University information items

              Legislative Study Committee on Faculty Roles and Rewards
Senator Russell Bowers, Co- Chairman
Representative Robert Burns, Co- Chairman
University u Information Items
Arizona's Universities, 1998 Report Card
Selected Examples of Outcome Measures, ASU
ABOR Desired Outcomes
* ABOR Approved Undergraduate Outcome
Measures, Arizona State University ( including
preview of 1998 Results)
February, 1998
Arizona's Universities, 1998 Report Card
To the Citizens of Arizona:
T he past year has brought nlaily challenges and changes to Arizona's system of
public universities. Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and
the University of Arizona are focused on providing excellent instruction,
leading- edge research and responsive service to their con~ munitieisn an environment
of expailding enrollment, tighter fiscal resources and higher expectations from a
variety of'coi~ stiti~ e~ iciTehs. e Board of Regents, responsible for the policy framework
oS the universities, hears from taxpayers, elected officials, students, employees and
al~~ mwnhi o want to know inore about the return on their investment in higher
education, ancl how Arizona's universities stack up. With that in mind, the liegents
are proud to present the second edition of the Report Card for Arizona's Universities.
You will Iind a summary of progress in 20 key areas,
including undergraduate education, quality of
instruction, excellence and innovation, and the
utilization of resources. We hope you find it to be
informative and 1ileaningSi11. It is a key to driving the
improvement and forward progress of our public
universities in Arizona. Your suggestions and
comments are welcome. They help shape and refine
Si~ turee clitions. The opportunity to engage you in a
dialogue about the proi sess and perfornlance of our
univcrsitics is vali~ able.
- Rlrrly Crrn~ libellP, residexit
Tllc Arizo~ ltlB oard of Regelits
C O N T E N T S
I'urpose of the Report Card I
Gracling System I
Alignment with System Strategic Plan 2
Evaluation of Institutional Perfoniiance
Untiergraduate Etlucation 3
Quality of Instruction 5
Excellence and Innovation 6
Utilization of Resources 7
Scope, Size and Cllaracteristics ol'the
Arizona University System 8
I Iighlights of the Board 9
University f ligl~ lights
Arizona Stale University 10
Northern Arizona University I I
University of Arizona 12
1, ist of Regents 13
1998 Rcport Card for At- izonil's l'nblic Univcrsitics :
I
P urpose of tlie Report Card
Arizona's universities serve broad and diverse
communities, striving for excellence while balancing changing
public policies, finite resources, rising expectations and the
dyniumic needs of students. Arizona State University, Northern
Arizona University and the University of Arizona are building on
their achievements as outstanding instructioinal and research
institutions. They are accountable for the progress they make and
offer indicators of their performance and achievement. This annual
report on university performance is designed to give the general
public, clected officials, business leaders and consumers of higher
education a summary of the universities' progress and milestones.
It reflects up- to- date information that is collected and analyzed by
the ilniversilies and the Board of Regents staff. It is designed to be a
balanced, accurate reflection of where the universities excel and
where tlncy need to improve. The measurements in the report card
are updated and refined as necessary: in solnne cases, information
reported for an ilndicator may be slightly different than information
used in previous editions. The date on the cover reflects when the
report card was issued; the data inside generally reflect the
operation of the prior full academic year.
T he Process
The iuniversities completed a self- assessment for each
perfonnnance indicator. The self assessments were reviewed, along
with other f~ ictorsb, y Regents in assigning grades to each indicator.
The grades reflect a consensus of the Board and its best effort to
~ ncasi~ vreal uc, assess trends, and establish benchmarks for
on- going improvement and coinnn~~ nicationT. h e indicators in the
Report Card are a baseline against which Siltitre perfor~ nancew ill
be measured and reported.
G rading Systcnl
One of four levels is assigned to the progress the
universities have made toward key benchmarks or
institutional goals:
Slrperior Perfort~ lnrrceG: oals have been met or exceeded,
or results compare favorably with established benchmarks,
or a high level of baseline performance is shown, or a
qualitative indication of excellence is demonstrated.
S( ltis: f~ ctot: Pv erforrlr( 1lice: I ' rogress has been made but
perfornnancc has not met goals, or perfornnance is above
average, or performance exhibits colnnpetence and initi; ltives
for i~ nnprove~~ naernct underway.
Needs irttprovenlent: No evidence of positive change, or
performance is below standard and no initiative for
improvemcnt is underway.
Uttsntisfilctory: Perfornnance is below expectations.
A lignment with University System
Strategic Plan
Tile Arizot~ aB oard of Regents has established seven strategic
directions for improvitig tlie quality of tlic Arizona University
System:
I Thc Report Card indicators align with tllc stretcgic dircctioris I it1 the following tiienncr:
IIII~~~ l iOc l e rVg r iCi t l ~ ie~ tlt1e1 citlio1i P: 1gc
* Access by ul~ tlergrirtluiitcst o regular f i ~ c ~ t l t. y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
* S i ~ t i s f i ~ c twi oit1~ 1~ : ~ c a t l e ~ ~ nidi cv isir~ g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
* Stuilelit r e t c ~ i t i oili~~ l c gl rntluiition rntcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
* Success of ul~ iversityi l l u l ~ i n. i .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ability to progress ia irciitleniic progrilms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
* Success o f upper d i v i s i o l ~ tr nnsfer stuclents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Strengtl~ eng raduate educotiol~
* Successofnlurnni ........................................... 4.
