First discussion from another student(please respond) What are the conclusions about program performance in the report? Are they justified based on the available data or evidence?  Overall, I was able to see that there was a significant amount of increase of students who were actually becoming part of the interactive opportunities provided within the school especially in the school years of 2015 and 2016. Even though there was a significant amount of increase, their involvement within student programs had some level of stability with reference to the retention rates. This is something that I do believe were more likely to be able to participate in even given the amount of recommendations provided with in the report. What did the evaluators identify as “issues they will need to manage over the next few years” that might conceivably be assessed at a later date? Be prepared to identify two and justify why you would make them a priority (OSU Student Affairs Annual Report, p. 11). I was able to see that the department and school environment did lack some IT positions. I think that this impacted the level of interactive web experiences in addition to the growing demand of the diverse student population group. Secondly, I do believe that the finances had a significant amount of impact on the way that individuals were able to create some level of revenue increase eventually. Even though this was a primary cause of the impact, not having enough funds was of course a fundamental principle for decrease in quality and accessibility. Which questions could you not answer? Where could you try to find information that is not in the document? I think the most important focus area that was not able to be reflected upon was the impact of understanding of the program, especially with reference to the criteria that were selected. This was a reference point that I do believe individuals should take into consideration given the outcomes of how these population groups were divided. 2nd response from another student (please respond) My responses to the analysis questions for Oregon State University's Division of Student Affairs Annual Report are below.  8. What are the conclusions about program performance in the report? Are they justified based on the available data or evidence? · After reviewing the report a few times, I found that there was a general increase in performance with the indicators and metrics being measured. For example, from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018 school years, there was an increase from 14 to 58 programs that offered a service-learning component (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 1). In 2017, 72% of students interacted with the student affairs department compared to 96% in 2018 (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 2). · The report also showed a decrease in performance for funding during the 2017-2018 year. The Oregon State University Foundation reported that the Division of Student Affairs raised $695,589.45 as opposed to nearly $3,000,000 .

1. First discussion from another student(please respond)
What are the conclusions about program performance in the
report? Are they justified based on the available data or
evidence?
Overall, I was able to see that there was a significant amount of
increase of students who were actually becoming part of the
interactive opportunities provided within the school especially
in the school years of 2015 and 2016. Even though there was a
significant amount of increase, their involvement within student
programs had some level of stability with reference to the
retention rates. This is something that I do believe were more
likely to be able to participate in even given the amount of
recommendations provided with in the report.
What did the evaluators identify as “issues they will need to
manage over the next few years” that might conceivably be
assessed at a later date? Be prepared to identify two and justify
why you would make them a priority (OSU Student Affairs
Annual Report, p. 11).
I was able to see that the department and school environment
did lack some IT positions. I think that this impacted the level
of interactive web experiences in addition to the growing
demand of the diverse student population group. Secondly, I do
believe that the finances had a significant amount of impact on
the way that individuals were able to create some level of
revenue increase eventually. Even though this was a primary
cause of the impact, not having enough funds was of course a
fundamental principle for decrease in quality and accessibility.
Which questions could you not answer? Where could you try to
find information that is not in the document?
I think the most important focus area that was not able to be
reflected upon was the impact of understanding of the program,
especially with reference to the criteria that were selected. This
was a reference point that I do believe individuals should take
into consideration given the outcomes of how these population

2. groups were divided.
2nd response from another student (please respond)
My responses to the analysis questions for Oregon State
University's Division of Student Affairs Annual Report are
below.
8. What are the conclusions about program performance in the
report? Are they justified based on the available data or
evidence?
· After reviewing the report a few times, I found that there was
a general increase in performance with the indicators and
metrics being measured. For example, from 2016-2017 to 2017-
2018 school years, there was an increase from 14 to 58
programs that offered a service-learning component (Division of
Student Affairs, 2019, p. 1). In 2017, 72% of students interacted
with the student affairs department compared to 96% in 2018
(Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 2).
· The report also showed a decrease in performance for funding
during the 2017-2018 year. The Oregon State University
Foundation reported that the Division of Student Affairs raised
$695,589.45 as opposed to nearly $3,000,000 for the 2016-2017
school year (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 4)
· For some metrics, there were no previous school years to
compare data to evaluate for effectiveness or if improvements
needed to be made. For example, during the 2017-2018 school
year, 230 staff members attended the 3 Student Affairs
Educators Forum sessions, "some attending more than one"
(Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 3). No other information
is given regarding goals to increase attendance among staff
members, or other metrics to establish that this data point as
being successful.
9. What did the evaluators identify as “issues they will need to
manage over the next few years” that might conceivably be

3. assessed at a later date? Be prepared to identify two and justify
why you would make them a priority (OSU Student Affairs
Annual Report, p. 11).
· One issues listed was the number of first-year to graduating
undergraduate students interacting with diverse others given a
specific category of difference. The National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) first conducted this analysis in the Spring
2016 (Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 1) According to the
report, the number of diverse interactions will increase as
students progress through their program. The data is scheduled
to be updated Spring 2019 and will be used to report to the U.S.
News and World Report for the university's ranking (Division of
Student Affairs, 2019, p. 1).
· The second issue was a "10-year divisional capital plan
totaling over $360 million that will be funded through self-
support revenue and student-voted fees" (Division of Student
Affairs, 2019, p. 8). The plan is aimed to prioritize projects that
are going to be help in projecting cash availability and identify
capital investments that will help preserve buildings on campus
(Division of Student Affairs, 2019, p. 8). Over time, this plan is
projected to improve student fee processes and help
"institutional leaders preserve assets instead of hiring more
personnel or funding additional programs" (Division of Student
Affairs, 2019, p. 8).
10. Which questions could you not answer? Where could you try
to find information that is not in the document?
· I had trouble answering question 8 as there were a few metrics
that had apparent improvements for the department, whereas
other data seemed to stand alone as new initiatives the
department was trying to implement in order to keep on track
with their mission and goals. The student affairs website would
be my next source to elaborate on any information detailed in
this report, or even visit the main homepage of OSU to see if
any performance goals are described there.

4. HEA 530 Task 2-1 Analysis Questions for Division of Student
Affairs Annual Report
Oregon State University
1. What is the mission of the Division of Student Affairs?
1. What are its program goals?
1. What is being evaluated in the Annual Report?
1. What evidence or data-driven criteria are presented to judge
program performance?
1. What standards of performance on the criteria must be
reached for the program to be considered successful?
1. What are the existing institutional standards, milestones,
benchmarks, or goals?
1. What regulatory standards govern or define successful
program outcomes?
1. What are the conclusions about program performance in the
report? Are they justified based on the available data or
evidence?
1. What did the evaluators identify as “issues they will need to
manage over the next few years” that might conceivably be
assessed at a later date? Be prepared to identify two and justify
why you would make them a priority (OSU Student Affairs
Annual Report, p. 11).
1. Which questions could you not answer? Where could you try
to find information that is not in the document?