IPEDS Teaching Institute: An Overview May, 2006 Anthony R. Bichel, Ph.D.

Disequilibrium Transformation “The Farm” by Alexis Rockman

Disequilibrium Disequilibrium is a necessary condition for systemic growth Positive feedback provides information about opportunities for systems to change their goals Disequilibrium makes a system ripe for transformation

Transformation Transformation is the reorganization of a system on a higher level of complexity Transformation occurs through a process called emergence Via emergence new processes and structures emerge to replace old ones

Envisioning the Institute Transform T3 Redesign the Curriculum Better Utilize Existing Resources Fully Integrate Technology Standardize Assessment Increase Access Enhance Awareness

The Goal

Networked Learning Environments A Networked Learning Environment (NLE) exists when any student or teacher can view instructional content, collaborate with educators, evaluate academic performance and access learning resources at any time to achieve their educational objectives. A NLE exists at many levels within an institution and beyond, including networks of classes, departments, institutions and consortia, as well as repositories of content and learning objects.

Planning Meeting Webinars Web-Based Tutorials On-Line Learning Workshops

IPEDS Training Menu Introductory ModulesData Collection ModulesAdvanced Modules Overview of IPEDS Overview of IPEDS ExPT Overview of COOL Foundations of Institutional Comparisons Introduction to Peer Analysis Tool (PAS) New IPEDS Keyholders Data Collection Surveys: Institutional Characteristics Completions Enrollment Finance (3) Student Financial Aid Graduation Rates Human Resources: Employees by Position Fall Staff Salaries Advanced PAS Data Analysis System (DAS) Dataset Cutting Tool Research Topics: Cost of Education Enrollment Management Faculty Salary Analysis Institutional Finances Institutional Staffing Patterns

Curriculum Redesign Module Title: Foundations for Institutional Comparisons Intended Audience: New professionals in higher education administration and first-time IPEDS users. Module Description: This module is designed to provide the target audience with a basic overview and knowledge of analytical techniques for comparing an institution to a comparison group using various performance measures. It will describe the rationale for performing such analyses, as well as, specific techniques used to develop comparison groups. Additionally, the workshop will have participants explore data elements that are germane to developing comparison groups, as well as a discussion of the variety of data elements that can be used for performance measures. The module will conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of this form of research. Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the core concepts associated with comparing an institution to a comparison group using various analytical terms. 2. Identify potential data elements that would be appropriate for his or her institution to use in developing a comparison group. 3. Become familiar with a variety of different uses of comparison groups. 4. Identify data elements that would be appropriate for his or her institution to use as performance measures. 5. Understand the strengths and weaknesses of this form of research. Delivery Method: Workshop, Webinar and Blackboard Suggested Outline and Timeline: Total time shouldn’t exceed 30 – 45 minutes. I.Why do you need Comparison Groups & Performance Measures? II.Approaches to developing Comparison Groups III.Types of Comparisons IV.Performance Measures appropriate for audience (Sector, etc) V.Strengths and Weaknesses Instructional Materials Needed: Gayle’s & Howard’s PPT’s. Exercises: Identification of the Reason for Comparison, Identification of data elements for building comparison group and performance measures.

Content Development Teams Introductory Modules Data Collection Modules Advanced Modules Faculty Members Mary Ann Coughlin Lu Phillips Gayle Fink Consultant Elise Miller Faculty Members Jan Plotczyk Bill Mahler Consultants Susan Broyles Jamie Isaac Faculty Members Cel Johnson Paula Cox Valerie Conley Bill Fendley Consultant Mari McCarty

Instructional Technologies

Blackboard (Bb)

Going Forward Collective agreement on and the development of (1) the curriculum format, (2) working drafts of the content modules, (3) technology training schedule and (4) a draft institute schedule were the major outcomes of the planning meeting. The schedule for going forward looks like this: February 1: Distribution of meeting report to faculty team February 15:Revisions to curriculum, content modules and institute schedule are due March 1: Final curriculum, content and schedules are distributed to faculty team March-May: Technology training for faculty (Webinars and Bb) May 31: All institute instructional materials are due June 19-20:IPEDS Teaching Institute Preparation Session June 21-23:IPEDS Teaching Bolger Center

Expected Outcomes Measurable Learning Outcomes Increased Access to Training Greater Variety of Training Options Dynamic Curriculum Structural Feedback & Communication Loops Enhanced Quality Control Measures Improved Marketing Opportunities Value Added Service to Education Community