforcement, or Dental Hygiene: 59% of all ASs (732 awards) • AAS in Diet Technology: 24% of all AASs (67 awards) • Nursing Assistant Certificate: 89% of all certificates (959 awards)

Our students consistently out-perform our comparison groups in programs requiring licensure (Table 1R2-2). The data is provided by different bodies and may cover varying time periods, but the comparison between Normandale and other students is consistent in each category.

Table 1R2-2: Normandale and Comparison Pass Rates

Award Normandale Comparison AS, Nursing 90% 86% AS, Law Enforcement 96% 92% AS, Dental Hygiene 90-100% Not Available AAS, Dietetic Technology 79% 63% Certificate, Nursing Assistant/Home Health Aide 84-90% Not Available Peace Officer 95.8% 90.6%

Assessing co-curricular program learning outcomes: We currently survey all student staff members in the co-curricular programs, as well as participants in Phi Theta Kappa, Student Senate, Program Board, and Leadership through Service. Table 1R2-3 identifies the percent of students who reported an increase in their abilities for each of the survey items on the post-experience test compared to the pre-test. Program staff are continuing with the survey this year so we will have trend data. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4) Table 1R2-3: Student Life Assessment Results AY2014

Skill Area % Reporting an Increase

Self-confidence in ability to work with others, problem solving, conflict resolution 91.8% Ability to communicate in a variety of ways 79.1% Time management skills 81.4% Social responsibility – engagement with the community 75.0% Social responsibility – involvement on campus 80.7% Felt more connected to Normandale because of the position they held 94.5% Appreciation for cultural, religious, differing viewpoints, and lifestyle differences 76.3%

Page 14


Developed skills in student life that will transfer into a career 98.2% 1I2: Improvements Starting in AY2016, review of curriculum maps will be a required component of academic program review. Programs will conduct a thorough review of the course and program learning outcomes for relevance, appropriate content, level of learning, and alignment, and any changes that emerge will be included in the planned initiatives section of the review. (4.B.1) Program learning outcomes are not currently a required component of curriculum proposals for new programs or changes to existing programs. In AY2016, the assessment team will submit a curriculum proposal to the AA&SC (our curriculum committee) to require them for these types of proposals. (4.B.1) The curriculum mapping process is a critical first step in the development of our assessment database. As part of the database development, we have made a number of determinations. First, because of the characteristics of our students (e.g. very few move through as a cohort and may not take courses in an established sequence) capstone assessments are not currently a viable option for most programs. At this time, course- or experience-embedded assessments make the most sense for us and our students. (4.B.4) Second, our faculty and student affairs professionals are the subject matter experts, and so are best qualified to create or choose the appropriate instruments for assessment. Using our learning management system will allow us to link unique individual assessed course activities to course, program, and the Core Learning Outcomes. We will start building these connections with academic programs because all academic courses already exist in the LMS and instructors are familiar with it. What we learn with academic programs will help us understand how to incorporate the relevant co-curricular programs. The graphic below is an example using the Certificate in International Business. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4) Figure 1I2-1: Course Assessments Mapped to Course, Program, and Core Learning Outcomes

Core Learning Outcome: Students will demonstrate social

responsibility.

Program Learning Outcome: Students will be able to identify business opportunities and challenges posed by the growing

interdependence of countries.

Course Learning Outcome: Students will be able to identify key cultural determinants and their potential

impact on organizations.

Section 1 Course Assessment: case

study

Section 2 Course Assessment: exam

essay question

Section 3 Course Assessment: presentation

Page 15


Instructors for individual course sections will be able to capture student achievement of all three levels of learning outcomes. We will be able to aggregate data across not just course sections, but all of the courses whose learning outcomes contribute to the achievement of program learning outcomes, to systematically understand the extent of student achievement of program and Core Learning Outcomes and work to improve it. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.3, 4.B.4) Co-curricular programs: Co-curricular programs will continue using the pre-, mid- and post-experience surveys. They will also begin to conduct formal one-on-one meetings with students after they complete their mid-year self-assessments. The purpose will be to review the student’s self-reported results, identify areas of strength and weakness, and develop a customized development plan for the student for the remainder of the year. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.3, 4.B.4) In AY2016 we will build out the instructions regarding program learning outcomes and their assessment in non-academic program review. This will be required for the student affairs departments that are currently assessing student learning related to the Core Learning Outcomes. (4.B.1)

Academic Program Design 1P3: Processes Normandale’s mission, vision, and strategic plan all reflect our commitment to providing a relevant education that supports students’ academic and career goals as well as the workforce development needs of our community. Normandale’s academic master plan, which was reviewed and revised in 2014, also provides direction in the planning and evaluation of new and existing academic programs. Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs: Our students have a wide variety of backgrounds and educational goals. Our enrollment planning process (2P2, 4P2) is part of our ongoing environmental scanning process to identify demographic, economic, and other trends that may impact our current or future enrollment and the make-up of our student body. This process is the first step in ensuring our programs meet the needs of our increasingly diverse community. (1.C.1) The process for identifying current student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs includes an analysis of student self-identification at admission, student declarations of a major, student placement testing results, and a review of trends in student retention and completion. On their applications, students identify themselves as degree-seeking or non-degree seeking or an occupational certificate student and also identify their areas of interest or degree emphasis. Our students typically fall into one or more of the following broad groupings:

• Students planning to transfer to a four-year institution • Students enrolled in career-track degree programs • Students seeking certificates • Students requiring developmental courses prior to beginning college-level courses • Students attending Normandale to complete a limited number of specific courses to apply to

programs/degrees being completed elsewhere • Students pursuing personal interests

We have determined the only students whose academic needs are not met solely by the design of current and rigorous academic programs are those placing into developmental education courses. While developmental education does not meet MnSCU’s definition of an academic program as described in 1P2, we consider it to be a part of academic programming because without it a significant portion of our students would not be able to progress to a college-level academic program.

Page 16


Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs: To ensure our academic programs remain current and prepare students for transfer and careers, we gather input from a variety of key stakeholder groups including program advisory boards, national accrediting bodies, articulating programs, professional and community organizations, and MnSCU. The key processes for identifying individuals and organizations that fall into these groups are ongoing environmental scanning and academic program review. (4.A.1) Some key stakeholder groups are mandated by external sources. For example, MnSCU Policy 3.30 and Procedure 3.30.1 guide our processes for advisory boards and committees and state that credit-based academic programs that lead to preparation for initial or continued employment shall have an advisory board. Normandale policy 8.3 directs the purpose, membership, structure, governance, scheduling, planning, communication, documentation, and evaluation of advisory committees. Normandale has seven career programs with advisory boards: Dental Hygiene, Dietetic Technology, Nursing, Education, Vacuum Technology, Accounting, Business and Hospitality Management. Our Continuing Education/Customized Training department has an advisory board as well. Advisory boards provide input on program design and help to align programs to business and industry needs. This input ensures that our programs are current and of sufficient rigor to prepare our students for the work place. Accreditation and accrediting bodies, through their academic requirements, ensure program currency and rigor and are taken into consideration in program design and review. Normandale has 10 accredited programs: Dental Hygiene, Dietetic Technology, Nursing, Theatre, Music, Art and Design, and four Business degrees (Marketing and Management-AAS, Marketing Management-AS, Hospitality Management-AAS and Computers/Information Management-AAS). We actively partner with four-year institutions to facilitate our students’ successful transfer to baccalaureate degree programs. To ensure that our students can transfer with minimal barriers, we design our academic programs to meet the receiving institutions’ requirements. This influences academic program design in the areas of content and rigor. Different types of degrees have different articulation requirements. Our process is to work first with a four-year MnSCU institution to develop articulation agreements, and then with institutions outside of MnSCU when no appropriate MnSCU program exists or in addition to MnSCU articulations. Career track programs also include articulation agreements where appropriate. MnSCU requirements dictate articulation and program length. Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs: The primary process for regular review and continuous improvement of academic programs is program review. Every academic department conducts a comprehensive program review every four years. We emphasize that the purpose of academic program review is reflection and planning meaningful action for the coming four years. In response to department requests for more guidance and to improve the overall quality of program reviews, we redesigned the process to be more specific and provide more support. (4.A.1) The required elements of academic program review include:

• Information related to faculty, such as credential fields, courses taught, and service to the college • Alignment of program activities and offerings with the college mission and strategic plan • Degrees, certificates and courses offered • Student success and persistence information • Program efficiency measures • Reporting on the prior program review planned work • Student learning assessment activities undertaken • Initiatives for the coming three to four years

Page 17

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/330.html


http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/83-advisory-committees


(4.A.1)

As part of our review of degrees, certificates and courses, faculty look externally for direction regarding relevance, content, and level of learning from the following stakeholders:

• Requirements of our transfer institutions • Industry or other professional associations to which they belong • Community workforce partners and potential employers • Department advisory boards (if they have them) • External accrediting and licensing bodies • Offerings of competitor institutions (particularly in MnSCU) • Economic, regulatory, technological and socio-demographic changes (4.A.1)

Programs that maintain additional accreditations may satisfy our required academic program review components through accreditation work. We have created an index that they can use to cross-walk the accreditation documents with the required components of program review. Normandale’s program review process is designed to ensure that our programs are in demand, remain current, and are modified or eliminated as academic and business stakeholder needs evolve. We continually monitor our external environment to ensure that our stated learning outcomes are appropriate for the program. Thus, changes to programs, including program learning outcomes, are made outside of the program review cycle as warranted. The decision to introduce a new course or program can either be as a result of this ongoing process or through program review. (4.A.1) We use the same process to identify programs or courses that need to be eliminated. Faculty evaluate the viability of a course or program based on numbers of students indicating they intend to pursue a degree in the discipline, course fill rates, certificates and degrees awarded, student success and persistence data, program efficiency measures, and instructional costs through academic program review. In addition to this internal data, programs engage in ongoing environmental scanning related to employment trends, input from community partners, and four-year institutions. (4.A.1) Proposals for new, revised, or eliminated academic programs and courses must go through Normandale’s Academic Affairs and Standards Council (AA&SC) approval process. When considering a proposal, the AA&SC reviews information about how new or revised programs or courses contribute to academic plans beyond the associate degree, including supporting material such as transfer information and degree completion information to ensure alignment with student and other stakeholder needs. The steps of the process are as follows:

1. Proposer discusses the proposal with key stakeholders. 2. Proposer completes proposal documents and sends them to the Office of Academic Affairs, which

distributes them to all faculty and other stakeholders. 3. The proposal is discussed by faculty in department and division meetings and by administration

in dean’s council. 4. Any questions or concerns generated by the proposals are expressed to the proposer via email and

the AA&SC is copied on the correspondence. 5. The proposer addresses any questions or concerns. 6. Proposal revisions are submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs for redistribution to campus. 7. The vice president of Academic Affairs and the chair of the AA&SC set the agenda. Proposals

are assigned either to “consent” or “discussion.” 8. At the AA&SC meeting, the proposal is voted on and either accepted or rejected. 9. If the AA&SC approves the proposal it is forwarded to the college president for a final decision.

Page 18


After the AA&SC approval, new programs are vetted through a rigorous MnSCU process. This process involves a notice of intent to other MnSCU colleges to establish the need for the program and avoid duplication, particularly among colleges that are geographically proximate. The Metro Alliance of Chief Academic Officers is responsible for reviewing new degree/certificate programs in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Programs being eliminated are also shared at Metro Alliance meetings for informational purposes. Once approved by Metro Alliance, a new certificate/degree program proposal is submitted to MnSCU for final approval. This submission must include data demonstrating that the degree/certificate is desired by the student body, employers, and the community. Degree/certificate proposals that are intended to lead to employment must support their submission with workforce data. Lastly, all AA with emphasis, AFA, and AS degrees must have an articulation agreement with a four-year institution. MnSCU also approves the elimination or suspension of a course or program. We also adhere to HLC policies regarding substantive change to programs and notify or request approval from HLC as needed. Another key focus for designing programs that meet student stakeholder needs is ensuring students who place into developmental education can quickly progress to college-level coursework. As an open access institution, students who need developmental education are a significant stakeholder group. The process for adding, revising, or eliminating developmental courses is the same as for academic programs and includes academic program review, ongoing environmental scanning, use of internal data, and the AA&SC process for approval. Normandale acknowledges that both our community and student body are becoming increasingly diverse. We respond to this by designing academic programs that help students develop cultural competency through exposure to and exploration of their own and other cultures. This is primarily accomplished through the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum (MnTC). Normandale provides additional opportunities for students to interact with individuals who may be different from themselves through study abroad programs and a variety of experiential education experiences.

• Transfer curriculum: MnTC goals that relate to human diversity and multiculturalism include Goal Seven (Human Diversity), Goal Eight (Global Perspective), and Goal Nine (Ethical and Civic Responsibility). Students completing the MnTC, an AA, or AS will have taken at least one course in each of these goal areas. Courses are from a variety of disciplines and provide students an opportunity to explore culture in many ways. Other goals with multiple courses related to diversity and multiculturalism include Goal Five (History and the Social and Behavioral Sciences) and Goal Six (Humanities and Fine Arts).

• Study Abroad: Studying abroad allows students to earn academic credit while experiencing a new place and culture. We offer three types of study abroad experiences: short-term (approximately two weeks in length), semester-long, and non-credit study abroad through our Continuing Education/Customized Training department. Current programs include experiences in Scotland, the British Isles, Cuba, China, Russia, and Guatemala.

• Experiential education: Experiential education (internships, service learning, and volunteering) engages students in direct experience, community engagement, and focused reflection. Students have opportunities to interact with, serve, and work alongside individuals from different backgrounds and experiences and build skills to thrive in a complex, diverse world.

(1.C.1, 1.C.2) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic programs: The primary processes for selecting methods to assess academic programs are academic program review and curriculum mapping (1I1). Program review is comprehensive in nature and includes

Page 19


both a review of the existing program as well as future planning. As part of academic program review departments review the common course outline for each course and determine if it is current and remains an essential component of the program. They also review course fill rates and student success rates, which inform future planning. Curriculum mapping establishes the contribution of course learning outcomes to program learning outcomes and identifies how both contribute to our Core Learning Outcomes. Going forward, programs will review their curriculum maps as part of program review. This process will encourage programs to ensure that all the program’s courses are instrumental in meeting the program outcomes and that the program outcomes themselves are appropriate. Program faculty will also address any gaps or duplications revealed through the mapping process. (4.A.1) 1R3: Results Outcomes and measures tracked and tools utilized: The outcomes measured to determine if our programs are current and meet the needs of our diverse stakeholders include new, revised, or deleted programs that have gone through AA&SC; courses and programs related to diversity that have gone through AA&SC; departmental compliance with academic program review; program accreditation; articulation agreements with four-year institutions; student self-reports of increases in understanding of diversity; and students participating in study abroad and experiential education. The Office of Academic Affairs maintains data on departmental compliance with academic program review and information on approved new, revised, or eliminated programs. Programs with separate accreditation maintain data on their status. Student reports of their experiences with diversity are measured with the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). Summary, comparisons with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: The results of the AA&SC approval process show that our academic departments are continually evaluating their programs and courses and making changes as necessary (Table 1R3-1). We do not have any data on the changes, additions, and removal of courses and programs of other MnSCU institutions or others against which we typically benchmark. However, the table shows that changes to courses and programs are the most common AA&SC approvals. This is in line with a liberal arts transfer curriculum, where most improvements are occurring within existing, long-standing academic disciplines. The increase in courses eliminated in AY2015 is the result of a recent improvement to ensure our college catalog accurately reflects the courses being offered. The table also shows that courses and programs that substantially address human diversity and global perspectives are regularly reviewed and approved by AA&SC, indicators of Normandale’s continuing commitment to educating our students in these important areas. Table 1R3-1: Type and Number of AA&SC-approved Proposals

# of Changes # of Additions # of Deletions # Diversity-Related

Course Program Course Program Course Program Course Program AY2012 16 8 16 6 11 1 2 3 AY2013 50 8 10 9 9 4 4 2 AY2014 53 11 26 3 10 0 33 5 AY2015 36 4 17 3 25 1 12 0

All academic departments are current in their academic program reviews. All 10 of our accredited programs have maintained those accreditations until their next site visits. Lastly, a recent review of all academic programs’ articulation agreements confirms that every degree required to have an articulation agreement is in compliance with this requirement. Currently Normandale is one of only seven community colleges in the nation that has nationally-accredited programs in art, theater, and music. However, we have not done any more specific

Page 20


benchmarking against those colleges. We believe that our 10 program-level accreditations speak to their currency and rigor and confirm that they meet stakeholder needs. We track three CCSSE questions that reflect students’ experiences with diversity (Table 1R3-2). We can see that our 2014 results are slightly lower than in 2010. Although not a significant difference, we will continue to monitor these and other results to ensure that our diverse student body has an opportunity to work with and learn from individuals of differing backgrounds. (1.C.1) Table 1R3-2: CCSSE Results on Diversity Questions

CCSSE Question 2010 Mean 2014 Mean Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity other than your own3 2.42 2.40 Had serious conversations with students who differ from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values3 2.35 2.32 Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds4 2.56 2.53

The CCSSE provides several cohorts against which we can benchmark our results. In addition to tracking our results longitudinally, we often compare our results to those of other large colleges (Table 1R3-3). Table 1R3-3: 2014 CCSSE Diversity Question Results Compared to Large Colleges

CCSSE Question Normandale

Mean Large Colleges

Mean Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity other than your own3 2.40 2.49 Had serious conversations with students who differ from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values3 2.32 2.36 Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds4 2.53 2.49

We also track the number of students who participate in experiences that expose them to human diversity (Table 1R3-4). As a community college that serves significant numbers of low income students, we realize that this type of experience is not financially feasible for many of our students. For this reason, we also emphasize experiential education opportunities to help our students understand diversity and learn and work in a multicultural world. (1.C.1, 1.C.2) Table 1R3-4: Students Participating in Experiences that Support Human Diversity

AY2012 AY2013 AY2014 Number of students participating in study abroad 36 45 24 Number of students participating in experiential education 759 1,168 1,317 Number of experiential education hours 16,294 22,473 21,838 Number of experiential education community partners 232 191 151

We recognize that in many areas we are not comparing results with external benchmarks, and only some of our areas include internal targets. Continued improvement in our use of data in this area will be a focus as we move forward.

3 Scale: 1 = “Never” / 2 = “Sometimes” / 3 = “Often” / 4 = “Very often” 4 Scale: 1 = “Very little” / 2 = “Some” / 3 = “Quite a bit” / 4 = “Very much”

Page 21


1I3: Improvements A redesign of academic program review in AY2010 has improved support and clarity for departments undergoing the review process. This has led to improved program reviews and better information for future planning. We will continue to monitor outcomes in this area but do not have any additional improvements planned for the near future. Planned improvements to the AA&SC process include requiring curriculum maps and information on program and Core Learning Outcomes for all new academic program proposals. This improvement directly supports our work in categories one and two as well. While not a planned improvement, we continue to encourage faculty to include international travel as part of their sabbatical work and to consider study abroad topics and courses. These opportunities help faculty members to support and educate an increasingly diverse student body and prepare them to be active global citizens.

Academic Program Quality 1P4: Processes Determining the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses, and learning they will pursue: Normandale is an open access institution; any individual who is a high school graduate or has passed the General Education Development exam is eligible for admission. We determine students’ readiness for college-level coursework by either placement test results or official SAT, ACT, Advance Placement, College Level Exam Program, International Baccalaureate or other qualifying score results. MnSCU Policy 3.3.1 articulates our accepted assessment tools, required cut scores for placement into college level courses, and exceptions to the required testing. In addition to determining students’ readiness for college-level coursework, we also require prerequisites for many courses. We assign prerequisites to courses only when they are deemed essential to student success because they require students to possess certain competencies addressed in the prerequisite courses. Faculty who teach the course are responsible for determining if a prerequisite is appropriate, and changes must be approved through the AA&SC process (1P3). (3.A.1, 4.A.4) Nursing, Dental Hygiene and Dietetic Technology are programs with selective application processes. The faculty in these programs set the admission criteria based on outcomes data that show what preparation is needed to be successful in the program. Students who best meet the requirements for acceptance into the program are ranked for admission. In 2014, an Onsite Civil Rights Review (OCR) determined that our selection processes for these programs are in compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations. (4.A.4) Communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses, and learning they will pursue: We communicate the preparation required for specific programs and courses to students in a number of ways:

• Via the admissions presence on our website, which includes instructions for specific student sub-groups (e.g. first-time students, transfer students, international students, visiting students).

• During advising and registration sessions, which are required for most students. • Admissions department staff work closely with high schools and workforce centers to

communicate admissions requirements and process. • Via our catalog, which is available in hard copy and online. • We partner with school districts to provide placement testing for high school students. The

process for communicating test results and their meaning varies by school.

Page 22

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/3-03p1.pdf

http://www.normandale.edu/admissions

http://catalog.normandale.edu/


• Open house events for potential students and their families, where representatives from academic programs and advising staff answer questions and assist with the application process.

• Programs with selective admissions processes offer additional information sessions tailored to the unique requirements of the program.

We communicate the preparation required for specific courses to students primarily through the course descriptions and the common course outlines. These are posted on the college website and are distributed to students as part of the course syllabus. Processes for ensuring program rigor for all modalities: Normandale reviews rigor both at the program level and at the course level. Program rigor ensures that the appropriate courses are included in the award, while course rigor ensures appropriate learning outcomes with respect to content and level of learning. By determining appropriate rigor of both programs and courses, we can ensure that they are current and require appropriate levels of student learning and performance. (3.A.1) Our expectation for appropriate levels of rigor is that all courses, regardless of delivery method, will show alignment between student learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment activities. Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy provides the foundation for determining appropriate levels of rigor for all courses, taking into consideration the content and the lower division nature of our courses. (3.A.3) We have a number of processes to ensure program and course rigor across all modalities:

• Academic program review (1P3) requires departments to review the rigor of all their courses as well as for their degree and certificate programs. The review also looks at the courses that make up the awards to ensure they are appropriate for the degree or certificate. Departments may also bring in a content expert from a four-year institution to review content and confirm appropriate rigor for lower division coursework and programs.

• Articulations with four-year institutions provide confirmation of program rigor, since they indicate that our graduates are prepared to enter upper division courses.

• We employ a full-time instructional technologist and a part-time instructional designer who work with individual faculty and provide workshops on best practices in course design especially in online and hybrid courses to ensure rigor across all modalities.

• We participate in the Quality Matters training and peer review program, a national effort to promote quality in online education. We also participate in the MnSCU Online Quality Initiative, which provides QM training for faculty.

• Academic deans observe faculty in both face-to-face and online courses as part of our assurance of rigor and quality.

(3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4) Processes for ensuring program rigor in dual credit programs: We have a number of processes for ensuring rigor in concurrent enrollment courses:

• We employ a coordinator of dual enrollment and Perkins who oversees these processes to ensure compliance with applicable policies, regulations, and standards.

• We adhere to National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships standards, which state that the instructor qualifications and course content must be the same as those for the college course.

• We maintain the same achievement standards for students taking the course in high school. • We require high school teachers who teach dual enrollment courses to meet MnSCU

credentialing requirements. • We require college faculty to mentor high school faculty and visit classes to ensure that the high

school course is equivalent to the college course in content, rigor, and assessment of student learning.

Page 23


(3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4) Key processes for awarding credit for prior learning: MnSCU Policy 3.35 and Procedure 3.35.1 define our requirements for granting credit for college-level learning obtained in a noncredit experiential setting. Students may obtain credit for prior learning through the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning portfolio preparation course and assessment, College Level Examination Program credit (MnSCU Policy 3.33), or Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support, a military-based credit by exam program. (4.A.2) Key processes for awarding transfer credit: MnSCU policies and procedures 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.16, 3.16.1, 3.21, 3.21.1, 3.33, 3.33.1, 3.35, 3.35.1 and Normandale Policy 3.13 and Procedure 3.13.1 guide our processes for awarding all transfer credit. The registrar oversees the process of credit evaluation for all credit we transcript and assures consistency of awarded credits using the Degree Audit Reporting system and Transfer Evaluation System. These tools track what courses we’ve evaluated and accepted for credit, ensuring that the same credit is awarded to any student with that transfer credit, regardless of who is evaluating the transcript. When we need further information to award transfer credit, the registrar or an advising professional may contact the institution where the credit was earned for further clarification. If credit is not accepted during the initial transcript review, students may also complete an academic petition, available on the college website, to request a review of a course for credit and/or to meet a program requirement. Academic petitions are evaluated by department faculty, the division dean, and the chief academic officer. (4.A.2, 4.A.3) Key processes for selecting, obtaining and maintaining specialized accreditation: Academic program review and ongoing environmental scanning are the key processes that program faculty use when deciding whether to pursue and maintain specialized accreditation. Programs seeking national accreditation must consider multiple factors such as faculty and administrative support and costs of accreditation. The processes for receiving and maintaining accreditation varies by accrediting body. Normandale expects the departments with specialized accreditations to take responsibility for applying for and maintaining those accreditations. We have ten programs with specialized accreditation. (4.A.5) Key processes for assessing levels of outcomes obtained by graduates at all levels: Normandale confers awards at the associate and certificate level. In accordance with MnSCU policy 3.36, associate degrees are 60 credits and certificates are nine to 30 credits. Because we only offer certificates and associate-level degrees, and because our certificates are frequently embedded within the degree, the level of learning is the same for both. The differentiation is that a certificate has a narrower content focus than the degree. We recognize that award of a degree or certificate is not necessarily proof of achievement of learning outcomes. Our previously described improvements for curriculum mapping and assessment database will improve our ability to assess achievement of learning outcomes of all graduates. (3.A.2) As a community college, our degrees and certificates prepare students for employment and/or transfer to a four-year institution. We therefore track data on transfer rates, awards, and the employment status of graduates on an annual basis to determine the success of our graduates. For career programs that lead to licensure, we also track student success rates on exams. Our Office of Research and Planning includes this information in the Normandale Fact Book. Information on completion/graduation and transfer-out rates, gainful employment, job placement, placement in employment for graduates, and retention rates are available on the consumer disclosures portion of our website. (4.A.6) Selecting tools/methods/instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities: Our primary method for assessing program rigor is program review (1P3). The tools and methods are prescribed by this process and data sets are pulled by the Office of Research and Planning to aid in their analysis.

Page 24














http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/313-transfer-credit

http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/3131-transfer-credit

http://www.normandale.edu/current-students/academic-resources/accreditations


http://www.normandale.edu/directory/disclosures


1R4: Results Outcome measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale tracks data on students transferring to four-year institutions, graduates passing licensure exams, and graduates placed into related employment as three ways to determine the quality of our academic programs. Summary, comparisons to targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Normandale monitors graduate success by tracking employment and continuation of education. Graduates are contacted by the college within 12 months of graduation to complete a graduate survey and additional data is provided by the National Clearinghouse. (4.A.6) Table 1R4-1 details the percent of graduates by degree type available for work that are employed in a related field and the percent of graduates that go on to continue their education. Significant percentages of our graduates either obtain employment or continue their education after graduation. As would be expected, employment rates are higher for graduates with AAS degrees, which are by nature designed to lead directly to employment. Graduates with an AA degree are more likely to continue their education, as are those obtaining certificates. In the latter case, this is likely because many students “stack” certificates in order to obtain a degree. (4.A.6) Table 1R4-1: Status of Graduates by Degree Type, 2010-2013

Available for Work and Employed in Related Field

Transferred/Continuing Their Education

Degree 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 AA (including those with emphasis) 56.1% 46.9% 69.8% 64.7% 67.4% 64.6% 63.4% 68.2% AAS 39.5% 71.9% 71.4% 82.4% 14.0% 19.0% 31.6% 28.6% AFA 100.0% 66.7% 0.0% 50.0% 53.8% 64.3% 55.6% 74.1% AS 89.3% 70.0% 84.4% 81.1% 33.6% 40.7% 32.0% 44.9% Certificates 36.4% 69.0% 70.6% 60.9% 71.8% 74.7% 81.0% 72.8% Total 63.8% 60.3% 74.7% 71.8% 58.7% 59.5% 58.7% 63.6%

(4.A.6) As a community college with a history of preparing students to transfer to four-year institutions, we find that a significant number of students attend Normandale with no plans to obtain a two-year degree before transferring. We therefore also track the transfer rates of students rather than solely looking at the transfer rate of graduates (Table 1R4-2). We consider this to be evidence of program quality, because even in the absence of a degree these students are accepted at rigorous four-year institutions. Table 1R4-2: Normandale Transfer Rates, Fall Cohorts to Second Spring

Transfer Institution Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 # % # % # % # % # %

MN State Universities 127 23% 121 23% 135 24% 65 21% 94 25% University of Minnesota 144 26% 126 24% 139 25% 60 20% 108 28% MN For Profit 33 6% 37 7% 27 5% 30 10% 39 10% MN Not-For-Profit 127 23% 122 23% 129 23% 78 25% 59 15% All Other States 113 21% 114 22% 127 23% 74 24% 81 21% Total 544 100% 520 100% 557 100% 307 100% 381 100%

Overall, these transfer rates and the employment rates of graduates indicate that our students are well-prepared for employment or upper division coursework.

Page 25


Individual programs with licensure requirements benchmark against like programs or national averages in their program review and quality improvement processes. Our students consistently pass their licensure exams at higher rates than the national average, as seen previously in Table 1R2-2. These pass rates also indicate that our programs appropriately prepare our students for the requirements of their field. (4.A.6) 1I4: Improvements In order to better serve veterans, Normandale participated in the Army Continuing Education System (ACES), a MnSCU initiative to streamline the awarding of college credit for military courses. In the summer of 2013, we reviewed courses and military training experiences in order to establish transfer credits for common military experiences and identified over 100 military experiences that qualified for college credit. Full implementation of the process to automatically award this credit is pending MnSCU technology improvements. Normandale will continue to evaluate and improve our processes for awarding credit for prior learning for all students. Part of this work includes minimizing barriers to students successfully attaining credit for their experience in the military or the workplace. We plan on implementing the ACES work around transfer of military credit as part of this ongoing improvement, along with re-evaluation of our process for awarding all credit for prior learning.

Academic Student Support 1P5: Processes Academic support for our students is an important area of focus for Normandale. Our strategic plan calls for “integrating academic…support systems with programs and courses” and “promoting collaborations that enhance student persistence and completion.” Also, the first theme in our academic master plan is “Preparing Students for Success at Normandale: We welcome students to our college and provide resources to support student readiness, academic success, and personal and professional growth.” We consider academic support services to be those that help students learn course content, as opposed to non-academic support services such as financial aid, which help students be students. Identifying underprepared and at-risk students and determining their academic support needs: Students’ academic support needs can vary independently of their membership in a group considered to be at-risk. For example, we consider first generation students to be at risk but not all of them place into developmental coursework. Therefore the only relevant group where we target the entire population for certain academic support services are those students who place into developmental coursework. Our key processes for identifying underprepared students and determining their academic support needs are placement testing and keeping current in good practices in deploying academic support services. In addition to students who place into developmental coursework, we have identified a specific sub-set who are especially high-risk students: those who test into the lowest level of developmental reading or English and register within the last two weeks before the start of the semester. (3.D.1, 3.D.2) Most incoming students must take placement tests in reading, writing, and math or satisfy the requirement through transcript evaluation (for transferring students) or by submitting qualifying ACT scores. Both placement testing and ACT cut scores are set by MnSCU Procedure 3.3.1. Visiting and non-degree-seeking students are not required to satisfy placement testing requirements to take courses unless they wish to enroll in courses that require placement scores, in which case they must take the associated placement tests or provide evidence that they meet the requirements. (3.D.2) We further determine the academic support needs of students who test into developmental coursework through diagnostic testing. Both developmental math and reading instructors administer some form of

Page 26



diagnostic testing to determine students’ specific skill and knowledge gaps and to ensure they are placed in the appropriate courses. (3.D.2) Research has identified low-income and first generation college students as at-risk groups, and we have significant numbers of both of these student groups. Through analysis of data and current research, we have determined that many of their needs are for non-academic support services that will help them to overcome challenges in their lives, learn how to navigate the college environment, and develop the non-cognitive skills needed for success in work and life (2P1). Our process for determining and addressing their academic support needs is therefore focused on providing supports that are highly accessible for at-risk students. For example, many Normandale students are low-income and work significant hours outside of school. In response, we embed academic supports in the classroom whenever possible to ensure at-risk students will receive support when and where they are most likely to access it. Additionally, those students who are most at-risk are the ones who place into developmental coursework, and so we provide additional academic supports for these students. (3.D.1, 3.D.2) We offer many academic support services to all students, whether or not they are deemed to be underprepared or at-risk. Our primary processes for determining our student population’s academic support needs are:

• Engaging in academic and non-academic program review to determine student needs and how well programs are meeting those needs.

• Collecting student feedback, including administration of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and Student Satisfaction with Services survey. We use survey results to inform our decisions about which services are important to students (and which are not), how often they use the services, and how satisfied they are with them.

• MnSCU and state legislative direction. • Collecting and responding to external feedback. For example, the revision of NCC 1000 Paths to

College Success course and the reconstitution of Learning Communities, which are discussed below, are, in part, a response to our last systems portfolio.

• Keeping current in good practices through professional organizations to which we belong, higher education research and publications, and conferences which staff and faculty attend.

(3.D.1) Deploying academic support services to help students select courses and programs: Based on the processes described above, we deploy a range of services to help students select and complete courses and programs. Some services are available to all students, while others are targeted at underprepared or at-risk students or those with additional specific support needs. Normandale provides advising and counseling services to help students select and register for courses and make academic plans to meet their goals. This service is deployed for all new students through Advising and Registration (A&R), which is required for most incoming students, with some exceptions for visiting students. A&R is a two-hour session that helps new students become better acquainted with our campus, policies, programs, and activities. A&R provides information about academic support, student life, financial aid, and counseling services. Counselors and advisors help students begin the development of an educational plan that is designed to meet their goals and assist with course selection and registration. After their first semester, students can access assistance in selecting courses by making an appointment with an advisor or counselor. Additional information on advising services is provided in 2P1. The Advising and Counseling Department includes academic advisors and counselors, each with a different focus. Academic advisors work with currently enrolled and returning students in the areas of academic planning, career development, and transfer concerns, while counselors work with students with

Page 27


academic, career, and personal concerns. Academic advising includes academic planning, academic support workshops, advising for registration, career planning, access to GPS Life Plan (plans for career, education, finance, leadership, and personal success), placement test interpretation, transcript evaluation, and transfer information. Services are available by appointment (typically 30-minute sessions) or, for short questions, on a walk-in basis. (3.D.2) Normandale also provides additional support for specific student groups:

• NCC 1000, our student success course, helps students who have been identified as at-risk by creating a relationship between students and their NCC 1000 instructors, who are always advisors or counselors. Students may be more likely to seek out assistance when planning and registering for classes in subsequent semesters because of this relationship.