* Stutlcnt involve~ l~ einnt resenrcli projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9- 1 1
Percent of grntluntes going on to
profcssioniil/ grntluate scl~ ool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
* Ni~ tionnllyre cog~~ izepcrlo grnnls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9- 1 1
Enlii~ ncerc seitrcll l n t l econol~~ tilcc vclop~ nent
3) Develop resenrck arirl er~ coirrgce coriornic rkrelopr~ reat I * P; itents, Iiccnses, n11ei i ~ l v c ~ ~ t i o. r. ~. . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4) Provide access to Arizorzn's irniversities
5) Cal~ italizeo n rretv teclrrtologies
6) Strerrgtlieri relatiorrslrips tvitli corrstitirerrt grorrps
7) Irtrprove efficiericy
* Criints i111tl contriicts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
* Econoo~ ici l ~ ~ p ; i cota lociil c o m l ~ ~ u l ~ i t i. e . s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9- 1 I
* C o ~ ~ t r i b u t i ot~ oi esc ol~ olnict l e v e l o p l ~ i e ~. .~ . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - I I
Assure i~ ccesst o public I ~ i g h eer tlucation
* Develol~ l~ ieonft t l i s t i i ~ ~ ccetl uciition llrogrnlns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
* Success o f trar~ sfers t~ ltlelits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 4
Ciipiti~ lizeo n new tccl~ r~ ologies
* Stuclcnts served by o l ~ l i l ~ coeu rses i ~ n dot ller : ~ l t e r a i ~ t i v e
~ ~ ~ o tolfe csle livery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
S t r e ~ ~ g t l ~ r eelni ~ t i o l ~ s l l i pwsit 11 govern~ nc~ ltaelt, l ucntiol~: il,
iintl c o l ~ s t i t u cg~ r~ out ps ( This ICeport C i i r t l itself is ~) ublislrecil1 11cI
clistributetl to s t r e l ~ g t l ~ lctely~ r el:~ tionsl~ ips.)
I n ~ p r o v eE fficiency
* l ' r i v i i t i z i ~ t i oe~ f~ fo rts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
* T c r c l ~ i n g l o r t l ............................................... 7
= Prol~ ortioonf state I'ul~ dsu seti for i ~ ~ s t r i l c t i o. . l ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
* A t l l ~ i i l l i s t r i i t i v ec f l i c i c ~ ~ c. y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1 1998 Report Card for Arizoni~ P'~ u blic Universities
g. ggzzP
oc = p g E L g
g. gO" 5 g. 5'
0 F
8 ?, rn S O
0 < - 0 n, % E 2 , - 25 g g < 0 =
V] 5S. F: v. g c e5! 2
< 22
2 =;. m 0 2
~ . zy = f Z' 7
0 yc > E . 5 . 0 ;
m = m y 7
b o og uc 8 n
s d 5 - c-' 5'
+ 0 z z 5 5s C5 3 g
? 2 . c . m - - 2. $ s g C 3 =-. . = g 2
7 2 6 C~ 2
O< z 8 g e .
: a s . , o
5 g 0 ,= g c . c 7
0 - -. - C.- 5 scr;; 5 = ; 0 0 7 O . g g "
- ogr 23G< o- - 5oS2 . Eg <.= 3y " a g g s g o0 --. y m y
z 5- uOc ! m
r1 5 3
z g. g 5 E. 2 3 2 2< .5- 0 F. 2 2 9 o
C O O czu g.; -. - T g p mZ Ci .
5 - L-=. g 5 ' 2 z 0
5 -.~ 2 6 5
0 w, 7 0
FIGURE 1.3
Perceutage of Lower- Division Students
Wit11 2 or More Classes Taugilt by Regular Faculty -- - .
\
/'
Success of alumni: Arizona etnployers or employers who interview 011 campus are siirveyccl
regarding their satisfaction with Arizona University Systenl graduates. ' Illere is strong ngreen~ cnt
among enlployers that graduates are satisfactory or better ( across the system, the percentages
ranged from 75% rated very good or excellent to 95% rated good or excellent). Survey resulls
indicate gradual improverncnt in these measures.
Two/ o/ r8 M8.3o% re Cl~ sses I Rating: Superior Satisfactory d(+) Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
No Classes
1.7% ',,
FIGURE 1.4
Four- Year Graduntiol~ Itstes of
IJpl~ er- DivisionT r a l ~ s f eSr tuclents
100%
80% -
I - I Last Year
Current Year
Percentage of graduates going on to gradu; ite/ profcssioniil schools: In the most recent survcys
of graduates or upper- division sti~ dentsfr om each university, 61.9% intend to go to graduate or
professional school. ' This percentage appears to have decreased slightly from previous reports.
