I.
II.
III.
IV.
A.
B.
V.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
University System of New Hampshire
Educational Excellence Committee
Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:45 AM (EDT)
Zoom Meeting - https://unh.zoom.us/j/95314302373
1 646 876 9923 (US toll) / Meeting ID: 953 1430 2373
If you need assistance or have trouble connecting please call 603-862-0918 or email
Zoom Meeting Informationhttps://unh.zoom.us/j/95314302373 --- or telephone: 1 646 876 9923 (US toll) / Meeting ID: 953 1430 2373
In Unlikely Event of Zoom FailureMeeting will reconvene by telephone: 800-505-4464 / Code: 630838#
Committee RosterM. Jacqueline Eastwood, Chair; Cathy J. Green, Vice Chair; Amy B. Begg; Jacob A. Bennett; Victoria Bergstrom; Frank
Edelblut; Cailee Griffin; Aura Huot; Shawn N. Jasper; Aaron M. Keaton; Tyler Minnich; Joseph D. Scala; Leo Shattuck;
Wallace R. Stevens; David A. Westover
Call to Order - 5 minutes
Chair's Welcome
Taking of Attendance
Consent AgendaMOVED, that the Educational Excellence Committee approve the consent agenda.
Meeting Minutes - Draft for Approval
Appointment with Tenure - UNH Recommendations for Approval
Promotion & Tenure - UNH, PSU, KSC Recommendations for Approval
Information: Academic Program Changes
Information: Academic Quality Metrics
University System Student Board (USSB) Update - Trustee Griffin - 20 minutes
CCSNH-USNH Synergy Recommendations: Update and Request for Approval - President
Rubinstein - 30 minutes
Chancellor's Update on Enrollments - Chancellor Leach - 20 minutesAttachments forthcoming
UNH Manchester and School of Law Update - Provost Jones - 10 minutes
Discussion: Plans for Fall - Trustees - 30 minutes
Page 1 of 110
XI.
XII.
Other Business - 5 minutes
Adjourn
Page 2 of 110
p. 1 of 2
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 23, 2020
VIDEO CONFERENCE
MEETING MINUTES Draft for Approval
Participants
Committee members: M. Jacqueline Eastwood, chair; Cathy Green, vice chair; Amy Begg; Jacob Bennett; Victoria Bergstrom; Frank Edelblut; Cailee Griffin; Aura Huot; Shawn Jasper; Todd Leach; Tyler Minnich; Joseph Scala; Leo Shattuck; Wallace Stevens; David Westover
Other trustees: Donald Birx; James Burnett, III; James Dean, Jr.; George Hansel; Joseph Morone; Michael Pilot; Christopher Pope; Mark Rubinstein; Morgan Rutman; Representative Marjorie Smith; Melinda Treadwell
Other nonmembers: Marlin Collingwood; Robin DeRosa; Joseph Dwyer; Michael Fazi; Heidi Hedegard; Ockle Johnson; Wayne Jones; M.B. Lufkin; Tia Miller; Ann McClellan; Cathy Provencher; Ron Rodgers; Lisa Shawney; Scott Stanley
Call to Order
Committee Chair Eastwood called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m. and called attention to information in the
materials regarding the state’s current employment needs. Meeting participants were recognized.
Consent Agenda
Moved by Chair Eastwood, duly seconded, and approved.
VOTED, that the Educational Excellence Committee approve the consent agenda containing the January 16, 2020, meeting minutes, the appointment of one professor with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, and the academic program change information.
Consent Items:
• Minutes January 16, 2020
• UNH Appointment with Tenure
Motion, on recommendation of President Dean, that the Educational Excellence Committee recommend for approval by the Board of Trustees the appointment of one professor with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, as presented in the supporting material.
• Information: Academic Degree Program Additions and Deletions
Addition: MS in Business Analytics Deletions: AS in Civil Technology
AS in Horticultural Technology AS in Culinary Arts and Nutrition AS in Integrated Agricultural Management
University System Student Board (USSB)
Trustees Scala and Griffin, on behalf of the USSB, talked about how students are coping with the mid-term shift to remote learning and social distancing and their expectations generally for fall. The USSB is working to address the potential impact of the pandemic on the onboarding process for next year’s members. Chair Eastwood thanked the students their insights and she suggested that the campuses utilize USSB members as a resource in the development of fall messaging.
Page 3 of 110
USNH Educational Excellence Committee, April 23, 2020 p. 2 of 2
Draft for Approval
Spring Survey Results and Fall Admissions
The provosts provided context for fall admissions numbers, noting that it was relatively early in the process given the deposit deadline delay and public uncertainty around near-term plans. They provided an overview of findings from surveys designed to gauge the effects of the COVID-19 disruption on faculty and students’ abilities to teach and learn and their overall sense of well-being. Campuses are using the results to guide immediate actions to improve the distance education experience in the remainder of the spring term. The results will also be used to inform faculty development and training over the summer to improve remote instruction skills; for facilitating the readiness to stand up a higher quality distance learning model in the fall if conditions necessitate; and for developing the capacity to optimize a hybrid format that offers the most instructional options for students going forward. Observations included that an emergency remote instruction was not the same as intentionally designed online learning; that student perspectives were naturally reflective of overall frustration with the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic; and that undergraduate and graduate students may be experiencing the disruption in different ways.