• Some instructors have been piloting a process where they invite advisors into the classroom to help students select and register for courses. This process is designed to meet our students’ needs by providing access to services when and where it is most convenient for them. This process has been well-received, but at this time it remains a small pilot.

• After a successful pilot in our Health Sciences Division, we now provide discipline-specific advisors in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics division and Business Department. These advisors specialize in the requirements and academic and career options in these popular majors. In our education department, another very popular area of study, a support program provides release credits to a faculty member to advise students.

• The Academy of Math and Science, a cohort-based support program for students pursuing STEM degrees, provides students with guidance on course selection and planning for transfer or careers.

• The Office for Students with Disabilities helps students access accommodations that will give them equal access to Normandale programs, courses, and events. Services include advising, alternative testing, note taking, sign language interpreting, audio textbooks, and other accommodations based on individual needs.

(3.D.1, 3.D.2) Deploying academic support services to help students complete courses and programs: Our processes fall into four primary categories: courses and course-embedded supports, walk-in services for all students, faculty-provided supports, and specialized supports for specific student sub-groups. Courses/course-embedded support: As a community college, Normandale serves many students who are balancing school with work and family obligations. Because students may not have the ability to make additional trips to campus or spend time before or after class to access services, we embed many of our key academic supports in the classroom. These include specific courses (NCC 1000, developmental education courses, and learning communities), and embedded supports (supplemental instruction, success mentors, integrated library instruction). (3.D.2) Courses that help students successfully complete courses and programs include:

• Developmental education: As an open access institution, Normandale serves many students who struggled academically in high school and/or have been out of school for significant periods of time. For example, only 30% of students taking the Accuplacer test into college-level mathematics. Recently Normandale has redesigned our developmental reading, writing, and math programs to improve student learning and accelerate students’ progression to college-level coursework. Our developmental math redesign used best practices identified by the National Center for Academic Transformation to develop a computer-based, self-directed program that is customized to the learning needs of each student. With this format, students can progress through multiple semesters of content in one semester. Our developmental reading and writing redesign

Page 28

http://www.gpslifeplan.org/normandale/


is based on the Accelerated Learning Program, which places students in a college-level course and provides additional developmental instruction.

• NCC 1000 Student Success Course: Students who test into developmental reading or writing are required to take NCC 1000, although any interested student can take the course if they wish. We use the On Course curriculum, a nationally-used curriculum that builds students’ academic skills and non-cognitive skills that support their success.

• Success Mentors: Success mentors are experienced Normandale students who are embedded in NCC 1000 course sections (and paid as student workers). They facilitate discussions about life as a student with the goal of creating meaningful relationships that will make it easier for new students to ask for help when they need it. This meets the needs of our students, many of whom were not successful in high school or have been out of school for significant amounts of time.

• Learning communities: A learning community is a set of courses that students take as a cohort, and together the courses promote shared learning. We offer learning communities as a content course paired with a developmental course; as a trio of courses combining a developmental course, a college-level course, and NCC 1000; NCC 1000 paired with our lowest level developmental reading course; or as two complementary content courses (e.g. Physics and Calculus). Our primary process for creating learning communities is to focus on pairing a developmental course with a content course. This allows students to make progress with college-level coursework and connect with other students through this cohort model.

• Supplemental Instruction (SI): In AY2011 we launched an AQIP action project to expand SI, a tutor-facilitated academic support program that targets historically difficult courses to improve student retention and academic performance. SI leaders are student workers who have already taken the course and done well. They are then assigned to specific course sections to work directly with the instructor, assist with course content and student study skills development, and provide supplemental instruction sessions outside of class. Since they sit in on the class, they can help to identify individual at-risk students, assess their needs, and work with them.

• Integrated library instruction: A faculty librarian works with the course instructor to create and provide the research instruction and access to resources necessary to support the assignment. English Composition is the top user of integrated instruction. An additional benefit to this approach is that it allows library faculty to reach out to and build relationships with students who may have anxiety about the research process so they feel comfortable coming back to the librarians for research instruction throughout their academic careers.

(3.D.1, 3.D.2, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5) Academic support services available to all students on a walk-in basis include advising (discussed above), tutoring, and library support. The Tutoring and Writing Center are housed together to ensure a high degree of collaboration among all tutors and SI leaders. The mission of the Tutoring Center is to empower students to become independent learners. We therefore train the tutors to ask good questions and help students discover the answers for themselves. The Tutoring Center is open during the college’s busiest times and students see tutors on a walk-in basis for up to 30 minutes. They may visit a tutor more than once a day. In addition to tutoring, the Writing Center instructs students in the use of Turnitin (1P6) to check their work for potential plagiarism prior to submitting it. (3.D.1, 3.D.2, 3.D.4, 3.D.5) While the Tutoring Center, Writing Center, and SI provide tutoring services to over 60% of our course offerings, we recognize that our student population tends to be busier than traditional students with work and family obligations. We have a large number of students in only online courses. For these students and students requesting assistance in a course for which we don’t have tutoring on campus, we offer 24/7 online tutoring via SmarThinking, an online college tutoring service used by over 1,000 institutions.

Page 29


Students can interact with a live tutor, submit a question and receive a reply from a tutor, and submit writing for any class to the Online Writing Lab. (3.D.1, 3.D.2) In addition to integrated research instruction, the library supports students through the following services:

• Reference desk: A librarian is available to provide students with individualized library research instruction at all times except for Saturday and two hours on Friday afternoon (very slow times).

• Reference consultations by appointment: Students can make an appointment with librarians during their office hours for in-depth, individualized research instruction.

• Phone and email support: Students may submit an inquiry to the reference desk when library faculty are not available and it will be answered the next day that the reference desk is open.

• 24/7 chat reference: We began offering this in AY2012. Our library is part of a national cooperative of academic librarians who offer our students individualized research assistance through online live chat any time of the day or night.

(3.D.1, 3.D.4, 3.D.5) Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry: Teaching faculty hold one office hour for every three credits taught, per the 2013-2015 Minnesota State College Faculty Contract, Article 11, Section 2, Subd. 5. One of the key purposes for office hours is to provide a consistent, reliable venue (in addition to the classroom) for helping students with course content. While faculty do not formally act as student advisors, office hours are also an opportunity for students to seek guidance from trusted faculty. Faculty members are required to include their office hours in course syllabi and post their office hours outside their office door. Instructors of online courses are also required to have office hours, which are frequently offered in the form of online chats. (3.C.5) Determining and addressing the learning support needs of students and faculty: Our key processes for determining student and faculty learning support needs are:

• Academic and non-academic program review • Surveying students: via the CCSSE and Student Satisfaction with Services surveys • Surveying faculty via the Employee Satisfaction with Services Survey • Ongoing environmental scanning and staying current in the discipline, industry or service area

through our relationships with business and industry, advisory boards, accrediting bodies’ partner institutions, memberships in professional organizations, and via conferences and other research

The relative importance of some of these processes varies by discipline or service area. For example, the Nursing department has very clear guidelines from its accrediting body with respect to labs and clinical sites and oversight of the program. Partner clinical sites also have requirements that dictate the types of sites available for our students. We have had to create a simulation for pediatric care because pediatric clinical sites won’t take first- and second-year students. Conversely, library faculty doesn’t have an external accrediting body, and they determine need primarily by using survey data and staying current in the discipline. (3.D.4) Many of the learning support services that we deploy are long-standing programs and infrastructure, including the library, academic advising, information technology, science labs, performance spaces, and clinical practice sites. Our process for deploying these supports is to ensure adequate funding to deploy the services and infrastructure, communicate their availability to students and faculty, monitor their quality and effectiveness, and develop new or modified services as needed. The processes for deploying learning supports vary by discipline or support service and by the magnitude of need. For very large infrastructure needs (e.g. construction or remodeling of learning spaces including computer labs, classrooms, and performance spaces), the process is driven by MnSCU. MnSCU has

Page 30


stated priorities for capital budgeting, and we align our needs with those priorities in order to secure funding for capital projects (5P2). (3.D.4) Existing programs and infrastructure that support the learning needs of students are addressed through annual planning and budgeting. Emerging infrastructure and other support needs may be identified through program review, survey results, or environmental scanning (4P2). The needs, whether for another college lab assistant position, more student tutors, or new microscopes, are incorporated into the annual planning and budgeting process. Often these requests require new funding, and the department must make its case through the college-wide prioritization process for new funding requests. (3.D.4) Ensuring staff members who provide student academic support services are qualified, trained, and supported: Our processes for ensuring proper qualification, training and support of staff and faculty are outlined in detail in Category Three. Specific examples related to staff and faculty providing academic support services include but are not limited to:

• The Tutoring Center is College Reading & Learning Association certified, which mandates that we document our tutor training practices with respect to standards, program outcomes, and assessments. Both tutors and SI student workers receive training. Additionally, students working in an SI course must have taken and done well in that specific course.

• Skip Downing’s On Course, the curriculum used for NCC 1000, is one of the few first year experience curricula that provides comprehensive instructor training in the curriculum. Prior to launching this new curriculum, the associate director of New Student Programs and the counselors and advisors participated in a two-day On Course workshop, delivered by a certified On Course trainer that taught them how to use the curriculum. We have institutionalized this knowledge by requiring new counselors and advisors to shadow a trained instructor prior to teaching the course.

• Success mentors undergo four days of training prior to being assigned to NCC 1000 course sections. During these training days, they are immersed in the curriculum, learn about mentoring best practices, and start to develop as a team.

• Faculty involved in the redesign of our developmental courses participated in training and conducted site visits to understand the best practices that have been incorporated into the new classes and delivery methods.

• Normandale offers faculty development in course design and facilitation to all faculty members interested in teaching in a learning community.

(3.C.6) Communicating the availability of academic support services: Our processes for communicating to students about the availability of academic support services includes methods designed to reach all students and additional, targeted methods to reach out to specific groups of students:

• All students: Our website is a primary communication tool. The one-stop services section of the website provides students with information and links to a wide variety of academic and student resources. Advising and Registration is also designed to inform new students of the resources available to support their success. Some services are also communicated through signage and their visible, convenient locations (e.g. advising, tutoring, and library). The Tutoring Center also offers special events and workshops to familiarize students with the resources available. Office hours and services through the Office for Students with Disabilities are included on every course syllabus, providing this key information to all students.

• Student sub-groups: NCC 1000 provides students not only with information on services but coaches students to develop appropriate help-seeking skills. While this course is only required for students who test into developmental reading and writing, it is open to all students. Many faculty members communicate the availability of tutoring, advising, and other services when they see

Page 31

http://www.normandale.edu/current-students/one-stop


students who are struggling. Additionally, many instructors invite representatives from student support services to speak in class or take their classes on tours of the library or tutoring center.

(3.D.1, 3.D.2) Determining goals for retention, persistence, and program completion: Normandale’s process for determining college-wide goals for retention, persistence, and completion are described in detail in 2P2. Additionally, all academic departments analyze data on student success and degree completion as part of the academic review process. However, not all departments currently set targets for retention, persistence, and completion at the program level. While we recognize that the academic support services described in this section all contribute to our college-wide goals, at this time we are focusing our attention on understanding the impacts of the services in the shorter-term and determining which students benefit most from the services in order to set meaningful, ambitious, but attainable targets. (4.C.1, 4.C.4) While it is not appropriate for all academic support services (e.g. the library) to set goals for student success, we have focused our data collection and analysis on several areas where we believe can make a significant difference in retention, persistence, and completion for students. These services are developmental education courses, NCC 1000, learning communities, and supplemental instruction. In all of these areas, we have either recently launched or significantly redesigned the programs since our last portfolio. For this reason, we have not set specific goals for retention, persistence, and completion in any of these programs. Rather, we are focused on collecting baseline data, analyzing trends, and determining impact in order to best target these resources at the students who stand to gain the most from the services. For example, we know that NCC 1000 has an impact on student retention rates, but Normandale’s size precludes us from offering the course to all students. We have therefore targeted students who test into developmental reading and writing and mandate their participation in the course. (4.C.1, 4.C.4) Our process for determining goals for retention, persistence, and completion for these programs will be to collect and analyze baseline and trend data on student support services’ impact; look for similar programs and/or institutions against which to benchmark our results; and set targets based on this information. Data will be collected by our Office of Research and Planning which accesses data from MnSCU’s operational data warehouse (5P1). Analysis of data and subsequent goal-setting will be completed by staff, faculty, and administrators involved in the various programs. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Selecting the tools/methods/instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of support services: Our key process is to identify the data that we need, and select the tools that we believe will help us collect that data. When possible, we use or modify existing tools, methods, and processes to obtain the data we need. When that is not possible, we consider other ways to evaluate our processes, either by designing a tool or instrument, purchasing one if needed, or identifying proxy data. To evaluate effectiveness, we use one or more of the following: course grades, GPA, course completion, CCSSE data, Student Satisfaction with Services data, or other survey instruments. To evaluate comprehensiveness, we track participation or usage. 1R5: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Key measures of the quality of academic support services include usage rates; satisfaction with services; and impact on student retention, persistence, and completion, including average GPAs of participating students. We use tools such as surveys (CCSSE, satisfaction with services), reports from tracking software, and student success data from MnSCU. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Summary, comparison to targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: The primary programs for which we assess the quality of services are advising (satisfaction measures only), NCC 1000, SI,

Page 32


learning communities, developmental education, library support (usage and satisfaction), and tutoring (usage and satisfaction). Advising: Normandale’s Advising and Counseling Department (2P1) has undergone an almost complete redesign of how they approach and deploy their services since AY2012. As a result, student surveys are just beginning to show changes in satisfaction and importance levels (Table 1R5-1). Comparison with other large colleges that administer the CCSSE shows that our results, while lower than theirs, are not significantly different (Table 1R5-2). Table 1R5-1: Student Satisfaction with Services Results for Advising and Counseling

2011 2013 Importance5 4.26 4.54 Satisfaction6 3.62 3.69

Table 1R5-2: CCSSE Results for Advising and Counseling

2010 2012 2014 Importance7 2.47 2.51 2.54 Satisfaction7 2.14 2.10 2.17

NCC 1000 and success mentors are programs within the Advising and Counseling Department, and these programs also assess their impact on student success and GPAs. NCC 1000: We track retention and student GPA, but focus on retention because we can’t help students with their GPAs if they don’t stay in college. The retention data collected to date shows that we have consistently retained five to ten percent more NCC 1000 students semester-to-semester than those who do not take NCC 1000. Year-to-year retention is even more dramatic. For the three semesters for which we have data, on average we retain 53% of students who take NCC 1000 during their first term, compared to a 40% retention rate for students who do not. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) In fall 2012 (our first semester using success mentors), we tracked the correlation of the grades failed: never attended and failed: attended at least once, but didn’t complete the class between those NCC 1000 sections that had success mentors compared to those without a mentor. Only ten percent of students in class sections with a mentor received one of these grades compared to almost 21% of students in class sections without a mentor. We now provide a success mentor in every section. (4.C.2, 4.C.3, 4.C.4) Supplemental Instruction: In addition to tracking the numbers of instructors, distinct courses, course sections, and students using SI (all measures of usage rates), we also collect data on the average GPA of students who use SI compared to those who don’t, and student satisfaction.

In the spring 2013 semester, we used SI in 48 course sections. In spring 2014, we used them in 91 sections, a 90% increase. We have also expanded the number of participating disciplines from two to 11. In AY2014, 1,475 unique students attended Supplemental Instruction sessions, an increase of 93% over the prior academic year. (4.C.2, 4.C.4)

5 Importance scale: 1 = “Very unimportant” / 5 = “Very important” 6 Satisfaction scale: 1 = “Very dissatisfied” / 5 = “Very satisfied” 7 Scale: 1 = “Not at all” / 2 = “Somewhat” / 3 = “Very”

Page 33


Another measure of SI quality is its impact on student course success rates. Success in key gateway courses is an important factor that can improve overall student retention, persistence, and completion (Figure 1R5-1). (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Figure 1R5-1: Supplemental Instruction Program Course Success Rates, AY2013-2014

When comparing students who used SI with those who didn’t, there was a universal increase in positive course outcomes regardless of prior GPA. This increase was significantly higher in students with prior GPAs of below 2.5, and no GPA group who used SI dropped below a C average in their classes with SI. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Learning communities: We are now in our third year offering learning communities. Growth of the program has been slow because we are focused on implementing it with fidelity to best practices in order to ensure its impact on student learning and success. We have adapted the Learning Communities Inventory for student evaluation and administered it for the first time in fall 2014. In general, students who have participated in a learning community are positive about the experience. We also track enrollment as a measure of quality. In fall 2014, all Learning Communities had full enrollment, but spring 2015 enrollment dropped off. Our efforts to increase enrollment is discussed in the improvements section. We have investigated the correlation between student success rates in courses that are or are not part of a learning community. However, so far we have been unable to find any meaningful correlation, due to the presence of many other variables that impact student success and very small enrollment numbers. As we are able to increase the size of the program, we will continue to monitor results. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Developmental education: Placement into developmental education significantly impacts students’ retention, persistence, and completion rates, in part simply because of the additional time they must take before progressing to college-level coursework. To determine the effectiveness of our developmental education programs, Normandale analyzes data on indicators such as course success rates (defined as passing with a grade of a ‘C’ or better) and course attrition rates. Positively impacting these results will, we believe, ultimately have an influence on students’ overall retention, persistence, and completion rates. While our goal is to see all of our students earn passing grades, the fact that the course success rates for developmental English students are statistically comparable to the Freshman Composition success rate indicates that our services are having a positive impact (Table 1R5-3). Similar results are not currently available for developmental math due to the innovative nature of the program redesign and the need for additional work with the software provider to capture data on comparable measures. (4.C.2) Table 1R5-3: Course Success Rates, Three-Year Average

Course Type Average Success Rate

73.6%81.6%

57.5%64.2%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2013 2014

Success rate for those that used SI Success rate for those that did not use SI

Page 34


Fall 2011-Spring 2013 Normandale overall (every student, every course) 72% Developmental Reading 67% Developmental English 64% Freshman Composition (all students) 67% Freshman Composition (developmental English students only) 70% Freshman Composition (excluding developmental English students) 67%

The course attrition rate is made up of students who earn the grades of FN (never attended), FW (attended a partial semester, then stopped coming), or W (officially withdrew from the class). These grades can affect students’ academic standing and place them at an even greater disadvantage for persisting and completing a program. Continual improvement in our developmental education program, including the recent redesign work, is having a significant impact on reducing our attrition rates (Figure 1R5-2). (4.C.2) Figure 1R5-2: Course Attrition Rates, Fall 2011-Fall 2014

Library support: Because course integrated library instruction is so important, we track the number of course sections in which we offer it with the goal of increasing that number (Figure 1R5-3). Figure 1R5-3: Number of Course Sections using Library Instruction

Because students need to be comfortable with and see the value of using library services, we also track student satisfaction via the Student Satisfaction with Services survey. In 2013, student satisfaction with library services was 4.00 (on a five-point scale), up from 3.94 in 2011, and importance was 4.61, down

Interventions began

Page 35


from 4.65 in 2011. Our average satisfaction score for all departments was 3.80 and average importance was 4.20; the library is consistently one of our highest performing support departments. The Tutoring Center and Writing Center: Two key ways we measure the quality of tutoring support is usage and satisfaction. We use an electronic system to track student usage. Overall, usage of tutoring services has increased significantly in recent years (Table 1R5-4). Table 1R5-4: Tutoring Center Usage

Time Period Student Visits # Change from Prior Year % Change from Prior Year AY2011 7,190 +823 +12.9% AY2012 7,735 +545 +7.6% AY2013 14,042 +6,307 +81.5% AY2014 14,097 +55 +0.4%

The increase in usage from AY2012 to AY2013 coincides with the relocation of the Tutoring Center to a centralized, highly visible location and significant increases in usage of supplemental instruction. (3.D.1) We also track student satisfaction via the Student Satisfaction with Services survey. In 2013, student satisfaction on a five-point scale was 3.91, up from 3.71 in 2011 and importance was 4.45, down from 4.48 in 2011. We consider a satisfaction score of 3.80 or better to be satisfactory, and the importance cut score is approximately 4.20. While we continually work to improve student satisfaction with services, the Tutoring Center’s scores indicate that it is well-perceived by students. We do not currently benchmark many of these programs against other institutions. We are one of the only colleges we know of that is collecting data about the impact of On Course. For learning communities, our program is too new and the number of students enrolled is so small that it does not provide the basis for meaningful comparisons. As discussed above, we do not currently set retention, persistence, and completion targets for these specific programs. As we collect enough baseline data to provide needed context, we will begin to set targets as appropriate. For information on college-wide results for retention, persistence, and completion, see 2R2. (4.C.2) 1I5: Improvements NCC 1000: Since we know that students are more likely to persist and succeed when they make a connection with other students, we plan to expand both the numbers of mentors and the types of roles they play in AY2016 through a Peer Mentors program. This program will provide one-on-one mentoring designed for every student, not just those who place into developmental coursework. In AY2017 we plan to launch a Program Mentors initiative in three academic areas: Health Sciences, Business, and STEM. Each of these areas will have two to three mentors whose primary responsibility will be to mentor students in the associated programs, although they will also have other duties. (4.C.3) Learning communities: One component of the 2014-2018 academic master plan is to increase student enrollment in learning community courses by five percent each year through 2018. We will expand the program by offering additional learning communities across subject areas and educational levels. Specific plans include offering developmental-level learning communities that include a science course, learning communities that pair our lowest-level reading and writing courses with NCC 1000, and expansion of the number of learning communities that include NCC 1000. Additionally, we plan to offer learning communities for Nursing students that include Psychology and Statistics, both of which are required and often challenging courses. In particular, this will provide an opportunity to evaluate the impact of learning communities on retention, persistence, and program completion for our Nursing students. (4.C.3)

Page 36


A key focus at this point is developing the infrastructure to communicate to students both the availability and benefits of learning communities as well as to deliver the program in alignment with best practices. Two key concerns that we are addressing are best ways to promote Learning Communities (in addition to advising and registration sessions) and simplifying the online registration process. (3.D.4) Library support: Based upon what we know about good practices in the field of information science, we are developing a credit-bearing course that will be taught by library faculty entitled “Information Literacy and Research Skills.” It will be paired with a discipline-specific course in a learning community. The course proposal will be submitted to the Academic Affairs & Standards Council (our curriculum committee) in AY2015 and piloted in subsequent semesters. (3.D.1, 3.D.5) In an effort to maintain student satisfaction with our library services we are working to improve student access to our faculty librarians and research help through the chat service and to make our web presence more user-friendly and responsive to viewing on mobile devices. (3.D.4) SI, the Tutoring Center and the Writing Center: For us, one of the most important factors influencing the quality and effectiveness of these services is availability. Our goal is therefore to maximize the number of tutors and SI leaders within our budget constraints. One such initiative that we have piloted is integrating supplemental instruction with internships. This reduces the overall cost of the SI program while also giving students credit for their experience as SI leaders. We are also developing processes for expanding volunteer opportunities for retirees and graduate students in the Tutoring Center. (3.D.4)

Academic Integrity 1P6: Processes Ensuring freedom of expression: Normandale ensures freedom of expression and promotes academic freedom and integrity though a combination of educational and compliance-related opportunities and processes. Freedom of expression is encouraged for faculty through opportunities to explore new ideas, develop new courses and course content, and experience new challenges. These opportunities include:

• Faculty sabbaticals offer an opportunity for a faculty member to focus on a new or longstanding passion by allowing the time needed for the experience. Academic deans meet with faculty who are working on sabbatical plans, and Library faculty are available to assist faculty in locating resources for their sabbatical projects.

• Provision of faculty development funds is mandated by the MSCF contract at $250 annually per full-time-equivalent, which amounted to more than $90,000 in AY2015. The distribution of funds is overseen by a faculty-run committee. Funds support faculty seeking to improve their teaching and to stay current in their field.

• The Normandale Colloquium is a faculty-designed and -driven opportunity to present to the college and community on a self-selected topic. Now in its ninth year, the colloquium maintains a blog of its schedule and past presentations. Presentations are often inter-disciplinary and may involve students or outside speakers.

(2.D) The college supports students, faculty, and staff in the development and application of ethical practices related to research and scholarly pursuits. We have processes to monitor compliance and provide educational opportunities when concerns arise. We implement disciplinary actions to correct unethical practices when necessary.

Page 37

http://normandalecolloquium.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-06:00&max-results=14


Developing ethical learning and research practices in students: Normandale’s code of conduct for students is available on our website and outlines the rules and regulations of conduct (including academic dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism) and the procedures for investigation, formal hearings, sanctions, suspensions, and appeals. Normandale’s approach to helping students develop ethical learning and research practices is primarily through education, with more punitive measures used as a last resort only for serious infractions or repeated offenses. (2.E.3) Students who complete a degree or the MnTC are required to take Freshman Composition. One of the course’s student learning outcomes is that students will be able to conduct academic research and appropriately synthesize sources. The research component of this course has been a focus of the English department’s Core Learning Outcomes assessment work. They spent a year designing a rubric to be used department-wide, and it was used during the spring and fall 2013 semesters (Table 1R6-4). (2.E.2) Library faculty provide additional instruction and support to help students develop ethical research practices through integrated library instruction (1P5) and individual guidance. Sample topics for integrated instruction include search strategies, assessment of resource quality, and ethical practices. Library support services include a faculty-staffed resource desk available during the majority of library hours and a 24-hour chat line. (2.E.1, 2.E.2) The Tutoring Center offers students educational support to avoid academic dishonesty and compliance-related interventions when we discover cases of academic dishonesty. Started in AY2014, Plagiarism 411 is an innovative intervention designed to promote student understanding of what plagiarism is and how to avoid it by helping identify potential plagiarism before an assignment is turned in, education on how to avoid plagiarism, and document review and tips on corrections. (2.E.2) Faculty members who suspect a student of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, report the incident to the dean of students who works with faculty and the student to determine appropriate next steps. In cases of mild offence, the dean of students may refer a student to the tutoring center to attend Plagiarism 411. (2.E.3) In AY2013 Normandale adopted Turnitin, an online tool that provides both education and compliance support. Faculty and staff can use Turnitin to assess, among other features, the originality of student work. The Writing Center supports ethical practices in its tutoring of student writing and uses Turnitin to check students’ writing for originality. Faculty members also instruct students to submit their work to Turnitin prior to the final paper to allow time for corrections and avoid plagiarism. As of AY2015 Turnitin is partially integrated with Normandale’s learning management system with the goal of providing a seamless use. (2.E.1, 2.E.2) We also employ several interventions and technology tools to discourage academic dishonesty.

• Use of identification: The testing center requires students to present a photo ID for all testing. Photo ID is also required in advising and registration sessions to establish student identification prior to registration.

• Respondus: We use Respondus, a test security technology, in both face-to-face and online courses. The Respondus Lockdown Browser is a tool that prevents testing students from web access, switching applications, and saving or printing test content in computerized testing.

• Maxient: In AY2014 we adopted the Maxient database to track and analyze student conduct issues, including academic issues such as academic dishonesty. This will help us better assess the scope of academic dishonesty at Normandale and the impact of our interventions.

• Turnitin: Noted above as an educational approach benefiting students, Turnitin also provides faculty with a formative and evaluative tool to assess the originality of student work.

Page 38

http://www.normandale.edu/current-students/code-of-conduct


(2.E.1)

Ethical teaching and research practices of faculty: The MnSCU employee code of conduct (Procedure 1C.0.1) provides additional guidance in topics related to academic integrity in areas such as intellectual property, fraud, and dishonesty. Upon hire all employees complete an online training on the employee code of contact to ensure familiarity. (2.E.3) Policy and contract language also provide guidance in our approach to academic freedom and integrity. MnSCU Policy 3.26 defines intellectual property and the ownership of intellectual property. The 2013-2015 Minnesota State College Faculty (MSCF) contract (Article 23) describes the faculty member’s rights and responsibilities related to academic freedom and intellectual property. The two sources are congruent in definitions and information. We have had no disciplinary action or faculty grievances in this area since the previous portfolio. (2.D) Copyright and licensing statutes are also communicated on campus. The use of materials with copyrights is clearly described in MnSCU Policy 3.27. Signage describing copyright compliance is posted at all campus copiers. The Information Technology department requires licensure prior to uploading resources to computers (such as in lab settings) for student use. (2.E.3) Normandale takes student complaints seriously, including those regarding issues of ethical teaching. Our student complaint and grievance policy is posted on our website and is available in the college catalog. Students who believe there has been a calculation error or a departure from grading described in a course syllabus may request a course grade review. A description of the process and the request form is available on our website (2P4). (2.E.3) Additional processes that promote ethical teaching include:

• Students are assured access to their instructors in both face-to-face and online courses. Office hours must be provided in course syllabi and posted outside their offices.

• Faculty members use Turnitin and Respondus, described above, to promote ethical student learning. • All staff and faculty are required to follow Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act guidelines,

including protecting student data such as grades. • Faculty use a syllabus guide to ensure information is conveyed to students in a consistent way.

Although Normandale is not a research institution, we support research and inquiry by faculty and staff, particularly in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Our Institutional Review Board (IRB) provides support for faculty and staff seeking to carry out research studies that they plan to publish or share outside of the institution. The IRB functions to protect research participants, as well as to support and inform faculty and staff. Their committee charge, along with an IRB guide and application form, are available on the employee portal (intranet) along with the names of current IRB members. (2.E.1) Normandale’s Office of Research and Planning provides additional support to faculty and staff in their research efforts. Services include access to MnSCU databases, assistance in designing research questions, and data integrity assurance. (2.E.1) 1R6: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Key outcomes that we measure in assuring academic integrity include number and nature of faculty grievances related to academic freedom, copyright infringement incidents, the number and nature of sabbaticals, student conduct, Plagiarism 411 usage rates, Turnitin usage rates, IRB approvals, and student learning outcomes related to ethical research and writing.

Page 39

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/1c0p1.html




http://www.normandale.edu/catalog/academic-policies-and-procedures/student-complaint-and-grievance-process

http://www.normandale.edu/advising-and-services/academic-advising/appeals-and-academic-concerns


Summary, comparisons to targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: We have not had any copyright infringement incidents or academic freedom-related faculty grievances since the last portfolio. Faculty completing a sabbatical are required to submit a report that is reviewed by the academic deans and vice president of academic affairs (Table 1R6-1). Table 1R6-1: Normandale Faculty Sabbaticals

Academic year Full-year

Sabbaticals Single Semester

Sabbaticals Teaching-

Learning Focus Discipline

Focus AY2013 9 5 11 3 AY2014 14 3 7 10 AY2015 12 4 * *

* Data not available until reports are submitted at end of sabbaticals Student conduct data: Academic dishonesty is the most common conduct issue at Normandale. Data from AY2014 indicated that 44 of the 138 cases reported (32%) were academic in nature. Conduct cases have decreased overall (Figure 1R6-1), but the proportion of cases that are academic has not shown a consistent trend and plagiarism remains the most common academic dishonesty concern (Figure 1R6-2). Minimal sanctions with a focus on education is our primary approach, and evidence indicates this is effective for most students. Of the plagiarism cases in AY2014 and AY2015 (a total of 67), the repeat offense rate was 3.51%. The Tutoring Center reports they have used the Plagiarism 411 intervention with 20 students since its start in 2013 and we will analyze trend data on its usage in the future. Figure 1R6-1: Student Conduct Issues, AY2012- Figure 1R6-2: Percent of all Conduct 2014 Issues Categorized as ‘Academic,’ AY2012-2014

Institutional Review Board: Recent history of IRB applications, including areas of focus, shows that the majority of studies are in the areas of student life and teaching and learning, which is consistent with our mission and purpose as an open access community college (Table 1R6-2). Table 1R6-2: IRB Applications Approved

Year Approved

Studies Teaching/Learning-

Related Studies Discipline-Related

Studies Student Life-

Related Studies AY2012 1 0 0 1 AY2013 8 3 2 3 AY2014 5 4 0 1 AY2015 6 4 0 2

Turnitin: The number of student users of and submissions to Turnitin have remained fairly constant since our adoption of the tool. The number of significant faculty users (five or more submissions) has also

169156

130

0

50

100

150

200

2012 2013 2014

43%56%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2012 2013 2014

Page 40


remained stable (Table 1R6-3). We are not satisfied with these results and plan to communicate its availability more broadly to faculty (1I6). Table 1R6-3: Turnitin Usage by Students and Faculty

Year Student Users Originality Check Selected Significant Faculty Users AY2014 1,861 6,485 32 AY2015 1,872 6,254 30

English department CLO assessment: Table 1R6-4 depicts the findings of the English department Core Learning Outcomes assessment. As a result, they focused their assessment work specifically on the most significant area of concern (and its relationship to plagiarism): correct incorporation of research sources. Table 1R6-4: English Department Assessment of Student Learning Related to Plagiarism

Effective Application of Sources Poor Acceptable Excellent Summary 15% 55% 30% Paraphrasing 18% 52% 30% Quotations 15% 54% 30% Signal phrases 21% 53% 26% In-text citations 29% 43% 28% No Somewhat Yes Avoids unintentional plagiarism 17% 55% 28%

1I6: Improvements Planned improvements include encouraging widespread adoption of technologies that can promote academic integrity and prevention of academic dishonesty. Turnitin has been partially integrated with our learning management system. Once it is fully integrated, we will promote its availability with the goal of increasing the number of students and faculty using it. (2.E.1, 2.E.2) We also plan to use our student conduct tracking software to more fully analyze data and understand where further interventions are needed. Normandale was an early adopter of this software among community colleges, but as other colleges adopt it we will have opportunities for benchmarking our results to better understand where we need to focus our improvements.