Rating: Superior Satisfactory d Needs Improvement IJnsatislhctory
Access to rcgul: ir f; iculty by undcrgr; duate students: The univcssitics nleasuse thc classrooni
contact of lower- division students with regular fhculty ( tenure and tenure track faculty, instructors,
and lecturers are included as regular faculty; graduate teaching assistants and associates, and part-time
faculty paid on a per- class basis, are not). 88.3% of lower- division students have two or more
courses taught by regular faculty. ( Figure 1.3)
Rating: Superior Satisractory d Necds Improvement Un~ atisf~~ ctory
Success of Transfer Stuclents: This indicator measures the completion rates of students who enter
the universities at the junior level or above, usually from an Arizona community college. The most
recent data show that the percentage of transfer students who graduate within four years is 62. I %, n
slight decrease from last year's results. ( Figure 1.4)
Iiating: Superior Satisfactory d Needs Improvement Unsatisf:' nctory
/ 1998 Report C i ~ dfo r Arizona's Public Universities
1
FIGURE 2.1
Pcrcentagc of Faculty With
" Good" or " Excellent" Teaching Ratings
100% 1 - -- -- - - - - - -
1
FIGURE 2.2
Top IIigl~ S chool Scl~ olarsE nrolling
at Arizona's Public Universities
100% - --- I 1
Percentage of faculty with " good" or " cxcellcnt" tcacliing ratings: The universities track
students' ratings of the teaching performance of faculty. The nlost recent data show that about
85% of faculty were rated as " good" or " excellent" by students. ' I'hese ratings have increclsed since
the previous year. ( Figure 2.1)
Rating: Stlperior / Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
Overi~ lsl tudent/ alumni satisfaction with faculty: The universities survey students and alumni to
determine their level of satisfaction with faculty interest and concern in students, their education,
and their career plans. Combining data from the most recent survey from the universities indicate
that 72.7% are satisfied or very satisfied. For the two universities where data over time are
available, it would appear that this percentage is increasing.
Rating: Superior Satishctory / Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
Top Arizona high school scl~ ol;~ rnstt cnding Arizona universities: ' Ihe universities strive to
attract and retain top student scholars ( as defined by the top 10% of the previous year's high school
graduating class). 65.7% of the top high school graduates from 1995- 96 entered an Arizona
university in 1996- 97, showing an increase from the previous year's 63.2%.
New National Merit Scliolars entering Arizona univcrsitics cacli year: Strong instructional
progralns enable the universities to attract top student scholars from throughout the United States.
In 1997, 116 new National Merit Scholars entered Arizona's public ~ universiticsu, p from 103 in
1996. This 13% growth in National Merit Scholars enrolled exceeds the 2% growth in the source
of potential National Merit Scholars who might enroll - Arizona high school graduates.
Rating: Superior Satisfi~ ctory Necds Improvement Unsatisfactory
1998 Report Carcl for Arizona's Public Universities I
r - & - ,- . . -
i .
FIGURE 3.1
Rescarcl~ Grant
:~ nd Contract Expenditures
( in m illions)
$ 240 1 I
FIGURE 3.2
Student Registrutions in
Electronicallv Delivered Courses
New patents and liccnses: Through intensive research by faculty and students, universities
document new patents, apply for additional patents, grant licenses for ilsing tccl~ nologicnl
breal< tllrougl~ sa, n cl makc disclost~ reso f new inventions. The averagc nulnbcr of patcnts and
licenses in a year ( using a three- year averagc) has increased to 43 for the period li. 0111 FY95 to
FY97, up from 32 for the period from FY94 to FY96. ( The Regents have elected not to grade this
item, pending a tl10s0~ 1g1r1e view of technology transfer at the universities.)
Research grant and contract expenditures: Research at the universities expands the body of
knowledge and provides opportunities for students to participate in leading- edge studies. The
universities track the level of external research fi~ ndingo n a yearly basis. The most recent data
show that research grant ancl contract expenditures have remained fairly stable, increasing from
$ 235.2 nlillio~ lin FY96 to $ 236.1 million in FY97. ( Figure 3.1)
Rating: Superior / Satislhctory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
Use of new tcclinology to dclivcl- instruction: Technology provides new dimensions for
classroonl instruction as well as service to a broader community. The 1110st recent clata indicate
that there were 6,767 students registrations in courses that were provided via electronic delivery
modes. This number is relatively stable from last year. ( Figure 3.2.)
Rating: Superior Satisfactory /(-) Needs Improverne~ lt Unsatisfactory
I'rogrcss toward i~ nplcnlcntirlgc ollaborative on- line academic tlcgrcc progrilnls: In Scptember
1996, the universities instituted a workgroup to collaborate 011 technology delivered education.
The tri- university MBA Certificate in International Business is being planned, and the Master's of
Engineering degree program is moving forward. A marketing survey of the need for off- campus
education has been initiated.
Rating: Superior Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory /
1 / 1998 Rcport Cilrd for A ~ ~ Z O ~ PIuIb'liSc Universities 0
Last Year Current Year
FIGURE 4.1
S t u d e ~ C~ rte dit IIours
Per Full- Time Faculty member
250 - 1 - - -. - -- - - - - 1
FIGUItE 4.2
Adn1111istrative Costs as a
Percentage of Total Expenditures
I
Privatization of university functions: Arizona's universities have systeinatically shifted in- house,
auxiliary services and fiunctions to private vendors when feasible and finailcially practical. At least
66 separate auxiliary functions are performed in whole or in part at all three universities by private
vendors. ( ABOR will conduct thorough review of privatizationat universities in 1998.)
