Impact and Assessment: An
Integrated Approach to Faculty
Faculty and Academic Development
Appalachian State University
• 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
• By leveraging our resources, knowledge, and
experience towards common goals, we can build
structures that properly identify, support, and
enhance faculty and institutional effectiveness.
How Faculty Development and Institutional
Research Can Align Institutional and Individual
Goals, Objectives, Assessments, and Success
Taken for Granted
• Data points collected by IR sometimes do
not get back to faculty
– DWF rates
– Graduation rates
– Retention rates
– Career placement rates
• Sometimes this is the fault of IR;
sometimes, the faculty
• 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
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)
• In order to determine if these goals are
met at the class, program, and
institutional level, valid assessments must
• 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.
• 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
Based upon Peter T. Ewell’s Assessment, Accountability, and Improvement: Revisiting
Purpose and Strategy
Improvement Paradigm Accountability Paradigm
Intent Formative/faculty benefit Summative/institutional
Stance Internal. Evidence is gathered to
External. Well-vetted, produces
Predominant Ethos Engagement Compliance
Evidence Gathering Multiple/different methods for
different kinds of evidence and
Type of Evidence Qualitative or quantitative.
Narratives are ok, often useful
Quantitative. Need to be
Reference Points Are outcomes met? Can/do they
change over time?
Comparative (across programs)
and fixed (are key markers
Communication of results Internally, developmental,
Use of Results Individual/program
Are institutional and
organization goals being met?
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
• Assuring data is sent to faculty in timely,
• Utilizing faculty committees to carry the
weight with other faculty
• Allowing faculty to contribute to
interpretation of less academic measures