CATEGORY TWO: MEETING STUDENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS Introduction The past four years have been a time of great change for Normandale in meeting student and other key stakeholder needs. We undertook two major initiatives in this area. The Blueprint for New Student Success assessed our student support services and resulted in program re-designs that have laid the groundwork for future improvements to student retention, persistence, and completion. An initiative focused on partnerships and collaborations has created infrastructure and built campus-wide awareness of partnerships as a key way that Normandale meets the needs of both students and external stakeholders. As a result of these and other efforts, Normandale is poised to move to the level of systematic in our process maturity level. Processes for identifying and responding to student needs are generally understood, repeatable and documented through enrollment planning, non-academic program review, and annual planning and budgeting. Our complaints process is clearly communicated to stakeholders and has undergone an improvement process to reduce time to resolution of complaints. Partnerships and collaboration have explicit goals and repeatable processes that have been developed and communicated across the college. However, our processes are still best categorized as reacting because our processes in

Page 41


student retention, persistence and completion still need to be more fully coordinated across all aspects of the college. This is the only area where our processes are reacting, and we expect our planned improvements will move our maturity level into systematic and toward aligned. Normandale is at a reacting level in regards to results. Data is collected through various methods such as enrollment planning, academic and non-academic program reviews, and climate surveys which are subsequently analyzed and communicated through sources such as the Fact Book. Results for complaints are moving into a systematic maturity level, with archived data being analyzed at various levels and used for improvement. However, non-academic program review was only implemented in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and not all programs have completed a review, which is the systematic process by which all departments analyze results for improvement. Enrollment planning was first implemented in 2012 and is similarly too new to have enough data and information to evaluate our progress. Normandale is planning improvements in this category that will move our processes and results into a systematic level of maturity. An AQIP action project closing in June 2015 will provide recommendations on services to increase enrollment and retention of non-traditional adult students (age 25 and older), a key demographic in our area. As more departments complete non-academic program review for the first time, we will gain insight into students’ non-academic needs and identify improvements. Non-academic program review now requires departments to identify a plan to improve their data collection to meet their analysis needs, which will support more mature results. Lastly, we plan to implement one or more AQIP action projects, similar to the Blueprint for New Student Success, to focus efforts on improving student retention, persistence, and completion.

Current and Prospective Student Need 2P1: Processes Key processes for identifying students: Identifying student groups and determining their needs is done at the college, division, or department level depending on the specific student group and their needs. Normandale uses distinct but sometimes overlapping key processes for identifying students, largely based on whether they are new groups we wish to target or existing students, including specific sub-groups.

• New student groups: The key process for identifying new student groups who are or may soon be on our campus is enrollment planning (2P2, 4P2). The enrollment plan focuses on recruitment of new student groups by identifying potential student markets as well as on retention of these new student groups once they are enrolled. The enrollment management work group and the dean of enrollment conduct regular and ongoing environmental scanning and analyze data and trends from feeder schools, census, and regional labor market sources to identify increases and decreases in key demographics. The plan then sets targets for increasing enrollment and retention of the specific student groups identified. Occasionally external mandates identify new student groups for us to target.

• Existing students and student sub-groups: Regular collection and analysis of data on current students is an ongoing process for identifying our student groups and sub-groups with distinctive needs. Sources include MnSCU’s data warehouse, the results of ad hoc data requests to the Office of Research and Planning, and periodic focus groups. Data is regularly shared with the college and departments through the Normandale Fact Book, program data sheets, and additional reports provided as part of academic and non-academic program review.

Process for determining and meeting student needs: Normandale’s process for determining student needs is the same whether we are assessing the general needs of all students, the needs of specific student sub-groups, or changing student needs. The process includes analysis of data from a variety of sources including the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), Student Satisfaction with Services Survey, focus groups, non-academic program review, feedback from students (e.g. Student

Page 42


Senate, Phi Theta Kappa), feedback from external partners (e.g. Latino advisory committee), and observations from students, faculty, and staff. Normandale faculty, staff, and administration stay abreast of current trends and research of best practices for supporting students in higher education in general and at community colleges in particular. Through activities such as membership in professional associations, participation in conferences and webinars, and regular contact with colleagues at other institutions, we learn about high-impact and evidence-based approaches that meet student needs and encourage student success. (3.D.1) Through regular processes such as annual planning (4P2) and non-academic program review (described below), we analyze data to determine if our existing programs are adequately meeting student needs. We also review information on best and promising practices to identify approaches for better meeting existing or new student needs. When a new need is identified, or when it appears that current services are not adequately meeting student needs, the relevant department or project team works closely with the Office of Research and Planning to collect and analyze relevant data. We then design and deploy new services. Our process for meeting student needs includes identifying existing services that meet student needs, modifying services to meet new or changing needs, and/or designing and deploying new services when existing services do not meet current or changing student needs. Existing services are deployed through the annual planning and budgeting process, while new services go through the new funding request process (4P2). Some services are available to all students, and Normandale also deploys specialized services for specific student sub-groups. Deploying services to all students: Normandale deploys a number of ongoing non-academic support services that are available to all students:

• Advising: Academic advising includes assistance with academic planning, career development, and transfer.

• Counseling: Counselors provide free, confidential appointments for students to discuss their concerns, as well as crisis intervention and referrals.

• Career counseling and resources: Advisors and counselors provide assistance with career exploration and planning resources. In addition, resources available on our website include assessment tools, information on careers, and on- and off-campus job postings.

• Campus store and textbook depot: In addition to textbook sales and a range of products sold in the campus store, Normandale offers a textbook rental program that saved students over $500,000 in the 2014-15 academic year alone.

• Financial aid: The Office of Financial Aid advises students on financial aid, assists them with completing the FAFSA, processes awards, and awards scholarships.

• Work study: Eligible students can apply for on-campus work study opportunities. • Diversity Center: The diversity center provides cultural programming, leadership development,

and community building to promote cultural awareness and acceptance. (3.D.1, 3.D.2)

While the above support services are available to all students at any time, our philosophy for connecting students with appropriate supports is focused on providing well-coordinated services for new entering students that help them start strong and thrive in a higher education environment. New Student Programs, designed as a result of Normandale’s Blueprint for New Student Success (a project that examined our disconnected new student services and made recommendations for connecting them and increasing their effectiveness), is a primary vehicle for communicating and deploying services to meet student needs.

Page 43


New Student Programs includes advising and registration for new students, new student orientation, NCC 1000, student success mentors, and welcome week activities. Its mission is to assist new students by introducing them to the intellectual, cultural, and social climate of Normandale through frequent contact and continuous exposure to the services and programs designed for their success. As discussed in 1P5, NCC 1000 and the embedded student success mentors are critical supports for new students testing into developmental reading and writing but are open to all students. In addition to helping students build academic skills that will support their success, NCC 1000 addresses non-cognitive factors such as resiliency, feelings of self-efficacy, interdependence, and a sense of belonging that have been shown to support student retention. Together, these academic and non-academic support services help new students start college strong and develop skills for their long-term academic success. (3.D.2) As with existing services that are available for all students, Normandale’s primary process for connecting specific sub-groups with services is through New Student Programs and particularly advising and registration, where we present information on a wide range of college services including those for specific sub-populations:

• Office for Students with Disabilities: In addition to providing accommodations that give students with disabilities equal access to Normandale courses, programs and events, the office helps students successfully transition to a higher education environment, learn to advocate for themselves, and create academic plans that will take into consideration their academic and non-academic needs.

• Veterans’ Resource Center: Normandale is a Yellow Ribbon certified school and provides the resource center and a dedicated advisor to assist veterans with their transition to school and civilian life. Services include assistance with admissions and FAFSA applications, military transcripts, military and Veterans Affairs benefits, and referrals for jobs and healthcare.

• College Success Program: Students who test into the lowest levels of developmental reading and writing are required to meet with an advisor or counselor to discuss any changes to their schedules, courses, or majors prior to making changes.

• Academy of Math and Science: This cohort-based program supports students, particularly those who are underrepresented (low-income, women, students of color), who are pursuing a science, technology, engineering, or math degree. In addition to providing academic advising, the program provides scholarships, mentors, and non-academic skill-building to help students succeed.

• Finish Line: This program provides counseling and scholarships to support low-income students who are close to graduation but at risk of not completing.

• Hispanic/Latino outreach and support: Our enrollment plan (2P2, 4P2) has identified Hispanic/Latino students as a key student group for recruitment and retention efforts. Normandale provides a bilingual outreach coordinator, Latino advisory committee to provide input on student needs, and assistance for undocumented students.

• Child care: Normandale contracts with a licensed child care provider to provide on-campus care to children six weeks to twelve years old. First priority is given to children of current students.

• Campus Cupboard: This on-campus food shelf is aimed at eliminating hunger as a distraction that prevents students from succeeding in the classroom. Students can access the food shelf without showing any proof of hardship.

(3.D.1, 3.D.2)

In general, these support services are available to any student who self-identifies as belonging to that sub-group. Normandale does not, for example, require students with disabilities to identify as such or access services from our Office for Students with Disabilities. We do, however, regularly communicate the availability of these services in a variety of ways to raise student awareness and encourage those who need the services to access them.

Page 44


Designing and deploying new services to new and existing students and student sub-groups: In addition to deploying and regularly assessing the effectiveness of existing support services, Normandale designs and deploys new services as needed to meet changing student needs. When determining the process to follow, we take into consideration the scale of the need and of the proposed intervention, its complexity, and whether the response is cross-departmental or within one specific department. Some responses to new or changing needs are obvious, small in scale, and/or can be addressed by one department. These are typically designed and deployed as part of a department’s annual work plan or just as part of their ongoing work. Departments are encouraged to use appropriate tools such as project management or to use the plan-do-study-act framework as needed, but the process is informal and owned by that department. For more complex projects that cross multiple departments, we follow the continuous improvement cycle of plan-do-study-act that begins with a small scale or pilot project and collection and analysis of initial results before modifying and deploying services more broadly across the college or to more students. Often, the college assigns a project team to have primary responsibility for the process with larger-scale or cross-departmental projects. Larger-scale projects with the potential for significant impact are included in the college’s annual work plan. These projects may also be elevated to AQIP action projects. Once the department or project team has analyzed student need data, they next plan an intervention designed to address those needs. To determine appropriate service(s), we review best and promising practices through literature review, conferences, memberships in professional associations, and conversations with staff, faculty, and administrators from other institutions. We distill this information into key findings and principles before comparing those services against our existing services and institutional culture to determine the most viable design. After an initial response has been designed, whenever possible we test the intervention through a small-scale or pilot project. The project team determines the appropriate scale and scope for the pilot and whenever possible works with the Office of Research and Planning to develop an evaluation plan that will measure the effectiveness of the intervention. The results of this assessment are used to make any modifications to the program design and to inform the college’s decisions to scale up a project or target specific groups of students for the services. After a project has been institutionalized, Normandale monitors its results through ongoing processes such as non-academic program review or surveys such as Satisfaction with Services Survey. If at any time student needs change to the point that the intervention is no longer needed, or if the regular analysis of results indicates that it is no longer having the intended effect, it would be identified through the continuous plan-do-study-act cycle to modify or design a new programmatic response. (3.D.1) Ensuring staff members who provide non-academic student support services are qualified, trained, and supported: Normandale’s recruitment and hiring processes (3P1) ensure that the staff members responsible for providing non-academic student support services are qualified. Required qualifications for staff positions providing non-academic student support services are determined based on the specifics of the position and in alignment with standards for the field. Qualifications include adequate education levels and relevant previous experience. Specific positions may have additional qualification requirements such as a second language, licensure, or background similar to that of the students we serve. (3.C.6) Normandale provides a variety of training opportunities for support services staff. Staff members are encouraged to participate in both on- and off-campus learning activities, conferences, and continuing education. Some training opportunities are paid for by the college, and staff can access additional training by applying for staff development funds (3P3). Professional development may be specific to a

Page 45


department’s area of specialization, for a position based on job duties, or on a topic germane to a department’s mission. Some training may be mandated based on departmental need or position requirements. Departments also bring in subject matter experts for ongoing staff development, and all staff are expected to attend college-wide training opportunities such as customer service training and workshops during development days. (3.C.6) Finally, individual student support service departments support employees by holding weekly meetings with supervisors and each other to discuss issues and problems that may occur and to ensure staff have the support and resources to do their jobs. These scheduled meetings allow departments to problem solve as new issues arise. (3.C.6) Communicating the availability of non-academic support services: Normandale communicates the availability of support services to prospective and current students, staff, and faculty through a variety of platforms. Information on all student services is available on the Normandale Community College website. An online events calendar is available as well. Additional methods for communicating about non-academic support services include:

• New Student Programs including advising and registration, NCC 1000 and new student orientation are all avenues for informing new students about available support services.

• Referrals are an effective way to direct students to specific services they may need. For example, faculty or advisors may refer a student to the Office for Students with Disabilities if the student self-discloses that they have a disability, or a student in crisis will be connected to a counselor.

• Classroom visits provide information to students without singling out those who specifically need the services. The Tutoring Center and Office for Students with Disabilities are two departments that regularly make class presentations.

• Faculty are required to include information on the Office for Students with Disabilities in their course syllabi.

(3.D.2)

Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess student needs: Normandale selects tools, methods, and instruments to assess student needs by working with the Office of Research and Planning to determine the student groups or sub-groups being targeted and the specific needs being assessed. Whenever possible, we identify existing tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs. For example, both the Student Satisfaction with Services Survey and the CCSSE include questions that assess student use and satisfaction with our support services. When needed, departments or project teams work with the Office of Research and Planning to develop evaluation questions and methods for gathering data to answer them. In some cases, departments develop their own tools or methods. Occasionally the questions or specific data to be collected may be dictated by external parties such as grant funders. Assessing the degree to which student needs are met: As part of plan-do-study-act cycle, departments and project teams are encouraged to evaluate the initial results of a pilot or small-scale project to determine the intervention’s effectiveness at meeting student needs. This assessment and evaluation is required of larger, cross-departmental efforts such as those identified as AQIP action projects and those included in the college work plan. As a result of collecting and analyzing this data, we can make a decision to modify, scale up, or not move forward if the data shows the service to have been ineffective. In the latter case, we might go back to identify student needs to determine if we were not accurately understanding student need, or would go back to the plan phase to design a new intervention. Some areas of the college are becoming more mature in their assessment processes and are beginning to collect and analyze data on which students benefit the most from certain interventions. For example,

Page 46

http://www.normandale.edu/current-students

http://www.normandale.edu/campus-life/campus-calendar


when we redesigned NCC 1000 (1P5) and mandated the class for students in developmental education, through evaluation of the program effectiveness, we found no connection between taking NCC 1000 and student success for students who had placed into only developmental math (i.e. did not place into developmental reading or writing). In response, we removed the requirement for those students. This allows Normandale to target interventions for students most in need and most likely to benefit from the services. However, we recognize that this practice is not used college-wide, and we will continue to more fully integrate it as we move forward. For interventions that have been taken to scale as well as for ongoing student support services, we conduct assessments of effectiveness through tracking student usage, Satisfaction with Services Survey, CCSSE, and non-academic program review. If any of these assessments indicated that the intervention was no longer meeting student needs, we would again deploy the plan-do-study-act process to determine what changes need to be made. Although Normandale has a long history of academic program review, until recently we did not have a formal tool for review and improvement of non-academic programs. We implemented non-academic program review in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 as a way for non-academic programs to review how they are contributing to the college’s mission, values, and strategic plan. It is a tool for departments to reflect on the effectiveness of their processes and to benchmark themselves against other higher education institutions. Non-academic program review is a six-month-long process that every non-academic department completes once every four years. The process improvement specialist is responsible for guiding departments through the process and providing technical assistance as needed. Departments complete a self-study evaluating the overall effectiveness of their department, including customer satisfaction, process efficiency, and program outcomes by identifying strengths and weaknesses. They analyze their data in the context of their mission, core functions, customers, personnel, and benchmarks with like institutions. Departments also analyze their resource utilization, ideas for future improvements in efficiency, and how they will respond to and be impacted by current trends. Currently, departments are reflecting on impacts of increased enrollment of non-traditional adults and students of color, competency-based education, and partnerships. Non-academic program review reports are shared with the dean or director that oversees the department, shared with administrative council, and posted on the employee portal. The reports provide data and analysis that often inform the modification or design of services to meet students’ non-academic needs that are then executed via either the department annual plan or college work plan. 2R1: Results Outcomes/measures tracked: Normandale tracks key student groups and student sub-groups as well as new student groups that we target for recruitment and retention. We track their non-academic needs, the pilot projects we deploy and their results at helping students be successful. We also track students’ satisfaction with services. Summary, comparisons to targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Through our key processes for identifying new and existing students and student sub-groups, we have identified the following key student groups (Table 2R1-1). Table 2R1-1: Key Student Groups and Sub Groups Tracked by Process (Fall 2014 data)

Process Group(s) Identified Percent of all students Enrollment Planning Students of color 36%

Page 47


Hispanic/Latino 9% Adult students over 25 32%

Collection and analysis of data, including:

• Fact Book • Ad hoc data requests • CCSSE • Satisfaction with

Services Survey • Feedback from

students, faculty, and staff

• Feedback from community partners

Traditional high school graduates 11% Adult students over 25 32% Students of color 36% Men and women 45% Male, 54% Female Students in poverty (Pell eligible) 37% First generation students (Federal definition) 52% Students with disabilities 10% Students who are parents 21% Underrepresented students 57% Students with mental health needs * Students who use public transportation 23% Non-native English speakers *

External direction or mandate

Students of color 36% Veterans 2%

*Exact percentages unknown, based on direct experiences with our student population Our enrollment planning process targets two specific student sub-groups: students of color (particularly Hispanic students) and non-traditional adults. As a result of our efforts, the percent of Hispanic students enrolled at Normandale increased from two percent in fall 2011 to nine percent in fall 2014. For all students, meeting student needs is a combination of identifying needs and then deploying the relevant services (Table 2R1-2). Some services, while designed to meet the needs of specific sub-groups, are available to all students. We have identified the following sub-groups’ needs, deployed interventions to address them, and are tracking effectiveness of the interventions: Table 2R1-2: Examples of Student Needs, the Services Deployed, and Related Data

Need Service(s) Data Source/Tracking Mechanism Poverty/hunger Campus Cupboard

Textbook rental Campus cupboard usage rates Textbook rental usage rates, dollars saved

Disabilities Office for Students with Disabilities

CCSSE, Satisfaction surveys Student success rates

Adult learners, age 25+

Planned improvement (current AQIP action project)

CCSSE, Satisfaction with Services Surveys Adult Learner Inventory

Traditional high school grads

Planned improvement: T2C (Transition to College)

To be determined

Students of color Diversity Center Latino advisor Latino advisory group

Satisfaction survey

1st generation students

Planned improvement: Student Support Services (pending grant)

To be determined

Parents Child care CCSSE Under-represented Academy of Math and Science Non-academic program review Mental health Improvement: mental health

professional Personal counseling

Mental health screening Crisis procedure Faculty and staff certifications

Veterans Veterans’ Resource Center Satisfaction survey

Page 48


The Student Satisfaction with Services survey is a primary tool for determining how well we are meeting student needs (Table 2R1-3). We don’t set targets for the Student Satisfaction with Services survey. Rather, as a way to give context to the information, we take our results and identify the mean score for both importance and satisfaction. Using gap analysis on satisfaction and importance results, we place services in one of four quadrants (Table 2R1-4). While not a true internal target, Normandale’s goal with the Student Satisfaction with Services survey is to close the gaps. Table 2R1-3: Satisfaction Results for Services Available to All Students

Service SSS 2013

Mean8 CCSSE 2014

Mean9 A&R

Survey10 Financial Aid 3.81 2.25 -- Academic Advising 3.69 2.17 -- New student advising and registration -- -- 4.38 Career counseling -- 1.97 --

Table 2R1-4: 2013 Student Satisfaction with Services Survey Gap Analysis

Quadrant Department Satisfaction11 Importance12 Celebrate (high importance, high satisfaction)

Admissions 3.86 4.32

Take action (high importance, low satisfaction)

Advising and counseling 3.69 4.54 Textbook store 3.50 4.39 Financial aid 3.81 4.50

Leave alone (low importance, high satisfaction)

Diversity center 3.89 3.98 Campus store 3.68 3.92

Monitor (low importance, low satisfaction) Veterans’ Resource Center 3.75 4.01

This analysis allows us to focus our improvement efforts on areas where we are not meeting students’ expectations on those services that they have deemed as important. See 2I1 for more information. The CCSSE is another tool for determining how well we meet student needs. The Support for Learners benchmark is a composite of seven general support questions on areas such as social and financial support. We also have the ability to compare our scores on the CCSSE with other large community colleges (Table 2R1-5). Table 2R1-5: CCSSE Support for Learners Benchmark Results

Normandale 201013

Normandale 2014 Difference

Other Large Colleges 2014 Difference

Support for Learners 39.7 43.5 +3.8 49.1 -5.6 Within the items making up this benchmark, we perform higher than other large colleges in the area of encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial/ethnic backgrounds. We

8 Student Satisfaction with Services (SSS) Survey Scale: 1 = “Very dissatisfied” / 5 = “Very satisfied” 9 CCSSE Survey Scale: 1 = “Not at all satisfied” / 2 = “Somewhat satisfied” / 3 = “Very satisfied” 10 Advising and Registration (A&R) Survey Scale: 1 = “Very dissatisfied” / 5 = “Very satisfied” 11 Importance scale: 1 = “Very unimportant” / 5 = “Very important” 12 Satisfaction scale: 1 = “Very dissatisfied” / 5 = “Very satisfied” 13 CCSSE Benchmark score: Average of results from seven CCSSE questions which are then standardized around the mean of the entire CCSSE Cohort respondents’ scores so that benchmarks have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 25.

Page 49


perform worse than our comparison group in providing students with support to thrive socially and in the frequency that students use academic advising and planning. These results give us insight into the focus we need to take to further improve our support services that can help all students succeed. 2I1: Improvements A significant recent improvement that impacts our ability to assess whether students’ needs are being met was the implementation of non-academic program review. While still a relatively new process (implemented in FY2014) that only nine departments have completed, we have already seen impressive insights and future initiatives planned as a result. The process is encouraging departments to be more strategic and data-driven in their decisions and to consider ways that their work supports Normandale’s mission and strategic plan. In the future, departments will be required to include a plan for future data collection to improve their ability to collect and analyze data to determine effectiveness of services and for continuous improvement. For those departments that provide support services to students, non-academic program review along with CCSSE and Student Satisfaction with Services results will help us better determine how to meet students’ ongoing and evolving needs. Normandale’s use of data also continues to improve. We recognize that sometimes, in order to get really meaningful data, we need to break down our CCSSE results or other data by sub-populations. Currently the college analyzes data in this way on an ad hoc basis (e.g. in response to a grant or a specific question raised by a department). We recognize that regular monitoring of subpopulation data is needed in order to better understand student sub-groups and their specific needs. A future improvement will be to identify programs and initiatives that would benefit from more detailed breakdowns of student data and provide that as part of our ongoing processes for annual planning and program review. Based on the results and insights described above, Normandale has deployed numerous new or revised services to meet student needs, including:

• Normandale implemented a college-wide customer service training initiative (3P3), made significant changes in the Advising and Counseling department, and implemented a textbook rental program in the campus textbook depot. We will use the results of the upcoming 2015 survey to determine if these changes have been effective.

• Normandale implemented the recommendations of the Blueprint for New Student Success, including significant adjustments to new student programs that include both academic and non-academic support services in areas such as NCC 1000 and advising and registration.

• An AQIP action project scheduled to close in June 2015 will determine services and potential pilot projects to increase enrollment of non-traditional adult students. Normandale will select, deploy, and evaluate services to meet the needs of this key student group based on the project’s recommendations.

A planned improvement will be the addition of a mental health professional to our staff. This position will be available to meet with students and will also provide training and professional development to faculty and staff on how to meet the needs of students with mental illness.

Retention, Persistence and Completion 2P2: Processes Collecting student retention, persistence, and completion data: Normandale collects data on student retention, persistence, and completion rates using a variety of tools. Within MnSCU, retention and persistence are synonymous. Our primary source for data collection is Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) operational database, which provides a wealth of data and tools for extraction and analysis. This database includes data on all students, including application information, services accessed,

Page 50


course credits, grades, transfer information, and more. We also use transfer data from the National Student Clearinghouse, which is provided in the operational database. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) A primary tool for communicating data on retention, persistence and completion rates is Normandale’s Fact Book, which the Office of Research and Planning creates and distributes on an annual basis. The Fact Book includes trends and current data on average course success and completion rates by course type, student success rates (retention, persistence, completion, and transfer) broken down by various populations and overall student population, and degrees earned. The Fact Book is available in hard copy and on the college’s website. Department-level data is provided annually through program data sheets, student success rates reports, and instructional cost studies. The college is also compliant with the federal government’s Student’s Right-To-Know Act, which can be found on the college’s Student Outcomes webpage. It includes data about the college’s student retention and graduation rates. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Normandale’s institutional researchers work closely with administration, faculty, and staff to determine their data needs and pull appropriate data from the MnSCU operational database or other sources as required. They pull data and create reports for the Normandale Fact Book, enrollment plan, strategic and annual planning, academic program review, as well as ad hoc data requests. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Some departments use Normandale’s Student Management and Retention Tracking (SMART) tool to track program-level data on student success. This tool pulls data from the MnSCU operational database and provides faculty and staff with information on student coursework completed, class attendance, and course grades to identify students who are at risk of not persisting or graduating and to provide targeted assistance. Departments also use the tool to analyze student success rates and identify areas for program improvement. (4.C.4) When collecting and analyzing data, Normandale uses both standard IPEDS and MnSCU definitions and/or additional definitions depending on the needs and goals of the individual or group requesting the data. In all cases, definitions are clearly spelled out in reports. For example, as a community college a significant proportion (over 50%) of our students are attending school part-time. We therefore report overall retention, persistence, and completion rates and the rates for full-time and part-time for fall cohorts in the Normandale Fact Book. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) Analyzing information and determining targets for student retention, persistence, and completion: Normandale’s mission and strategic plan direct the focus of our work on student retention, persistence, and completion (collectively called student success). The process for analyzing information includes the collection and analysis of multiple data sets including information from the Normandale enrollment plan (4P2) and yearly strategic priorities and goals. The process for determining targets for student success includes an analysis of current and trend data as well as alignment with targets set for the college by MnSCU. (4.C.1, 4.C.4) As has been discussed elsewhere in this portfolio, Normandale has made significant improvements in key processes such as assessment of student learning and academic and non-academic supports for students. These activities all have an impact on student success rates. Given the newness of some of these efforts, we believe that the MnSCU targets for retention, persistence, and completion are ambitious but attainable for Normandale at this time. As our processes mature and as we collect additional data, we will continue to evaluate the targets on an annual basis and will set more ambitious targets as needed. (4.C.1) The enrollment management work group analyzes data from feeder schools, environmental scans, and census and workforce sources to identify new student groups we should target and to determine if we are attracting and retaining a student body that is reflective of the surrounding communities. Based on this information, the work group sets targets for recruiting and retaining key student groups. Working with the

Page 51

http://www.normandale.edu/Documents/about/Normandale-Community-College-FactBook14-15.pdf

http://www.normandale.edu/why-normandale/normandale-at-a-glance

http://www.normandale.edu/directory/disclosures/student-outcomes


Office of Research and Planning, the work group analyzed data on sub-groups’ enrollment, retention, and success rates. The current plan, developed in 2012 and in effect through 2016, set goals for increasing retention of students of color, non-traditional adult students, and all students by one percent each year. (4.C.1, 4.C.2, 4.C.4) Data on student success rates is shared with the campus on a regular basis for the purposes of analysis and setting targets for future performance. For example, the administrative council (comprised of the college president, vice presidents, deans and directors from all divisions of the college) convenes at an annual retreat to review the past year’s work plan and plan for the next year’s work. This includes a review of current student success data and analysis of successes and areas for improvement. Annual planning, both at the college-wide and department level, includes an analysis of student success rates and trends. (4.C.1) Lastly, academic and relevant non-academic program reviews include an analysis of student success at the departmental level. The Office of Research and Planning provides departments with trend and current data on course completion rates, enrollment, student success rates, and the number of awards conferred. Each department is required to analyze this information in context to decide how to use this information. The college is still in the early stages of systematically using this data for the purpose of retention, persistence, and completion. (4.C.2) Meeting targets for retention, persistence, and completion: Normandale’s approaches to meeting student success targets are guided by the enrollment, strategic, and master academic plans, which then guide the college’s annual work plan and individual department work plans (4P2). Our 2014-2017 strategic plan is focused on objectives in the areas of active engagement, integrated support, and clear pathways, which have been proven to increase student retention, persistence, and completion. Specific objectives include:

• Engage students in their education by emphasizing active and experiential learning. • Integrate academic, social, and financial support systems with programs and courses. • Develop effective systems for evaluating student progress and providing targeted support. • Promote collaborations that enhance student persistence and completion. • Partner with four-year universities to create a seamless transition into a variety of baccalaureate

degree programs and improve transfer. • Collaborate internally and externally to increase student’s knowledge of career pathways and

career readiness. Many of Normandale’s recent improvements in academic and non-academic support (e.g. NCC 1000, supplemental instruction, learning communities, and developmental education) are based on high-impact practices that will help us reach the objectives outlined in our strategic plan and improve student retention, persistence, and completion. Another outcome of the Blueprint for New Student Success was a re-designed Student Success Council and the addition of three sub-committees to the council to address key areas where targeted services support student success: new student programs, satisfactory academic progress, and developmental coursework and placement. This infrastructure has been key to recent improvements and will continue to be an important way we can improve our results in this area. The 2014-2018 academic master plan also has themes and goals that support the college’s student retention, persistence, and completion goals. In particular, we have identified students in developmental education as an at-risk group, particularly because of the additional time it takes for them to progress to college-level coursework and therefore to a degree or certificate. The plan therefore sets a target of increasing the percentage of students transitioning from developmental to college-level coursework by two percent each academic year through 2018. The plan also includes a specific goal to provide faculty

Page 52


with training on supporting and advising students in their chosen field, showing growing interest in and support of our work to improve retention, persistence, and completion. (4.C.1) Normandale creates its annual and department work plans based on the direction provided by the strategic plan and other master plans. The administrative council reviews the college’s performance on institutional outcomes and MnSCU-set goals from sources such as Normandale’s Fact Book and other data pulled by the Office of Research and Planning. For example, the MnSCU accountability dashboard provides the college with an annual report of current and trend data along with MnSCU-set goals in areas such as completion and persistence, licensure exam pass rates, certificates and degrees awarded, and successful transfer. Most of the data is further broken down to determine success rates for key student sub-groups such as students of color, first generation students, and low-income students. (4.C.2) Based on the results of our analysis of progress toward our targets for retention, persistence, and completion, Normandale makes adjustments to existing services or designs and deploys new services to increase student success rates. The process for designing and deploying new or modified services is the plan-do-study-act approach described in 2P1. We research best and high-impact practices such as those identified by Liberal Education & America’s Promise or the CCSSE; studies and recommendations from subject matter experts such as Vincent Tinto, Arthur W. Chickering, and Hunter S. Boylan; and examples from high-performing institutions. Often the process requires further data collection and analysis, which always involves significant input and guidance from the Office of Research and Planning. Our approach was to first identify and revise the services needed to improve student success, which resulted in the Blueprint for New Student Success. Our focus has been to first improve student retention and persistence because they are the necessary foundations for completion. We now feel we have improved infrastructure, a stronger culture of continuous improvement and data-driven decision-making, and the successful model of the Blueprint for New Student Success that we can use to improve our efforts further in this area (2I2). (4.C.3) Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess retention, persistence, and completion: The primary tool Normandale uses to collect data on student retention, persistence, and completion is MnSCU’s operational data warehouse (5P1). We pull and analyze data using entering fall cohorts and most frequently look at success rates for 100% and 150% time. (4.C.4) To select additional tools, methods, and instruments, our process is to work closely with the Office of Research and Planning to determine the specific data needed and the best approach to collect that data. This occasionally includes the use of proxy data if we do not have a way to collect the actual data needed. For example, a recent ad hoc data request for retention, persistence, and completion data on low-income students included disaggregation of CCSSE responses. However, the CCSSE does not specifically ask students to identify themselves as low-income, so responses to a question on the methods respondents were using to pay for college were used as a proxy to identify an appropriate student group. (4.C.2, 4.C.4) 2R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale tracks student retention, persistence, and completion for all students and also for key student sub-groups such as students of color, first generation students, and Pell eligible (low-income) students. In addition, we track data on student transfer rates to four-year institutions, as this is a stated goal for many of our students. Summary, comparisons with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: According to MnSCU and adopted by Normandale, persistence and completion rates are called the student success rate. This is defined as the number of students in an entering cohort who, as of a specified semester after initial enrollment are either enrolled, transferred to another institution, or graduated. We track and analyze this

Page 53


data for full-time and part-time students as well as for key student groups such as first generation, Pell eligible, and those that we have targeted as part of our enrollment plan (for data, see the Normandale Fact Book). We have found insignificant variations between the success rates of the overall student body and those of first-generation, Pell eligible, and students of color. In all cases, however, there are significant differences between the success rates of full-time students and part-time students. (4.C.2) We also analyze the retention, transfer, and graduation rates separately for all students and various student sub-groups. It is at this level of analysis that we have identified more significant gaps. For example, the fall-to-fall retention rate for the 2010-2012 fall cohorts ranged from approximately 44% to 49% and retention rates for first-generation students ranged from 48% to 51% during that same time period. However, the transfer rate for first-generation students was approximately 10% while all students transfer at a higher rate of 13% to 18%. This information provides important context as we determine what services should be targeted to specific sub-groups to improve their success rates and close any achievement gaps. (4.C.2, 4.C.3) Normandale compares results for student retention, persistence, and completion against internal and MnSCU targets. This includes departmental comparisons of the success rates of their students against college-wide rates. Comparison of results with targets is still in its early stages, as MnSCU began setting targets in 2010 (Tables 2R2-1, 2R2-2). (4.C.2) Table 2R2-1: Students Persisting, Transferring or Graduating by Second Fall

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Actual 69.0% 68.4% 71% -- -- Goal 71.5% 72.4% 73.5% 75% 76.8% Variance -2.4% -4.0% -2.6% -- --

Table 2R2-2: Students Graduating or Transferring by Third Spring (150% Time to Completion)

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Actual 49.9% 46.4% -- -- -- Goal 49.2% 50.1% 51.3% 52.8% 54.6% Variance +0.7% -3.7% -- -- --

At this time, we are doing limited comparisons to other institutions and have focused on other metro-area community colleges as an appropriate comparison group (Table 2R2-3). This shows that our current results are comparable to similar institutions in our market. (4.C.2) Table 2R2-3: Students Persisting, Transferring or Graduating by Second Fall Comparisons

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Retained Transferred Graduated Retained Transferred Graduated

Normandale 51.8% 13.5% 3.9% 48.9% 15.1% 4.5% Anoka-Ramsey CC 50.9% 15.1% 3.1% 48.7% 15.1% 3.3% Inver Hills CC 48.0% 12.0% 6.3% 50.1% 14.0% 5.8% North Hennepin CC 50.8% 12.3% 6.9% 52.5% 12.7% 3.1%

We are not satisfied with our current student success results. Although our initial efforts have focused on student retention and persistence, as they are key to student completion, we recognize that we still have work to do. At this time, our efforts to improve retention and persistence are somewhat more mature, while we are in the initial piloting phase with several interventions to improve completion. In addition, we recognize that further analysis of student sub-groups and their rates of retention, persistence, and completion is needed to ensure strong success rates for all of our students. (4.C.3)

Page 54




2I2: Improvements Objectives designed to improve student retention and completion are a priority in the college’s 2014-2017 strategic plan. Since our last portfolio, we have focused our attention on re-designing and launching both academic and non-academic support services to increase student retention and persistence as the first steps in ultimately improving completion rates as well (1P5, 2P1). Now that we have the infrastructure and programs in place, we plan to launch an AQIP action project to make recommendations for actions to improve our success rates, and subsequent action projects to implement the recommendations. This will be modeled after the Blueprint for New Student Success, which was a highly effective initiative that redesigned and improved our new student programs. (4.C.3) In addition to continuing the practices that we have identified as effective, Normandale will analyze data on student retention, persistence, and completion and design and deploy new services to improve student success rates through our existing processes. In order to increase the effectiveness of our processes for setting and meeting targets for student success, we have identified several improvements that will be implemented in the next one to three years:

• As we collect additional years of data on the effects of recently redesigned and new interventions, we will determine if we wish to set more ambitious targets in addition to those set by MnSCU.