Rating: Superior Satisfactoly Needs Improvement + Unsatisfactory
P: rrticipation of fi~ cultyin instl- uctional activities: Ranked and full- time faculty are the primary
teaching resource of the universities. Faculty contact with students is tracked to ensure that students
have contact with faculty. When total student population is included, faculty contact with students
has decreased slightly, from 220.7 student credit hours ( the credit hours of each course multiplied by
the nulnber of students enrolled) per f~ lll- timefa culty lnenlber in 1995- 96 to 2 19.2 in 1996- 97.
( Figure 4.1) Freshmen and sopho~~~ coonreta ct with ranked and full- time faculty has increased at all
three institiltions each of the last three years.
Rating: Superior Salisfactory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactoly
I'roportion of state opcrnting budget used for educationalactivitics: Providing quality instruction
and strong instructional resources is a high priority for Arizona's University System. ' The
universities track the percentage of state operating resources, including general fund appropriations
and tuition and fees, used for instruction and student- relatedexpenditures. This has relnained
relatively constant, decreasingly slightly from 67.7% in FY95 to 67.4% in FY96.
Rating: Superior Satisfiictory d Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
Efticient use of rcsourccs for primary institutionalfunctions: The forelnost missions of the
universities are to insh- uct students, conduct research, and provide public service. The universities
track the portion of their resources earmarked for those core f~~ nctioannsd the portion that is used for
adlninistrativepurposes. Administrativecosts as a percentage of total expendituresremaincd
relatively constant, increasing slightly from 8.1% in FY95 to 8.2% in FY96. ( Figure 4.2)
Rating: S~~ perior Sntisfirctory Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory
1 1998 Report Ci~ rdfo r Arizona's Public ~ niversities 1 I , . - ' . '"'-" - r. .,.
I r - 1 r 1 % . . . .
rizona llas been well served by a strong tradition of three large,
autonomous institutions operating within a policy fi- amework
. establisl~ edb y its citizen trustees, tlie Arizona Board of Regents.
Mcn~ berso ftlie Board meet almost monthly to consider tlie cliallenges
anti opportunities facing pitblic lliglier education in Arizona. The Board
initiates reforms and improvements where appropriate, and defines the
standards and expectations of institutional performance. In the past year,
Board initiatives have been most significant in tlie following areas:
Iteforming tl~ cC apital Development Process - Through tlie
involvement of capital assets experts from business and industry, tlie
I3oard identified and began implementing more than two dozen
secommendations to improve the way capital projects are developed,
approved and inipleniented for tlie university system's $ 3.5 billion
building infrastructure. 111 addition, tlie Board initiated refor~ nsto the
way the universities plan, schedule and ittilize tlie space contained inside
tliose buildings.
Defining Worltloads of University Faculty - Tlie Board reviewed atid
authorized tlle i~ nplelnentationo f a new set of measures to track faculty
instructional activity, in line with its emphasis on improving the qi~ ality
of unclergratluate education. Benchmark levels and goals for fittitre
performance are being formulated.
1111l) rovinTg ransferability of Con~ munityC ollege Creclits - in
cotljunction wit11 tl~ est ate's comnlunity colleges, the Boast1 atloptctl a
new Arizona General Editcation Curricitlttn~ t hat enables stuclcn~ sto
complcte and transfer a large block of lower clivision, general etlitc: ltion
reqitirenients from the community colleges to the ilniversily oftheir
choice. Tlie collaborative effort also produced common coitrscs for
majors shared by all three universities.
Focusi~ igtl le Setting of University Tuition - Identifying frtnding
priorities for the universities at the start of the budgeting cycle, and
keeping tliose priorities visible tliro~ lgllt he tuition setting process, was a
high priority accomplisl~ cd by the Board in tile current cycle. In
addition, tlie Boartl approved tuition increases for the ASU ant1 UA law
schools to bring tliose rates niore in line with national averages for
public law scliools.
Delivering Etlucation Tl~ roughN ew ' l'ecl~~~ olog- ies Tlie Iirst
course in a new, collaborative MBA certificate in International
Business, designed to be available tlirough electronic nieans, was
offered in Fall 1997. A collaborative masters of engineering program
for tlelivery through telecommunications is under development.
Reqoiring Community SCI- vice- In the spirit of serving commnnitics
in Arizona, tlie Board approved and the universities implementecl
policies which require undergraduate non- resident recipients of tuition
waivers to vol~ tnteer in tlie local community. The policy has mobilizeti
hunclreds of sttldetit volunteers froni tlie universities.
( 1998 Report Card for Arizolla's Public Universities I
5 2
3 0 z g
2 c
- Cn . --. 5 =.
s
5. g
2 g
C, E.
$
O E
w = a -
g s. 0 E m 2 5
2., = g2
1 '
ga 2
3 sE
> a m c;
0 1)
0 2: K= 2s
0 - V)
Y %
2 g d g 2.
d- 2
Z? -.
5
4
C
0 ' d 2
V)
01
0
- 3 2
C
3 >
'-; 1 0
S Y
3
' 0. s V1 --. d
3
2 5
"- 3
E 1
0
I--".,
5
07
f'!
C
5
d
0 d
V,
04 z
?,
I", 3
k $, 2 =
- z--. S- -=. = 0.
I" 5
3 2
0'
Q 2
f: a
0 a >
2
3
Y
f d 5
E-. 0
V)
5
2
V)
V)
0
1
L + --.
d
2
2
0
N
6- 5
0
0
0
0
fi d
C
t d
0
3
Cm1T
z.