Distance Learning
Chancellor Leach provided an overview of the systemwide plan for centralized online support and delivery and coordinated online content. Development of the plan was supported by the Administrative Board in response to the Board’s designation of online strategy as a high priority. Chancellor Leach presented four recommendations for the Board’s consideration: (1) Create New Hampshire Online, a centralized delivery hub that would operate like an in-house online program management (OPM) service by aligning reporting structures for key OPM functions, including call and digital communications center, CRM capabilities, common LMS, and systemwide instructional design; (2) Create a portfolio of online undergraduate courses addressing short-term utilization and sharing of existing online classes while protecting campus brands/identities; (3) Stand up hybrid/blended classroom capability for fall; and (4) Support summer faculty development to strengthen online and blended delivery, and develop a certification process for online facilitators of NH Online courses and robust instructional design support plans for master teachers. It was noted that the plan did not intend to replace the traditional residential model but to strengthen the system’s capacity to expand its market to reach nontraditional, largely adult learners. Further consideration of the plan is expected to occur at the full Board of Trustees meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Page 4 of 110
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Educational Excellence Committee
Consent Agenda Item
June 25, 2020
University of New Hampshire
To: Educational Excellence Committee
Re: Faculty Appointment with Tenure
Consent Motion
MOVED, on recommendation of President Dean, that the Educational Excellence
Committee recommend for approval by the Board of Trustees the appointment of two
professors with tenure at the University of New Hampshire, as presented in the
supporting material.
Supporting Materials
President Dean’s letters of recommendation and the candidates’ curriculum vitae. The materials are confidential
and provided to trustees only. Until formally approved, the names of the candidates should not be publicly
disclosed.
Rationale for Proposed Action
Approval is sought pursuant to administrative personnel policy, USY.V.C.6, which states, “Board of Trustee review
and approval is required for initial faculty appointments that include tenure” (6.3.11.1).
Subsequent Review and Approval
Requires further approval by the full Board of Trustees.
Approved by: President Dean
Submitted by: USNH System Office
CONFIDENTIAL - FOR TRUSTEES ONLY
Page 5 of 110
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Educational Excellence Committee
Consent Agenda Item
June 25, 2020
University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College
To: Educational Excellence Committee
Re: Faculty Promotion and Tenure
Consent Motion
MOVED, on recommendation of the respective presidents, that the Educational
Excellence Committee approve the promotion and tenure recommendations for the
University of New Hampshire, Keene State College, and Plymouth State University, as
presented in the supporting material.
Supporting Materials
Presidents’ letters of recommendation, The letters are confidential and provided to trustees only. Until formally
approved, the names of the individuals should not be publicly disclosed. (The credentials of the candidates are on
file at the respective institutions.)
Rationale for Proposed Action
Approval of the recommended action is sought of the Board of Trustees Educational Excellence Committee
pursuant to board policy, BOT.II.F:
The Board of Trustees of the University System of New Hampshire awards promotion and tenure on the
recommendation of a President (BOT.II.F.1.).
Institutional promotion and tenure recommendations are presented to the Educational Excellence
Committee as a consent agenda action item (BOT.II.F.3.1.).
Subsequent Review and Approval
Approval by the Educational Excellence Committee is final; no further approval is required.
Approved by: UNH, PSU, KSC Presidents
Submitted by: USNH System Office
CONFIDENTIAL - FOR TRUSTEES ONLY
Page 41 of 110
Promotion and Tenure Recommendations For AY 2021
Data Source: This report provides a statistical summary of the tenure status and demographic characteristics of full-time faculty at KSC, PSU and UNH as reported in the Fall 2019 IPEDS Human Resources Component and HR40090 Tenure Track Faulty.
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations*
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – POST-Recommendations*
Faculty Promotions To** Category Eligible Applied Withdrew or
Denied Approved
Professor 186 20 3 17
Associate Professor 101 27 3 24
Total 287 47 6 41
Tenure 95 29 3 26
On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status**
Fiscal Year
New Tenure Track
Tenured Achieved
Recommended for Tenure
AY 2021
Left Prior to Tenure
Remaining & Eligible
2013 13 6 0 4 3
2014 26 15 3 6 2
2015 38 4 15 13 6
2016 53 5 4 8 36
2017 42 5 2 3 32
2018 33 4 2 3 24
2019 21 2 0 0 19
2020 13 0 0 0 13
Total 239 41 26 37 135 *UNH Main Campus Only; **Includes UNH Main Campus; UNH Manchester, and UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Professor Associate Professor Associate Assistant
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 117 89 1 3 58
Women 58 95 0 2 84
0
50
100
150
200
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Professor Associate Professor Associate Assistant
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 126 90 1 3 48
Women 64 101 0 1 73
0
50
100
150
200
250
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Tenured 359 On Tenure Track 148
Total 507
Tenured 381 On Tenure Track 126 Total 507
Page 44 of 110
Promotion and Tenure Recommendations For AY 2021
Data Source: This report provides a statistical summary of the tenure status and demographic characteristics of full-time faculty at KSC, PSU and UNH as reported in the Fall 2019 IPEDS Human Resources Component and HR40090 Tenure Track Faulty.
PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure - POST-Recommendations
Faculty Promotions To
Category Eligible Applied Withdrew or Denied
Approved
Professor 17 7 2 5
Associate Professor 8 10 2 8
Total 25 17 4 13
Tenure 9 11 2 9
On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status
Fiscal Year
New Tenure Track
Tenured Achieved
Recommended for Tenure
AY 2021
Left Prior to Tenure
Remaining & Eligible
2015 10 5 3 1 1
2016 9 3 1 3 2
2017 9 0 2 2 5
2018 12 0 2 0 10
2019 5 0 1 0 4
2020 5 0 0 0 5
Total 50 8 9 6 27
Professor Associate Associate Assistant
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 41 21 1 16
Women 28 26 2 17
0102030405060708090
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Professor Associate Associate Associate
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 43 24 1 11
Women 31 27 1 14
01020304050607080
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Tenured 116 On Tenure Track 36 Total 152
Tenured 125 On Tenure Track 27 Total 152
Page 47 of 110
Promotion and Tenure Recommendations For AY 2021
Data Source: This report provides a statistical summary of the tenure status and demographic characteristics of full-time faculty at KSC, PSU and UNH as reported in the Fall 2019 IPEDS Human Resources Component and HR40090 Tenure Track Faulty.