• Although our academic and non-academic student support services are better coordinated than in the past, we recognize that we must continue our work aligning and integrating our planning and deploying of student success initiatives. Normandale will examine ways to more fully integrate the enrollment plan into relevant areas of the college and department work plans.

• Communication and college-wide commitment to student retention, persistence, and completion are critical to meeting our targets. Of particular concern is the enrollment plan, which has not been well-integrated into other college retention and completion efforts. In 2015, the membership for the enrollment management work group will be expanded to include faculty, staff, and students. The frequency of the work group’s meetings will also increase. The academic master plan will also be used to communicate retention, persistence, and completion goals to faculty.

(4.C.3)

Key Stakeholder Needs 2P3: Processes Determining key stakeholder groups: Normandale recognizes that there are a variety of groups that serve as external stakeholders, and we actively work to determine, understand and meet their needs (Table 2P3-1). Some of our key stakeholders are also partners and collaborators, and these processes to identify and meet their needs are described in 2P5. Many key stakeholder groups have a long history of involvement with Normandale, so our processes are focused on meeting their existing and evolving needs, rather than on identifying them as a key external stakeholder. Table 2P3-1: Processes for Determining Needs of Key Stakeholders

External Community Expectations Methods to Determine Needs Business and Workforce

Prepare individuals to succeed in the workplace and meet business and industry’s need for current, rigorous education and training opportunities for potential and incumbent workers

Collaboration through program advisory boards, employer surveys, one-on-one meetings, feedback from formal agreements (e.g. clinical site agreements), and college representation on boards and committees (e.g. Workforce Investment Boards)

Page 55


Community Maintain good neighbor relationships, access to events at Normandale

Membership on local and regional boards, communication of campus events (e.g. job fairs, plays), open communication with immediate neighbors on issues impacting their quality of life (e.g. parking, new construction plans)

K-12 Education Support their efforts to ensure their students’ college readiness and provide smooth pathways for their students and graduates

Participation in Perkins consortium, regular communication with feeder schools, feedback and input on PSEO and concurrent enrollment

Four-year Institutions

Preparation of transfer students, smooth pathway for transfer, offer programs on-site at Normandale

Formal partnerships (2P5), information gathered through MnSCU initiatives, participation in Metro Alliance meetings for Chief Academic Officers and Chief Student Affairs Officers

Government Adherence to laws, statutes and regulations

Annual financial audit, compliance reporting (e.g. Cleary Act), meetings with legislators

Alumni Opportunities to engage with and support the college, networking, information about the college

Graduate survey, Normandale Foundation alumni advisory council, monthly alumni email newsletter, events, ongoing outreach

Another key stakeholder group is individuals and organizations that wish to support Normandale through contributions of time, in-kind resources, and finances. Processes for identifying individuals and organizations, determining their needs, and building and maintaining relationships with them is the responsibility of the Normandale Community College Foundation. The Normandale Foundation is a separate 501(c)3 organization with a mission to provide philanthropic resources to help Normandale achieve its potential as a college. It provides opportunities for individuals, organizations, business, and industry to work with Normandale in meeting a broad range of educational purposes. The foundation has a separate board of directors made up of community and business leaders as well as the college president and several college faculty who are non-voting members. The foundation executive director, an employee of the college, reports to the president. This ensures communication and alignment of foundation activities with Normandale’s mission, vision, and strategic plan. The foundation’s processes for identifying key donor stakeholders and determining their needs includes ongoing environmental scanning, input from the board of directors, ongoing research into local, regional, and national philanthropic trends, and outreach to alumni. The foundation responds to stakeholder needs through grant writing activities targeted at corporate and private foundations, fundraising and friend-raising events (e.g. annual gala, 5K fun run), and ongoing cultivation and maintenance of relationships with donors. The foundation’s communication processes include an online presence on Normandale’s website, email newsletters, and the Creating Futures magazine, available in hard copy and online. Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership: Normandale generally considers stakeholders in broad categories such as community and community members, business and workforce, and education partners. As discussed above, these categories of stakeholder groups are relatively stable due to our long-standing history and relationships in the community. However, within these broad categories there are constantly new individuals and groups emerging who may be interested in developing a relationship with Normandale. Our process is therefore focused more on identifying those individuals and groups rather than on identifying entirely new categories of stakeholders. Examples include new alumni, Chambers of Commerce, Rotary clubs, local school districts and feeder schools, Workforce Centers, and economic development agencies.

Page 56

http://www.normandale.edu/foundation

http://www.normandale.edu/foundation/creating-futures-magazine


We engage with current stakeholders in order to identify and understand their needs, which helps shape our strategic direction. In addition to the environmental scanning that is part of the strategic, enrollment, and annual planning processes (4P2), Normandale determines new stakeholders to target for services or partnerships based on our ongoing activities such as staff, faculty, and administrative participation on community boards, input from advisory groups, surveys, and collection of feedback as part of program reviews. The Normandale Foundation engages in similar processes to identify new alumni and potential individual, corporate, and foundation donors. Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders: Our process for determining how to meet stakeholders’ changing needs is to meet with stakeholders (or individuals representative of a larger group of stakeholders such as alumni) to identify their need, set a work group to discuss the matter, determine our ability to meet the request, and then respond. An important part of this process is analyzing relevant data to make a determination on whether we can meet needs based on availability of resources; external constraints such as laws, regulations, and accreditation requirements; and alignment with our mission, vision, and strategic plan. When we identify a need that can and should be met, we either refer key stakeholders to existing services, modify services, or develop new ones. The development of new services generally follows the plan-do-study-act process outlined in previous sections of this portfolio. Examples of meeting the changing needs of stakeholders includes designing new degree programs, creating clear pathways to degree and certificate completion, developing articulation agreements, and providing workforce development opportunities. Selecting tools/methods/instruments: The process for selecting the tools, methods, and instruments to assess key stakeholder needs is fairly informal and varies across the college depending on the stakeholder group. When a key stakeholder is involved in a partnership or other collaboration with Normandale, the tools, methods and instruments are selected via the processes described in 2P5. In other, less formalized relationships, the process for selecting methods to assess stakeholder need often depend on the nature of the relationship with the stakeholders. Because of the diversity of stakeholders and activities, we do not have a uniform, formal process to select tools, methods, and instruments to assess their needs. Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met: Normandale assesses the degree to which key stakeholders’ needs are met by collecting information from advisory councils, direct feedback from stakeholders, and reviewing key performance measures at the department/divisional and college level. We do not have a current process to gather and analyze this data across the college to determine if we are meeting stakeholder needs in the aggregate. Information on assessing the effectiveness of partnerships and collaborations is further discussed in 2P5. 2R3: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale uses advisory committee feedback, the results of external environmental scans that are completed as part of planning processes (e.g. strategic or enrollment planning), formal agreements that document ongoing relationships (e.g. clinical site, articulation, internship agreements) alumni giving rates, donations to the Normandale Foundation, and formal and informal feedback from key stakeholders to determine if we are meeting their needs. In meeting the needs of four-year institutions and employers, transfer and employment rates are one way we determine we are meeting their needs (Table 1R4-1). In the case of formal partnerships and collaborations, additional outcomes are described in 2P5. Summary, comparisons with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: The Normandale Foundation tracks several indicators to measure their success in meeting stakeholder needs. As a community college with many students who ultimately transfer to four-year universities, our alumni groups have historically been small. In addition, staff turnover has played a role in recent outcomes

Page 57


(Table 2R3-1). Efforts to engage and track alumni participation in volunteer activities were launched in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 in part to better understand alumni needs and improve engagement with Normandale after they transfer or graduate. Table 2R3-1: Number of Alumni Donors and Volunteers per Fiscal Year

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015* Donors 221 187 68 77 75 Volunteers -- -- -- -- 62

* Fiscal year through March 2015 For donors other than alumni, the foundation tracks the number of donors as well as total fundraising revenue (Table 2R3-2). The number of donors and the amount raised has been increasing, an indicator that we are doing a good job of reaching out to and meeting the needs of the community that supports us. Table 2R3-2: Number of Donors and Dollars Raiser per Fiscal Year

FY2013 FY2014 Number of individual donors 492 537 Number of organizational donors 124 158 Total dollars raised $702,098 $865,028

Normandale does not currently have internal targets or external benchmarks against which to compare our performance in this area. However, the Normandale Foundation compares its return-on-investment (ROI) and Access to Excellence Scholarship campaign to those of other MnSCU institutions. Due to variations in the way institutions calculate ROI, the data is of limited use, but all MnSCU foundations are currently working on a project to improve the ROI to produce consistent, reliable, and meaningful data. The foundation now participates in the Voluntary Support of Education Survey, created by the Council for Aid to Education and Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. Participation in this survey will allow benchmarking across our system and with similar size institutions across the country. 2I3: Improvements Normandale’s recent improvements regarding key external stakeholder groups have largely focused on collaborations and partnerships (2P5). Other planned improvements include:

• The Normandale Foundation plans to improve alumni relations through better tracking of volunteer hours donated by alumni and better tracking of alumni contact information. The foundation is considering an alumni survey to determine ways we can better meet their needs.

• The foundation is also a key partner in our outreach to individuals and organizations in our community. A planned improvement is the creation of a new Development Council with five branches to cover all aspects of foundation fundraising. Each branch will have a specific purpose, with specific goals (e.g. number of donors, amounts raised, increases in donors and percentages of set populations, building awareness, friends and funds).

• Our overall goal for future improvements is to increase community awareness of Normandale, our programs, and our outcomes as a way to encourage stakeholders to consider partnering with us to meet their needs. As part of this effort, Normandale’s president identified “town and gown” relationships as a key priority of the presidential work plan in 2014-15.

Complaint Processes 2P4: Processes Collecting complaint information from students and communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders: Normandale’s student complaint process embodies two of our Core Learning

Page 58


Outcomes: effective communication and personal responsibility and life skills. The process was designed to demonstrate self-advocacy, process, and communication skills. Students with a complaint are encouraged to try to resolve it with the individual against whom they have the complaint. They are encouraged to see if it can be resolved through discussion with the individual or their direct supervisor. If this does not resolve the concern, then the student fills out the Student Complaint/Grievance form or Course Grade Review form. Both forms, which can be obtained in the Student Affairs or Academic Affairs offices or online, contain information on the process (Figure 2P4-1) Figure 2P4-1: Student Complaint Process

Page 59

http://www.normandale.edu/Documents/current/StudentComplaint-2012.pdf

http://www.normandale.edu/Documents/current/StudentComplaint-2012.pdf

http://www.normandale.edu/Documents/current/Course-Grade-Review-2012.pdf


Sometimes complaints reveal potential for violating MnSCU policy 1B.1, Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination in Employment and Education. In these cases, the information is given to a trained 1B.1 investigator and they follow the MnSCU procedure to see the complaint through to resolution following the same process outlined in Figure 2P4-1. For a grievance involving a MnSCU Board Policy, the actions of Normandale’s president, an issue of institutional or program quality such as an institution’s compliance with the standards of an accrediting or licensing agency, or a claim of consumer fraud or deceptive trade practices, students may appeal to the MnSCU system office pursuant to MnSCU Board policy 3.8 and procedure 3.8.1. We communicate our complaint policies and procedures in the catalog and on our website. Additionally, we notify students that Normandale Community College is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and that they may file a complaint with the HLC. This notification is on our website, in the catalog and is emailed two times annually to students. Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders: If key stakeholders such as partner institutions, advisory board members, or parents have a complaint, generally the supervisor of the relevant area is contacted. Whenever possible, the supervisor tries to resolve the complaint at the time of incident with the stakeholder. If this does not resolve the complaint, the process described above for student complaints is used to collect and communicate the information to the appropriate dean or director. Learning from complaint information and determining actions: Deans and directors see every complaint for their areas, which allows them to recognize and take action on patterns of behavior. We recognize, however, that this is not a very systematic process. Normandale is now collecting complaint data on a semester basis and will look at ways to review and share data among deans and vice presidents to further inform our process improvements. Selecting tools/methods/instruments to evaluate complaint resolution: We do not currently have a process to select tools, methods, or instruments to evaluate complaint resolution. We are researching tools currently used in the conduct system for ways to better evaluate complaint resolution in the future. 2R4: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: The outcome measures we currently track are the types of complaints and time-to-completion. Summary, comparison to targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: We can see that for the size of our campus (headcount of approximately 15,000) we have relatively few complaints per Academic Year (AY) (Table 2R4-1). This could be because of our informal system of listening and trying to resolve complaints when they arise and the complaint then being resolved without taking it to the formal system. Table 2R4-1: Total Student Complaints by Topic

Complaint Topic AY2013 AY2014

Number Percent Number Percent Faculty: Communication 32 50% 30 43% Faculty: Behavior 2 3% 1 1% Faculty: Grading 2 3% 3 4% Faculty: Other 4 6% 8 12% Grade Review: Calculation Error 10 16% 3 4% Grade Review: Departure from Syllabus 2 3% 4 6%

Page 60

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/1b01.html




College Policy/Procedure 3 5% 9 13% Staff/Administration 0 -- 1 1% Other 9 14% 10 14% Total 64 100% 69 100% As part of a recent improvement, Normandale sets an internal target of responding to requests within 15 days. Since AY2013, our average complaint resolution time has remained under 15 days, but some complaints have taken longer than 15 days to be resolved. However, our longest complaint resolution time has decreased from over 60 days to just under 30. Normandale does not compare our results with external benchmarks. No method of benchmarking complaint data currently exists within MnSCU. Moreover, this data would not lend itself to useful comparisons because MnSCU institutions create their own processes for student complaints. 2I4: Improvements During a recent review of all of Normandale’s procedures, we reviewed our complaint process and added a timeframe (15 days) in which the complainant can expect a response. In addition, we implemented a new method to track the complaints for timeliness and completion. This will allow us to systematically review data and make changes as needed. We feel this formal process has helped us as educators to work with students to resolve conflicts or complaints in a more productive manner. This process fits with our educational mission and stresses civility. Over the next one to three years, Normandale will improve the complaint process by creating a process to systematically review trends in the complaint data and decide on action to address common issues and increasing its efficiency by providing those involved with access to the our database to view and enter complaint information directly.

Building Collaborations and Partnerships 2P5: Processes In our previous portfolio, one of the outstanding opportunities identified was a need to create systematic processes to prioritize, develop, maintain, and evaluate relationships. Normandale has emphasized this work and made progress in developing and refining processes to strengthen our collaborations and partnerships. This also aligns well with MnSCU’s strategic vision, which has identified collaboration and partnerships as a key strategy for providing an extraordinary education for all Minnesotans. Processes for selecting partners: Collaborations and partnering are a strong focus of Normandale’s 2014-2017 strategic plan and are key strategies we are using to meet our institutional goals. We focus on collaborations that improve persistence and completion for our own students and/or provide opportunities for other learners in our community to achieve their professional and personal goals. Normandale’s process for selecting partners begins as a result of either environmental scanning (a continuous process), a need identified as part of program review, or a response to an external factor (e.g. a grant opportunity). After identifying a potential partner, we follow specific processes based on the type of partner, the nature of the request, and the needs of both parties. The individuals responsible for this process vary based on the type of partner and the goals of the partnership. In addition, the project consultant for partnerships and collaboration, coordinator of dual enrollment and Perkins, and staff in departments such as the Center for Experiential Education and Continuing Education and Customized Training all have specific roles regarding partnering.

Page 61


While there are some differences in the details based on the type of partner, Normandale’s overarching process for selecting partners includes the following steps:

1. The need or opportunity for a partnership is identified. This step includes collection and analysis of data to confirm the need and feasibility for a partnership as well as vetting the concept with administration (e.g. deans or directors, vice presidents, and president depending on the potential scale and impact of the partnership). Different types of partnerships have varying criteria they use when assessing the viability of a partnership, such as ability to meet student learning outcomes, potential for long-term partnerships, or ability to satisfy accreditation requirements.

2. Relevant staff, faculty, and/or administrators review the requirements of the opportunity and look first to our existing partners for a potential fit to meet the identified need.

3. If no existing partner is available or interested, we look to our broader networks and the networks of our existing partners for potential new partners.

4. Once potential partner(s) have been identified, we reach out to discuss the opportunity, mutual goals and benefits, and the details of the potential partnership. Additional data may be gathered and analyzed at this point to ensure the partnership will meet its intended goals.

5. If both parties agree to the partnership, we execute signed agreements as needed based on the scope and nature of the partnership. These documents may include an outline of roles and responsibilities of the partners, timelines, deliverables, goals and objectives, metrics for evaluations, costs, and other specifics as dictated by the partnership.

There is always an opportunity for Normandale or the potential partner to decide not to proceed with the relationship. There are some relationships we choose not to pursue when they do not align with our mission, vision, values, and strategic plan, or when the relationship does not appear to be in the best interests of Normandale as an institution, for our students, or for our potential students. Normandale has a wide variety of partners, goals of partnerships, and partnership activities. In order to better understand common practices and processes, to share information, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness, we convened a partnership group comprised of staff and administration from across the college who are involved in selecting, building, and maintaining partnerships. The goal for this group is to recommend direction for prioritizing and selecting all types of partnership activity. Process for building and maintaining relationships with partners: The foundation for building and maintaining partnerships is a shared vision for the partnership. For us, the benefit to students is a fundamental aspect of partnerships. Regular, ongoing communication is key to the process of building and maintaining relationships with partners. The scale (size and complexity) of the partnership influences the numbers of individuals involved in maintaining the relationship and who those individuals are. For example, our partnership with Bloomington Public Schools includes numerous programs impacting their students from ninth through twelfth grade. Therefore, our president meets regularly with the school district’s superintendent. At an operational level, our coordinator of dual enrollment and Perkins interacts with the individual school principals and college and high school faculty to execute the programs. At the other end of the spectrum, in the Center for Experiential Education, our coordinator interacts directly with contacts at partner organizations. In all cases, our key goal is to engage in the ongoing cycle of plan-do-study-act to build and maintain partnership relationships and the programs they support. We identify what is or is not working, identify new and changing needs, and determine how to address them in accordance with our and our partner’s criteria. In all but the smallest cases, we try to start small, even if we don’t technically pilot a program, and then build out a program in a sustainable fashion that works for us and our partners. We also document processes to ensure that all parties have a shared understanding of them.

Page 62


Normandale has demonstrated our commitment to supporting partnerships and collaborations through staffing, such as newly created positions of project consultant for partnerships and collaboration and assistant for partnership programs as well as previously existing positions such as the coordinator of dual enrollment and Perkins, coordinators in Experiential Education, and Continuing Education/Customized Training staff. The responsibilities of these staff members are to meet regularly with partnership colleagues, cultivate interest in partnering, identify shared outcomes, and implement new partnerships and improvements to existing partnerships as needed. Process for selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess partnership effectiveness: We have two main processes for selecting tools, methods, and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness. In some partnerships, the ways we assess effectiveness is dictated by external parties. This is often the case with partnerships resulting from grants, with certain affiliations such as the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships, with some K-12 initiatives such as concurrent enrollment, and with business and workforce partners in our Continuing Education and Customized Training department. When we select our own methods, we choose them based on the criteria for which we are assessing. We prefer to use tools that we already have or that we can modify as appropriate. If none exist we may choose to develop a new tool or choose a proxy measure. Depending on the criteria to be evaluated, the Office of Research and Planning assists with selecting and deploying assessment tools, instruments, and measures. Process for evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective: Our last portfolio identified a need to integrate our ability to assess partnership needs to ensure effective and efficient use of resources. To address that opportunity, Normandale created a Partnership Activity Site to collect information about partnerships and their effectiveness. As communication and expectations around partnerships develop and mature, this data will allow us to identify or develop a systematic process for selecting future tools, methods, and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness. Individual departments engaged in partnership activity often have additional processes to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborations. This may include formal student evaluation (e.g. internship or clinical sites), formal or informal feedback from partners, and/or tracking program-specific outputs and outcomes. 2R5: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Specific outcomes and how they are measured varies widely by type of partnership activity. The Partnership Activity Site is our primary approach to understanding the current state of partnerships across Normandale so we can make systematic improvements. Individual departments typically focus on outcomes such as student participation and success, growth of programs, and the number of students that successfully transition to Normandale or other post-secondary institutions as indicators of partnership effectiveness. Normandale also collects formal and informal satisfaction feedback from partnership administration, faculty, staff, and students. Partnerships are relationships and the quality of the time and the commitments to the interaction between the individuals demonstrates a degree of their effectiveness. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: All faculty and staff involved in partnerships have been asked to report on their partnerships for the Partnership Activity Site (Table 2R5-1). The list of partnerships is accessible to the entire Normandale community, but specific data/results are only available to the project consultant for partnerships and collaboration.

Page 63


Table 2R5-1: Partnership Outcomes Measure Results Shared outcomes, how and if outcomes are measured

Varies by partnership

What the partnership activity is intended to do (can serve more than one goal)

Enhance Academic Quality 63% Improve Student Success 82% Create Transfer/Employment Pathways 68% Respond to External Changes 20% Connect and Impact the External Community 72%

Funding source Grant Funding 9% One Time Funding 5% Operating Budget 18% No Cost 49% Other 19%

Labor distribution between partners Satisfactory distribution reported by all partnerships 95% Percent of partnerships conducting annual evaluations 70% Percent of partnerships interested in evaluation assistance 25% Meeting the needs of stakeholders 80% Process for shared transparent decision making and communication 65%

In addition, K-12 partnerships are assessed via high school student participation rates and number of students who transition to Normandale (Table 2R5-2, 2R5-3). Table 2R5-2: K-12 Concurrent Enrollment Partnership: Student Participation and Transition to Normandale

AY2010 AY2012 Concurrent Students 147 137 Post Concurrent – Attend Normandale 39 33 % of Concurrent Students Returning to Normandale for Courses 27% 24%

Table 2R5-3: K-12 PSEO Partnership: Student Participation and Transition to Normandale

AY2010 AY2011 AY2012 PSEO Students 783 774 810 Post PSEO – Attend Normandale 294 257 278 % of PSEO Students Returning to Normandale for Courses 38% 33% 34%

Now that we have begun to gather data and results of partnerships on one site, we can also create internal targets and compare results using the information in the Partnership Activity Site. We already compare the results of some partnerships with external benchmarks, particularly those of other MnSCU institutions. For example, Normandale compares numbers of students participating in concurrent enrollment and PSEO with other MnSCU schools. 2I5: Improvements It was recommended in our previous portfolio that Normandale needed to create institutional awareness of collaborative relationships and a more centralized process to manage partnerships. Much of the work in this section is the result of this recommendation, and we have therefore implemented many recent improvements, including hiring the project consultant for partnerships and collaboration to foster,

Page 64


promote, and develop opportunities for partnerships; the creation of the Partnership group to create processes for identifying, building, maintaining, and communicating information about partnerships; and the Partnership Activity Site to track and evaluate partnership activity and outcomes. Over the next three years Normandale will continue to promote the participation and information sharing through the partnership group and the use of the Partnership Activity Site. Normandale will systematically use the tools and data to improve processes, identify and prioritize new partnerships to further the mission of the institution, and establish processes to build and sustain existing partnerships.

CATEGORY THREE: VALUING EMPLOYEES

Introduction At Normandale, the Office of Human Resources (HR) leads processes related to valuing employees. From 2011-2014, our HR team had turnover in nearly every position. Since January 2015 the HR team has been fully staffed, but the average years of service on the team is less than two years. Despite the turnover, HR has implemented significant improvements to hiring, evaluating, recognizing, and developing employees. Since 2014, HR has used a work plan to track progress on key projects, has begun tracking metrics, and has increased employee communications and development opportunities. Continued stability of the HR team will enable Normandale to further improve the processes that value employees. Recruitment is a top priority for Normandale, with special emphasis on the recruitment of diverse employees. We also recognize the need to simplify the hiring process and increase the speed at which positions are filled. Retention is a focus for Normandale as we look for ways to increase the engagement, development, and recognition of our employees. We demonstrated our commitment to this by including an employee recognition project in the college work plan. Performance evaluation forms were improved to better align with Normandale values and the addition of development plans will help our employees develop new skills. Performance reviews are analyzed to ensure that employees have development plans that stretch them opposed to a list of tasks to complete. The processes for valuing employees at Normandale can be categorized as systematic. Our key processes (e.g. recruitment and hiring, orientation, performance reviews, credentialing, recognition, and professional development) are clear, repeatable, and documented. Information about these processes is available for all employees to review. Those involved in the processes understand their roles and responsibilities. Objectives and goals for the key processes are clearly stated. Measurements are in place for hiring, evaluating, and recognizing employees. Results are very close to being systematic as well, but overall our maturity level is still best described as reacting. Data is collected and analyzed for many key processes, but we do not yet have metrics to measure the effectiveness of some processes such as professional development. HR works to improve processes by asking for feedback and partnering with other departments to ensure the effective execution of processes. For example, HR asked a cross-section of employees for their input as the hiring process was documented and tools were created in 2013. Normandale is currently focusing on furthering the systematic approach to processes and results and moving to alignment within this category. For example, we are increasing our use of data by sharing it more widely and collecting more measurements. When launching major initiatives like a campus wide customer service training an assessment plan was created to ensure we were clear on the goal and had adequate measurements in place to determine its success. In the future, Normandale will move development beyond just training courses to a more holistic approach that will also move the maturity of these processes toward aligned. Development takes many forms and one of the more effective approaches is on-the-job training. This can come in many forms and

Page 65


be tailored to the individuals’ strengths and career aspirations, such as projects that allow the employee to gain new skills, serving on a cross-functional committee, taking a leadership position in a professional organization, mentoring those with less experience, and job shadowing. We recognize the need to provide development for employees, but we also recognize there is a limited budget and training courses have a limited reach. By broadening our approach to development it will be more accessible to all employees.

Hiring 3P1: Processes Recruiting, hiring, and orienting employees: Recruitment begins with the creation or review of a position description and a job posting. Normandale sets minimum and preferred qualifications specific to higher education including Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) and Higher Learning Commission (HLC) requirements, the unique needs of the department or of community colleges, and in some instances to the union contract’s requirements. All permanent staff and unlimited (tenured) faculty positions must be posted for at least three days. All position descriptions are reviewed at the college and MnSCU levels to ensure credentials and skills meet local needs and conform to MnSCU policies and labor contract requirements. (3.C.2, 3.C.6) When a new position is created or a position description changes more than ten percent, Normandale completes a job audit to determine the appropriate classification for a position. For this analysis, the auditor reviews the organizational chart and rationale for the new position. Specific credentials and skills are identified and negotiated between MnSCU and Normandale. (3.C.6) Hiring Process: Normandale follows one basic hiring process for all permanent staff, administrators, and unlimited faculty positions:

1. The Human Resources department (HR) and hiring manager (always the direct supervisor or dean of the position) create a search committee and decide on a chair. Committee members must have completed training on the search process, laws, and policies related to hiring prior to serving on a search committee.

2. The committee creates an application rubric, interview questions, and preferred interview responses rubric. HR reviews for alignment with the position description or posting.

3. HR checks resumes for evidence of meeting minimum qualifications. 4. HR forwards applications meeting required credentials and minimum qualifications to search

committee, which rates them based on the rubric and selects finalists for interviews. 5. HR completes Affirmative Action Plan review of finalists and informs the committee of any

additions. 6. The committee designs an interview process appropriate to the position. At a minimum this

includes resume reviews, one face-to-face interview with the committee, and one face-to-face interview with the hiring manager. Additional steps may include open forums, phone interviews, practicums, teaching demonstrations, or meetings with stakeholders.

7. The committee follows the interview process using the materials created in step two. 8. Search committee members, the hiring manager, HR, or a search firm completes reference checks

and the Office of Public Safety completes background checks if applicable. 9. Normandale offers the position to the top candidate. If they decline, we offer to the next qualified

candidate and so on. A missed opportunity statement is filed if a protected class candidate was added to the interview pool and not chosen for the position.

10. If no qualified candidate accepts, which is a rare occurrence, the search is considered failed. If a candidate accepts, they move to the orientation phase.

(3.C.6)

Page 66


Temporary positions: The vice president of Academic Affairs approves individuals hired as temporary part-time faculty after a limited interview process. Temporary part-time faculty complete the same credentialing and salary placement process as unlimited faculty members. Temporary staff can also be hired after a limited interview process. There are restrictions, varying by union, on how long individuals can hold a temporary position before it must be posted as permanent. (3.C.2) Orienting Employees: HR works as a coordinator between the manager, new employee, and all services that are a part of the onboarding process (Figure 3P1-1). HR supports supervisors in this process by encouraging them to provide training for new employees. HR has created a checklist to guide supervisors with best practices such as a campus tour, a welcome lunch with the team, and a list of the required trainings. Figure 3P1-1: Orientation process for new employees

HR also has a formal orientation program. Within 10 days of employment, employees must complete training on our code of conduct, data security policies and practices, sexual violence prevention, sexual harassment training, employee right-to-know for employees who are potentially exposed to unsafe materials or conditions, and safety training for applicable positions. HR also hosts a face-to-face orientation required for all new employees to cover policies, pay and benefits, development, and provide the participants with a chance to meet a member of cabinet. (3.C.6) During their first year of employment, HR’s buddy program connects each new staff member with a volunteer buddy. The goal of the program is to make new employees feel welcome, help them build connections with other colleagues, and introduce them to the college. A similar process through the Center for Teaching and Learning pairs new faculty members with a veteran member for information and support. (3.C.6) Designing hiring processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required qualifications, skills, and values: Some facets of the process for designing our hiring process are mandated by MnSCU policies and contracts with collective bargaining units. Within this framework, we practice continuous improvement by collecting and analyzing information to ensure our process identifies, hires, and retains qualified employees. For example, the State of Minnesota and appropriate unions oversee and approve position classifications. Normandale then creates the preferred qualifications, specific duties, and responsibilities in position descriptions, which allows us to determine the skills and qualifications unique to higher education and to our institution. (3.C.6)

Staff and Administrators

Welcome Packet mailed before employee's first day with resources, overview of benefits, terms of employment letter, and other relevant information

HR encourages managers to use best practices for onboarding a new employee

in their department

Meeting with HR within first two weeks to cover benefit options

Mandatory training

Faculty

Orientation with all new faculty the week prior to start of classes to cover mission,

resources, credentialing process

Face-to-face HR orientation

Page 67

http://www.normandale.edu/departments/human-resources/online-orientation


During the hiring process, HR is responsible for reviewing all applications for minimum qualifications and removing unqualified applicants from the hiring pool, which ensures that every candidate considered by the hiring committee is qualified to do the job. Additionally, rating rubrics are used to assess both applications and interview responses. The creation of rubrics prior to reading applications or holding interviews encourages the hiring committee to think about the skills, experience, and training that would best fit with the position. These rubrics guide the hiring committee in selecting the best candidate for the position. (3.C.6) Normandale ensures new employees share our values through several steps in the hiring process. Diversity is an important value at Normandale and this is reflected in the hiring process. HR reviews the composition of search committees for diversity and the required training for search committee members includes information on hiring diverse employees. Additionally, every set of interview questions must include at least one question to assess applicants’ diversity competency. Rating rubrics articulate what receives higher ratings, which often includes items reflective of our values. For example, collaboration is another Normandale value. Candidate answers that are reflective of this value receive a higher rating. Lastly, feedback from open forum sessions for administrators reflects how well candidates meet our values and this feedback is taken into consideration during the hiring process. (3.C.6) Process for developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty: MnSCU and Minnesota State College Faculty (MSCF) bargaining unit provide external oversight to our faculty credentialing practices. The Joint Committee on Credential Fields is an ongoing committee established under the MSCF contract to make recommendations regarding credential fields and minimum qualifications. This includes the alignment of appropriate credential fields with programs and disciplines at the system level. MnSCU Policy 3.32.1 Part 6 outlines the processes for establishing credential fields and minimum qualifications and revision of existing credential fields. (3.C.2) MnSCU Procedure 3.32.1 extends the minimum qualifications requirement for faculty to anyone assigned to do faculty work, which includes instructors of Normandale dual credit and consortium programs. The only dual credit program that is not taught by Normandale faculty is the High School Concurrent Enrollment Program (1P4). (3.C.2) As of May 2015, most Normandale faculty positions require a master’s degree in the credential field or a master’s degree in any field with a minimum of 16 graduate semester credits (24 graduate quarter credits) in the credential field per MnSCU Procedure 3.32.1. A planned improvement will be to align requirements with the recently revised HLC requirement of 18 graduate semester credits in the credential field. This revision will impact a very small number of instructors. Minimum qualifications for library, counseling, career, technical, and professional faculty are specific to their field and determined by the MnSCU Joint Committee on Credential Fields. (3.C.2) We ensure our faculty meet these standards by checking resumes and curriculum vitae of applicants to confirm they meet minimum qualifications. After a position has been offered and accepted, all new faculty members must complete the qualification evaluation process in order to be credentialed. HR reviews information including official transcripts faculty to ensure faculty meet the requirements of their field. Once approved, HR notifies instructors that they have passed the qualification evaluation and meet the minimum qualifications requirement to be granted as credentialed. (3.C.2) We also require unlimited faculty members to demonstrate teaching and learning competencies to ensure they have a foundation in community college teaching, course construction, instructional methods, and student outcomes assessment and evaluation (MnSCU Policy 3.32.1 Part 5 Subpart B). To demonstrate achievement of the teaching and learning competencies, faculty may either apply for an exemption based on previous experience or complete MnSCU’s required online courses related to the competencies, which

Page 68






must be completed during the three-year probationary period for a faculty member to be granted unlimited status. All instructors of Normandale courses that we do not hire as Normandale faculty (i.e. dual credit instructors) must meet the same credentialing qualifications outlined above. (3.C.2) Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty and staff: The first step in all hiring processes is the decision to hire. This decision includes analysis of data to ensure Normandale has adequate numbers of faculty to carry out classroom and non-classroom programs and adequate staff to provide student support services and ensure smooth operation of the college. The following processes ensure we have sufficient numbers of staff and faculty:

• In non-academic program reviews, departments benchmark student-to-staff ratios against departments at three similar institutions and examine their efficiency and effectiveness. This often results in insights on current staffing levels and leads to requests for new staff positions through the New Funding Request process (4P2) or the reallocation or removal of staff positions.