C
2 - -.
P-- d
S CT z. 3
01
Y <
fi
d * - 0
- 5.-
V,
E 5
/ 5--. d- d
- d-.
d - g.
CT
Y
. 3
V)
- C U a
1.
a
0
V)
, >
2.
N g
C,
Y
0
0
f d
' 0 3.
' 2. <
CD
E
$!-
? 0
0
%
?
' 2.
3
01
0 <
2
w
vl
0
0
C
Cj
E d
0
" 5-. 4 d4
3,
I",
2 V,
5
a
a
8 5.4 Y-
0
0 5
- 2.
3
d w w
7
a
4
P cn s
0
- 3
"- 3
I",
E
CD
-- F d -.
<
0
G.
f
- 3.
. 5 z.
u'
0
3
1 E-?.
5
S CL a Y
0 = r
0
C-
5
" S
CD
I",
C:
- E.
-%.
3 m
Y
3 z -=.
!%
?
s
0
d
C"-
x
f-:.
f
Y a 5
2 YL d
3
CD d
u
2
IC.
In,
CD
?
0
C:
C d
0
- 0 CD
dl x Y
1 - - d.
9;-
d
V-)
5.4'
0
Y S- -=-.: d - e.
u^
3
2
' T1.
2
0
?
t,
0
V) - d
5
d 2
I",
C
C
2 *
V) a w
%
0 a z
E- = I .
- 2 - d.
%
0 4 : 8
5 z.
=- rL . - 0 m. - 0
Sf. <
2- V C
- 2.
C- i
ws
00
e w
C)
3
0
= 5
n s
T
C
3
zT*-
0
Y
2 "
( I:
eu
E
E-.
C;
C
LI
2-
C:
T
E.
- R.
C)
( I:
) 4 4 r, = - P 0 d e - C d . -. 2 < z 2
E g. - z. Y
- 3. g
2?
2 K.
- cC; w- 0
G. 2 2 z
0 % g 5.
d
5 g 0
0 m
a 5 a 3
% g
g -
5 G
0 € =
C=; f2fi
g1 3a
5- o
a 5
o\-_ - E.
3 S
- 2. 5 g g
' 5 E
G- 22. g' 2 d - - g
w3 3
&
m s
G G.
Y-- Y, z . e .
z 4
- C, 2 -. d
o m 5 $
3 2 V," e 0. = 1
C; C --. 0 g 2
% g
9 5 = G
E. -
2 + 0 0
2 E5
1
0 g 2 c
5
0 -- g eg d - 2 g
E. V," k e C. ; g --.
i? - -. m
2 2
2 -,
2 z
CP" =
- 4-
0
- C - d.
<
C-. - w,.
G
0
T?
- 2.
N
0
3
V,
3
0
- 0.
- 2
" 0 m
CD <
CD a
2 4
3
2-
V,
!? 0
C- D
g
0
0 <>
2
d
LC --. d-
- 2'
1
Y,
2
- d U - 0
0
fVf, i --.
f!
d4
0 d u- c 7
CD z z
- 2
- 5.
u"
0
- Y -$ V, -.
3
g5
0:
0 <
- 0.
- 3 di
g-
E ; ; "
- 2. 5 0 d
F g 2'
E. - E
? - "
2 E'
0
5 z
g z-
- 0 %
- f.' " 0
G: r
CD CmD
- CD
V, 2 s
5. s
0 8
- 3
C
3 5. 4 -
m1 1-
0 Om
2
,% c
02 - 5.'
0 5- m d
d V,
y - 2.
5C - N.
d , u= c
O --. n - 0
0
5. =
C z Y
UP p
= 0 % g
C 0
7 Y 2 5.
d
Cv
5 z.
g- 02 2, P
E '.
d 0
0 C D -= - d r +
- C-. .2- 0.
C 0
a 0 2 2
d- V," ff i
- - E; e
> <
2- - e.
l o
0 c
- o m
0 2
0 =
g g.
g 6
C5. z - 2 0
' 5 z g. <
3 f21
' P 0 1. "
Sr: g
3"
3 C
T 2.
" 5. 2
1 z z.
-=&. G0 g 2
Y r.
g s
z z2 C5P ; 5.5
fp - 5 z"--. 5' d - ". - d
0 gg
g -
2 d 2
- ' 3 y s-. CP -.
a s 4
- CD 2 4 - " s.' =--. '
2 g4-
g. E
< 5
0 uc
$ Y= z: e
3 0
uc 0 % uc
r'='
0 2
80 " 5.
2. 3
f03fi zC32; - 2 00:
- 3. 5 2 g- "= --
2 &
r ; ; 8". 5=.
C S
CE "
Y- 2 2- 52 V, -" d . -
2-'
r
# ".
p
6 = r; 0
E. 2
1 7 s 2
- 7. -; -= d 3 E- z 5- . 1 0 6
C - i - - 2 7. G.
2
Ez 0
0 -. a 2
8 =.
3
0 03
T 0
V, 0
C z
2.
< 3 2 0
? - g g
3 CD 2
4 5 2 -. z.
q
? 0
T? - e.
N
0
3
Y
/ L # 2 0 : 7- dd
0
C
0
' 5 5 - 0,
V:
L".