KEENE STATE COLLEGE
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure – PRE-Recommendations
Faculty Status by Rank and Tenure - POST-Recommendations
Faculty Promotions To
Category Eligible Applied Approved
Professor 39 7 7
Associate Professor 11 5 5
Total 50 12 12
Tenure 5 5 5
On Tenure Track Start Dates and Tenure Status
Fiscal Year
New Tenure Track
Tenured Achieved To Date
Recommended for Tenure
AY 2021
Left Prior to Tenure
Remaining & Eligible
2015 8 1 3 4 0
2016 11 3 1 4 3
2017 11 0 1 0 10
2018 7 0 0 1 6
2019 6 0 0 1 5
2020 7 0 0 0 7
Total 50 4 5 10 31
Professor Associate Assistant Associate Assistant
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 36 31 1 2 12
Women 35 26 1 3 19
0102030405060708090
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Professor Associate Assistant Associate Assistant
TENURED ON TENURE TRACK
Men 41 28 1 2 10
Women 37 27 1 3 16
0102030405060708090
Emp
loye
e C
ou
nt
Tenured 130 On Tenure Track 36 Total 166
Tenured 135 On Tenure Track 31 Total 166
Page 49 of 110
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Educational Excellence Committee
Information
June 25, 2020
University System of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College
To: Educational Excellence Committee
Re: Academic Program Changes
Supporting Materials
UNH, PSU, and KSC academic program change information
Summary / Rationale for Submission
The attached information identifies programming changes under consideration, including, among other types of
changes, the following degree program additions and deletions:
PSU Additions: EdS School-Psychology
BA & BS Physics
MS Climate Studies
Deletions: BS Early Childhood Education
BS Math: Middle School Teacher Cert 5-8
BS Math: Secondary Teacher Cert 7-12
MEd in Online Instructional Design
MS Biology
MA in Historic Preservation
MEd in Heritage Studies
UNH Additions: BS Engineering Technology
BS Mechanical Technology
MS & Graduate Certificate Health Data Science
MS Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology
MS Intelligence
MS Global Conflict Studies
MS Biotechnology: Industrial & Biomedical Sciences
This information is presented to the Educational Excellence Committee pursuant to USNH Board of Trustees
Academic Program Planning and Review policy, BOT.II.G.4:
Prior to taking action a President shall inform the Educational Excellence Committee of his or her plans
to add or delete degree programs (i.e., degrees and majors). After implementing any such change a
President shall inform the Committee of the completed action. Such informational reports ordinarily
shall be part of the agenda for a regularly scheduled Committee meeting.
Approved by: UNH, PSU, KSC Presidents
Submitted by: USNH System Office
KSC Additions: BS & BA Neuroscience
BA & BS Physics
MS Public Health Nutrition
BS Construction Management
BA Legal Studies
BS STEM
BS Sustainability
Deletions: BS Math-Physics
Page 50 of 110
Page 51 of 110
Page 52 of 110
Page 53 of 110
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
207 Thompson Hall 105 Main Street Durham, NH 03824-3547
V: 603.862.3290 F: 603.862.4741 TTY: 7.7.7 (Relay NH)
To : Educational Excellence Committee
From : Wayne E. Jones Jr. Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Date : May 5, 2020
Subject : Informational Items
Copy : Andrew Colby, Registrar Joel Carstens, Financial Aid Pelema Ellis, Enrollment Management Erika Mantz, Communications and Public Affairs Robert McGann, Admissions Judy Muller, Business Services P. T. Vasudevan, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Terri Winters, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Technology Jackie Snow, Center for DATA Cari Moorhead, Graduate School, Dean Michael Decelle, Manchester Michael Ferrara, College of Health and Human Services Deborah Merrill-Sands, Paul College of Business and Economics Jon Wraith, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture
The University of New Hampshire has approved the following:
Effective: Fall 2020
• Expansion of Engineering Technology Programs to 4-year programso BS in Engineering Technologyo BS in Mechanical Technology
• New Minor Lifetime Activity Programming and Leadership – CHHS• New Minor Physical Education Teaching – CHHS• Delete/Close Minor Deaf and Hard of Hearing – CHHS• M.S. and Graduate Certificate Health Data Science – CHHS/Grad• New Minor Equine Assisted Activities and Therapies (EAAT) - COLSA• M.S. in Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology – COLSA/Grad
Page 54 of 110
May 5, 2020 Page 2
• Master of Science in Nursing – change of degree titles to - CHHSo Master of Science in Nursing: Clinical Nurse Leadero Master of Science in Nursing: Evidence-Based Practice
• New Option Outdoor Leadership and Management as a result of an active merger of RecreationManagement and Policy and Outdoor Leadership and Education Programs - CHHS
• Department of Business, Politics, and Security Studies split into two independent departmentsas follows - UNHM
o Department of Business and Public Affairs – department will host the Business,Accounting and PSNL programs
o Department of Security Studies – department will host the HLS and CPRM programs.Two new online professional master’s programs: Intelligence Global Conflict Studies
• M.S. in Biotechnology: Industrial and Biomedical Sciences – UNHM
These proposals have been approved at the appropriate levels within the University.
Approved By:
_____________________________ James W. Dean Jr, President
Page 55 of 110
Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
207 Thompson Hall 105 Main Street Durham, NH 03824-3547
V: 603.862.3290 F: 603.862.4741 TTY: 7.7.7 (Relay NH)
To : Educational Excellence Committee
From : Wayne E. Jones Jr. Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Date : May 26, 2020
Subject : Informational Items
Copy : Andrew Colby, Registrar Joel Carstens, Financial Aid Pelema Ellis, Enrollment Management Erika Mantz, Communications and Public Affairs Robert McGann, Admissions Judy Muller, Business Services P. T. Vasudevan, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Terri Winters, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Technology Anne Shattuck, Institutional Research and Assessment Jackie Snow, Center for DATA Michele Dillion, College of Liberal Arts Cari Moorhead, Graduate School Charles Zercher, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences Harlan Spence, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space Diane Foster, School of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering
The University of New Hampshire has approved the following:
Effective: Spring 2019
• New Minor Marine Policy – EOS, MSOE
Effective: Fall 2020 • New Option Biomedical Engineering in Electrical and Computer Engineering - CEPS• Delete three options in Physics – CEPS
o Astronomy, Chemical Physics , Material Science• New Post-Masters Certificate Degree – Graduate• New minor Community Leadership - Manchester• New Cognate in Art History, Design, and Computer Science - COLA
These proposals have been approved at the appropriate levels within the University.