• In academic program review, departments review their student Full Year Equivalency (FYE), faculty Full Time Equivalency (FTE), number of sections, and cost of instruction. Departments discuss and plan new initiatives based on this information, which is also used as input for hiring more faculty.

• College, division, and department work plans outline all new initiatives. Our planning and budgeting processes are integrated since new initiatives often need staff (4P2).

• Every fall, academic departments kick off the new faculty proposal process by reviewing historical course offerings and fill rates, accounting for retirements, phased retirements, and department work plans to identify needs for additional unlimited full time positions.

• When staff turns over, hiring managers and HR staff make sure that the position is still necessary and that the position description accurately reflects the position’s duties before posting the position to be rehired.

(3.C.1)

New staff positions are approved through the new funding request process (4P2); faculty positions are vetted and approved through the new faculty proposal process every fall. Normandale adheres to the MSCF contract to have no less than 60% of all faculty be unlimited full-time employees. (3.C.1) 3R1: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: To track the effectiveness of Normandale’s hiring processes we use comparisons of student FYE and employee FTE, and employee satisfaction. Tools include the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey and employee onboarding survey. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: To determine if we are adequately staffed, we look at our employee full-time equivalence and student full-year equivalence compared to other institutions. In spite of slightly declining enrollment we have not reduced our employee FTE at the same rate (Figure 3R1-1). This decision is based on the fact that we operate with a lean employee base and that it will best serve our students to maintain current employment levels. This illustrates Normandale’s commitment to providing sufficient numbers of faculty and staff to carry out the both the classroom and non-classroom roles of our employees. (3.C.1)

Page 69


Figure 3R1-1: Changes in Employee FTE and Student FYE, Academic Years 2011-2014

Comparison against the MnSCU average shows that Normandale faculty and staff serve more students. However, our ratios are similar to other large metro-area community colleges, which serves as confirmation that our staffing levels are sufficient. Additionally, results from the CCSSE indicate that students feel they receive support for succeeding at Normandale and coping with non-academic responsibilities similar to students at other institutions (2R1).

The Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey measures employee job satisfaction. We showed great improvement from 2010 to 2014 in many areas related to hiring (Table 3R1-1). For example, orientation and onboarding was the area of lowest satisfaction in the 2010 survey. In the 2014 survey, this area showed the most improvement, indicating our recent improvement efforts were successful. Table 3R1-1: Normandale Employee Satisfaction Results Related to Hiring Processes

Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Item

2010 Satisfaction

Mean14

2014 Satisfaction

Mean Difference15 This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees. 2.51 3.14 0.63*** This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives. 2.73 3.12 0.39***

Employee satisfaction with the onboarding process includes measures of both the HR orientation process (Figure 3R1-2) and onboarding by supervisors (Figure 3R1-3). This information was first collected after the improvements to new employee orientation were made, so we do not have a pre-improvement baseline to compare against.

14 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 15 Statistical significance: two-tailed t-test; *** = p < .001

7427 7131 7048 6740

347 337 331 326

238 233 231 237

050100150200250300350400450500

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2011 2012 2013 2014

Empl

oyee

FTE

Stud

ent F

YE

Student FYE

Faculty FTE

Staff FTE

Page 70


Figure 3R1-2: Percent of New Employees Reporting Satisfaction with Orientation Elements

Figure 3R1-3: New Employee Onboarding Activities – Rate of Participation

Hiring and orienting processes were areas of concern for Normandale in our last portfolio. We have placed significant emphasis on improving processes in this area, which have begun to pay off. 3I1: Improvements The AQIP action project launched in 2010 to improve the non-faculty hiring process resulted in a number of initiatives to move our hiring process toward a more systematic model. HR created a comprehensive online resource center for search committees. The center includes the search process steps, a workbook with templates and checklists, an interview question bank, a list of eligible search committee members, and a search status report that is updated weekly. These tools have allowed search committees to more effectively manage the search process and has increased the dialogue between HR and the rest of the college. We continue to refine and improve the hiring process. Future efforts will include improvements to communications and handoffs between HR, search committees, and hiring managers and ensuring that all searches follow a consistent hiring process, including requiring transcripts for staff positions with degree qualifications and background checks for all employees. We also plan to document the faculty search process and establish a timeline to ensure the college is able to post positions in a timely manner. (3.C.2, 3.C.6) Another recent improvement is training specifically for hiring managers to help clarify their role in the hiring process and to provide them with tools and support to more effectively manage the process. This was a recommendation made by a hiring manager and implemented by Human Resources. The employee orientation and onboarding process, including the buddy program, was another recent improvement. In the 2014 Noel-Levitz employee satisfaction survey this item showed the greatest increase (Table 3R1-2). HR is continuing to improve the orientation process to make it more interactive and to provide employees with the opportunity to build relationships and understand the culture of Normandale. Additional improvements made since 2011 include improving the layout and content of communications to new employees to make it easier for them to integrate into the Normandale culture and so they feel welcome, following up with employees on required training to ensure completion, and continually revising the content of the orientation to meet the needs of employees.

70%70%

78%83%

86%89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overview on FERPA was helpfulStaff development information was helpful

Overview of policies and procedures was helpfulIntro to HR staff was helpful

Given adequate information on benefitsGiven adequate information on policies

77%87%

90%100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Received tour of facilityReceived copy of position description

Arrival details clearly communicated by supervisorIntroduced to co-workers

Page 71


Another recent improvement that addresses adequate staffing is non-academic program review (2P1), which requires non-academic departments to benchmark their staffing levels against three colleges similar to Normandale. Through this regular examination of departmental staffing levels, additional needs are sometimes identified. For example, the Office for Students with Disabilities noted that throughout the last four years the number of students served had doubled and through internal promotion a full-time equivalent staff was lost. The college subsequently added a staff member to the department. (3.C.1)

Evaluation and Recognition 3P2: Processes Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees: As with hiring processes, many aspects of the process for designing performance evaluation systems are determined by external stakeholders. For example, Minnesota Statute 43A.20 and MnSCU Policy 4.9 stipulate that all employees will be evaluated and counseled on work performance at least once per year. Evaluations are to be completed in a manner consistent with any requirements found in Minnesota Statutes and the applicable collective bargaining agreements or personnel plan. MnSCU further states that the evaluation procedure may provide for evaluations of a limited scope in certain years if that is consistent with the language of a collective bargaining agreement. (3.C.3) To comply with Minnesota statute and MnSCU policy, we developed Normandale Policy 4.13 and Procedure 4.13.1 on faculty evaluation. In 2012, Normandale implemented a project to develop the faculty evaluation process that resulted in this policy and procedure, which outline the specific processes for evaluating all faculty. Additionally, the process identifies student evaluations as the vehicle for annual evaluations of post-probationary unlimited full-time faculty, with a focused evaluation once every three years. The proposed policy and procedure were reviewed and approved by both Normandale’s personnel and shared governance committees before being adopted by the college. (3.C.3) Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff, administers: Supervisors have primary responsibility for communicating job expectations to our employees. Each month HR meets with supervisors to provide them with updates and to set expectations around their supervisory responsibilities. Topics are determined by patterns that HR has noted or by requests from supervisors on topics they are interested in learning more about. Recent topics have included coding timesheets correctly, disciplining employees, employee engagement and recognition, performance reviews, and understanding their role in the hiring process. Expectations such as campus involvement and attending events and training sessions are also communicated by the president to all employees through emails, announcements on the employee portal, and at our twice annual employee development days when the president addresses all employees and sets her vision for the upcoming semester. Normandale uses multiple channels to receive input from our faculty, staff, and administrators. We use formal surveys such as the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey, Employee Satisfaction with Services Survey, feedback surveys on trainings and events, and MnSCU’s staff development survey. We encourage feedback and ask for input from employees during times of change. During the evaluation process, we solicit employee input through self-assessment forms. We also encourage employees to nominate their co-workers for Normandale and MnSCU awards to recognize outstanding performance. Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-instructional programs and services: Many aspects of our evaluation system have been set by MnSCU. Within that framework, our process to align evaluations with our institutional objectives occurs primarily through the design of the tools used for employee evaluation. For example, in 2014 we redesigned the

Page 72

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=43A.20


http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/413-faculty-evaluation

http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/4131-faculty-evaluations


format of the evaluation form used for staff and supervisors to better align with our values and strategic priorities. As a result, important criteria such as customer service and continuous improvement are now explicitly included as areas for employee evaluation. Evaluation forms for deans include a section to evaluate their contribution to strategic plan goals. As a community college with a student-centered mission, the evaluation system for faculty has been deliberately designed to take student feedback into consideration. To meet state and MnSCU requirements for annual evaluation of all employees, Normandale chose to use a student survey of instruction for faculty members to administer in every class every semester. These surveys are reviewed by the relevant dean and discussed with faculty as needed. Instructors also receive a more formal evaluation from their deans every three years. Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff, and administrators: Normandale has designed evaluation and recognition processes that meet the needs of our different positions. Administrators: Administrators undergo a periodic 360-degree performance review. The most common tool used for this review process is the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) Survey. The administrators fill out information for IDEA about their background and goals and complete a self-evaluation and performance review document. The survey, in which responses are confidential, is sent to randomly selected individuals with whom the administrator works. For academic deans, this list includes selections from all permanent faculty in their division except for new hires. Their responses to these documents help customize the evaluation survey, resulting in more usable feedback. The administrator and administrator’s supervisor also complete a customized evaluation form. The administrators and their supervisors review the evaluation and survey results to create their goals for the following year. Faculty: Normandale Policy 4.13 and Procedure 4.13.1, were created by administration and faculty to comply with the union contract, Minnesota State statute 43A.20, MnSCU Policy 4.9, and HLC’s core competency 3.C.3. Under this policy and procedure, the division dean observes adjunct faculty members during their first year of employment and in subsequent years if requested by the dean or the faculty member. Adjunct faculty members must complete an annual critical self-evaluation and have the option of creating a teaching portfolio and taking part in peer reviews. (3.C.3) Faculty hired as unlimited full-time faculty are evaluated during a three-year probationary period, which may be waived if the instructor has three years as a temporary full-time faculty member within MnSCU. Stipulations of the probationary period include: Year One • Division dean completes class observation using either the face-to-face or online

observation instructional appraisal form. • Instructor submits teaching portfolio to division dean by the end of spring semester.

Year Two • Instructor submits updated teaching portfolio to division dean by the end of spring semester.

• Class observation may be requested by dean or faculty member. Year Three

• Division dean completes another class observation using either the face-to-face or online observation instructional appraisal form.

• Instructor submits final teaching portfolio to the dean by March 1. • A final conference between the dean and the faculty member takes place by April 1.

Page 73

http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/413-faculty-evaluation


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=43A.20

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/409.html?_ga=1.171957536.1638899043.1404136053


• Following the final conference, the dean makes a recommendation either for an unlimited appointment or non-renewal of the appointment to the appropriate vice president. Notification to the faculty member adheres to MSCF contract requirements.

(3.C.3) Once granted post-probationary status, faculty are evaluated using the process for post-probationary unlimited full-time faculty (4.13.1 Faculty Evaluation Procedure). All faculty members administer the college student course evaluation survey in every course, every semester. These evaluations serve as input for a discussion between the faculty member and the dean. (3.C.3) Staff and supervisors: All staff receive an annual performance evaluation based on their date of hire. One month prior to the individual’s review date, HR sends the supervisor the appropriate paperwork, including a rating sheet and self-assessment form for the employee. These forms allow the supervisor to evaluate whether the employee met expectations for their goals and responsibilities as well as their strengths and areas for growth related to initiative and continuous improvement, cooperation and teamwork, dependability, attendance and compliance, interpersonal and communication skills, mutual respect and diversity, and customer service. Once the paperwork is completed, the supervisor and employee assess last year’s development plan and determine areas for growth in the coming year. They review the position description and make changes when necessary. Supervisors are reviewed using the same form, with two additional sections specific to supervisors on planning and organization and supervisory/leadership skills. Supervisors are evaluated on areas such as budgeting, planning, risk mitigation, delegation, and supervision.

Establishing employee recognition, compensation, and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance and promoting employee satisfaction and engagement: Normandale has several formal recognition processes for all employees and in the last year we have instituted some systematic informal recognition methods as well. Formal recognition includes monetary bonuses and awards. Employees can be recognized with annual performance based bonuses as stipulated in their union contracts. These are, however, based on funding availability and are therefore not provided every year. Improving employee recognition is part of the college work plan for 2014-2015 academic year and HR has undertaken an employee recognition project to revamp the annual recognition ceremony and retiree luncheon as well as additional employee recognition activities. Informal recognition resources are available online and in hard copy format for all employees. Online resources include a recognition toolkit for supervisors and NICER (Normandale Intra-Campus Employee Recognition) Notes, which lay out a simple format for employees to show appreciation for each other. Normandale’s culture of recognition has also resulted in a faculty member designing a grassroots informal recognition called the Gloria in honor of a former faculty member (http://bit.ly/thegloria). This open award is available for all employees to use to recognize and thank their colleagues. Hard copy resources include a Recognition Station in the HR office that has thank you notes available to all employees. Employees are recognized publically for things like participating in Management Academy or volunteering for the Normandale Buddy Program. HR models recognition with managers at supervisor meetings and encourages them to recognize their employees. The processes for employee compensation and benefits are negotiated via the union contracts that define the employment relationship between Normandale and our employees. The process for wage increases varies by union contracts, which establish timing and amount of increases. In some case, increases may be withheld by supervisors if the employee is not meeting performance expectations.

Page 74


http://bit.ly/thegloria


Generally, union contracts include a pre-determined salary grid. Normandale is permitted to hire new staff up to the third step without prior authorization from the Chancellor’s Office. If a higher step is requested, HR must submit a form to the Chancellor’s Office requesting this pay entry point. Final salary is determined by a combination of factors including education, years of experience, and market issues (e.g. difficulty recruiting for and filling a particular position). The faculty contract requires a set of steps and columns to determine salary, with columns indicating education level and steps reflecting years of experience. Normandale makes recommendations for salary placement, which are subject to MnSCU approval. The promotion of employee satisfaction and engagement is the joint responsibility of HR and supervisors. We provide opportunities for employees to:

• Improve their skills (e.g. employee development series on diversity, customer service training) • Socialize with fellow employees (e.g. end of year celebration and potluck, recognition ceremony

reception) • Take advantage of benefits and support (e.g. flu shot clinic, fitness challenges, buddy program) • Receive recognition (e.g. special events for those serving on team doing important projects for the

college). Normandale understands that communication and transparency also impact employee engagement. We share survey results with employees in a timely manner and use the employee portal and monthly HR updates to communicate information to employees. Supervisors are expected to use recognition as a way to motivate employees and to show appreciation for their hard work and this is measured in their annual evaluation process. 3R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale tracks the percent of performance reviews completed, the number of faculty and staff receiving awards and recognition, employee satisfaction, and employee engagement. Tools include the Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey and internal data collected by Human Resources. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: In order to measure the effectiveness of our evaluation tools we first must ensure performance appraisals are being conducted. Normandale’s HR department observed that the number of returned reviews was less than the number sent to managers to complete. Increased communications from HR and the president resulted in an improvement of more than 50% in the return rate of performance reviews. According to the 2014 Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey, our efforts to provide supervisors with training on employee evaluation and recognition is effective (Table 3R2-1). Table 3R2-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Evaluation and Recognition Survey Item 2010 Mean16 2014 Mean Difference17 The work I do is valuable to the institution. 3.71 4.03 0.32** The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor. 3.65 3.97 0.32** I have the information I need to do my job well. 3.39 3.69 0.30** My supervisor helps me improve my job performance. 3.49 3.76 0.27*

16 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 17 Two-tailed t-test: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001

Page 75


My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me. 3.47 3.73 0.26* Every other year, MnSCU surveys all staff and administrators regarding their professional development and performance reviews in the last twelve months (Table 3R2-2). Table 3R2-2: MnSCU Professional Development Survey Results Related to Performance Evaluation

Survey Item 2012 2014 Employees reporting they received a performance review in the past twelve months. 66% 72% Employees reporting they have an individual development plan that they discussed with their supervisor. 44% 51% Employees reporting that they have a current position description with clear performance expectations. 64% 65% Even if I were offered a comparable position with similar pay and benefits at another company, I would continue working in my MnSCU position. -- 58%

Our 2014 results are in line with MnSCU averages on the first two indicators, below the average by three percentage points on the third, and six percentage points higher than the fourth. While we feel that this comparison indicates we are in line with other MnSCU institutions overall, we will continue to look for ways to improve. Normandale recognizes employees through internal awards and continually seeks external opportunities to recognize exemplary employees. Current awards include:

• John E. and Suanne D. Roueche award (external award for faculty) • MnSCU Board of Trustees Excellence in Teaching Award (external award for faculty) • Distinguished faculty award (internal award for faculty) • Golden Apple award (internal award for faculty bestowed by students) • Gwendolyn Brooks Award for Student Service (internal award for staff) • Marge Phipps Award for Team Building (internal award for staff) • Golden Cattails Award for Positive Action (internal award for staff) • Building Bridges Award for Campus Cooperation (internal award for staff) • Good Steward Award (internal award for staff)

3I2: Improvements Improvements to employee evaluation processes include recent revisions to staff performance evaluation forms to reflect our institutional objectives. The new performance review forms were created by MnSCU and revised by Normandale’s HR team to align with Normandale’s objectives. Two specific additions include evaluating customer service and diversity competencies. These are Normandale priorities and by incorporating them into our review process we can ensure our employees are being evaluated and coached in these important areas. The new form also has a development section that will help our employees improve their skills and will in turn help them provide “outstanding teaching and support.” In addition to the changes in the evaluation form, the HR department has improved their process for tracking performance reviews by inputting the due dates and completion status into the HR database. This reduces the time spent tracking reviews and improves the accuracy of the data. Improvements to faculty evaluation were implemented as a result of the post-probationary evaluation system review and revision in 2013. This resulted in a focused evaluation and conference with dean of the division once every three years for post-probationary unlimited full-time faculty. During each of the two intervening years, post-probationary unlimited full-time faculty submit a critical self-reflection to the

Page 76


dean of the division by the end of spring semester. The dean of the division or the faculty member may request a class observation. A notation is added to each faculty member’s personnel file in the two intervening years confirming compliance. (3.C.3) In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Normandale’s annual work plan included an employee recognition project. The purpose of this project was to increase recognition of employees by revamping the annual employee recognition ceremony to make it more inclusive of all employees, not just those receiving awards. We believe these changes will integrate recognition more deeply into Normandale’s culture. Our goals with this project are to increase supervisors’ recognition of employees and their understanding of the different ways to recognize employees. By doing this we also hope to increase employee engagement and satisfaction.

Development 3P3: Processes Providing and supporting regular development for all employees: Providing learning opportunities for employees is an important aspect of Normandale’s organizational culture. As a result, professional development and training are provided not only through the HR department but through nearly a dozen departments and committees across campus. We identify employee training needs through our strategic priorities, survey results, new legislation and compliance requirements, the performance review process, and from faculty and staff requests. (3.C.4, 3.C.6) When we have identified professional development needs that apply to all or a significant portion of our employees, we bring training resources to campus. Depending on the scope of training needed, training is provided in-house, contracted through the state, Normandale’s continuing education department, or MnSCU. We have also brought national experts in for campus-wide educational events on topics such as student engagement and student learning assessment across the college. Supervisors have additional development opportunities available to them, such as MnSCU’s Art of Supervision and Science of Supervision courses, Normandale’s project sponsor training, and ongoing professional development in supervision through HR’s monthly supervisor meetings. (3.C.4, 3.C.6, 5.A.4) We widely communicate the availability of these training opportunities via the employee portal, email, and communication from supervisors to their employees. Additional professional development is provided to faculty through breakout sessions at development days held prior to the start of every semester and to staff on staff development day offered every spring. (3.C.4, 5.A.4) Employees may also access additional training based on their position. This may include opportunities through professional associations, training offered by MnSCU or Normandale, and academic courses through tuition waivers (varies by union contract). Staff and faculty may access professional development funds to support the cost of some training as well. (3.C.4, 3.C.6, 5.A.4) Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical processes: All unlimited faculty (full-time and part-time) are required to have a professional development plan. The plan can cover from one to three academic years and must address specific objectives and outcomes related to content knowledge and skills in their discipline, teaching methods and instructional strategies, related work experience, study appropriate to the higher education environment, and service to the college and the greater community. The plan is created by the instructor in consultation with their dean. Faculty are paid for and expected to use five professional development days every year. The

Page 77


administration also designates five development days for faculty to participate in campus-wide events such as opening workshops, diversity training, and community success day. (3.C.4) Normandale provides regular faculty development opportunities through the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), which is comprised of five division leaders and a CTL coordinator. The center provides educational opportunities and panel discussions focused on development in a discipline and/or pedagogy. CTL’s process for determining development opportunities is similar to college’s process for all employee trainings, except that they do not evaluate the viability of training requests, only who should conduct the training. Their assumption is if it is requested, it is needed. (3.C.4) Team Learning consists of the assessment leader, CTL coordinator, representatives from HR, the director of online learning, director of academic technology, an academic dean, and vice presidents of academic affairs and student affairs. This group is responsible for directing our faculty development activities and planning opening workshops for development days (prior to the start of every semester). Examples of some recent development events include:

• Faculty Roundtables, at which faculty gather to discuss topics specific to their field with a panel of experts: Supplemental Instruction, Using Social Media for Teaching, Online Learning.

• Fall 2014 Duty Days: What works in teaching, active learning conversations, panels on textbook costs and alternatives, and addressing student mental health issues.

• January 2015 Duty Days: Two CTL workshops offered on active learning and responding to student writing.

• 2015 Success Day: Four workshops offered on leading discussions, grading fairness, technology in teaching, and generating useful student feedback.

• Fall 2014 CTL Roundtable: Responding to Student Mental Health Concerns (expanded during January duty days).

(3.C.4) As required by the faculty union contract, Normandale provides some funds to support individual faculty development expenses. The budget is calculated at $250 per faculty full time equivalent to support the professional development of the faculty, the development needs of the academic departments, and the planned instructional priorities of the college. An individual faculty member can receive up to $1,500 every two years toward their professional development expenses. The faculty development committee is responsible for the process of reviewing and approving disbursement of these funds. (3.C.4) The Professional Development Center (PDC) was created in 2012 to provide faculty with educational technology training. Our instructional technologist provides drop-in assistance so faculty have support for their technology when they need it. The PDC also offers after-hours access to a variety of instructional software that is not always affordable to distribute to all staff across campus. (3.C.4) Sabbaticals also offer faculty an opportunity to secure additional education, training, or experience. Normandale has a well-developed process for faculty sabbaticals. Every fall, the vice president of academic affairs holds information sessions that outline the application process. Faculty must first meet with their dean and discuss their plan before completing the sabbatical application and submitting it to the Office of Academic Affairs. Applications are reviewed by the deans, vice president of academic affairs, and president before being sent to MnSCU. MnSCU confirms that the faculty applicants are eligible for sabbatical and ranks the applications. Normandale then notifies faculty if they were selected. Sabbatical reports are due to the Office of Academic Affairs on the first teaching day of the semester following the end of the sabbatical. The reports are reviewed by the dean, vice president of Academic Affairs, and the president and a summary report of all sabbaticals for the year is sent to MnSCU. (3.C.4)

Page 78


Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge: Normandale supports student support staff in their professional development and encourages them to attend training to build the skills and knowledge necessary to do their jobs. Many student support staff members belong to professional organizations that provide training opportunities and access to resources to keep them abreast of changes in their fields. Departments suggest professional associations to their staff based on their positions and areas of expertise. Normandale also holds institutional memberships with professional associations that provide resources and reduced registration fees for conferences. (3.C.6, 5.A.4) Normandale provides additional support for professional development through funding of up to $500 for staff members who have successfully passed their six month probationary period. The process for applying for staff development funds and the applicable forms are available on the employee portal. Fund requests are reviewed and approved by the Staff Development Committee and the Chief HR Officer. (3.C.6) The Staff Development Committee also plans and funds the annual Staff Development Conference. Sample topics from 2014 and 2015 include leadership from any position (including a session where our president defined leadership, spoke of her personal experiences as a leader, and took questions from staff), personal branding, workplace professionalism, wellness, and IT skills. (3.C.6, 5.A.4) Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives: Normandale’s process for determining campus-wide training priorities and ensuring that they are aligned with institutional priorities follows these steps:

1. Request for training is submitted or a need is determined through survey results or other feedback mechanisms.

2. HR reviews the request, including a determination that resources are available to support it and it is aligned to Normandale’s objectives.

3. If the training is viable and aligned, HR determines the scope, cost, and timing of the training. If training is not viable or does not align with institutional objectives, the request is denied and the rationale is explained.

4. Once training concept is approved, HR plans, designs, and implements the training and collects feedback from employees.

5. Based on feedback, training is modified or a new training is developed. 6. HR determines if the training will be repeated or expanded. 7. If training is not continued, lessons learned are collected and used for creating future training.

Normandale’s ongoing customer service training project is an example not only of this process in action but also our plan-do-study-act process for continuous improvement. The project originated when Normandale leaders recognized a pattern of student complaints about service, which were substantiated in the 2011 Student Satisfaction with Services Survey. The project team assessed our current state of customer service, and made recommendations for improvements. Based on those recommendations, we trained five departments in 2013. The HR department integrated the feedback from the pilot groups into the training curriculum and offered the training to all staff in 2015. In order to ensure the effectiveness of this project, we created an evaluation plan with measurable outcomes, surveys, and feedback mechanisms for supervisors to use with employees. Another example of the process was the April 2014 Employee Development Series on Diversity. HR received requests for diversity training from employees and supervisors and recognized the need for our employees to better understand the diversity of the students they serve. Over the course of a month employees were given multiple opportunities to attend training sessions. At the end of each session they filled out a feedback sheet. That feedback was used to create diversity trainings for October 2014 and to

Page 79


enhance the April 2015 Employee Development Series on Diversity. This cycle allows for employees to be heard and to ensure that the training they receive is relevant to their development. 3R3: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: We determine if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development through the number of training offerings, attendance numbers and feedback following internal training sessions, and employee satisfaction. The tools used include Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey, MnSCU Staff Development Survey, Normandale surveys following employee development sessions, and the Employee Satisfaction with Services Survey. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Every other year, MnSCU surveys all non-faculty employees regarding their professional development activities. The survey assesses administrator and staff development needs. In most areas Normandale has improved each cycle, and in the two areas that dipped lower (performance evaluation and job description) we saw improvements in 2014 over 2012 (Table 3R3-1).

Table 3R3-1: MnSCU Staff Development Survey Trends from 2010-2014 2010 2012 2014 Percent of staff participating in at least one professional development activity 71% 82% 83% Percent of staff attending annual Staff Development Day activities 45% 63% 71% Percent of staff reporting there is adequate attention given to staff development planning 31% 53% 57% Percent of staff reporting they received a performance evaluation in the previous year 80% 66% 72% Percent of staff reporting they have a job description with clear performance expectations 71% 64% 65%

The survey also allows us to compare our results with other MnSCU institutions (Table 3R3-2). In all areas, our results were comparable to or above the MnSCU-wide averages. Table 3R3-2: MnSCU Staff Development Survey Results Related to Development

Question Topic Normandale Comparison to

MnSCU Institutions Knowledge of the MnSCU professional development philosophy

Average Awareness of development opportunities Supervisory encouragement for staff development activities Assistance in finding appropriate training Clear funding and sponsorship process and policies

Above Average Encouragement and hosting for professional development Adequate staff development planning efforts

Approximately 60% of Normandale survey respondents indicated that they had attended training outside of a Normandale, MnSCU, or State of Minnesota training in the previous year:

• Professional organization state/regional conference: 25.2% • Professional organization webinars/online training: 24.3% • Professional organization seminars or meetings: 23.4% • Professional organization national conference: 16.2% (3.C.6)

Page 80


We also track participation in the training opportunities we offer on campus. CTL is reporting higher rates of faculty participation than in past years, with roughly 10-50 participants attending each event compared to fewer than ten participants per event in past years. From 2013 to 2014 we increased the number of CTL trainings offered, which illustrates Normandale’s commitment to assisting and supporting employees in their professional development. Overall, HR-sponsored training has increased in recent years. In FY2014, we offered 15 training activities that reached a duplicated total of 457 employees. In FY2015, 43 activities reached a duplicated count of 605 employees. Employee feedback is consistently positive which tells us they appreciate the development and find it relevant to their work. (3.C.4) Both the Human Resources and Online Learning departments use the Employee Satisfaction with Service Survey to evaluate employee satisfaction with training. From 2011 to 2013, the survey indicated a decrease from 3.64 to 3.50 (1=Very dissatisfied / 5=Very satisfied) on employee satisfaction for HR-provided trainings. Many initiatives during those two years were aimed at improvements in this area, such as open enrollment training every year and the development of the Management Academy to build the skills of our employees for future advancement opportunities. Despite these efforts, the data suggest that there are still gaps in our training. The 2015 Employee Satisfaction with Services Survey is being conducted and we will use the results to help determine our development strategy. The Online Learning Employee Satisfaction with Services survey results from 2011 and 2013 demonstrate an increase in the satisfaction, importance, and depth of training (Table 3R3-3). Table 3R3-3: Online Learning Satisfaction with Survey Results Survey Item 2011 Results 2013 Results Satisfaction18 3.85 3.96 Importance19 4.41 4.56 Depth of training meets needs20 3.49 4.06 Knowledge of PDC20 N/A 4.05

We have seen significant gains in employee satisfaction related to professional development. Comparisons to MnSCU averages are also favorable. Additionally, we have nearly tripled the number of trainings offered and increased by one-third the number of employees who have participated in training. However, we have noted a decline in satisfaction with HR resources in the last Satisfaction with Services Survey. We will continue to explore possible reasons for this in the future. 3I3: Improvements A 2011 AQIP Action Project on employee development recommended the creation of a new HR position dedicated to managing employee on-boarding and training. As a result, HR added two Business Partner positions in 2012. These positions support Normandale’s development efforts by identifying development needs; creating and executing development opportunities; designing, delivering, and assessing training programs; and acting as a member of Team Learning to ensure faculty have the development they need to stay current in their field. In addition to training, this position focuses on communications and maintains the employee portal with training and development information. (5.A.4)

18 Satisfaction scale: 1 = “Very unsatisfied” / 5 = “Very satisfied” 19 Importance scale: 1 = “Very unimportant” / 5 = “Very important” 20 1 = “Strongly disagree” / 5 = “Strongly agree”

Page 81


Upcoming improvements include customer service training for all employees, including a modified version for faculty, and continuous improvement based on the results of the surveys; increasing the number of training and development opportunities available on campus; increasing opportunities for on-the-job development; and continuing to build the HR department’s expertise in training and development in order to be able to offer lower cost and more frequent trainings. (5.A.4) Our previous portfolio noted that Normandale was moving toward a coordinated approach to employee development with Team Learning. Team Learning periodically evaluates its effectiveness and the group was modified in 2014 to include members from IT Services, Online Learning, and HR. With this more inclusive approach, Normandale ensures that key stakeholders are involved in the planning and will allow for a more integrated approach to faculty development. (3.C.4) CTL is a faculty-driven group that creates, facilitates, and tracks faculty development requests. After several years of decreasing participation in training sessions, the structure of CTL was changed. Based on the success of our assessment model (Figure 1P1-1) we have embedded faculty CTL leaders into each academic division. These leaders are coordinated by the CTL campus leader (also a faculty member), who is a member of Team Learning. This approach has been highly successful and increased faculty participation in development events. (3.C.4) CTL will be adding a component to their process to collect data on how training changed faculty teaching using a survey delivered directly after a training and at least one month after the training. The response form will help evaluate the training, the development needs of the faculty, and the changes in pedagogy as a result of the training. This approach is new for this academic year and so data collection is in process. (3.C.4) Normandale is hiring a new dean position in 2015 that will be responsible for observing all new adjunct faculty and providing recommendations for their development. This will ensure that all instructors are observed early in their careers at Normandale and provide them with opportunities to develop as soon as possible. This position will also oversee Online Learning and the CTL, which will result in increased coordination of professional development activities for faculty. (3.C.4) The addition of the HR Business Partner position has improved staff development by offering training, coaching, and team building services. In the future, we will further improve staff development through increased training opportunities tailored to the needs of our employees, development plans created and executed with oversight from supervisors and HR, and ongoing development for supervisors that focuses on how they can better support employees’ professional development. (3.C.6)

CATEGORY FOUR: PLANNING AND LEADING

Introduction As mentioned in the institutional overview, Normandale is part of Minnesota Colleges and Universities (MnSCU). The system is governed by a board of trustees (the board), whose powers and duties are designated by the State of Minnesota. The board has the authority to appoint a chancellor of the system. Due to the additional layers of oversight inherent to being part of a state system, many of Normandale policies are reinforced by policy and laws at the system and state levels. While all colleges and universities strive to align with the system, most control is local. Our processes related to planning and leading always reflect our role as part of a system. When MnSCU required conversations about extraordinary education on all college and university campuses in 2013 that led to the Charting the Future initiative, that information was integral to the process for creating our

Page 82


strategic plan for two reasons. First, it was important that the valuable information provided by our stakeholders was used to the greatest extent possible. Second, it allowed us to maintain alignment with MnSCU, a necessity as part of a system. As part of this system, we are required to follow the MnSCU process to approve our mission, vision, and values. However, we design the processes to create, review, and update our mission, vision, and values. This is one of many examples of how being part of a system strengthens our processes by increasing accountability and adding another layer of checks and balances. Our processes related to planning and leading are systematic and we’ve begun steps towards aligned processes. We have followed clear, repeatable processes for reviewing our mission and vision, strategic planning, leadership, and integrity for several years. We have made evaluation of these processes systematic, as evidenced by trends in our results. However, analysis and sharing of these results is less systematic, so our results are still characterized as reacting. In the next few years, our efforts related to planning and leading will help move us toward aligned processes and systematic use of results. We will work to create and follow formal evaluation plans including analysis of evaluation results at various levels of the institution. We will also look for additional ways to better communicate the relationships between our processes and our organizational goals and strategies.