2 d
5
V-:
d
0
- CD d
0'
Y - d
Y <
0 :
S
M
N
W- --- 5-.. s -.
3
-. CVD,
0
- P.
C
d
ur
2
d - V,
g d 5
Y O 8 g
d d < 5'
% z.
m -
0.
2 %
fi 2- - C P -. h
- C - 3
cc 0 z
z2 s. 0 5 ? 2 C V,
d g- s G
2- . 0 c ; 0, ~
" d > k.
e: E 9
0 g
2 7
2.
- Ea': -
c: '+ " 5 g0
0 V, 2- .; --. 0 C
N =; 3 Y- - 7 5 2. 2
N 5
O G
/ - 5, rEi
d " r=. -: . d
" 0 2 -. z 2
P - 2- !? 0 z z
g 0
- 7 5 -.
g. 2 N
51- . 5.
CD - 7 3
', 2 0 '
z - g"'
4 "
C* 0
L. C* r: - z" fc3fi
7 E
g 5
. z V1,
0
- 3 = d
0 g -. s P-z
2
d-- d - n - d
13
0
0
= z
C
- 2 V, --- s. d
C
V1 w
---- G.. -.
CD
m
2 1 r 0 - - d.
o=_ d
CD
1
CD E-
0
- E. z
%
5 d
0
E: d -.
<
E
g.
G
0
T - p.
N
0 d w
- s - d.
- 0 d -.
V, s 0
0
9 -- d
0- dd
8- w
0
0
fmfi
L".
4
0
0
0
- 5 d = V,
V0, -.
- a- d
ffi
z
lr - --. "
3
cz 4
rL - - 3. > d < -' r: 6
GL". S
3 0 2 -
r 2 - C -. N 4 0
6 G
a= -.
5 g
g CD
2 0 " 5
CD 0 - 2
: $
0 Sr: s C
0 2.
0 <
w 0 2- g.
d ; 2- . -- E; d -. - z.
zg
0 2
5 E
0 - G
0 g
s 5.
Ern
d
0 g s a d
- 2. 2m
3 0 z-. -: C - - -. 2 g 1
V, C
3
P
u : 2
- 3
P
C
B
- 2
m
0
' 2
2 d
CD
- 2. s
f.'
m
2.
CD
3
0
0
? f E
3 a
- 2.
$
5 -? 2
P
2
0 c
Rudy Campbell, President
Judy Gignac, President Elect
George I I. ( I- Iank) A~ llos
Kurt R. Ilavis
Chris I- Ierstam
Jack Jewett
John F. Munger
John I'latt
Do11 Ulrich
Gov. Jane Dee I Iull
Lisa Gralla~ lKl eegan
Executive Director, ABOR
Fmnk 11. Besnette
Utl iversity Presi( 1etz ts
1, attie Coos, Arizona State University
Peter Idil< ins, University of Arizona
Clara M. Lovett, Northern Arizona Uiliversity
Selected Examples of Outcome Measures
Arizona State University
Arizona State University Main
One- year Persistence for Full- time Freshmen
1 Baseline ASU Goal
85% -- ...- -
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ) 92 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Freshmen Cohort- Fall Semester
I
Arizona State University
Undergraduate Student Satisfaction with
Academic Advising at ASU
Baseline Fall 94 Fall 95 Fall 96 Fall 97
Arizona State University Main
Graduating Senior Satisfaction* with Quality of Instruction
* Percentage Satisfied or Very Satisfied ( survey results)
Arizona State Universisty
What direction do deans think the institution is going?
Teaching Emphasis Equal Emphasis Research EI I I ~ ~ I ~ S / S
ABOR Desired Outcomes
ABOR Approved Undergraduate Outcome
Measures, Arizona State University ( including
preview of some 1998 results)
Report on the Improvement of Undergraduate Education
Measures, Goals, and Timetables
Arizona Board of Regents
June 26, 1997
Students Obtain Necessarv Classes
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Proportion of General Studies Fall 93 Fall 96 Fall 98 82% 84% 90%
courses completed by 64 hours
6. Proportion of students qualified Fall 93 Fall 96 Fall 98 7 1 O/ O 89% 90%
for their major by 64 hours
C. Average years required to reach Fall 93 Fall 96 Maintain 2.9 2.5 2.5
64 hours
D. Graduation rates relative to Fall 87 Fall 90 Fall 98 46% 46% 48% 55%
1993 peer institution 50th entering entering entering
percentile ranking class class class
Students Receive Adequate Advising
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Current Student Survey Fall 94 Fall 96 Fall 99 61 % 73% 79% 80%
B. Graduating Seniors Survey Fall 94 Fall 96 Fall 99 67% 66% 8 0 O/ O
C. Alumni Survey Fall 94 Fall 96 Fall 99 61 % 60% 80%
D. Improvements in ltem 1 and
ltem 5 Measures
Graduates Trained and Educated
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Percentage of recent alumni 1994 1996 Maintain 90% 89% 85%
reporting employment
6. Percentage of alumni appropriately 1994 1996 Maintain 76% 75% 75%
prepared for employment
C. Evaluation of ASU graduates by 1994 1996 Annual 71% very 75% very Continuous
employers interviewing on campus good or good or Improvement
excellent excellent
Student Contact with Ranked Faculty
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Percentage of lower- division students Fall 93 Fall 96 Fall 98 78% 89% 95%
with two or more courses taught by
ranked faculty
B. Percentage of freshmen enrolled in 93- 94 95- 96 Maintain 40% 56% 50%
seminar- style courses with ranked
faculty
C. Graduating students reporting Fall 93 Fall 96 Fall 99 50% 52% 75%
discussions with three or more faculty
on non- coursework topics ( e. g., careers,
graduate school)
Integration of Undergraduates into Research
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Percentage of undergraduates 93- 94 96- 97 Maintain 9% 27% 18%
participating in independent research-related
learning in a given year
B. Percentage of undergraduate degree 1993 90%
recipients participating in research-related
or capstone experience
Student Persistence and Graduation Rates
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Percentage of freshmen returning Fall 92 Fall 95 Fall 98 70% 71 % 75% 78%
for second year entering entering entering
class class class
Number of freshmen returning for Fa11 92 Fall 95 2,018 2,809