Approved By:
_____________________________ James W. Dean Jr, President
Page 56 of 110
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Educational Excellence Committee
Information
June 25, 2020
University System of New Hampshire
To: Educational Excellence Committee
Re: Academic Quality Metrics FY20
Supporting Materials
Annual Academic Quality Metrics report
Summary / Rationale for Submission
The academic quality metrics are presented to the Educational Excellence Committee pursuant to USNH Board
of Trustees Academic Program Planning and Review policy, BOT.II.G, by which the Educational Excellence
Committee shall,
“…Require the Chancellor to coordinate a process whereby the Presidents propose to the Committee a set
of appropriate metrics and targets aimed at assuring the education provided by each institution, and USNH
as a whole, meets reasonable quality expectations” (BOT.II.G.3.3)”
Report contents:
Retention & Completion Metrics
1-Year Retention Rates (UG)
4-Year Graduation Rates (UG)
6-Year Graduation Rates (UG)
4-Year Persistence & Completion Rates (GR)
Postgraduation Employment Metrics
Employment Rates (UG & GR)
Loan Default Rates (All Students)
Student Satisfaction & Engagement Metrics (UG & GR)
Student Learning Outcomes Metrics
Professional Exam Pass Rates (UG & GR)
Learning Outcomes Assessment (UG)
Academic Program Quality – Approvals and Accreditations
Submitted by: USNH System Office/hgh
Page 57 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Retention and Completion
1-YEAR RETENTION RATE
UNH PSU KSC GSC Representative Cohort
Chart scale varies, range is uniform
Notes
ӿ Peer average not available ӿ ӿ USNH institution data not available
At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The representative retention rates include students with a first enrollment in a given fiscal year cohort who subsequently reenrolled in at least one term within the next 12 months (4 terms).
Manchester campus is not included in UNH Durham rate.
Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions for first-time, full-time, freshman bachelor's degree candidate cohort; not available for GSC
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS
GSC
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen
2015 85% 81% 80% 90% 76% 74% 71% 79% 73% 70% 70% 77% 80% 78% ӿ ӿ
2016 86% 84% 82% 89% 70% 69% 69% 79% 75% 72% 74% 76% 74% 76% ӿ ӿ
2017 86% 86% 83% 89% 68% 61% 62% 78% 71% 70% 70% 77% 78% 76% ӿ ӿ
2018 86% 83% 81% 89% 69% 62% 65% 78% 72% 65% 68% 77% 75% 72% ӿ ӿ
2019 86% 83% 83% ӿ 67% 63% 67% ӿ 76% 72% 72% ӿ 77% 75% ӿ ӿ
Targets: "All"
2021 90% 73% 75% 83%
2018 88% 70% 75% 75%
2015 87% 76% 80% 82%
Representative FY Cohort Cohort
Year 2
Fall
UNH PSU KSC
Bachelor's Degree Candidates – Fall First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
Fall 15 16 17 18 19
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
Fall 15 16 17 18 19
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
Fall 15 16 17 18 19
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
FY15 16 17 18 1960%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2014 15 16 17 18
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All
✓
✓
Page 58 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Retention and Completion
4-YEAR GRADUATION RATE
UNH PSU KSC GSC Representative Cohort
Chart scale varies, range is uniform
Notes
ӿ Peer average not available ӿ ӿ USNH institution data not available
At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The 4-year and 6-year graduation rates include those students from the cohort who have graduated by the end of the last term in the fourth or sixth (fiscal) year.
Manchester campus is not included in UNH Durham rate.
Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions for first-time, full-time, freshman bachelor's degree candidate cohort; not available for GSC
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS
GSC
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen
2015 68% 61% 62% 65% 42% 42% 42% 39% 53% 50% 52% 45% 38% 31% ӿ ӿ
2016 68% 63% 64% 66% 41% 40% 45% 42% 51% 41% 48% 47% 39% 33% ӿ ӿ
2017 69% 62% 64% ӿ 45% 39% 38% ӿ 55% 48% 54% ӿ 32% 28% ӿ ӿ
2018 68% 61% 62% ӿ 48% 44% 42% ӿ 53% 46% 49% ӿ 40% 35% ӿ ӿ
2019 69% 66% 63% ӿ 44% 37% 43% ӿ 54% 47% 49% ӿ 43% 36% ӿ ӿ
Targets: "All "
2020 71% 46% 54% 45%
2015 68% 46% 54% 50%
Representative FY Cohort Cohort
Year 4
FY
UNH PSU KSC
Bachelor's Degree Candidates – First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
FY15 16 17 18 19
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
FY15 16 17 18 19
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
FY15 16 17 18 19
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
FY15 16 17 18 1960%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2014 15 16 17 18
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All
✓
Page 59 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Retention and Completion
6-YEAR GRADUATION RATE
UNH PSU KSC GSC Representative Cohort
Chart scale varies, range is uniform
Notes
ӿ Peer average not available ӿ ӿ USNH institution data not available
At GSC, first-time, full-time students represent a small percentage (approximately 8%) of total bachelor’s enrollment. Consistent with USNWR Survey for Online Programs methodology for evaluation of nontraditional student retention and graduation rates, GSC also provides a representative cohort which includes all bachelor’s seeking students (e.g., transfers, part-time, etc.). The 4-year and 6-year graduation rates include those students from the cohort who have graduated by the end of the last term in the fourth or sixth (fiscal) year.
Manchester campus is not included in UNH Durham rate.
Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions for first-time, full-time, freshman bachelor's degree candidate cohort; not available for GSC
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS
GSC
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen Peer All Pell 1st Gen
2015 79% 75% 75% 77% 58% 51% 55% 61% 63% 59% 60% 60% 45% 39% ӿ ӿ
2016 79% 72% 73% 78% 54% 49% 53% 61% 63% 57% 57% 60% 49% 44% ӿ ӿ
2017 77% 71% 71% 78% 54% 53% 56% 61% 62% 59% 60% 59% 46% 40% ӿ ӿ
2018 77% 73% 73% 78% 53% 50% 57% 62% 60% 52% 57% 60% 44% 37% ӿ ӿ
2019 77% 73% 72% ӿ 54% 44% 46% ӿ 63% 56% 60% ӿ 39% 33% ӿ ӿ
Targets: "All "
2020 80% 60% 65% 55%
2015 77% 58% 65% 65%
Bachelor's Degree Candidates – First-Time, Full-Time FreshmenCohort
Year 6
FY
Representative FY Cohort
UNH PSU KSC
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
FY 15 16 17 18 19
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
FY 15 16 17 18 19
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
FY 15 16 17 18 19
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
FY15 16 17 18 1960%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
2014 15 16 17 18
All Pell 1st Gen Peer All
✓ ✓
Page 60 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Retention and Completion GRADUATE STUDENT PERSISTENCE AND COMPLETION
UNH PSU KSC GSC
Notes
* Newly matriculated full- and part-time master’s degree candidates, by year of matriculation. PSU additionally includes EdD and certificates of advanced graduate study (CAGS). GSC rates as of June 1.
Sources: PSU and KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs; UNH Graduate School
Master's Degree Candidates *
UNH PSU KSC GSC
Status
# in
cohort Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
# in
cohort Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
# in
cohort Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
# in
cohort Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
2012 Completion 785 54% 76% 80% 445 12% 40% 63% 76 30% 47% 54% 61 56% 75% 80%
Continuation 40% 14% 10% 81% 43% 16% 66% 20% 5% 38% 18% 5%
Attrition 6% 10% 10% 7% 17% 21% 4% 33% 41% 6% 7% 15%
2013 Completion 731 58% 73% 78% 461 13% 38% 61% 45 36% 53% 73% 62 52% 65% 68%
Continuation 36% 19% 12% 78% 41% 10% 44% 27% 4% 27% 13% 6%
Attrition 6% 8% 10% 9% 21% 29% 20% 20% 22% 21% 22% 26%
2014 Completion 783 57% 76% 80% 440 17% 52% 63% 44 39% 75% 81% 72 39% 60% 64%
Continuation 35% 13% 8% 73% 25% 10% 48% 14% 5% 36% 10% 3%
Attrition 8% 11% 12% 10% 23% 27% 13% 11% 14% 25% 30% 33%
2015 Completion 784 53% 75% 80% 406 29% 47% 61% 56 36% 70% 86% 61 38% 54% 57%
Continuation 39% 14% 8% 51% 27% 9% 54% 20% 4% 25% 9% 7%
Attrition 8% 11% 12% 20% 26% 30% 11% 11% 11% 37% 37% 36%
2016 Completion 798 53% 75% 82% 351 30% 52% 66% 50 26% 62% 74% 90 49% 64% 72%
Continuation 39% 15% 7% 52% 30% 10% 62% 26% 16% 24% 9% 1%
Attrition 8% 10% 11% 18% 19% 24% 12% 12% 10% 27% 27% 27%
Completion 54% 74% — 26% 56% — 34% 68% — 38% 55% —
Continuation 40% 16% — 62% 22% — 46% 12% — 32% 10% —
Attrition 6% 10% — 12% 22% — 20% 20% — 30% 35% —
Completion 53% — — 34% — — 61% — — 53% — —
Continuation 41% — — 41% — — 27% — — 25% — —
Attrition 6% — — 25% — — 12% — — 22% — —
77
2017768
2018861 285 33
FY
Entering
Cohort
295 41 69
Year 4: 65% Completion Year 4: 75% Completion Year 4: 75% Completion
Targets: 2013 Cohort
Year 4: 80% Completion Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 12% Attrition Max Year 2: 30% Attrition Max
Year 4: 64% Completion Year 2: 45% Continuation Year 4: 70% Completion
Targets: 2020 Cohort
Year 4: 80% Completion Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 15% Attrition Max Year 2: 5% Attrition Max
20
12 c
oh
ort
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
12 c
oh
ort
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
12 c
oh
ort
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
12 c
oh
ort
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0%
50%
100%
Attrition Continuation CompletionYear 4 Status:
✓
Page 61 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Post-graduation Employment UNDERGRADUATE
UNH PSU KSC GSC
Notes
* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom first-destination outcomes are known based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.
For cohort size, GSC reports 5 cohorts combined, 1-5 years post-graduation; year-to-year results overlap graduating classes. UNH reports ~ 5-6 months post-graduation. KSC and PSU report 1 year post-graduation.
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs
Year
Graduated
Employed
or Enrolled
in Graduate
Education Employed
Of Those
Employed
− in Field of
Study
Survey
Response
Rate
UNH 2019 96% 78% 88% 40% 40%
2018 95% 74% 88% 45% 45%
2017 92% 76% 87% 37% 37%
2016 93% 80% 76% 34% 34%
PSU 2019 94% 90% 81% 15% 15%
2018 96% 91% 81% 14% 14%
2017 96% 95% 79% 16% 16%
2016 96% 91% 65% 15% 17%
2015 97% 91% 75% 28% 29%
KSC 2018 98% 86% 86% 14% 25%
2017 98% 90% 87% 14% 22%
2016 94% 88% 76% 19% 30%
2015 95% 89% 75% 33% 53%
2014 97% 92% 77% 17% 34%
GSC 2015-2019 96% 94% n/a 6% 6%
2014-2018 91% 90% 72% 31% 31%
2013-2017 92% 90% 76% 25% 25%
2012-2016 91% 89% 84% 22% 22%
2011-2015 94% 93% 57% 30% 30%
Survey
Respondents
as Percent of
Graduated
Class
Survey / Knowledge Rate *
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AY16 17 18 19
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AY15 16 17 18 19
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AY14 15 16 17 18
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AY11-15 12-16 13-17 14-18 15-19
50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
100%
2011-15 12-16 13-17 14-18
Employed or Enrolled in Graduate Education
Employed
Of Those Employed − in Field of Study
50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
100%
2011-15 12-16 13-17 14-18
Employed or Enrolled in Graduate Education
Employed
Of Those Employed − in Field of Study
Page 62 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Post-graduation Employment GRADUATE
Metric reported every three years; next update 2020 data in 2021 report
UNH PSU KSC GSC
Notes
* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom first-destination outcomes are known based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.