Mission and Vision 4P1: Processes Developing, deploying, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision, and values: MnSCU board of trustees Policy 1A.1 states that each institution must have a distinct mission that is consistent with and supportive of the overall mission of MnSCU. Any significant changes to the mission must be reviewed and approved by the board of trustees. Normandale adopted and the MnSCU board of trustees approved our current mission statement in 2009. (1.A.1) We review our mission, vision, and values every four years as we begin the strategic planning process, and ours were last reviewed and reaffirmed in 2013. If we identified a need to change the mission, the process for re-developing the mission includes the following steps:

1. Broad stakeholder input on the existing mission 2. Discussion of what we seek to accomplish and how we accomplish it 3. Drafted mission statement assessed against MnSCU policy and feedback on the existing mission 4. Drafted mission shared with stakeholders for additional feedback 5. Finalized mission submitted to MnSCU for Board approval

This process itself reflects Normandale’s culture and values. Developing or changing the mission is a process that begins at the campus level with broad input from all stakeholders who discuss Normandale’s role in society, the students and communities we serve, our goals, and how we accomplish them. Only after this conversation is the drafted mission statement assessed against MnSCU policy to confirm that it is aligned with the system’s mission. This places the heart of the process where it belongs, at the college, rather than driven by external forces such as the broader system. (1.A.1, 1.D.2) Our mission acts as a statement regarding our overall purpose and the way we fulfill our societal obligation. It is solely focused on our educational responsibilities, which are defined as being broadly available to all individuals because we are an open enrollment institution. Our vision and values reinforce Normandale’s engagement with external constituencies (e.g. K-12 school systems, community partners) and response to their needs as our capacity allows. (1.D.2, 1.D.3)

Page 83

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/1a01.html

http://www.normandale.edu/why-normandale/mission-values-and-vision


Our mission directs each Normandale strategic plan, which in turn guides annual college and department work plans and budgets, the academic master plan, and the facilities master plan. Furthermore, we refer to and base the college and department work plans on the mission by using it as the starting point for planning discussions. Through this interlocking process, Normandale’s mission statement influences and informs all activity on campus (4P2). Academic and non-academic program missions are aligned to the Normandale mission and are also used to influence and inform departmental planning (1P2, 2P1). (1.A.3, 1.B.2) Ensuring institutional actions reflect a commitment to our values and allocating resources to advance the institution’s mission and vision, while upholding the institution’s values: As a public institution of higher education, Normandale’s mission is implicitly and explicitly committed to the public good. Our mission statement is focused on providing a quality education that supports individuals’ intellectual, career, and personal development. This reflects Normandale’s focus on serving our students, and by extension the communities they come from, rather than serving the financial interests of individuals or external entities. (1.D.1, 1.D.2) As the plan for how we will deploy our mission, vision, and values over the next four years, Normandale’s strategic plan is the guide to our fiscal decision making and therefore influences the actions that we take as an institution. The new funding request process, which is completed as part of our annual planning and budgeting process (4P2), asks for information on how the request aligns with a department or division priority, college annual goal, and the strategic plan. Similarly, individuals planning to pursue grant funding must complete an approval form that describes how the proposed project aligns with Normandale’s strategic plan. This form must be approved by the appropriate dean, college foundation executive director, vice presidents, and president prior to Normandale’s grants office working on a grant proposal. (1.A.3) Communicating the mission, vision, and values: Normandale’s mission, vision, values, and institutional outcomes are communicated via a variety of platforms, including our college catalog, website, marketing materials (e.g. Normandale Facts at a Glance) and strategic plan materials such as posters and brochures. The strategic plan itself, a key document that outlines how we accomplish our mission and vision, is also available on the website and in print form. We also communicate our mission to employees regularly as they complete related trainings, through performance reviews, at all-staff meetings and opening workshops, through program review, and in relevant documents. (1.B.1) Together, these documents identify our areas of emphasis, services, and intended constituents. As a community college, our focus is on teaching and student support, which is specifically articulated in our mission. Our mission also broadly identifies our intended constituents, which include people with specific academic and/or career goals as well as those who come to Normandale to broaden their knowledge for personal reasons. The Normandale mission uses the term individual intentionally. As an open-access institution, our service population is not limited to those who meet a certain level of achievement. (1.B.2, 1.B.3, 1.D.1) Normandale’s strategic plan further elucidates on the nature, scope, and intended constituents of our programs and services. Our current strategic goal areas of active engagement, integrated support, and supportive educational environment identify the focus of our teaching and student support activities, while the clear pathways goal identifies key constituents and how Normandale meets their needs (e.g. from high school to college and from college to career or four-year institution). Our goal is to make these four areas the hallmarks of a Normandale education. (1.A.3, 1.B.2)

Page 84


http://www.normandale.edu/why-normandale/normandale-at-a-glance


Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution’s mission: Our mission is the enduring statement of our institutional purpose, which acts as both bedrock and guide for our academic and student support activities. Our strategic planning begins with a review of our mission, while annual college and department work plans are guided by both the mission and the strategic plan. We also use the mission as the starting point for the academic master plan. These key planning processes influence the majority of Normandale’s new programs and services (4P2). Existing programs and services reflect on their alignment with the mission every four years as part of the program review process. In addition, Normandale’s college-wide Core Learning Outcomes act as a proxy for our mission statement in assessment activities (1P1). (1.A.2) Normandale’s curriculum committee follows a rigorous process for approving new or revised academic programs and courses. This proposal process includes a detailed rationale explaining how the curriculum change contributes to the college’s mission and strategic plan. The proposal also asks how the change contributes to division or department goals as stated in their most recent program review. This further ensures alignment with our mission, vision, and values because the program review process explicitly asks departments to review their alignment to Normandale’s mission. (1.A.2) 4R1: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: The primary outcomes tracked are related to employee perception and understanding of the college’s mission, vision, and values. Outcomes are measured via the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: We have seen a slight increase in employee satisfaction on measures related to our mission, vision, and values (Table 4R1-1). We also compare our results for the Noel-Levitz survey against the results of other two-year colleges that administer the survey. Normandale’s 2014 results in these areas were comparable with those of other two-year institutions.

Table 4R1-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Mission, Vision, Values, 2010 and 2014

Survey Item 2010

Satisfaction21 2014

Satisfaction Difference Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution. 3.44 3.66 0.22 The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees. 3.29 3.51 0.22 The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values. 3.49 3.75 0.26

4I1: Improvements Looking at our recent Noel-Levitz results, we believe that our recent efforts such as integrated planning and budgeting and program review are helping to communicate our mission and vision to employees and ensure that activities are aligned to these guiding statements. At this time, we plan to continue to monitor these results and ensure continued communication and understanding of our mission, vision, and values.

21 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied"

Page 85


Strategic Planning 4P2: Processes Normandale’s mission and vision is achieved through three main planning processes: the college strategic plan, multi-year divisional strategic plans (master plans), and annual planning and budgeting. Normandale’s Institutional Effectiveness committee, comprised of leadership and representatives from across the college, oversees the process for creating our strategic plan. The college strategic plan creation process was most recently launched in 2013 to create the 2014-2017 strategic plan. While creation of our strategic plan always follows the same general process, every cycle starts with a subcommittee of the Institutional Effectiveness committee developing an action plan for the specific activities and deadlines necessary to create the new strategic plan. This subcommittee is responsible for reviewing feedback and lessons learned from the previous planning cycle and incorporating suggestions and changes as needed. In general, the strategic plan creation process includes the following steps:

1. Review and affirm mission, vision, and values. 2. Conduct analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) through varied

methods such as environmental scanning, review of published reports, focus groups, surveys, and consultation with internal and external subject matter experts.

3. Review results of SWOT analysis to draft initial goals and strategies, which are reviewed by Institutional Effectiveness committee.

4. Share draft strategic plan with stakeholders, including all employees, for feedback. 5. Incorporate feedback into plan; repeat as needed. (5.B.3, 5.C.3, 5.C.4, 5.C.5)

Strong stakeholder input is reflected through most of our strategic planning process. As part of a system, Normandale has access to and uses reports summarizing external stakeholder input (e.g. MnSCU Charting the Future report, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Business Plan for Postsecondary Education and Workforce Development) for planning. Normandale collects additional stakeholder input that is unique to us. Broad internal stakeholder input is gathered throughout the process, most specifically during the initial grounding of the college in our mission and during the college-wide solicitation for feedback on the first draft of the strategic plan. External perspectives are examined through the creation of our enrollment plan, which is also one of the most important inputs to the strategic plan. (5.B.3, 5.C.3) Enrollment plan: The enrollment plan, created for the first time in 2012, is an important tool for capturing environmental scanning information and external perspectives that inform the creation of our strategic plan. It directly influences the strategic plan because it identifies our current and future student groups and addresses a key revenue stream for the institution. It is also a key piece of the SWOT analysis. Because of the very specific focus of the enrollment plan and its relationship to the strategic plan, the enrollment plan is created in the year prior to the creation of the strategic plan. (5.C.4, 5.C.5) The enrollment plan process begins with analysis of data including past trends in recruitment and retention, market data to predict future enrollment, and opportunities to increase enrollment or fill any gaps in enrollment. We use this data in conjunction with MnSCU goals and targets related to recruitment and retention to set local goals and targets. Based on demographic changes, we identify and plan for recruitment and retention strategies that will meet the needs of changing student groups. We also analyze the retention rates and issues of current students in order to improve our ability to keep students once they enroll (2P2). Based on this information, the enrollment plan develops measurable targets for enrollment and retention along with the strategies and action plans that will achieve enrollment goals. (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

Page 86

http://www.mnscu.edu/chartingthefuture/index.html


Progress on our enrollment goals are updated annually and presented to the administrative council in October and February as new data are released. Annual department and college work plan priorities are adjusted to account for unanticipated changes in recruitment, retention, and market data. (5.C.4, 5.C.5) Annual planning and budgeting: The strategic plan is translated into action plans that will help us achieve our goals through the integrated planning and budgeting process. This annual cycle begins in October, when administrators review the strategic plan and set strategic priorities for the upcoming academic year. Each department plans their work for the upcoming year based on these strategic priorities as well as results from program review, assessment work, and other evaluations of department work (e.g. survey results). Every department is required to state how their work plan aligns with the college strategic plan and set measurable outcomes for evaluating the success of their proposed activities. After departments propose their work plans, they must be approved by the dean/director and vice president who oversee their area. At the same time, divisions create plans for items that require cooperation among many of the departments within that division as needed. (5.C.1, 5.C.2) Many departments and divisions plan activities that require new funding. For these items, they are also required to submit a new funding request. This process requires departments to determine if the request aligns with department priorities, program review recommendations, an annual college goal, the college strategic plan and/or MnSCU system priorities. They must explain how the request will benefit students, staff, and/or faculty, consider other options that could meet the need, and identify possible means for funding the request (e.g. grants, savings through other efforts). (5.C.1) Each new funding request goes through a systematic review process to ensure we are maximizing our current resources. First, both the dean/director and vice president over the area rank the request as high, medium, or low priority. Then, one of five specialty committees (technology, personnel, small renovation/furniture, operations, and equipment) reviews the request and rates it according to alignment with annual college goals, student/employee impact, risks of not funding the proposal, and other impacts. Requests required to stay in compliance with laws and regulations or to maintain good standing with accreditors automatically receive the highest allocation of points. (5.C.1, 5.C.3) All of the requests are combined into one list of requests with each request designated as a must do, high, medium, or low priority based on the combined scores of the dean/director, vice president, and review committee. The combined list is reviewed by the administrative council, where adjustments to rankings may be made. The cabinet reviews the costs of the requests and makes the final decision on what to fund based on budget projections for the upcoming year. (5.C.1, 5.C.4) Near the end of the planning cycle in June, administrators come together at a retreat to determine the college work plan. The college work plan consists of projects necessary to address the year’s strategic priorities not included on department or division work plans and that are institution-wide or impact a significant portion of the institution. At the retreat, we ensure the department work plans align with the strategic plan, mission, and vision and that individual department plans are aligned. At this time, we also review department work plans for opportunities to leverage related activity across various departments for greater efficiency and effectiveness. (5.C.1) Since we use a rigorous process for the creation of college work plan projects, in the past we have selected AQIP Action Projects from this pool by vote of all employees. Employees are prompted to select projects that they see as a top priority and thus should be ensured the resources necessary for success. We are, however, planning improvements to this process to more strongly align strategic planning, AQIP strategic challenges, and the selection of AQIP action projects (4I2).

Page 87


Master plans: For areas that need to plan across several years, annual work plans are not sufficient. Normandale maintains master plans for academic affairs and facilities. Although we have been less systematic about the creation and implementation of master plans, each plan has some good practices. A future improvement will be to create more systematic processes for the creation of master plans and to synchronize their creation to better fit within the strategic planning cycle. This will ensure stronger alignment between the multiple plans guiding our work, while ensuring that all planning is driven directly or indirectly by our mission, vision, and strategic plan. 4R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools used: The primary way Normandale evaluates the sum of all planning efforts, including communicating, implementing and reviewing the plans, is with a national survey tool, the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Over the past four years, we have become much more systematic in aligning all planning efforts for optimum effectiveness and efficiency. Although we will never be able to perfectly align all of our planning processes, our current schedule clearly links all levels of planning to our key planning documents, mission, vision, and values (Figure 4R2-1). Figure 4R2-1: Schedule of Strategic Planning at Normandale

Since 2010, significant increases in satisfaction were reported by our employees in the areas relating to planning. When compared to other two-year institutions, we also show significantly higher satisfaction in every area except “making sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives,” where there was no statistically significant difference (Table 4R2-1). These results show our recent efforts to

Mission, Vision, Values Reviewed

during Strategic Plan Planning Year

Reviewed during

Strategic Plan Planning Year

Enrollment Plan

Planning year for 2013-2016

2013-2016 2017-2020

Planning Year for

2017-2020

Strategic Plan 2010-2013 2014-2017

Planning Year for

2014-2017

Planning Year for

2018-2021

Facilities Master

Plan 2009-2013 2015-2019

Academic Master

Plan 2009-2010 2011-2012 2014-2018

College Work Plan 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Dept. Work Plans 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Page 88


increase participation in the planning process, make planning more transparent, and align budget and staff resources to our mission and vision are making an impact. (5.C.3) Table 4R2-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Results Related to Strategic Planning

Survey Item

2010 Satisfaction

Mean22

2014 Satisfaction

Mean Difference23 This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives. 2.73 3.12 + 0.39*** This institution involves its employees in planning for the future. 3.08 3.44 + 0.36*** This institution plans carefully. 3.25 3.53 + 0.28** Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution. 3.33 3.60 + 0.27** The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values. 3.49 3.75 + 0.26** This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 3.18 3.39 + 0.21*

The survey also asked employees to rate the levels of involvement that various stakeholders have in planning and decision making on a scale of one to five where one is too little involvement, three is just the right level of involvement, and five is too much involvement. Compared to other two-year institutions, Normandale’s responses were generally closer to just the right level of involvement with the exception of deans/chairs of academic units, deans/directors of administrative units, and senior administrators, all of which were rated as having slightly more than just the right amount of involvement. 4I2: Improvements Recent improvements to our planning processes have been focused on the creation of integrated annual planning and budgeting. We also improved the process by using technology such as our employee portal to reinforce the new process and improve communication. Another improvement was implementing cross-institutional prioritizing committees to perform the initial rating of new funding requests. This increases transparency and involves more employees in the decision-making process. Each prioritizing committee uses the same rating sheet, ensuring systematic review for alignment to our strategic plan. (5.C.1) The strategic plan creation process continues to be a strength. We do, however, evaluate and improve the process based on feedback from the previous cycle. We incorporated already-completed planning work into the planning for the upcoming strategic plan and integrated the strategic plan with the creation of annual goals. We also continued several practices that had been identified as strengths in the past, such as strong faculty and staff involvement and environmental scanning. While we will never be able to perfectly align all of our planning processes, we have identified an improvement to further clarify the best way to integrate master planning cycles with other planning cycles. Master planning has not historically been consistent, even for a given master plan, so clarifying the role and best cycle for each master plan will strengthen our overall planning processes. We are also planning on creating a technology master plan in the next one to three years. (5.C.2, 5.C.5)

22 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 23 Statistical significance: two-tailed t-test; * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001

Page 89


Although our employees report that they believe our students have the right amount of involvement in planning, we believe we have an opportunity to better involve students directly in our strategic planning process. Our next strategic planning cycle will include more systematic involvement of students and external stakeholders. (5.C.3) We have followed the new integrated annual planning and budgeting process three times and have identified areas for future improvement:

• We recognize that we need to further develop the process for evaluating planning at all levels of the college to determine the effectiveness of the projects and initiatives we undertake. We will develop a process for evaluating college and department work plan projects to not only determine if they were completed, but also if they had the intended impact.

• While monetary costs are carefully budgeted and accounted for, the equally important time costs of staff are not as well understood and accounted for in our current planning processes.

• For the 2016 cycle, we will begin administering a survey at the end of the planning and budgeting process to more systematically capture feedback on the process.

(5.C.4) We have identified an opportunity to further strengthen the role of AQIP action projects by aligning them more fully with the strategic and annual planning processes. This will include developing and communicating clear criteria for selecting a college work plan project for an AQIP action project as well as specifically developing work plan/action projects to respond to the strategic challenges identified through portfolio creation, review, and site visit feedback. (5.C.1, 5.C.3)

Leadership 4P3: Processes Board-institution relationships, board oversight, and delegating management responsibilities: Normandale is governed by the MnSCU board of trustees and the policies and procedures that they have adopted. MnSCU’s board of trustees is made up of 15 members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Membership is defined in Minnesota Statute §136F.02, subdivision 1 (2009) and includes requirements for student and labor representation, representation of all congressional districts, and balance of the board membership with respect to labor and business representation and racial, gender, geographic, and ethnic composition. This appointment structure ensures that the board of trustees is sufficiently autonomous from donors, ownership interests, and other external parties to make decisions in the interests of all its institutions and the system as a whole. (2.C.2, 2.C.3) This structure and the board of trustees Code of Conduct are the primary processes for ensuring that board members are independent from undue influence. Minnesota State Statute 10A requires trustees to file annual statements of economic interest, and to follow gift prohibitions and other provisions as described in the Statute. The code of conduct further outlines general standards of conduct, authority to act, required disclosure of conflicts of interest, and prohibited activities including use of their position to secure benefits or use of influence. (2.C.3) Minnesota Statute chapter 136F.06, subdivisions 1 and 2 (2009) sets the general statutory authority granted to the board, which includes all powers necessary to govern the state colleges and universities, including but not limited to proscribing conditions of admission, setting tuition and fees, approving programs of study, and adopting policies suitable for the institutions it governs. The statute further states that the board shall, to the extent practicable in protecting statewide interests, provide authority to the individual campuses while holding them accountable for their decisions. (2.C.4)

Page 90

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=136F.02

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/1c01.html

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=10A

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/136F/06.html


The chief executive officer of MnSCU is the chancellor, who is responsible for providing leadership, managing the system, carrying out board policies, recommending budgets to the board, and planning for meeting Minnesota’s educational needs. Each institution has a president who serves as the institution’s chief executive officer and reports to the chancellor. MnSCU Procedure 1A.2.2 sets out the delegation of authority from the board to the chancellor and the chancellor’s designees, including the institution presidents, to ensure the efficient operation of the system and its institutions while maintaining fiscal and administrative integrity. (2.C.4, 5.B.2) Engaging internal and external constituencies and delegating academic matters: MnSCU has well-established councils and committees that include cross-campus representation and are used for shared input and decision-making. These include councils for academic affairs, technology, policy, and student affairs, each comprised of equal representation from MnSCU unions. (5.B.1) Normandale includes MnSCU’s strategic directions in our governance processes through strategic planning and the president’s work plan. These strategic directions include MnSCU’s strategic framework (strategic plan) and Charting the Future (system vision and direction planning). (5.B.1) MnSCU Policy 2.3 and Procedure 2.3.1 outline student involvement in decision-making at the system and institution levels. To promote appropriate levels of student involvement in decision-making and to assure that student perspectives are considered, students have the opportunity for representation on system and college committees involving or affecting student interests and to review or be consulted on issues that have significant impact on students. Student Senate is the official student government for Normandale. Members of the senate provide communication with various segments of the campus community and consultation on issues such as changes in fees or policies that impact students. Senate representatives also sit as student members or recommend other students to sit on college committees such as search, vendor selection, or policy development committees. Other student groups that provide input are the program board and Phi Theta Kappa. (2.C.2, 5.B.1) Normandale procedures for engaging staff and faculty in governance include the Academic Affairs and Standards Council (AA&SC) and Shared Governance committees for faculty and union representation on search committees. Normandale uses open forums to gather feedback from administration, faculty, and staff on important issues including strategic planning, budget decisions, and hiring of key administrative positions. (5.B.1, 5.B.3) The Minnesota State College Faculty (MSCF) contract mandates two committees with faculty appointments to provide input on the college’s operations: the Shared Governance committee and AA&SC. Shared Governance is responsible for personnel, student affairs, facilities, fiscal, and general matters. AA&SC (1P3) provides direction for all matters in academic affairs, including course outlines, award requirements, academic standards, course and program components, and the inventory of course and program offerings. Both Shared Governance and AA&SC include faculty appointed by MSCF and a set number of administrators (3P1, 4P2). (2.C.4, 5.B.1, 5.B.3) Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards: At the MnSCU level, the Academic Affairs Council is a cross-institutional advisory body that provides input to the vice chancellor for academic and student affairs on academic initiatives and programs that are for statewide benefit. The council includes representation of college and university students, faculty, professionals, and administrators, and MnSCU academic and student affairs division staff. The council’s scope is advising on undergraduate and graduate teaching and learning, including instructional development, professional development, accountability framework, student readiness and college transitions, career and technical education, career preparation and workforce development, program alignment and effectiveness, e-education, and inter-campus collaboration. (5.B.3)

Page 91

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/1a02p2.html

http://www.mnscu.edu/system/planning/index.html

http://www.mnscu.edu/chartingthefuture/index.html




At the institutional level, Normandale routinely collaborates across academic departments and divisions to ensure high academic standards are maintained. This is largely accomplished through regular communication and scheduled meetings that bring together individuals from all academic divisions and departments. All academic deans and the vice president of academic affairs meet weekly. Department chairs meet with their dean every two weeks, and we have meetings of all academic chairs six times a year. AA&SC, which consists of both faculty and administration representation, plays an important role in setting academic requirements, processes, and policy. At this time, ongoing involvement from staff and students occurs through the MnSCU Academic Affairs Council, while Normandale solicits feedback from staff and students on academic matters on an as-needed basis. (5.B.3) Ensuring open communication: Open communication and transparency are important values for Normandale and are evident in our campus culture and processes. This begins at the system level, with open meetings of the board of trustees required by MnSCU Policy 1.A.2 and Minnesota Statutes chapter 13D (2009). (2.C.1, 2.C.3) The president’s cabinet consists of the vice presidents of Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and Finance and Operations, and the chief human resources officer. This group, which meets weekly, provides connections to system-led initiatives and high-level direction and supervision of the key areas of the college. The administrative council, which also meets weekly, consists of the president’s cabinet plus deans and directors from all areas of the college. The council shares information and provides recommendations to the president on issues such as new funding requests. It also hears reports on non-academic program reviews and updates on enrollment and other planning efforts. On an annual basis, the council sets the direction for the college’s annual work plan and priorities. These regular, cross-divisional meetings form the basis for communication among and between our various divisions and departments. Information that is shared and reviewed at administrative council is then taken back to individual divisions and departments to be shared with staff and faculty through regular staff meetings, division/department meetings, deans’ council, and meetings of academic chairs. The vice president of academic affairs holds “fireside chats” twice per semester that are open to all employees and students and provide an open forum for individuals to ask questions about college plans and processes. The employee portal acts as a key communication platform for Normandale. All employees are able to post announcements to the portal, which also includes information on college committees and work groups, college work plans, and access to services from departments such as Research and Planning, Information Technology, Facilities, Business Office, and Human Resources. For example, AA&SC agendas and minutes are posted on the employee portal and are open to all staff, faculty, and administration. Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders: The MnSCU board of trustees is responsible for setting priorities for the system as a whole, as outlined in MnSCU Policy 1A.2. The board is authorized by Minnesota Statute §136F.06, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to adopt suitable policies for the institutions it governs. These policies are broad general directions developed by the board to govern the colleges, universities, and the MnSCU system office. (2.C.1) The board of trustees Code of Conduct guides the trustees’ deliberations by laying out guidelines for informed decision-making based on sufficient information, thoughtful deliberation, and comprehensive understanding of issues. Board members gather information by listening, asking questions, analyzing materials, and exploring issues thoroughly in conjunction with other trustees, faculty, staff, students and constituency groups. (2.C.1, 2.C.2)

Page 92


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13d.01

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13d.01


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=136F.06



Per MnSCU policy 1A.3, the chancellor is MnSCU’s chief executive officer and has full executive responsibility for higher education leadership and effective management and operation of the system according to board policies and state and federal laws. Policy 1A.4 stipulates that presidents will be appointed by the board of trustees upon the recommendation of the chancellor. The presidential selection process includes multiple opportunities to engage internal and external constituents in the process of selecting the individual responsible for leading an individual institution. Presidential search committees include representation from students, faculty, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders (e.g. superintendent of a local school district) and are chaired by a president from another MnSCU college. A search firm is engaged to assist with the process (e.g. logistics and reference checks). The search committee reviews and ranks resumes, and conducts phone and in-person interviews before recommending a slate of top candidates for campus visits. When on campus, presidential candidates meet with students, staff, faculty, administrative council, president’s cabinet, and community stakeholders. All parties have an opportunity to provide feedback. The chancellor reviews feedback and committee recommendations and makes the final recommendation to the board of trustees. (2.C.2, 5.B.1) In addition to the college president, Normandale provides leadership to institutional stakeholders through cabinet, the individual offices of vice presidents and the chief human resources officer, administrative council, and academic deans’ council. Regular communication and transparency, which are the hallmarks of these groups and positions, are key to providing effective leadership to the entire college. Developing leaders at all levels within the institution: Normandale is committed to developing leaders throughout the institution, and our culture is one that encourages individuals to seek out opportunities to develop their leadership skills. The college administration has developed a culture of seeking input from and listening to faculty and staff on their leadership and professional development needs and responding with training and resources when possible. Leadership opportunities for faculty include training for department chairs, assessment and Center for Teaching and Learning faculty development leader roles, and training opportunities such as change facilitation. Normandale provides leadership development opportunities for staff through an annual staff development conference, supervisor meetings, project management training, management academy training, and other professional development opportunities (3P3). We also nominate individuals for MnSCU’s Luoma Leadership Academy, which is an 18-month leadership development program sponsored by the Chair Academy to develop leadership skills in promising MnSCU employees. MnSCU resources for leadership development include orientation for new academic deans, orientation and coaching for new administrators, and an executive leader development program. MnSCU has an established succession planning process, which Normandale administrators have completed for 18 positions: all vice presidents, chief human resources officer, chief information officer, associate vice president of finance and operations, all dean positions (five academic deans, three student affairs deans), the director of nursing, director of public safety, and associate vice president of operations. As part of succession planning and leadership development, Normandale has a practice of appointing individuals to interim positions. This allows potential leaders to develop new skills and determine if a permanent leadership position is of interest to them. Ensuring the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision: MnSCU Policy 1A.1 stipulates that every member institution have a distinct mission and vision that is consistent with and supports the overall MnSCU mission. Minnesota Statute chapter 136F.06 subdivision 1 (2009) ensures that the college is able to act in accordance with its mission by requiring the board to provide autonomy to the campuses to the extent practicable in protecting statewide interests, while also holding campuses

Page 93



http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/talent_management/SP_toolkit/SP_Toolkit.html




accountable for their decisions. The board itself preserves its independence through the legislative mandate outlining appointments to the board and the board Code of Conduct, as described above. (2.C.3) 4R3: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale records the number of positions that have gone through succession planning, the number of staff and faculty who have participated in leadership development opportunities, and employee satisfaction with leadership. Tools for tracking outcomes include Human Resources records, and the Noel-Levitz Employee Engagement Survey. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: A key avenue for leadership development at Normandale is participation in MnSCU’s Luoma Leadership Academy. Our commitment to supporting internal talent is evidenced through increasing numbers of Normandale employees who have participated in the academy: five employees participated in the first four cohorts while 16 have participated in the most recent four cohorts. Several items on the Noel-Levitz Employee Engagement Survey measure employee satisfaction with leadership and communication (Table 4R3-1). Table 4R3-1: Noel-Levitz Results Related to Leadership and Communication, 2010 and 2014

Survey Item

2010 Satisfaction

Mean24

2014 Satisfaction

Mean Difference25 Administrators take pride in their work. 3.71 3.90 +0.19* The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose. 3.35 3.51 +0.16 There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution. 3.27 3.25 -0.02 There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution. 2.89 3.17 +0.28** Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff. 2.97 3.17 +0.20* There are effective lines of communication between departments. 2.62 2.92 +0.30**

We compare our Noel-Levitz Employee Engagement Survey results against other two-year institutions that participate in the survey (Table 4R3-2). Table 4R3-2: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey 2014 Results Related to Leadership and Communication Compared to Other Two-Year Institutions

Survey Item

Normandale Satisfaction

Mean26

2-year Institution Satisfaction

Mean Difference27 Administrators take pride in their work. 3.90 3.76 + 0.13*

24 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 25 Two-tailed t-test: * p<.05, ** p<.01. ***p<.001 26 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 27 Two-tailed t-test: * p<.05, ** p<.01. ***p<.001

Page 94


The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose. 3.51 3.40 + 0.11 There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution. 3.25 3.11 + 0.13* There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution. 3.17 3.13 + 0.04 Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff. 3.17 3.14 + 0.03 There are effective lines of communication between departments. 2.92 2.88 + 0.04

Our recent Noel-Levitz results show increasing levels of satisfaction with leadership at Normandale. Comparisons indicate that our results are similar or slightly better than those of other two year colleges. However, there are a number of different avenues for employees to pursue training and education to prepare them for leadership opportunities, and we recognize that we do not yet have a way to collect and analyze these results. 4I3: Improvements Processes for board oversight and responsibilities are well-established and maintained through MnSCU, a strength that allows us to focus our attention on cultivating leadership at all levels of our institution. In the future, we plan to continue supporting employees’ access to leadership development opportunities through MnSCU and other sources. Many professional development opportunities have been identified in Category Three, and they will support our work in leadership development as well. Another improvement will be to determine tools and methods for tracking and evaluating the number of employees who receive leadership development opportunities and who subsequently move into leadership positions. This will allow us to better understand our effectiveness in ensuring long-term effective leadership and identify areas for further improvement.

Integrity 4P4: Processes Developing and communicating standards: The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) board of trustees is authorized by Minnesota Statute §136F.06, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to adopt suitable policies for the institutions it governs. These policies are broad general directions developed by the board to govern the colleges, universities, and MnSCU system office. They guide the ethical and legal behavior of all trustees, administration, faculty, and staff. (2.A) Normandale’s president has the authority to adopt campus policies and procedures as long as they are consistent with board policy and MnSCU procedure. Our HR department continually monitors changes to federal, state, and MnSCU laws, rules, and regulations and provides input when new or revised policies or procedures are required. Policies and procedures that guide our standards include MnSCU Policy 1C.1 (board of trustees Code of Conduct), Policy 1C.2 (Fraudulent or Other Dishonest Acts), Policy 1C.0.1 (Employee Code of Conduct), Normandale Policy 4.7 (Affirmative Action) and Normandale employee confidentiality agreement. (2.A) Both MnSCU and Normandale policies are reviewed on a regular basis. Policies may also be changed or repealed outside of the regular review schedule due to changes in federal or state requirements or other factors. Each MnSCU policy and procedure is reviewed at least once every five years. Normandale reviews and updates policies on a regular basis based on a systematic process. Any member of the college community may identify a need to consider a policy change, and the publicly-disseminated process provides information on the steps needed to suggest a change.

Page 95

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=136F




http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures/47-affirmative-action


Aside from changes to laws, rules, and regulations that may require new or revised policies and procedures, our standards for integrity and ethical behavior are grounding principles that do not change dramatically. Our process therefore focuses on communicating the standards and providing guidance to employees to help them make ethical decisions on a day-to-day basis. Our mission, vision, and values are statements that very broadly define and communicate our commitment to fulfilling our societal obligations and doing so with integrity. We communicate our standards via our website and the HR department’s employee resource center on the employee portal. New employees learn about policies and procedures on their first date of employment and through additional training, outlined below. We provide new employees with the full text of the policies in hard copy and direct them to the locations of electronic versions of the policies. (2.A) Training employees for legal and ethical behavior: Normandale’s Human Resources department is central to efforts related to setting and communicating standards and ongoing training of employees for ethical behavior. Employee orientation, monthly supervisor meetings, and training for search committee members are all ways that Normandale continually trains employees for ethical behavior (3P1). Additional training in ethical practices related to specific functions is provided by the department responsible for those functions. (2.A) Modeling ethical and legal behavior from the highest levels of the organization: Normandale expects individuals at every level of the organization to model integrity and ethical behavior. Normandale’s leadership and administration follow rules and policies in a highly visible manner and communicate the reasons for their ethical and legal behavior whenever appropriate. Supervisors are expected to immediately address any lapses or breaches in ethical and legal behavior among the individuals they supervise. Monthly supervisor meetings provide a forum where supervisors receive information and guidance on enforcing ethical and legal behavior and can hold each other accountable to high standards. Leadership also models ethical and legal behavior through highly transparent processes. Our standard for committee meetings is that they be open to the extent allowable by regulations (e.g. privacy concerns would be a reason for a closed meeting). We use open forums as another means of communication and transparency. The employee portal, email, and opening day presentations are other ways that Normandale leadership provides information to faculty and staff and seeks their feedback. Our processes for assessment, planning, and budgeting also have transparent practices systematically built in (4P2). Ensuring the ethical practice of all employees and operating all functions with integrity: We are committed to ensuring the ethical practices of all employees through robust policies and procedures, training, and safeguards to prevent behavior that is illegal or unethical. Some policies and procedures, such as those discussed above, come from the Federal, state, MnSCU, or college level, and apply uniformly to all parts of the college and to all employees. Other procedures are specific to certain areas of the college, the employees in those departments or divisions, and employees that interact with them. (2.A) One way we ensure the ethical practice of all employees is through the annual performance review process. Normandale’s performance review for staff and supervisors includes an assessment of the employee’s understanding of and compliance with institutional and MnSCU procedures, policies, and regulations. The student surveys of instruction at the end of each semester and performance reviews by deans every three years are methods of ensuring the ethical practices of faculty (3P2). Lastly, the student complaint and grievance process (2P4), which can address the behavior of any faculty or staff member, acts as another tool ensuring the ethical behavior of all our employees.

