This document discusses how faculty development and institutional research can work together to align institutional and individual goals through assessment. By integrating their knowledge and collaborating on common goals, these areas can help both faculty and the institution succeed. The key is using institutional research data to inform faculty development in a way that supports innovation, assesses outcomes, and blends improvement and accountability paradigms. This allows assessment data to help faculty teach, students learn, and the institution document progress, achieving alignment between individual and organizational success.

1. Impact and Assessment: An
Integrated Approach to Faculty
Development
Will Miller
Institutional Research
Flagler College
Brian Smentkowski
Faculty and Academic Development
Appalachian State University

2. Overview
• By focusing less on "what we can do" and more
on "what we can do together", we can
reintroduce a vital sense of community that is
necessary for individuals and institutions to
succeed.
• By leveraging our resources, knowledge, and
experience towards common goals, we can build
structures that properly identify, support, and
enhance faculty and institutional effectiveness.

3. Overview
How Faculty Development and Institutional
Research Can Align Institutional and Individual
Goals, Objectives, Assessments, and Success
Institutional
Research
Institutional
Objectives
Faculty
Development

4. Taken for Granted
• Data points collected by IR sometimes do
not get back to faculty
– DWF rates
– Graduation rates
– Retention rates
– Career placement rates
– Outcomes
• Sometimes this is the fault of IR;
sometimes, the faculty

5. The Goal
• We argue that IR data and FD/IR
collaborations can provide a necessary
sense of direction and also help plan,
assess, and document the accomplishment
of core institutional objectives.
• This debunks the myth that IR data is all
about the end game and instead provides a
platform for successful evidence-based
programming.

6. Integration and Alignment
• Bifurcated implementation leads both sectors –
administration and faculty– astray.
• Integration and alignment of the institutional mission
and the role of the faculty in furtherance of it is
essential, but this requires four things:
– 1. Knowledge and information–IR data, contextualized in
collaboration with FD
– 2. shared value/buy-in –using the data to make a case but
linking that case to faculty interests and opportunities.
– 3. support for innovation and implementation across
campus (faculty development, student development,
instructionally, and in research)
– 4. assessments, both formative and summative
(improvement and accountability paradigms)

7. The Process
• In order to determine if these goals are
met at the class, program, and
institutional level, valid assessments must
be developed.
• This can spiral fast, so it is important to
keep it simple.
– When there is alignment of goals and
outcomes, the improvement and
accountability paradigms can be integrated.

8. Assessment
• Faculty Development and Institutional
Research can help the individual and the
institution benefit from the same data.
• Blending the Improvement and
Accountability Paradigms, the same
assessment data should be able to…
– help the faculty teach
– help the students learn
– help the institution document steps towards
success

9. Assessment Paradigms
Based upon Peter T. Ewell’s Assessment, Accountability, and Improvement: Revisiting
the Tension
Strategic Dimension:
Purpose and Strategy
Improvement Paradigm Accountability Paradigm
Intent Formative/faculty benefit Summative/institutional
reporting
Stance Internal. Evidence is gathered to
assess learning
External. Well-vetted, produces
appropriate data
Predominant Ethos Engagement Compliance
Evidence Gathering Multiple/different methods for
different kinds of evidence and
courses
Standardized
Type of Evidence Qualitative or quantitative.
Narratives are ok, often useful
for buy-in
Quantitative. Need to be
translated
Reference Points Are outcomes met? Can/do they
change over time?
Comparative (across programs)
and fixed (are key markers
met?)
Communication of results Internally, developmental,
consultative
Transparent, institutional
reporting
Use of Results Individual/program
improvement
Are institutional and
organization goals being met?

10. The Big Picture
• Sharing and integrating knowledge is vital.
• IR is–ought to be—indispensable here.
• Institutionally, this requires some unsiloing.
• It requires key personnel to effectively USE and not
just have good IR data.
• IR data can and should be used to inform and create
opportunities for faculty to succeed.
• It’s not just assessment–that’s vital, but really just one
half of the equation–it’s also a starting point.
• IR data and FD/IR collaborations can provide a
necessary sense of direction and also help plan, assess,
and document the accomplishment of core
institutional objectives.

11. How?
• Assuring data is sent to faculty in timely,
understandable manner
• Utilizing faculty committees to carry the
weight with other faculty
• Allowing faculty to contribute to
interpretation of less academic measures
(SSI, NSSE)

12. Questions?