Survey results reported every three years.
PSU alumni include completers of CAGS and EdD (certificate of advanced graduate studies, doctor of education).
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs
Year(s)
Graduated
Number
of Years
Postgrad
Employed
or Enrolled
in Graduate
Education Employed
Degree
Advanced
My Career
Goals
Respondents
as Percent of
Graduated
Class
Knowledge
/ Survey
Response
Rate
UNH 2017 1 95% 87% 88% 40% 47%
PSU 2013-2017 1–5 93% 97% na 15% 15%
2010-2014 1–5 96% 94% 80% 26% 37%
KSC 2013-2017 1–5 94% 94% 93% 24% 24%
2010-2014 1–5 94% 94% 92% 27% 29%
GSC 2013-2017 1–5 97% 97% 90% 37% 37%
2013-2014 1–2 95% 95% 80% 65% 65%
Survey / Knowledge Rates *
Master’s Program Alumni
2017
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Empl'd/Enrolled
Empl'd Adv'd Career
Empl'd/Enrolled
Empl'd
Survey Rates Knowledge Rates
2010–2014
2013–2017
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Empl'd/Enrolled
Empl'd Adv'd Career
2010–2014
2013–2017
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Empl'd/Enrolled
Empl'd Adv'd Career
2010–2014
2013–2017
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Empl'd/Enrolled
Empl'd Adv'd Career
Page 63 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Post-graduation Employment STUDENT LOAN 3-YEAR DEFAULT RATE
Chart scale varies, range is uniform
Notes
Peer rate = average rate of comparator group institutions
Source: US Department of Education and Federal Student Aid, National Student Loan Data System
Cohort
Repayment
3-Year Mark UNH Peer PSU Peer KSC Peer GSC Peer
FY15 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.8% 5.4% 11.4% 7.8%
FY16 2.1% 2.7% 3.5% 4.8% 3.9% 5.5% 14.6% 8.6%
FY17 2.2% 2.9% 5.0% 5.1% 3.9% 5.3% 12.3% 9.5%
FY18 2.3% 3.0% 4.3% 5.1% 4.6% 5.2% 11.3% 8.8%
FY19 2.2% 2.9% 4.9% 5.8% 3.7% 5.6% 9.7% 8.6%
Target Cap
FY20 2.6% 5.2% 3.9% 11.5%
FY15 2.5% 5.0% 5.2% 10.0%
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
FY15 16 17 18 19
UNH Peer
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
FY15 16 17 18 19
PSU Peer
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
FY15 16 17 18 19
KSC Peer
5.0%
7.5%
10.0%
12.5%
15.0%
FY15 16 17 18 19
GSC Peer
✓ ✓ ✓
Page 64 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Engagement and Satisfaction UNDERGRADUATE
Due to the cost of survey administration, results are reported by institution on a rotating basis.
ATTACHED: KSC National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results
GSC Priority Survey for Online Learners results
GRADUATE
Metric reported every three years; next update 2020 data in 2021 report
Notes
* PSU, KSC, GSC rates reflect survey responses. UNH reflects knowledge rates. Knowledge rates are the percentages of graduates for whom satisfaction rates are based on verifiable sources, including but not limited to survey results.
Survey results reported every three years.
PSU alumni include completers of CAGS and EdD (certificate of advanced graduate studies, doctor of education).
Sources: UNH, PSU, KSC Institutional Research; GSC Academic Affairs
Year(s)
Graduated
Number
of Years
Postgrad
Percent of
Respondents
Who Were
Satisfied
Respondents
as Percent of
Graduated
Class
Knowledge
/ Survey
Response
Rate
UNH 2017 1 90% 40% 47%
PSU 2013-2017 1–5 98% 26% 26%
2010-2014 1–5 94% 26% 36%
KSC 2013-2017 1–5 76% 24% 24%
2010-2014 1–5 96% 27% 29%
GSC 2013-2017 1–5 100% 37% 37%
2013-2014 1–2 95% 66% 66%
Master’s Program Alumni
Satisfaction Rates
20
17
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
17
20
10–2
014
20
17
20
10–2
014
20
17
20
10–2
014
UNH PSU KSC GSC
Page 65 of 110
Academic Challenge: First-year students
Mean Comparisons
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning *** ***
Reflective & Integrative Learning *** ***
Learning Strategies *** *** ***
Quantitative Reasoning
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.
The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.
-.08Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard
deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).
Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning
Quantitative ReasoningLearning Strategies
26.6 26.7 -.01 27.1 -.04 27.8
-.22
33.0 36.7 -.28 37.4 -.32 38.1 -.37
32.6 32.8 -.02 35.5 -.25 35.2
Effect
size
34.2 35.5 -.11 37.5 -.27 38.0 -.29
Mean Mean
Effect
size Mean
Effect
size Mean
Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote
student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are
part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.
Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
KSCYour first-year students compared with
Regional Comparators IPEDS Custom Comps NSSE 2018 & 2019
NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge
Keene State College
0
15
30
45
60
KSC RegionalComparators
IPEDS CustomComps
NSSE 2018 & 2019
0
15
30
45
60
KSC RegionalComparators
IPEDS CustomComps
NSSE 2018 & 2019
0
15
30
45
60
KSC RegionalComparators
IPEDS CustomComps
NSSE 2018 & 2019
0
15
30
45
60
KSC RegionalComparators
IPEDS CustomComps
NSSE 2018 & 2019
Page 66 of 110
Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)
Performance on Indicator Items
Higher-Order Learning
%
4b. 63
4c. 57
4d. 64
4e. 58
Reflective & Integrative Learning
2a. 46
2b. 47
41
2d. 53
64
2f. 65
2g. 67
Learning Strategies
9a. 64
9b. 53
9c. 51
Quantitative Reasoning
42
40
6c. 35
Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your
Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not
display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
6b.Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,
climate change, public health, etc.)