Page 96


http://www.normandale.edu/directory/policy-and-procedures


In addition to policies at both the system and institutional level, Normandale ensures the ethical behavior of all employees through internal controls that minimize the likelihood that unethical or illegal practices can take place, particularly in regard to student, financial and personnel matters. Financial functions: Normandale and MnSCU policies and procedures are designed to ensure that our financial activities are carried out legally and ethically. Normandale has established internal controls to ensure that our financial reports are accurate and reliable and that we are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Processes include:

• Delegations of authority ensure that individuals have the authority to do their jobs while maintaining appropriate and/or mitigating controls. MnSCU Procedure 1A2.2 outlines the scope of delegations, authority to authorize and receive delegations, and delegation management. Normandale has established guidelines to identify appropriate levels of authority based on position or work role. These guidelines also ensure that one individual cannot have authority for duties that should be separated in order to prevent fraud. Delegations are reviewed when an individual’s level of responsibility changes and when there is turnover in positions that have delegated authority.

• Normandale has thorough policies and procedures related to purchasing and additional policies and procedures for purchasing cards to prevent fraud and abuse. The policy and procedure manuals are available on Normandale’s employee portal and the accounting supervisor meets with new cost center managers and employees with purchasing responsibilities to review policies and procedures. In order to improve efficiency, this training will become part of the onboarding process for new employees whose duties include being a cost center manager.

• Minnesota state law requires the encumbrance of state funds before an order is placed or services are provided. Employees are not allowed to order or allow work to begin before a purchase order has been approved and issued. In addition, all contracts must be fully signed and funds encumbered with a purchase order before any work begins under the contract.

• Annual audits ensure that proper accounting principles are being used and identify areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Normandale’s financial statements are audited by an independent auditing firm on an annual basis. Audits are conducted in accordance with U.S generally accepted auditing standards and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

(2.A) A primary tool for internal control is MnSCU’s Integrated Statewide Record (ISRS) system, which is the online information system all MnSCU institutions use for student records, human resources, and finance information. ISRS is an integrated database, with different modules using the same tables and data in order to reduce redundancy and increase data integrity. The president is responsible for identifying at least one security manager for the college, who assigns rights to on-campus administrators in each respective area, such as Admissions, Finance, or Human Resources (HR). These individuals are then responsible for approving roles and groups to other employees per our data privacy policy, which states that employees may only have access to information necessary to perform their job duties. Security managers re-certify ISRS rights annually. (2.A) Internal controls in areas such as the Business Office and Financial Aid Office ensure ethical and legal behavior by segregating duties and limiting individual access to information or processes. Many internal controls are built into ISRS. For example, security rights limit what actions an individual can take as well as what access they have to various records. Additionally, some rights within ISRS are incompatible with other rights in order to ensure segregation of duties (e.g. an individual in the cashier security group could not be in the receipt corrections security group). (2.A)

Page 97

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/1a02p2.html


Per the Higher Education Opportunity Act, Normandale has a code of conduct for financial aid personnel. Every August 1st, the director of the financial aid office sends the code of conduct to financial aid and business office employees who have responsibility related to Title IV federal loans. New employees in financial aid and the business office receive the code of conduct as part of their orientation and onboarding. (2.A) Academic functions: Normandale ensures ethical teaching and research practices and academic integrity through processes described in 1P6. Ethical teaching and research of faculty are addressed through uniform requirements for syllabi and common course outlines, policies regarding intellectual property in MnSCU policy and the faculty contract, Institutional Review Board, and the student complaint and grievance process (2P4). Faculty receive training on Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to ensure that students’ private data is protected. (2.A) Normandale also has rigorous policies and procedures to ensure that student data is protected throughout the college’s functions. Students requesting information (e.g. transcripts, status of financial aid) must request the information in person and present photo identification. Normandale requires that students sign a release of information prior to sending any student information to a third party. All employees, including student workers, sign a data disclosure agreement. (2.A) Personnel functions: The mission of Normandale’s HR department is to ensure that ethical, efficient and legal employment practices are used throughout the college. The department is in a stand-alone office, meaning there are no non-HR staff in the suite. This ensures that private information about employees and potential employees is protected. Similarly, the HR department grants rights to the HR module in ISRS only to those individuals who need access to the information in order to do their jobs, and their abilities to see any data not related to their jobs is restricted. (2.A) The HR department has numerous processes in place to ensure that personnel functions are operated with integrity. Examples of key processes include:

• Hiring: All staff members who serve on a search committee must have completed search committee training, which outlines the hiring process as well as the policies and procedures that must be followed in order to ensure a fair, legal, and ethical search. Individuals must attend the search training every two years to remain eligible to serve on search committees.

• Payroll: Normandale uses MnSCU’s electronic timesheets to track employee work hours, vacation, and sick pay. After an employee completes their e-timesheet, their supervisor must approve it before it is forwarded to payroll for processing. Segregation of duties in the payroll process ensures that no one has the ability to create fraudulent employee records or process extra paychecks.

• Compensation, promotion, and discipline: Personnel issues including compensation and promotion are highly transparent and are based on established guidelines and contractual pay plans that take into consideration credentials and years of experience. Disciplinary measures follow multiple levels and steps based on specific union contracts. Any disciplinary action, from a written reprimand to a dismissal, requires written documentation notifying the employee and their respective union of the reasons for the disciplinary action. Employees facing serious disciplinary action may utilize the grievance procedure.

• Equal Opportunity and Nondiscrimination in Employment and Education: MnSCU Policy 1.B.1 outlines our commitment to ensuring equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment and education. The policy is communicated to students at the time they register at the college, and to employees at the beginning of their employment. The policy and procedures are also posted around campus and are on Normandale’s website. MnSCU Procedure 1.B.1.1 outlines the

Page 98

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/policy/1b01.html

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/procedure/1b01p1.html


definitions and processes for investigation and resolution of discrimination and harassment claims.

• Affirmative Action: Normandale reviews and updates our Affirmative Action Plan every two years. The plan identifies Normandale’s goals for hiring women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and veterans in job categories that have been identified as underutilizing these individuals. It outlines processes for auditing, evaluating, and reporting program success. The plan also includes the processes for recruitment and retention of identified underutilized groups.

(2.A) Auxiliary functions: We use the National Association of College and University Business Officers definition of auxiliaries as entities that exist to furnish a service to students, faculty, or staff acting in a personal capacity, and that charge a fee for the use of goods or access to a service. Auxiliary functions are the campus store and textbook depot (operated by the college), child care center (operated by a private entity leasing space on campus), campus food and catering (contracted food service with commissions paid to the college) and bank (leasing space on campus). The campus store and textbook depot uses a point of sale system that tracks sales and inventory. It also conducts an annual physical inventory audit to determine the accuracy of inventory, identify shrinkage/losses, and confirm that revenue is meeting targets. An external firm conducts the audit in order to ensure the integrity of the process. It has an advisory board that provides advice and recommendations for services provided by the bookstore and is responsible for advising and making recommendations to management regarding systematic and transparent processes to address staff, faculty and student concerns. (2.A) Normandale conducts a regular bidding process to select third party vendors for food/catering, child care, and banking services. Vendors are required to maintain any needed licensing, abide by the regulations of their industry, and maintain appropriate insurance coverage for workers compensation and liability. (2.A) Making information readily and clearly available to all constituents: Normandale communicates with current and prospective students and other constituents through a variety of methods, most notably through its website and course catalog. Our website includes all information disclosures as required by The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. For each item, the website lists the ways we disclose the information (e.g. through publications, mailings, and electronic media), the office or individual responsible, a summary of the information to be made available, and links to the information. (2.B) The dean of student services is responsible for reviewing and updating this information on an annual basis. In June of every year, the dean reviews a list of all required disclosures and sends a reminder to the owners of each disclosure to review the information and any links in the disclosure and update the disclosure as necessary. The owners of each disclosure send changes to the dean of students by August 1st so that all changes can be made on Normandale’s website by the start of the new school year. (2.B) 4R4: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale administers the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey to measure employee perceptions of the college culture and policies. Student complaints (2P4) provide another perspective on how well faculty and staff meet standards in areas such as following college policies and procedures and interacting with students in alignment with our ethical and legal standards. Student complaints can highlight patterns with specific faculty members who may depart from their syllabus on a regular basis, deviate from a college policy or procedure, or fail to follow established grading guidelines (2R4).

Page 99

http://www.normandale.edu/directory/disclosures


Normandale does not have systematic data collection and analysis processes in place to examine the effectiveness of many of the processes outlined above. We recognize this as an opportunity for future improvements. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Our Noel-Levitz results show that we have improved employee satisfaction particularly related to hiring and orienting new employees, and clear written procedures (Table 4R4-1). Table 4R4-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Integrity, 2010 and 2014

Survey Item

2010 Satisfaction

Mean28

2014 Satisfaction

Mean Difference29 I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures. 3.43 3.48 +0.05 This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees. 3.32 3.25 -0.07 This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees. 2.51 3.14 +0.63*** This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service. 2.72 3.09 +0.37***

We compare our Noel-Levitz results to other two-year institutions that administer the survey. For the 2014 survey, there were 35 other two-year institutions included in the comparison results. Our results are similar to those of other participating colleges (Table 4R4-2). Table 4R4-2: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Integrity Compared to External Benchmark Institutions

Survey Item


Mean30

2-year Institution Satisfaction

Mean Difference I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures. 3.48 3.55 -0.08 This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees. 3.25 3.21 +0.04 This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees. 3.14 3.17 -0.03 This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service. 3.09 3.19 -0.10

4I4: Improvements One of the key ways that we ensure that we are operating ethically and with integrity is through communicating standards to employees and ensuring that they have the training and support to understand and implement policies and processes in ways that are fair and legal. Normandale has made and plans to make improvements in the areas of communication with and training for employees, including:

28 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 29 Two-tailed t-test: * p<.05, ** p<.01. ***p<.001 30 Scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied"

Page 100


• We have simplified and streamlined the way that new employees first encounter Normandale and MnSCU policies through the development of policy summaries. New employees review these summaries on their first day of employment. We recognized that the sheer volume of information new employees were expected to digest was decreasing the effectiveness of the policy review. We now provide multiple opportunities for new employees to familiarize themselves with important policies and procedures to ensure they understand and are able to follow the key processes that ensure Normandale’s integrity.

• Our Human Resources department created employee, supervisor, and hiring resource centers on the employee portal to provide clear and simple access to information including policies and procedures. The hiring resource center and search committee training are two primary sources that guide Normandale’s hiring process and ensure that recruiting and selecting new employees is done in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

• Normandale has many long-term employees who may have had a very different onboarding experience as new employees. Additionally, the policies and procedures that guide our operations are complex and can change. In 2015, we will implement a policy refresher training that will be required for all employees. The training will pay particular attention to the employee code of conduct. All employees will be required to re-take the training every three years.

(2.A)

CATEGORY FIVE: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

Introduction The departments discussed in this category have seen significant turnover in key leadership and management positions over the past four years. In addition, we increased the size of our physical infrastructure with the addition of the 55,000 square-foot Kopp Student Center in 2011, a 725-car parking ramp in 2012, and the 76,000 square-foot Partnership Center in 2013. In spite of these changes, we have continued to make improvements to many processes in knowledge management and resource stewardship. Across the college, we have seen increased use of data for planning and decision-making. Our processes for collecting, analyzing, and sharing data and information have improved even as requests for data increased. Time to completion of data requests has remained ahead of deadlines as well. All areas addressed in this category have focused on documentation of processes and educating units across the college to increase institutional knowledge of the processes. Our knowledge management and resource stewardship processes are still best described as reacting, although most areas are generally systematic, and some are moving toward alignment. Our processes for collecting and using data and information to inform decision making are established and have grown in maturity to an aligned level, with explicit, repeatable processes in the Office of Research and Planning that drive our data and information use across the campus. Our integrated annual planning and budgeting process is a process that is now well-documented, explicit, and repeated and is a primary example of systematic processes in the area of operational effectiveness. However, we have recognized the need for a technology master plan to better address and integrate technology needs to support our operations. The lack of this plan places our overall processes in this area in the reacting category. This plan and a recent AQIP action project to develop a process for assessing and meeting classroom instructional technology needs will help us move our maturity to systematic and on the way to aligned in the near future. Although Normandale’s results in this category are becoming more systematic, we do not yet analyze results at various levels or track performance in all areas, so we are still categorized as reacting. Only a few departments (Office of Research and Planning, Information Technology Services and Facilities) utilize our knowledge base and ticketing system, and only two of them consistently utilize the software’s data analytics to track all metrics such as customer themes, workflow, and time-to-completion. However,

Page 101


as more departments use this software to track requests, the processes for data interpretation, and best practices in workflow management are shared among departments. In addition, improvements based upon continuing data needs assessment ensures that useful reports are increasingly accessible and used by departments. The accessibility of reports increases campus expectations for the use of shared data sets. Although our processes and results are best seen as reacting, Normandale continues to move toward systematic in both areas. Several projects and planned improvements demonstrate this commitment. The maturation of processes in the Office of Research and Planning, an increase in access to data and regular reports through the Student Management and Retention Tracking database, and the data mart will allow departments to more easily access data to inform decision-making. A technology master plan and an updated facilities master plan will be a great enhancement to our processes for planning for and managing our resources and ensuring support for our mission and strategic directions. In the area of operational effectiveness, we have determined that some data needs that would allow us to foster improvement and more aligned results are not yet being met. A cross-functional team is currently working on developing Data as a Service. Non-academic program review will also be vital to developing better performance metrics and using data to improve these areas. Additionally, we plan to continue reviewing processes in these areas for opportunities for process improvement.

Knowledge Management 5P1: Processes Selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing data and performance information to support planning, process improvement, and decision-making: Normandale has access to a significant body of data and information as a part of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) as well as internal capacity to select, organize, analyze, and share data and information via our Office of Research and Planning. As we have become more data-driven in our processes, we have seen demand for data and performance information increase. Data is now regularly used as part of strategic planning, enrollment planning, master planning, and annual planning and budgeting (4P2). Use of data for process improvement (6P1) occurs most frequently in academic and non-academic program review. Some of the data we use in planning and decision-making is determined and organized by external stakeholders, most notably MnSCU. For example, MnSCU provides regular management reports and dashboard updates for measures in the MnSCU Accountability Dashboard. The dashboard is a series of over 20 measures MnSCU uses to evaluate the operations, institutional outcomes, and strategic priorities of each institution. Measures include student persistence and completion rates, diversity of employees and students, instructional costs, composite financial index, and successful transfer rates. Normandale has access to vast amounts of information through the MnSCU operational data warehouse. In addition to the accountability dashboard, which provides public access on the measures described above, Normandale uses the Integrated Statewide Records System (ISRS), Hyperion/BRIO, and management reports for specific data entry, updating, and report generation tasks. Using these tools, we have access to data on student demographics, courses, grades, success rates, student full year equivalents, awards, and financial aid. We also use Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data to compare our institution to peers. We also select and organize data based on institutional strategic priorities, particularly as part of college and department planning activities. For example, Normandale’s current enrollment plan focuses on increasing enrollment and retention of students of color and non-traditional adult students, so we regularly collect and analyze this data (2P2). Data selection is also driven by projects, particularly those that are institution-wide or involve multiple departments, such as AQIP action projects.

Page 102

http://www.mnscu.edu/board/accountability/index.html


Another primary process that drives collection and organization of data is the program review process (1P3, 2P1). Academic program review requires departments to work with the Office of Research and Planning to collect data on student success and persistence rates, instructional and academic support costs, in addition to departmental information on courses, certificates and degrees. Non-academic program review includes data and performance information such as process effectiveness, customer identification, staff and funding levels compared to similar institutions, and program outcomes. As with academic program review, some data is routinely collected by the Office of Research and Planning, while other information is collected by the departments themselves, such as assessment data. We have a three-pronged approach to analyzing data and performance information: on an ongoing basis, periodically (most often annually), and every four years (for program review and strategic planning). Time-sensitive data such as enrollment information is reviewed on an ongoing basis, with increased frequency during registration periods. Annual planning and budgeting is a process that requires data on an annual basis. Additional periodic analysis of data may occur as part of ad hoc data requests (e.g. for projects or grant applications). Every four years, the college analyzes data through strategic planning or master planning. Additionally, all departments analyze data every four years as part of program review. A key way we share data with internal and external stakeholders is our Fact Book, which includes student demographics and data on enrollment, student success, transfer institutions, awards, graduates, and summary results of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), our internal Employee and Student Satisfaction with Services surveys, and the Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey. The Fact Book is compiled and published annually by the Office of Research and Planning. The office also keeps track of common data requests over the course of each year and adds highly-requested data to the Fact Book as needed. Our employee portal is another important vehicle for sharing data and performance information across campus. One of the most critical pieces of information shared this way is frequent updates of our enrollment numbers during every registration period. Because enrollment is a key driver of our revenue, it is important for employees from across the institution to have regular updates on the number of students, the full year equivalent, and comparisons to the previous year. This information is used for planning and decision-making for the college as a whole as well as for specific departments. Other data and information on the portal includes current and archived issues of the Fact Book, full results of surveys, student demographic profiles, various reports, non-academic program reviews, and results of MnSCU accountability dashboard measures. Determining data, information, and performance results that units and departments need to plan and manage effectively: Some of the data and information that the college, divisions, and departments need to plan and manage their work is determined at the MnSCU or college level. For example, the data related to MnSCU’s strategic priorities provide important information for academic units and departments to use when planning or assessing their work. Similarly, Normandale’s strategic priorities determine some metrics and data needs for the entire college or specific divisions and departments. Normandale’s administration has identified effectiveness measures for academic programs such as enrollments, faculty to student ratios, student success rates, course fill rates, and cost of instruction. Data on these measures are provided to departments and results are used as part of academic program review and in the development of annual work plans and budgets. Within divisions and departments, vice presidents and deans work with staff and faculty to determine metrics that are critical for planning and managing. For example, three-year trend data for expenditures in cost centers is now released monthly and cost center managers use this information as part of the annual budgeting process and management of cost centers. The vice president of Academic Affairs and the academic deans use class fill rate reports to guide construction of class schedules and to cancel low-

Page 103



enrollment classes as needed. Financial Aid and Scholarships tracks the student financial aid applications process to identify bottlenecks or other issues to ensure smooth and efficient processing. Additional determinations are made at the department level. For example, student affairs departments collect and analyze performance information via Normandale’s Student Management and Retention Tracking (SMART) database, work flows, and our knowledge database and ticketing system. Department leaders and/or project teams work with the Office of Research and Planning to establish what data is important to gather for each project and resolve issues of research design. To support a culture of data-driven planning and decision making, we also encourage departments and divisions to determine what data best meet their own needs. To better understand our data usage across the college, in 2012 Normandale conducted a comprehensive data needs assessment to document all data that was being used by students, staff, and faculty. In addition to this comprehensive inventory, the data needs assessment identified tools and resources to enhance data usage for services and departments as well as barriers to effective data usage at Normandale. It also included an analysis of future data needs to assist our own planning efforts in this area. Making data, information, and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning, and improvements: Normandale’s primary source for data and analysis is the Office of Research and Planning. The core functions of the office include research, continuous improvement, and planning. The mission of the department is to support evidence-based decision-making, manage integrated planning on campus, and advocate for continuous improvement. The office uses a tracking system that documents requests (e.g. for data, surveys, focus groups, and requests related to continuous improvement efforts), the requestor(s), and the amount of time spent on each request. As a result of the 2012 data needs assessment project, Normandale enhanced data availability through two additional projects to develop an institutional Fact Book and a data mart. Normandale’s Fact Book, first published in 2012, was enhanced with additional data that were identified through the data needs assessment. Archived Fact Books are available on the employee portal, allowing for analysis of trends going back to as early as fall 2007 depending on the specific measure. The second project that grew out of the data needs assessment was the development of a data mart. The data mart includes reports available to all users, as well as reports accessible only to certain individuals (e.g. administrative team, deans’ assistants). Current reports generated include administrative reports (e.g. class lists, class rosters by instructor or section, course schedule), potential program candidate reports, campus reports (e.g. facilities utilization, fill rates by course), dean’s assistant reports (e.g. data integrity checks, dean’s list), faculty reports (e.g. class rosters), foundation reports, records and registration reports (e.g. grade reports, active suspensions), and Postsecondary Enrollment Options reports. Some of the data mart reports allow data to be disaggregated for departmental reports. For example, the Potential Program Candidates data module allows users to pull lists of students based upon semester, division, program, relevant coursework, and declared major. This module allows departments to focus their course and program marketing efforts on the most relevant students. Queries related to finished coursework allow advisors to contact students who are close to finishing a degree. Ultimately our goal is for the data mart to provide interactive access to all regularly-used data sets on campus. Some reports that existed prior to the creation of the data mart continue to be produced and used by administrators and department chairs. These include instructional cost studies, program data sheets, graduate follow-up results, and student success rate reports. Department chairs and deans utilize these in developing their annual scheduling and staffing plans. Academic departments also receive reports on

Page 104



enrollment by course type (hybrid, online, or traditional) and student success rates by course type for their academic program review. Research and Planning also creates distribution plans for some regularly pulled data sets to ensure the right groups get the right data on a reasonable schedule. For example, during registration through to the beginning weeks of the semester, enrollment numbers are provided daily to administrators and posted on the employee portal. Institutional comparisons to other MnSCU institutions (student FYE) are also reported on a weekly basis. Finally, Research and Planning reports on major surveys undertaken by the college. In even-numbered years we administer surveys on engagement: the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (employee engagement) and the CCSSE (student engagement). In odd-numbered years, we administer satisfaction with services surveys to both employees and students. The results of all four surveys are summarized in reports, published on the employee portal and in the institutional Fact Fook, and discussed campus-wide. Departments use the survey results to set goals and track performance. Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and security of the institution’s knowledge management system(s) and related processes: A great deal of our data is provided by MnSCU, accessed through tools such as the Integrated Statewide Records System (ISRS) or the accountability dashboard. Our processes are designed to work with and supplement these systems where appropriate, in addition to addressing our own internal knowledge management system needs. Normandale’s data mart interfaces with ISRS to pull just-in-time data and regular updates. We also address timeliness through distribution plans for regular reports to departments, the availability of common data sets (such as enrollment figures) posted to the employee portal on a regular basis, and the inclusion of major data sets in the data mart and the Fact Book to provide ready access whenever people need it. The Office of Research and Planning tracks data requests using a three-level prioritization process to ensure requests are addressed in a timely manner that takes into consideration their assigned importance. The Office of Research and Planning reviews data and compares new data with historical data to scan for potential data accuracy issues. Data is also reviewed by subject experts to ensure that it is consistent with expectations. Some departments have processes to ensure accuracy in data entry and processing. For example, the admissions department separates its production process into two functions: one group enters data and the other group checks the work. The department also runs daily reports to check for duplicate names and student ID numbers to increase accuracy. The Business Office selects random records and verifies the information with the source data such as ISRS. Data security includes ensuring data users are trained and have appropriate levels of access as well as ensuring the security of knowledge management systems. All Normandale employees are required to complete data-privacy training, and FERPA training is provided on an ongoing basis for faculty and staff. Information Technology Services provides centralized management for all campus information systems, ensuring that our knowledge management systems are maintained and upgraded regularly. Normandale’s data network is segmented into multiple VLANs (Virtual Local Area Network) to separate different types of users in order to assign access privileges. Data on the employee portal and in ISRS is protected at various levels of security through data rights assignment. 5R1: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Normandale regularly tracks a number of institutional outcomes/measures. Some of these are reported in the Accountability Dashboard. Others, such as

Page 105


classroom fill rate reports, are available via the data mart on the employee portal. Additional measures are requested by departments on an ad hoc basis for use in program reviews, assessment, and college projects. Along with ISRS, the college uses a number of software programs to track information, data, and performance results. Some of the software are utilized by all MnSCU institutions (e.g. ISRS, State College and University Personnel Payroll System, and the Facilities Renewal and Reinvestment Module) while others have been chosen by Normandale (e.g. Maxient, Hobsons Retain, and Ingeniex). Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Normandale has seen a steady increase in our use of data for planning and decision-making. The Office of Research and Planning tracks the number of completed data requests and survey requests per year as measures of the college’s data use (Figures 5R1-1, 5R1-2). Figure 5R1-1: Office of Research and Planning Completed Research Requests

Figure 5R1-2: Office of Research and Planning Survey Requests

Another measure of data use by units and departments is the number and percent of Normandale departments that work with Research and Planning on additional requests beyond the standard provision of data for processes like program review. In AY2010, Research and Planning served 24 departments, or 60% of the total departments on campus. In AY2013, that number had increased to 33 departments, or 80% of the total. In non-academic program review (2P1, 6P1), peer reviewers rate departments on how well their metrics measure the work being done (Table 6P1-1) and how well they are using data (Table 6P1-2). On a five point scale, the eleven departments that have completed reviews average 3.9 on appropriate use of metrics for their core functions and 3.3 on data to support those metrics. We have begun to collect data via the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction and our Employee Satisfaction with Services surveys to determine if all employees have the data and information they need to do their jobs (Tables 5R1-1, 5R1-2). While employee satisfaction levels have increased and our most recent results are comparable to those of other two-year colleges, we plan to continue making improvements to the availability of information and data across the college (5I1).

240 250 260 263309

050

100150200250300350

AY2010 AY2011 AY2012 AY2013 AY2014

18 2228

63

0

20

40

60

80

AY2010 AY2011 AY2012 AY2013

Page 106


Table 5R1-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Using Data and Performance Information

Survey Item

2012 Importance

Mean31

2012 Satisfaction

Mean32

2014 Importance

Mean

2014 Satisfaction

Mean

2014 2-year Colleges

Satisfaction Mean

I have the information I need to do my job well. 4.64 3.39 4.59 3.69 3.67

Table 5R1-2: Employee Satisfaction with Services Survey Results Related to Using Data and Performance Information

Survey Item 2011 Mean33 2013 Mean When I need data to perform my job, I am able to access it. 3.40 3.96

5I1: Improvements Normandale has seen several improvements in recent years, in part due to the data needs assessment and projects to make more data readily available to faculty, staff, and administrators to help in planning, decision making, and continuous improvement. Implementation of non-academic program review (2P1) has also increased regular use of data across the college. Normandale will continue to improve use of data through expanding the capacity and functionality of the data mart. We have added a new data architect position to the IT department, who will work closely with the Office of Research and Planning to improve the availability of data for individuals across the college, enhance data security, and improve data integrity. In order to improve our analysis of data, we also plan to identify appropriate institutions outside of MnSCU against which to benchmark our results.

Resource Management 5P2: Processes Maintaining fiscal, physical, and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations: Normandale’s fiscal, physical, and technological offices are each overseen by an administrator who reports to the vice president of finance and operations:

• The associate vice president of finance is responsible for the Business Office, which maintains all financial operations including setting up and monitoring cost centers, processing purchase orders and financial agreements, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and all reporting functions.

• The associate vice president of operations is responsible for maintenance (e.g. custodial and general maintenance), environmental safety and grounds, and public safety.

• The chief information officer is responsible for information technology services including the academic technology, user services, and network and systems departments.

As a member of MnSCU, part of the maintenance of infrastructure necessary for our operations is handled at the system level. For example, MnSCU policies and procedures provide direction to fiscal, facilities, and technology processes. MnSCU also carries out some functions such as data collection and reporting for all institutions in the system. Through the Accountability Dashboard (5P1), MnSCU provides metrics and sets targets for institutional performance in many areas including fiscal health and facilities measures.

31 Importance scale: 1 = “Not important at all” / 5 = “Very important” 32 Satisfaction scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 33 Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree” / 5 = “Strongly agree”

Page 107


Normandale has processes in place to solicit input from campus stakeholders as part of the maintenance of fiscal, physical, and technological infrastructure. The college’s Shared Governance council has fiscal and facilities subcommittees that make recommendations to the college in these key areas. Information Technology Services (ITS) receives input and guidance from the Technology Policy Council, which oversees a number of sub-committees with broad institutional representation, one of which is the Academic Technology Advisory Committee. While the structures are not identical and may report to different parties, they do play similar roles.

• The facilities committee's primary duties are to receive reports from the college community relative to all facility matters including renovation and remodeling requests; contemplated major facility improvements, modification or additions; and the report of the master planning architect and committee. The committee provides counsel and input on these issues to administration relative to priority, need and centrality to the mission of the college.

• The primary duties of the fiscal committee are to review and offer counsel regarding periodic financial reports of the college’s operational and other activities. The committee also provides input and counsel to the administration regarding the budget development process, and the final budget that is recommended to the president for adoption.

• The academic technology advisory committee solicits cross-campus input regarding academic technology and makes recommendations to the Technology Policy Council for academic technology used on campus and online.

(5.A.1)

A key process for determining if the college has sufficient fiscal and human resources as well as physical and technological infrastructure to support operations is program review. As part of non-academic program review, departments review staffing and budget levels compared to other metro-area community colleges. Typically our goal is to have fiscal and human resources that are within the range of those at peer institutions, without being too high or too low (unless we feel that the efficiency of our processes warrant a leaner staffing pattern). Program review also requires departments to assess the effectiveness of their processes and identify areas of strengths and weakness. For finance, operations/facilities, and technology departments, this includes confirming that sufficient resources and infrastructure are available to support their work providing services to internal and external customers. (5.A.1) An additional role of the facilities office is to engage in capital budget planning. A MnSCU facilities renewal and reinvestment database helps Normandale plan and budget for capital improvements. This is assisted by contracted services that regularly check our physical infrastructure (e.g. roof, heating system) to estimate their remaining life. MnSCU uses this information when prioritizing capital projects and Normandale uses it to determine ongoing maintenance and budgeting needs. (5.A.1) Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities, and emerging needs: As described in 4P2, strategic planning is the key process for setting Normandale’s strategic direction in alignment with our mission while taking into consideration organizational strengths, external opportunities, and emerging needs. In addition, the academic master plan identifies some key areas where the college is focusing its attention on academic services and support. To help connect operational functions to our overarching strategic priorities, Normandale creates a facilities master plan and plans to create a similar master plan for technology. (5.A.3) MnSCU Policy 6.4 outlines the requirements of facilities planning. Every institution is required to have a facilities master plan that is updated every five years. The facilities master plan strategically incorporates academic program needs, facilities issues, technology requirements, and financial limitations to create an integrated vision for the future. The updating process is designed to confirm facilities-related assumptions, arrive at conclusions based on current information, create a long-term vision for the future

Page 108



development of the campus with an immediate five-year incremental plan, and act as a catalyst in the formation of strategic partnerships. All institutions are required to hire a consultant and work with them to update the plan with consideration given to the strategic plan, master academic plan, enrollment plan, AQIP portfolio, demographic trends, and MnSCU’s strategic directions. Updating the facilities master plan also includes an assessment of the current condition of all buildings, space utilization data, zoning, and site conditions. After taking all of these factors into consideration, the updated plan lays out our proposed plan for development and maintenance of facilities for the next five years. (5.A.1, 5.A.3) On an annual basis, Normandale sets goals aligned with our mission and strategic plan (4P2). Based on these goals, we develop college-wide work plan items and every department creates its own work plan aligned with institutional and/or departmental goals. Departmental goals include items that have been identified as areas for improvement in the program review process (1P3, 2P1). As described throughout the portfolio, we also engage in periodic and ongoing environmental scanning as part of processes such as program accreditation, enrollment planning, participation in MnSCU committees and work groups, and membership in professional associations. We also collect feedback from stakeholders on an ongoing basis through surveys, advisory committees, and open forum events. This information is incorporated into processes such as program review and annual planning and budgeting to ensure that we are able to react to changes in a timely manner. (5.A. 2, 5.A.3) Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals: Because annual planning and budgeting are now integrated into one process, we can ensure strong alignment between our institutional goals and allocation of resources. As a public institution, our budgeting process is focused solely on achieving our educational purposes, which is reinforced by use of a rubric, and transparent and broadly representative new funding request committees (4P2). We do not disburse revenue to a superordinate entity. (5.A.2) The State of Minnesota issues general obligation bonds to finance capital construction and remodeling projects for public higher education facilities in Minnesota. The process for allocating capital construction and improvements funds begins with the board issuing detailed guidelines for capital development that reflect MnSCU’s strategic plan and priorities. Based on these guidelines, Normandale submits its capital budget request to the chancellor's office. Proposed projects are reviewed and ranked by committees with broad representation from member institutions and the MnSCU system office. Through this highly consultative process, the chancellor develops a preliminary budget, which is approved by the board of trustees and forwarded to the governor. The governor makes recommendations on capital expenditures to the legislature, which holds hearings prior to both the Senate and House of Representatives passing a capital improvement or bonding bill in every even-numbered year. (5.A.1, 5.A.2) 5R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: Outcomes tracked include the Composite Financial Index, Facilities Condition Index, staffing levels, instructional costs per full year equivalent, energy consumption, maturity of ITS functions, and satisfaction with services. Summary, comparison to targets/ benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Normandale tracks a number of outcomes related to financial operations. The most important is the Composite Financial Index (CFI), which is a weighted composition of the Primary Reserve Ratio, Return on Net Assets, Viability Ratio, and the Operating Margin (Table 5R2-1). Our goal is to achieve a “3” or higher. Table 5R2-1: Composite Financial Index, Fiscal Years (FY) 2010-2014

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Normandale 3.81 3.90 4.45 3.61 1.77

Page 109


Goal -- -- -- 3.00 3.00 MnSCU Colleges 3.02 3.20 2.72 2.38 System Average 2.90 2.70 2.78 2.26 1.65

Because faculty make up the majority of our employees, we pay particular attention to budgeting our instructional costs, as measured by the instructional cost per full year equivalent (FYE) (Table 5R2-2). This cost is expressed as a ratio of the actual to expected value of the fully allocated instructional expenditures per FYE student. The goal is to achieve a ratio of 1.0 or less. This measure is an indicator of our sound financial and academic management, with the actual cost of instruction less than expected. This is attributable to enrollment stability and prudent management of section sizes. Table 5R2-2: Instructional Cost per FYE FY2010-FY2014

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Normandale 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 1 Goal -- -- -- 0.94 0.94 MnSCU Colleges’ Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -- System Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 --

Normandale has historically had a very strong financial position, as evidenced in Table 5R2-1. However, two current operating measures (return on net assets and operating margin) were negatively impacted in FY2014 by caps on tuition and increases in operating expense due to higher than anticipated negotiated salary increases and higher insurance premiums. The operating expense increases, coupled with the operating revenue decreases, resulted in a reduction to both return on net assets and operating margin. We will continue to look for ways to improve our financial health (5I2) within the confines of the state legislative budgeting process and the MnSCU budgeting process. We also assess the health of the physical infrastructure through the Facilities Condition Index (FCI), a ratio that measures the dollar value of deferred maintenance as a proportion of facility replacement value (Table 5R2-3). Although Normandale’s FCI is below the system target and average, it has increased and our investment in repair and replacement at $4.29/sf. ft. is well above the system average of $1.69. Table 5R2-3: Facilities Condition Index (FCI) FY2011-FY2015

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Normandale 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.05 -- Goal range -- -- 0.07-0.13 0.07-0.13 0.07-0.13 MnSCU Colleges’ Average -- -- 0.11 0.11 -- System Average -- -- 0.11 0.10 --

The Information Technology Services (ITS) Department assesses the effectiveness of its services using the Gartner Sales & Operations Planning Maturity Model. This is a process to rate an organization’s IT infrastructure support and operations capabilities and show various aspects of these on a spectrum of five levels of competency, roughly categorized as 1) react, 2) anticipate, 3) integrate, 4) collaborate, and 5) orchestrate. For example, based on this rubric our desktop software management processes have evolved from a reactive level one to a more collaborative level four. We also measure employee and student satisfaction with the infrastructure and services provided in the key areas of finance, technology, and facilities (Table 5R2-4). Table 5R2-4: Employee and Student Satisfaction with Services Results for Resource Management Departments, 2011 and 2013

Page 110


Student Results34 Employee Results 2011 2013 Change 2011 2013 Change

ITS 3.77 3.90 +0.13 3.60 3.69 +0.09 Building Services 3.69 4.04 +0.35 3.55 3.31 -0.24 Fiscal Services -- -- -- 3.88 3.55 -0.33

5I2: Improvements In light of the 2014 decrease in our CFI, Normandale has undertaken a campus-wide initiative to identify expense reductions and revenue increases with the goal of improving our fiscal health. This includes an examination of processes to look for efficiencies and identifying cost-savings through MnSCU’s campus service cooperative for shared services. Academic affairs, in conjunction with the Business Office, developed an annual process for reviewing instructional cost data for errors. This is an important budgeting issue, as MnSCU uses the data to determine our funding allocation. In order to improve student and employee satisfaction with services related to facilities and public safety, Normandale has focused on documentation of knowledge and processes, integrating work order processing into our knowledge database and ticketing system, and engaging an external firm to evaluate cleaning practices against national standards to improve custodial services. Our results on the FCI are improving and coming closer to alignment with our goals. Planned improvements to facilities will, if funded, address some of the deferred maintenance issues highlighted through our current FCI results. The ITS Department is focusing a great deal of effort on improving efficiency and effectiveness of its processes, which should also have a positive impact on employee and student satisfaction levels. The department has developed a staffing structure with build-in redundancy through cross-training and cross-responsibilities to better ensure availability of staff to respond to needs. Other improvements include a move to a cloud-based printing service to reduce costs and better track printing, implementing electronic document management in additional offices as funds allow, and further building out the ticketing system used to track service requests. Normandale plans to develop a technology master plan to bring greater of strategic analysis and planning to our technology infrastructure. The technology master plan will look in particular to the strategic plan and academic master plan as key drivers of technology on our campus. It will also help ITS staff to relate their day-to-day work to our broader vision and strategic goals. A 2014-15 AQIP action project developed an integrated process for reviewing, discontinuing, updating, and introducing new technology in existing classrooms, remodels and new construction. This process ensures alignment with strategic and academic planning, and captures best practices in use of educational technology, instructor input, and accounts for impact on facilities.