second year entering entering
class class
B. Percentage of freshmen graduating Fall 87 Fall 90 Fall 98 46% 46% 48% 55%
within six years entering entering entering
class class class
C. Percentage of lower- division transfers Fall 88 Fall 91 Maintain 47% 51 % 50% 51 %
graduating within five years entering entering
class class
D. Percentage of upper- division transfers Fall 89 Fall 92 Fall 98 63% 63% 62% 69%
graduating within four years entering entering entering
class class class
Average Time and Credits to Complete Degree
Baseline Current Goal Baseline Current 1998 Goal
Measure Year Year Year Measure Measure Update Measure
A. Average number of years 92- 93 95- 96 98- 99 5.1 5.3 5.1 4.6
freshmen take to graduate
B. Average hours at time of graduation 93- 94 95- 96 98- 99 137 139 136 1 33
( less than 12 transfer hours)
C. Average hours at time of graduation 93- 94 95- 96 98- 99 145 146 145 140
( 12 or more transfer hours)
D. Percentage of seniors exceeding 160 Fall 94 Fall 96 Fall 99 4.6% 4.2% 3.5%
total hours ( excludes non- state and
private college transfer hours)
E. Percentage of seniors exceeding 160 Fall 94 Fall 96 Fall 99 1 . I O/ O 1 . I% 0.75%
total hours ( excludes Arizona community
college, non- state, and private college
transfer hours)
ITEM I Students Obtain Necessary Classes
Progress
The goal for one measure is achieved; there is progress toward two goals; there is no change in the final measure. The
successes on these measures are a consequence of increased section availability, enhanced advising, new
technologies, greater specification of requirements, alternative schedules, and improved courses.
Strategies
The Student Process Re- engineering Project ( SPRP) Cross- college Advising for Freshman program ( CASF) pilot-tested
advising services designed to facilitate students as they identify or change majors.
The SPRP Degree Audit Reporting System ( DARS) is now operational for all majors at ASU, permitting students to
assess their progress to degree and ask " what- if scenarios" about alternative majors.
In partnership with Maricopa Community College District, five Transfer Partnership Degrees ( TPDs) are beginning
the second year of a pilot test. The Transfer Partnership Degrees will guarantee courses taken at MCCCD will apply
to a student's major at ASU.
The First- Year Mathematics Initiative continues to improve student success.
More students are earning academic credit in Service Learning courses, which simultaneously serve our community
and enhance the quality of learning in courses such as English, Botany, and Geography.
ASU1s Honors College continues to grow, providing unique opportunities and support for students.
ASU1s first winter session offered courses at alternative times easing student access to classes.
ASU Summer Sessions continues to expand alternative scheduling that permits students to take courses in
compressed formats and at alternative locations.
ASU offers six high- demand undergraduate degree programs in the evening.
ASU has made its General Studies Awareness Area requirements more flexible.
New student orientation has been revised to more effectively involve students.
ITEM 2 Students Receive Adequate Advising
Progress
Efforts to enhance advising services for current students has increased satisfaction as measured in measure 2A.
Measures 28 ( graduates) and 2C ( alumni) need improvement, which should come as existing students graduate.
Strategies
The Student Process Re- engineering Project ( SPRP) Cross- college Advising for Freshman program ( CASF) pilot-tested
advising services designed to facilitate students as they identify or change majors.
The SPRP Degree Audit Reporting System ( DARS) is now operational for all majors at ASU, permitting students to
assess their progress to degree and ask " what- if?" about alternative majors.
The SPRP Degree Audit Reporting System now includes more than 175,000 Arizona community college courses
automating accurate Arizona articulation.
The SPRP General Services pilot, where a single person provided multifunctional services to students, was
successful and is being implemented.
Transfer guides are now available on the World Wide Web ( WWW).
The Course Applicability System Prototype ( CAS- P) has been developed through a joint university- community
college effort and ASU continues development support while funding is secured.
Students can now access their grades and cumulative GPA on the WWW.
An SPRP project to automate course transfer from the UA, NAU, and BYU is underway with faculty evaluating
thousands of cour- ses for entry in the Degree Audit Reporting System.
ITEM 3 Classrooms Adequately Equipped
Progress
Four goals for adequately equipping classrooms have been achieved. There is significant progress toward the final
goal of providing ethernet connection to all classrooms.
Strategies
Added ethernet connections to more than 40 classrooms.