+2 -3 -4
6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,
graphs, statistics, etc.)-7 -7 -10
+3 +1 +0
Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
-8 -9 -12
-9 -13 -11
-12 -10 -13
Identified key information from reading assignments
Reviewed your notes after class
Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials
-6 -11 -11
2e.Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his
or her perspective
+4 -1 -2Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept
Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge
-1 -7 -6
2c.Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course
discussions or assignments
+1 -6 -5
-4 -14 -10
-5 -12 -11
Connected your learning to societal problems or issues
Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations
Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source
-0 -7 -6
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
-6 -11 -11Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information
Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments
-2 -8 -6
-1 -5 -8
-13 -13-6
Regional
Comparators
IPEDS Custom
Comps
NSSE 2018 &
2019
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…
NSSE 2019 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge
Keene State College
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your
students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the
comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point difference a between your FY students and
KSC
2 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS Page 67 of 110
Priority Survey for Online Learners - 2019 This report provides a look at the percentage of responses that indicated an answer of 6 or 7 to the items in the survey: 6 is considered "important" or "satisfied" and 7 is considered "very important" or "very satisfied." Survey sent to GSC students who had completed at least one course in the past four terms. 672 total students responded (27%). The comparator group includes approximately 119K students from 175 institutions. Key: Import = Importance. Sat = Satisfaction. Gap is the difference between importance and satisfaction. Diff in Sat is the difference between satisfaction at GSC vs. the comparator group. A positive number indicates that GSC students are more satisfied than the comparator group. GSC Total- UG and GRAD
(n=672) Total Comparator Group (n=119,112)
GSC UG Only (n=558)
Item Import Sat Gap Diff in Sat
Import Sat Gap Import Sat Gap Diff in Sat
1. This institution has a good reputation.
88% 76% 6% 1% 88% 75% 13% 83% 77% 5% 2%
2. My program advisor is accessible by telephone and e-mail.
92% 88% 4% 10% 89% 78% 11% 92% 89% 3% 11%
3. Instructional materials are appropriate for program content.
93% 75% 18% 1% 94% 74% 20% 92% 75% 17% 1%
4. Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress.
92% 68% 24% -3% 93% 71% 22% 91% 68% 24% -3%
5. My program advisor helps me work toward career goals.
85% 75% 10% 9% 83% 66% 17% 86% 77% 9% 11%
6. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.
90% 72% 18% 4% 91% 68% 23% 91% 73% 18% 5%
7. Program requirements are clear and reasonable.
93% 76% 17% 1% 93% 75% 18% 93% 76% 16% 1%
8. Student-to-student collaborations are valuable to me.
42% 56% -14% 0% 49% 56% -7% 42% 56% -14% 0%
9. Adequate financial aid is available.
86% 75% 11% 7% 87% 68% 19% 87% 76% 11% 8%
10. This institution responds quickly when I request information.
93% 86% 7% 10% 92% 76% 16% 94% 87% 7% 11%
11. Student assignments are clearly defined in the syllabus.
94% 71% 23% -4% 94% 75% 19% 94% 72% 22% -3%
12. There are sufficient offerings within my program of study.
91% 74% 17% 0% 91% 74% 17% 91% 74% 17% 0%
13. The frequency of student and instructor interactions is adequate.
87% 72% 15% 0% 86% 72% 14% 88% 72% 16% 0%
14. I receive timely information on the availability of financial aid.
86% 79% 7% 8% 87% 71% 16% 87% 80% 8% 9%
15. Channels are available for providing timely responses to student complaints.
83% 64% 19% -1% 83% 65% 18% 83% 65% 18% 0%
16. Appropriate technical assistance is readily available.
86% 80% 6% 1% 89% 79% 10% 86% 81% 4% 2%
17. Assessment and evaluation procedures are clear and reasonable.
90% 78% 12% 1% 91% 77% 14% 90% 79% 11% 2%
18. Registration for online courses is convenient.
92% 88% 4% 2% 94% 86% 8% 93% 89% 3% 3%
Page 68 of 110
19. Online career services are available.
76% 72% 4% 4% 78% 68% 10% 78% 73% 5% 5%
20. The quality of online instruction is excellent.
95% 70% 25% 0% 94% 70% 24% 95% 71% 24% 1%
21. Adequate online library resources are provided.
89% 80% 9% 0% 90% 80% 10% 88% 80% 8% 0%
22. I am aware of whom to contact for questions about programs and services.
89% 79% 10% 5% 89% 74% 15% 90% 80% 9% 6%
23. Billing and payment procedures are convenient for me.
90% 84% 6% 3% 90% 81% 9% 89% 83% 6% 2%
24. Tutoring services are readily available for online courses.
75% 65% 10% -2% 78% 67% 11% 76% 67% 10% 0%
25. Faculty are responsive to student needs.
95% 78% 17% 3% 94% 75% 19% 95% 78% 16% 3%
26. The bookstore provides timely service to students.
84% 76% 8% -2% 84% 78% 6% 85% 77% 7% -1%
*Campus items below are specific to GSC and therefore have no comparator data. GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only
Import Sat Gap Import Sat Gap 27. Campus item*: I am able to find the information and resources that I need on the College’s main websites.