Operational Effectiveness 5P3: Processes Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals: Normandale’s integrated annual planning and budgeting process (4P2) allows us to develop annual budgets and work plans to achieve our strategic goals. Managers create budgets for existing costs centers in the Budget Management System, which are then reviewed by the president’s cabinet and entered into the college’s accounting system. As part of this process, cost center managers have access to three-year cost center averages to ensure that their budgets are consistent with actual spending levels. (5.A.5)

34 Satisfaction Scale: 1 = “Very Dissatisfied” / 5 = “Very Satisfied”

Page 111


When new funds are needed, departments submit a New Funding Request (NFR) as part of the annual budget cycle. NFRs must relate to the department’s annual work plan and show alignment with the college’s strategic priorities as appropriate (4P2). There is also a provision for off-cycle requests outside of the budget process, which allows the college to systematically review and approve funding to respond to organizational needs in a timely manner. (5.A.5) Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets: The primary processes for monitoring our financial position are:

• Throughout the year, cost center managers and their supervisors monitor spending in ISRS. We also educate managers on building realistic budgets based on historical spending amounts. Our purchasing control system prevents the approval of purchase orders that exceed budgeted amounts, but by monitoring spending, managers are able to anticipate concerns and address them in advance. Budgets may be adjusted during the fiscal year when unforeseen circumstances arise.

• The president’s cabinet reviews financial statements once per quarter in the first half of the year and monthly during the second half of the year. Through this regular monitoring, the administration is able to make adjustments to budgets, spending, or other institutional actions as needed. This includes adjusting budgets if any errors are discovered, making adjustments when new needs arise, or developing plans to address enrollment levels that vary significantly from projections.

(5.A.5) Prior to the start of every semester, the vice president of Academic Affairs and the academic deans go through a process to analyze the fill rates for all classes and make determinations about class cancellations. This process takes into consideration not only how many students must be in a class to cover instructional costs, but other factors such as courses that are needed for degree completion, facilities constraints (e.g. lab sizes), or the varying instructional demands of some courses (e.g. some writing courses). (5.A.5) The Instructional Cost Study is another tool for monitoring budgets and our financial position. It provides MnSCU-wide comparison of the costs for each academic program by Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code with a system-wide average and a band ten percent above and below that average. Programs below the target zone receive additional funds while those above the zone lose funding. We monitor the results of the cost study to ensure that our support of educational programs is aligned with other similar programs throughout the state. If we see our costs moving outside of the target zone, departments examine issues such as enrollment levels to determine ways to improve the cost of instruction per student. Likewise, comparisons for student support programs, facilities investments and other institutional support provide a context for determining whether programs are being maintained and supported at appropriate levels. (5.A.5) Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure, and user-friendly: Normandale’s Information Technology Services (ITS) department oversees our technological infrastructure through its three divisions (academic technology, user services, and network and systems). Academic technology includes our learning management system, media and events technology, and classroom technology. User services staffs the help desk and maintains the college’s desktop hardware and software. The network and systems division maintains the college servers and ensures that email, website, phone lines, and campus portals are appropriately maintained. The chief information officer, who reports directly to the vice president of finance and operations, oversees the entire ITS department. The ITS department uses the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), a collection of best practices for service design, change, operation, and continuous improvement to guide its processes. In the

Page 112


ITIL model, change management has a different meaning than the typical business sense of helping employees and customers adapt to change. Rather it refers to a process for vetting and documenting changes made to software and hardware. This process is important for ensuring that changes are reliable and secure, will not negatively impact other systems, are documented for future reference, and that any needed education for the end-users is taken into consideration. Normandale’s servers are updated and maintained on a daily basis and are backed up by a generator in case of an emergency. The college’s main information system, ISRS, is supported at the system level. New software uploads require administrative approval and software updates and patches are pushed out to campus users regularly. Permissions are utilized in the college’s data systems to assure their security. For example, only individuals with signed authorization are allowed to use ISRS. Permissions are decided at the campus level by area supervisors and approved at the MnSCU level. Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure, and user-friendly: The associate vice president of operations is responsible for maintenance, environmental safety and grounds, and public safety. Within this division, the departments of Building Services and Public Safety are responsible for making sure that campus signage is clear, that buildings and rooms are secure, and for ensuring timely response to damage, repair, and restoration of critical utilities (e.g. electricity, water, heating, ventilation and air conditioning). Public Safety responds to all safety incidents on campus including medical emergencies. Parking lots are maintained by Building Services and patrolled by Public Safety. The Facilities and Safety Committees work in collaboration with these two departments. Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness: The Office of Public Safety is responsible for Normandale’s emergency preparedness. Normandale has an emergency preparedness plan that lays out the responsibilities of essential personnel in the event of an emergency. In 2013-2014 the Emergency Plan was updated and recommendations were made to establish a more regular drill schedule and a system of building coordinators to help with drills and the assessment of emergency readiness. In 2014 another work group implemented these recommendations and developed training for all emergency personnel. Regular drills, such as active shooter, tornado, and fire drills are now monitored by trained building coordinators who note areas for improvement. The Office of Environmental/Occupational Safety and Health is responsible for all safety training and plans related to Federal and State regulations. Normandale’s Chemical Hygiene Plan protects our employees and students from health and safety hazards associated with the use of hazardous chemicals and meets OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.1450 (Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories). The department is also responsible for mandatory laboratory safety training, which is now provided online to allow new faculty and staff to complete this essential training as soon as they are hired. College safety plans are available on our website and include plans for areas such as fire safety, hazardous and regulated waste management, and hazardous materials spill response. In order to minimize risk in areas of regulatory compliance, safety compliance officers communicate regularly with one another and the MnSCU system office regarding campus issues and emerging policy and regulatory requirements. The campus Safety Committee is also called upon to advise the administration on safety related concerns. ITS risks are managed through access controls, automated alerts to system malfunctions, redundancy, and physical access control. Regular review, approval, and documentation of changes to software and hardware minimize the risk that changes will have negative impacts on other information technology systems. Automated patching and periodic security scans ensure that all computers on campus are operating current, secure software.

Page 113

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=10106&p_table=STANDARDS

http://www.normandale.edu/departments/finance-and-operations/environmental-health


Normandale utilizes several strategies to minimize financial risk. We maintain reserves above the system-required minimum and make every effort through budgeting and financial monitoring to minimize the use of reserves. Cost center managers regularly monitor expenses against budgets and supervisors and administration make changes in response to unanticipated expenses or changes in revenue. MnSCU and Normandale policies and procedures enforce purchasing rules and other requirements to minimize fraudulent behavior. Normandale maintains required internal controls in the business office, financial aid, human resources, and grants to minimize and mitigate risk factors. (5.A.5) 5R3: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: The primary outcomes measured are related to financial health and resiliency, facilities condition index, and campus safety data. Summary, comparisons with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: In addition to the Composite Financial Index discussed in 5R2, MnSCU produced a Measure of Financial Resiliency (Table 5R3-1). The resiliency component is a compilation of seven measures designed to provide an overall measure of a college’s financial resilience. The score ranges from one to five for each measure, with a higher score indicating greater levels of resilience. The financial resiliency measurement represents the short- and long- term trends and capacity in the college’s financial performance. Table 5R3-1 Average Measures of Financial Resiliency, FY2008-FY2013

Measure of Financial Resiliency Normandale MnSCU College Average CFI – 2 Year Average 5.0 3.3 CFI Condition 3.0 3.2 CFI Performance 5.0 3.1 Enrollment - Volatility 3.0 2.1 Enrollment - Momentum 5.0 3.9 Cash on Hand 5.0 4.3 Unrestricted Net Assets 3.0 3.4 Watch List Status No - Average 4.1 3.3

Stress Test Normandale MnSCU College Average 5% Stress Test 4.0 2.9 10% Stress Test 3.0 2.0

This measure demonstrates that Normandale is in a strong position compared to other MnSCU Institutions in a test of resiliency. The stress tests also demonstrate that the college is in an excellent condition to withstand a drop in enrollment. The college regularly inputs information into a system database called the Facilities Renewal and Reinvestment Module. This data is used to produce regular reports on measures such as facilities maintenance spending per square foot. This information is benchmarked against other MnSCU campuses and used in the evaluation of capital project requests (Table 5R3-2). Table 5R3-2 Normandale Facilities Renewal Resource Model

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2013-FY2014 Change Gross Square Feet 487,707 563,437 566,197 +2,760 Current Replacement Value $(000’s) 149,757 176,717 184,261 +7,544 Backlog $(000’s) 7,111 6,485 10,166 +3,681 5 Year Renewal $(000’s) 7,642 9,309 12,995 +3,286 Facilities Condition Index 0.047 0.037 0.055 +0.018

Page 114


Public Safety posts a public incident log on the employee portal and the college website on a monthly basis in addition to publishing a required annual report. The safety committee regularly examines this safety data and makes recommendations as appropriate. From FY2011 through FY2013, crime statistics for Normandale were quite low, with a total of only six violations in FY2011 (four drug abuse violations, one forcible sex offence, and one arson), no violations in FY2012, and 1 drug law violation in FY2013. Normandale now has a strong and effective integrated budgeting and planning process, and ongoing education for cost center managers and campus-wide open forums on the budgeting process will strengthen our ability to monitor budgets and our financial position in order to maintain our financial strength. Results of facilities measures show our commitment to creating efficiencies and being an effective steward of our resources. Aside from MnSCU-generated measures, we do not have consistent processes for measuring the results of our operational effectiveness, and comparisons against benchmark institutions outside of MnSCU are limited. This is an area for future improvement. 5I3: Improvements We continue to improve our process for reviewing information that impacts our financial position, such as instructional cost study data, to ensure the accuracy of this important measure. This is an important process, as part of our funding from MnSCU is based on instructional costs compared to system averages. The Business Office now provides three-year averages of cost center spending to help cost center managers budget and monitor their expenditures. Normandale plans to further enhance budgeting and monitoring through regular reports that are pushed out to managers rather than requiring individuals to make requests to the business office. Another planned improvement is to develop a college-wide equipment plan to identify replacement schedules for major equipment so we can better budget for these costs. Normandale has had several large and successful technology projects: the design and implementation of a new website utilizing a new and more user-friendly content management system, the implementation of the Identity and Access Management program to assign and support a single, system-wide identifier for access to computing resources that is also more secure and user-friendly than past identifiers, and the rollout of a new printer system utilizing cloud-based printing services. A 2014-15 AQIP action project is developing a process for reviewing, discontinuing, updating, and introducing new technology in existing classrooms, remodels and new construction. This will improve our ability to provide appropriate, user-friendly technology to support instruction. Normandale has identified a need to improve the system for tracking and responding to maintenance requests. Documentation of processes and increased use of blueprint imaging for storage and sharing are also planned improvements.

CATEGORY SIX: QUALITY OVERVIEW

Introduction Since joining the AQIP Pathway in 2007, Normandale has made large strides towards a culture of quality. Prior to 2007, we were reactive in any quality work that we did. Our systematic use of continuous quality improvement tools began when we integrated the planning and budgeting processes, instituted a formal project management framework, and implemented lean concepts and Kaizen events to improve processes. The addition of several positions on campus with responsibility for creating infrastructure and resources to further our quality initiatives and quality culture has led to regular project management trainings,

Page 115


creation and coordination of non-academic program review, process improvements using Kaizen events, and formal Normandale trainings around key strategic goals. As a very lean institution focused on excellence in teaching and learning, our culture has been resistant to anything perceived as busy work. As a result, incorporating AQIP into our culture has been a slow process. While our institution chose the AQIP path for the very reason that we believed it was a good fit with our culture of excellence and quality, sometimes accreditation work does not always have clear or immediate benefits. We need to do a better job communicating both the purpose for all accreditation work as well as closing the loop to show the outcomes and benefits of every activity done for AQIP. Our processes for continuous quality improvement are systematic. There are clear, repeatable processes and they have measurable goals. Our next step towards aligned processes in this area is to create an evaluation plan and begin evaluating on a regular basis. Since we have not yet begun evaluating these processes systematically, our results for this area are reactive. Some data is collected, but very little is aggregated and analyzed. For some of our continuous quality improvement processes, we have not determined metrics yet. Processes and results related to the alignment of all AQIP-related activities and communicating the role of the AQIP pathway within the institution are still reactive. As noted above, we have not begun the work to make alignment of and communication about AQIP-related activities a repeatable process. Planned improvements in this area include improved processes for aligning AQIP action projects with strategic issues identified through AQIP processes, improved communication about the role and importance of the AQIP pathway a culture of continuous quality improvement at Normandale, and more explicit guidelines for selecting project managers for AQIP action projects.

Quality Improvement Initiatives 6P1: Processes Normandale selects, deploys, and evaluates quality improvement initiatives through three main processes: annual planning and budgeting (4P2), project management, and program review of academic and non-academic programs (1P3, 2P1). Additionally, the assessment process (1P1, 1P2), advisory boards, and program accreditation (1P4) include processes for selecting, deploying, and evaluating quality initiatives unique to academic affairs. Over the past four years, we have significantly strengthened and aligned these processes to ensure consistency in selecting, deploying, and evaluating our efforts (Figure 6P1-1). These processes all reflect the plan-do-study-act cycle of continuous improvement.

Page 116


Figure 6P1-1: Processes for Selecting, Deploying, and Evaluating Quality Improvement Initiatives

Selecting quality improvement initiatives: The annual planning and budgeting process (4P2) is our primary process for selecting continuous quality improvement initiatives. It starts at the department level, ensuring buy-in and readiness for the projects, but also has a top-down component at the end of the process to ensure that any gaps in meeting our annual college goals are closed by the college work plan projects. Planned improvements will include better alignment with AQIP action projects as well. Virtually every work plan project for departments or the college contains an element of continuous quality improvement. Driven in part by improvements identified in their program reviews, department chairs and managers set annual department goals and the activities they will undertake to achieve those goals. These department work plans are reviewed by their director or dean and ultimately their vice president. If the proposed department work plan is not in line with our strategic plan or mission, it is revised until alignment is achieved. If the proposed activities require new funding, a new funding request

Page 117


must be submitted. A cross-representative prioritization committee reviews new funding requests and ranks them in terms of alignment to the strategic plan and other criteria (4P2). We create the college work plan to ensure that the cross-divisional projects necessary to achieve our annual college goals and make sufficient progress on our strategic plan are created. Sometimes, this means joining similar efforts of departments across the campus for greater effectiveness and efficiency. Often, it means additional projects that no single department can own, but need the collaboration of several departments or divisions. Deploying quality improvement initiatives: Normandale deploys college and department work plan items using a project management approach whenever it is warranted. We categorize other work plan items as tasks, meaning they do not require a project management approach. However, most work plan items are categorized as projects. College work plan projects are managed using project management. Minimally, we require teams to post their project charter on the employee portal so all employees can know about the specifics of our college work plan. Our project charter template includes project outcomes, deliverables, scope, sponsor, manager, and team members. We require all college work plan project managers to go through eight hours of project manager training. The training includes how to write a project charter, perform stakeholder analysis, create a project work plan, and perform risk analysis. We have observed that successful project management is reliant on several factors, including not only a trained project manager, but also a trained and engaged project sponsor and team members who understand the characteristics of a project and how it differs from ongoing work. For department work plans, employees are not required to use a project management approach to deploy their work plan items; however, many departments do. Project management training is available to all interested employees. Many of our front-line workers take this training and are assigned as project managers as a way to develop these employees. Evaluating quality improvement initiatives: Evaluation of quality improvement initiatives occurs in two formal processes: annual planning and program review. Department and college work plan projects that are developed through the annual planning process are required to report on their progress mid-year and at the end of the year. Program review is a key process for evaluating quality initiatives. All academic and non-academic departments complete a program review every four years. Academic program review asks departments to review data regarding their certificates and degrees, program relevance and rigor, assessment goals and outcomes, student success and persistence, and program efficiency. They are encouraged to include in their analysis comparisons to other Minnesota State College and Universities (MnSCU) institutions, internal targets, and departmental trends since their last program review. Departments review the stated goals from their last program review, the achievements toward those goals, and any goals that were added or removed since the last review and the reasons for those actions. Based on this comprehensive information, departments identify their top priorities for improvements that will guide their work for the next four years. Non-academic program review was instituted in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 in recognition that all departments benefit from a regular, systematic review of their core functions and the outcomes of their work. Non-academic program review includes an extensive review of all aspects of a department’s work over the prior four years. There are areas of evaluative focus each department must reflect and respond to: satisfaction, process efficiency, and outcomes (including learning outcomes if the department participates in assessment). In each evaluative area, departments must report on what they are doing well, what needs

Page 118


improvement, and what improvements have recently been made, thus reflecting the plan-do-study-act cycle. We expect all claims in non-academic program reviews to be supported by data. However, the culture of data-driven decision making, evaluation, and continuous quality improvement is not yet pervasive in every department. To increase the maturity of individual departments’ uses of metrics and data, non-academic program review includes a peer review process. The department managers that most recently completed program review serve as peer reviewers who rate each section on how well the metrics used match the work being done and how well data is used (Tables 6P1-1, 6P1-2). Table 6P1-1: Non-Academic Program Review Metric Use Rubric

1 2 3 4 5 No alignment of measurements of work to mission, core functions and customers served.

Mostly mis- or un- aligned measures to mission, core functions and customers served.

Some mis- or un- aligned measures to mission, core functions and customers served.

Mostly aligned to the mission, core functions and customers served.

Measures are fully aligned to the mission, core functions and customers served.

Table 6P1-2: Non-Academic Program Review Data Use Rubric

1 2 3 4 5 There are no quantitative or qualitative data points.

There are very few quantitative or qualitative data points; and/or data points are not systematically collected and/or they are not used to support areas of strength, areas for improvement and past improvements.

There are some quantitative and qualitative data points and/or there is not a good balance of quantitative vs qualitative and/or much of the data are not systematically collected.

There are many qualitative and quantitative data used to support areas of strength, areas for improvement and past improvements and/or some data is not collected in a systematic and reliable way.

Both qualitative and quantitative data is used to support areas of strength, areas for improvement and past improvements and data is collected in a systematic and reliable way.

Finally, non-academic program reviews are read by every administrator who oversees the area to provide feedback on the department’s last four years and help set the vision for the next four years. This final section of non-academic program review is used when making annual department work plans in the annual planning and budgeting cycle for each of the following four years. Process improvement process: The majority of department work plans naturally focus on new initiatives rather than departments’ more mundane, long-standing processes. For that reason, the performance improvement associate designed a procedure to encourage continuous improvement of them. This begins by soliciting nominations for processes in need of improvement. Only the owner of the process can nominate it, which ensures buy-in and understanding that process improvement efforts are not associated with blame or thought of as a punishment for having a “bad” process. The nominator must provide information about what makes the process a good candidate for process improvement. A group of trained lean facilitators then applies a rubric to this information to prioritize and select the processes to go through the improvement process. The performance improvement associate oversees and coordinates the work of four trained lean facilitators. Two processes were selected and improved in 2014-2015 using Kaizen, a process improvement tool. A group including representatives from all roles in the process to be improved spends

Page 119


three to five days mapping the current process, identifying issues and solutions, and finally mapping the future state. After the Kaizen, a project is launched to implement all of the changes to the process. One of the processes nominated for improvement was the process of accepting prerequisite information for visiting students. A new policy from MnSCU allows students from any college or university to take courses at Normandale without applying, and as a result the transcript information from the other institution does not automatically get sent to us. However, these students still need to provide evidence that they have met the prerequisites to take our courses. This process included many handoffs between the Admissions, Records, and Advising and Counseling departments. By bringing together staff from each area, we were able to reduce the average wait time for visiting students from over three business days to one business day and the amount of time spent processing each request from 64 minutes to 42 minutes (Table 6R1-4). Because we have a strong culture of quality, many improvements that do not require a lot of resources or cross-departmental cooperation are made on a regular basis outside these formal processes. Program review is one place we document many of these improvements. Aligning the systems portfolio, action projects, quality check-up, and strategy forums: We review about and share feedback we get from peer reviewers as it is received, but we do not yet have a formal process for aligning the systems portfolio, action projects, quality check-up, and strategy forums. 6R1: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools used: We track the number and completion rates for academic and nonacademic program review, number of employees completing project management training, and the number of processes going through process improvement. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: Non-academic program review is too new to have trend data, but recent results of academic program review show an overall trend of high completion rates with the exception of Academic Year (AY) 2013 (Table 6R1-1). Table 6R1-1: Program Reviews Completed and Completion Rates

AY2011 AY2012 AY2013 AY2014

N %

completed N %

completed N %

completed N %

completed Non-Academic Program Review N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 100% Academic Program Review 13 100% 7 100% 6 67% 3 100%

The number of project managers who have been trained was highest when the training was first implemented, with no discernable trend since that time (Table 6R1-2). Process improvement is also a new process, and because of the time commitment involved in Kaizen processes, the number completed each year has been small (Table 6R1-3). Table 6R1-2: Project Managers Trained

Year Number Trained AY2012 41 AY2013 7 AY2014 14 AY2015 6

Page 120


Total 68 Table 6R1-3: Process Improvement Trends

Year Number of Processes Improved AY2014 3 AY2015 3 Total 6

The results of our process improvement work is showing early signs of effectiveness. We track key outcomes of old processes and compare them to results after the new process is implemented to determine the impact of the improved process (Table 6R1-4). Table 6R1-4: Visiting Students Kaizen (Process Improvement) Results

Current State (Old Process) Future State (New Process)

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Wait time 10 hours 15 minutes 3 days 3 hours 10 minutes 2 hours 12 hours Process time 43 minutes 64 minutes 30 minutes 42 minutes

Total time 10 hours 58 minutes 3 days 4 hours 14 minutes 2 hours 30

minutes 1 day 4 hours

42 minutes 6I1: Improvements Recent improvements include implementing project management for all college work plan projects (which includes AQIP action projects), the creation of non-academic program review, and the creation of the lean facilitator program and process improvement nominations. An area for future improvement is evaluation of college and department work plan projects. We need to be more systematic in learning from every project we take on, rather than waiting until a program review is due to learn about what is working and what is not. We have observed that many programs completing non-academic program review have identified data they don’t currently collect that would help them better understand the impact of their programs. As a result, in the future the end of the non-academic program review cycle will include identification of data needs and a plan for collecting that data to ensure that departments will have access to this information in the future. We recognize that there are many areas of the college that are consciously or unconsciously following the plan-do-study-act process as part of their work. Our goal is to increase faculty and staff metacognition around this process improvement practice and make it a more explicit element in areas such as assessment, project management, and planning. We also are planning improvements to be more systematic in aligning our system portfolio, AQIP action projects, quality check-ups, and strategy forums. We will explicitly include these documents and feedback from reviewers as part of our environmental scanning/external stakeholder feedback in future strategic planning cycles. This will ensure that our most important planning document is aligned with and takes into account the strategic challenges and strengths that have been identified through AQIP processes. This in turn will drive the creation of annual work plans that are aligned with our accreditation results. As described in 4P2, we also plan to modify the selection of AQIP action projects to be more directly related to the strategic challenges identified in our portfolio, portfolio review, and quality check-ups. In the past, Normandale has selected AQIP action projects from among our existing college-wide work plan

Page 121


items. While these have often been related to opportunities and challenges identified in our portfolio, this was not as deliberate or systematic as it could be. In the future, we plan to select action projects from work plan items only when they directly address a strategic challenge. If no work plan items are appropriate using this criterion, we will develop action projects that will address the issues identified.

Culture of Quality 6P2: Processes Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality: Much of our infrastructure to support a culture of quality is the annual planning and budgeting process, program review, project management framework, and the process improvement process (6P1). In addition to these processes, we have several ways of integrating quality improvement into our culture across the entire college: the Institutional Effectiveness committee, employee positions with responsibility for continuous quality improvement, and committees that monitor topics that impact the entire campus (e.g. diversity, student success). The Institutional Effectiveness committee is made up of staff members who hold positions directly related to continuous quality improvement, faculty, and leadership across the campus. This committee’s charge is to advise the college leadership on the college’s systems for planning and measuring effectiveness and to recommend strategies for improving the culture and infrastructure for continuous improvement. This committee discussed and approved the recent improvements to our integrated planning and budgeting cycle and a subgroup of the committee facilitated the strategic planning process in 2013. Additionally, three positions recently hired provide support for our culture of quality. In 2012 the Office of Research and Planning created a performance improvement associate position. This position provides campus-wide support in project management, institutional effectiveness, and process improvement, including assisting on the development and implementation of training, coordination of improvement projects, and analysis of existing work systems to recommend opportunities to improve. The position manages project management training and support, the lean facilitator program, the process improvement process, and non-academic program review. In Human Resources (HR), the business partner positions identify key business drivers for performance and for using sound business practices in all areas of the organization; engage people, organizations, and partners in developing goals, executing plans, and delivering results; and implement training at all levels within the organization. Since 2010, a formal project management approach has become a stronger part of our infrastructure. Normandale provides ongoing support for this practice through training (6P1, 6R1), mentoring, and a new community of practice (6I2). The lean facilitator program was developed and piloted in 2014. The program is designed to increase institutional capacity for process improvements, ensure that key processes in need of improvement are improved (thus freeing up resources and time for new initiatives), and increase knowledge of continuous improvement across campus. Four lean facilitators were selected from seven applicants and granted time to train in Kaizen facilitation and lead one to two Kaizen process improvements each year. We piloted the process on two key processes on campus in need of improvements. As covered in 3P3, Normandale is dedicated to providing funds for staff and faculty development as well as providing work time to attend trainings and conferences. Through our affiliations with the State of Minnesota, MnSCU, and through several positions on campus (e.g. assessment leaders, Center for Teaching and Learning leaders, HR business partners, the Online Learning department), we support continuous improvement of all employees’ professional skills through a wide variety of training opportunities.

Page 122


Ensuring continuous quality improvement is widely understood, making an impact on culture and operations, and learning from continuous quality improvement initiatives: We learn from continuous quality improvement initiatives and find evidence of continuous quality improvement impacts on culture and operations college-wide in two ways: regular reporting from departments and the use of evaluative data. Through the program review process, employees document improvements made in their department over the prior four years. This is also the process by which employees take a step back to examine their department holistically in order to identify the continuous quality improvements that need to be made. We also require mid-year updates from departments on their annual work plan goals. (5.D.1) We use evaluative data at the college and department/initiative level to learn from and find evidence of continuous quality improvement. At the college level we learn from and find evidence of our continuous quality improvement work through the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (6R2). The most important and useful evidence is gathered, reviewed, and acted upon at the department or initiative level. All departments in the college have some measures of their work and through program review, some departments are discovering gaps. (5.D.1, 5.D.2) Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP pathway: Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP pathway is an area in which we are still reactive. As part of our culture of transparency, we regularly share information about our AQIP pathway with the campus, request feedback on accreditation reports, and we use a voting process for selecting our AQIP action projects to ensure they are supported by the campus. These all contribute to a college-wide understanding of the AQIP pathway; however, with the exception of the AQIP action project voting process, these are not systematic, repeatable processes. Additionally, program review and process improvements which directly support the vitality of our participation in the AQIP pathway are introduced as such to reaffirm the role of the AQIP pathway in our institution. Two cross-representational committees have direct responsibility for reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role of AQIP at Normandale: Institutional Effectiveness Committee (6P1) and AQIP Steering Committee. The AQIP Steering Committee is a subcommittee of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. The AQIP Steering Committee recommends and reports on processes for accomplishing accreditation work to Institutional Effectiveness Committee. One drawback of the committee approach is that direct participation in AQIP activity is limited to 30-some individuals. This limits the understanding of AQIP campus-wide (6I2). 6R2: Results Outcomes/measures tracked and tools utilized: We track employee responses to the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey to determine if our quality improvement efforts are well-understood and seen as having an impact on our work. Summary, comparison with targets/benchmarks, and interpretation of results: College-wide, employees are reporting their role in improving the institution to be increasingly important and their satisfaction in improving the institution has increased at a significant rate (Table 6R2-1). This shows that our investment in staff responsible for improving our culture of quality and recent initiatives for quality improvement are paying off.

Page 123


Table 6R2-1: Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results and Trend Data 2010-2014

Survey Item

2010 Importance

Mean35

2014 Importance

Mean Change36

2010 Satisfaction

Mean37

2014 Satisfaction

Mean Change Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution. 4.35 4.40 +0.05 3.33 3.60 +0.27** Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution. 4.12 4.32 +0.20** 2.90 3.23 +0.33**

Although our employees’ importance rankings on these measures have increased since 2010, we still lag behind our peers slightly in importance. However, our benchmarking results show that in addition to the significant increase in satisfaction since 2010, we are now also doing significantly better than our peers in our employees’ satisfaction with our quality improvement efforts (Table 6R2-2). Table 6R2-2: 2014 Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results and Benchmark Data

Survey Item

Normandale Importance

Mean38

Two-year College

Importance Mean Difference39


Mean40

Two-year College

Satisfaction Mean Difference

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution. 4.40 4.48 -0.08* 3.60 3.43 +0.16** Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution. 4.32 4.35 -0.03 3.23 3.03 +0.20**

6I2: Improvements Recently, several employees have been trained in compression planning facilitation. The concept behind compression planning is to carefully plan out the exact scope of what needs to be discussed so that planning a new initiative, for example, can happen in four to six hours instead of through short meetings over a year. It focuses and accelerates the conversation because the questions are designed to keep people on track and get deep into the specific issues that need to be addressed. We have begun using this method, found it to be very effective, and plan to increase its use in the future. Based on feedback from project managers, we instituted a community of practice for all project managers led by our performance improvement associate. This group meets monthly to reinforce good project management practices, talk about common barriers, and learn from other project managers. Topics are

35 Importance scale: (1 = "Not important at all" / 5 = "Very important") 36 Statistical significance: two-tailed t-test; * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001 37 Satisfaction scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied" 38 Importance scale: (1 = "Not important at all" / 5 = "Very important") 39 Statistical significance: two-tailed t-test; * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001 40 Satisfaction scale: 1 = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied"

Page 124


suggested by project sponsors or project managers in addition to areas the performance improvement associate has identified for discussion. As noted in 6I1, we need to increase how we systematically learn from our improvement initiatives. In the next one to three years, we are planning on requiring all new initiatives and college work plan projects to create and deploy a formal evaluation plan. This will ensure we learn from our most resource-heavy and most impactful continuous quality improvement initiatives. The Office of Research and Planning plans to expand the data mart (data reports available to the college community on demand) over the next few years to continue to meet the demand of departments to integrate data they collect with institutional data to gain even stronger understanding of their work and its impact (5P1). One of the first tools we systematically implemented to support our culture of quality was project management for major college and department work plan items. When this was our only major tool available, people naturally gravitated toward it as a solution to any issue. As we have added more tools such as Kaizen and compression planning, we need to help employees become better at determining which tools they need for which tasks and projects. We also need to develop an infrastructure that can deploy these resources in the most efficient manner possible. We will also continue to incorporate new tools that will further support our continuous quality improvement. As noted in 6P2, we have been reactive in our processes for reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of AQIP at Normandale. Recently, the AQIP Steering Committee has approached accreditation work as a shared work load instead of in an advisory or monitoring capacity. The committee members have noted many benefits of being directly engaged in accreditation work, including a stronger understanding of the AQIP role at Normandale. We plan to continue the increased committee role in accreditation and work to increase engagement of the entire campus in the next one to three years. In addition, we plan to increase communication on AQIP and its role at Normandale through platforms such as presentations at opening workshops and more visible launching and celebration of AQIP action projects.

Page 125