Added * workstations available for undergraduate students.
Increased WWW access.
Received conceptual approval for mediated classroom building.
ITEM 4 Lower- division Courses Taught by Ranked Faculty
Progress
Goal of percentage of lower- division SCH taught by ranked faculty has been met. Progress toward the goal of
percentage of lower- division students with two or more courses taught by ranked faculty.
Strategies
Equal emphasis on teaching and research in compensation plans.
Post- tenure review plan approved.
Continued expansion of the Waksone Fellows program for teaching.
Alumni Association Award for outstanding teaching.
Parents Association established a professorship for outstanding teaching.
Colleges recognize outstanding teachers with annual awards.
Many departments recognize outstanding teachers with annual awards.
Continued involvement of faculty in first- year seminars.
ITEM 5 Graduates Trained and Educated
Progress
Continued progress in the evaluation of graduates by ASU employers and two goals for alumni prepared for
employment and alumni employed are met. Efforts to enhance curricula, innovate programs, and enlarge
relationships between ASU and the businesslnonprofit communities contribute to these goals.
Strategies
Reorganization of life sciences degrees and departments approved by ABOR.
Revision of elementary education program in progress.
Coordinated revision of introductory science courses underway.
Review of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences requirements completed.
Restructured three programs in the College of Business.
Career Services successfully increased the number of organizations interviewing ASU graduates.
Colleges and units expanding partnerships with business and nonprofit organizations to provide opportunities for
student experiences.
Increased internship opportunities for undergraduates.
ITEM 6 Student Contact with Ranked Faculty
Progress
There is progress in percentage of lower- division students with two or more courses taught by ranked faculty and the
percentage of students reporting non- class- related discussions with faculty. The goal for the number of freshman
enrolled in seminar courses has been achieved.
Strategies
Additional growth in the Honors College with its required year- long seminar
Greater involvement in the Freshman Year Experience.
ASU leads an NSF- funded alliance of colleges that utilizes intense faculty- student involvement to enhance minority
participation in math, science, and engineering.
Expanded the Campus Communities program to nine faculty- led learning communities, involving 800 students,
including programs on deafness, technology and culture, and Mexican American culture.
Increased participation in Service Learning and community service as part of courses from Communication to
Zoology.
Continuing growth in student research, apprenticeship, and internship opportunities.
Summer bridge program for at- risk students is in its third year.
ITEM 7 Integration of Undergraduates into Research
Progress
The level of student involvement in research- related learning each year exceeds the goal. There is progress in the
percentage of graduates reporting their involvement in a capstone or research- related experience.
Strategies
Continue to encourage majors to require a capstone experience.
Continue seeking external funding, such as the Hughes Program, for undergraduate research involvement.
Support revisions of curriculum that involve students in hands- on research.
Recognize student involvement in research- related and capstone projects such as SAT1, ASU1s mini- satellite
project.
OUTCOME 1 Student Persistence and Graduation Rates
Progress
lmprovement in the retention of freshmen is important progress, as is improvement in the percentage of lower-division
transfers graduating. Improvement is needed in the graduation rates of freshman and upper- division transfer
students. Efforts to increase student involvement, improve academic success, smooth the mechanics, and provide
flexibility in offerings and programs work to improve retention and graduation.
Strategies
Freshman Year Experience program expanded efforts to support new students.
Increased numbers of students involved in Service Learning courses.
The First- Year Mathematics Initiative continues to improve student success.
In partnership with Maricopa Community College District, five Transfer Partnership Degrees ( TPDs) are beginning
the second year of a pilot test. The Transfer Partnership Degrees will guarantee courses taken at MCCCD will apply
to a student's major at ASU.
The Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies has been implemented and has students scheduled to graduate fall 1997.
The Intercollegiate Athletics Academic Task Force recommended additional efforts to identify at- risk student- athletes
and to more effectively structure the student experience for all student- athletes.
OUTCOME 2 Average Time and Credits to Complete Degree
Progress
There has been progress in reducing the percentage of seniors ( with Arizona community college hours) over 160
hours at graduation. The average number of years to graduation and hours at graduation need improvement. TO
reduce time to degree, ASU is improving information available to students for planning, supporting students in
selecting programs through advising, and providing flexible scheduling.
Strategies
In partnership with Maricopa Community College District, five Transfer Partnership Degrees ( TPDs) are beginning
the second year of a pilot test. The Transfer Partnership Degrees will guarantee courses taken at MCCCD will apply
to a student's major at ASU.
The Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies, which provides students flexibility, has been implemented and has
students scheduled to graduate fall 1997.
The SPRP Degree Audit Reporting System ( DARS) is now operational for all majors at ASU, incorporates over
175,000 Arizona CC courses, and will soon include coursework from UA, NAU, and BYU, permitting students to
assure every course selected applies to their degree.
The Student Process Re- engineering Project ( SPRP) Cross- college Advising for Freshmen program specializes in
advising students as they identify or change majors.
The Transfer Articulation Task Force recommendations, including improving transfer advising and identifying student
pathways, are being implemented.
ASU's first winter session made it possible for students to take one class and complete their degrees prior to spring
semester.
ASU Summer Sessions continues to expand alternative scheduling that permits students to take courses in
compressed formats and at alternative locations.
ASU offers six high- demand undergraduate degree programs in the evening.