90% 78% 12% 90% 79% 11%
28. Campus item: Credit for learning gained from life/work experience as a factor to enroll.
86% 65% 21% 87% 66% 20%
29. Campus item: The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
95% 78% 17% 95% 78% 17%
30. Campus item: My studies are closely related to my life and work goals.
93% 81% 12% 92% 80% 12%
31. Campus item: I am evaluated on the knowledge and skills I’ll need in my career.
91% 73% 18% 91% 72% 18%
32. Campus item: This institution initiates many opportunities for me to connect with adult learners.
72% 67% 5% 72% 67% 4%
33. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my abilities in communication.
81% 79% 2% 82% 81% 1%
34. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my abilities to think critically and comprehensively.
88% 81% 7% 88% 82% 6%
35. Campus item: My experience at GSC has improved my ability to apply knowledge to workplace and community.
90% 82% 8% 90% 82% 7%
36. Campus item: My experience at GSC has helped me gain specialized knowledge.
90% 78% 12% 89% 78% 12%
For the items below, Diff in import is difference in importance between GSC and comparators. A positive number indicates GSC students find the item more important than comparators. GSC Total- UG and GRAD (n=672) Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only (n=558) Information sources in decision to enroll Percent Rated Highly Diff in
import Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Diff in
import 37. Source of information: Catalog and brochures (printed)
59% 4% 55% 61% 6%
38. Source of information: Catalog (online)
84% 2% 82% 84% 2%
39. Source of information: College representatives
69% 1% 68% 71% 3%
40. Source of information: Web site 91% 2% 89% 92% 3%
Page 69 of 110
41. Source of information: Advertisements
36% -8% 44% 37% -7%
42. Source of information: Recommendation from instructor or program advisor
76% -1% 77% 7% 0%
43. Source of information: Contact with current students and / or recent graduates of the program
48% -12% 60% 50% -10%
GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only Factors in decision to enroll Percent Rated Highly Diff in
import Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Diff in
import 44. Factor to enroll: Ability to transfer credits
89% 6% 83% 92% 9%
45. Factor to enroll: Cost
87% 3% 84% 88% 4%
46. Factor to enroll: Financial assistance available
80% -3% 83% 81% -2%
47. Factor to enroll: Future employment opportunities
80% -1% 81% 81% 0%
48. Factor to enroll: Reputation of institution
75% -9% 84% 76% -8%
49. Factor to enroll: Work schedule 94% 3% 91% 93% 2% 50. Factor to enroll: Flexible pacing for completing a program
93% 2% 91% 93% 2%
51. Factor to enroll: Convenience
96% 2% 94% 96% 2%
52. Factor to enroll: Distance from campus
58% -4% 62% 60% -2%
53. Factor to enroll: Program requirements
82% -4% 86% 85% -1%
54. Factor to enroll: Recommendations from employer
55% -4% 59% 54% -5%
GSC Total- UG and GRAD Total Comparator Group GSC UG Only Summary Items Percent Rated Highly Gap Percent Rated Highly Percent Rated Highly Gap So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?
42% 2% 40% 42% 2%
*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Quite a bit better than I expected,” or “Much better than expected.” Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far.
76% 4% 72% 77% 5%
*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Satisfied,” or “Very satisfied.” All in all, if you had to do it over again, would you enroll here again?
79% 5% 74% 80% 6%
*This item indicates percentage of respondents who answered, “Probably yes,” or “Definitely yes.”
Page 70 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes PROFESSIONAL EXAM PASS RATES
All rates reflect first exam attempt. Caution is advised when interpreting USNH rates as many are based on small numbers of test takers.
— Not available or not applicable for given year. (Rates for Recreation Management & Policy have a one-year lag.) *Two test takers, neither passed. **CSD pass rate may not include all students who took the exam this year due to COVID-19 reporting delay. Education rates: All program completer's first PRAXIS II exam, summary pass rate as calculated by ETS for Title II. | Family Studies rates: PRAXIS. Nursing rates: NCLEX (National Council Licensing Exam) as reported by NH Board of Nursing. CHHS: College of Health & Human Services | COLA: College of Liberal Arts | SOL: School of Law | Source: Campus Academic Affairs
Comparison rates are national except for Education and Law, which compare to NH average.
Note: Charts omitted for UNH Family Studies due to gaps in data and Communications Sciences & Disorders for which UNH pass rates are 100% in each year.
US Rate US Rate US Rate US Rate
NH Rate
(Ed & Law)
NH Rate
(Ed & Law)
NH Rate
(Ed & Law)
NH Rate
(Ed & Law)
UNH CHHS: Athletic Training/Kinesiology (BS) 55 81 79 85 50 81 69 77
CHHS: Communications Sciences & Disorders 100 90 100 85 100 82 100** 88
CHHS: Family Studies (Marriage/Family Therapy) 100 — — — 100 90 100 90
CHHS: Nursing (BS) 93 85 100 87 98 88 98 88
CHHS: Nursing (Direct Entry Master’s) 95 85 94 87 100 92 100 88
CHHS: Occupational Therapy 97 87 97 98 98 71 98 73
CHHS: Recreation Management & Policy 98 85 98 84 95 87 — —
COLA: Education 91 83 91 84 85 88 92 89
SOL: Law (American Bar Association) 74 73 92 76 84 56 89 68
PSU Athletic Training (BS) 0 * 81 83 85 100 81 100 77
Athletic Training (MS) 0 * 91 100 91 67 87 100 81
Counselor Education 100 84 100 82 100 — 98 84
Education 84 83 81 84 83 88 83 89
Nursing (BS) 95 85 80 87 100 88 100 88
KSC Athletic Training 86 81 100 85 100 81 — —
Education 71 83 72 84 95 88 98 89
Nursing (BS) 63 85 78 92 88 88 100 88
Registered Dietitian Undergrad — — 89 71 100 95 100 93.5
Registered Dietitian Internship Post-undergrad 93 85 87.5 85 88 85 94.5 92
GSC Education 94 83 97 84 96 88 85 89
2016 2017 2018 2019
USNH
Institution
Rate
USNH
Institution
Rate
USNH
Institution
Rate
USNH
Institution
Rate
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
AthTrainingBSRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
OccTherapyRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
RecMgmtRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
NursingBSRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
NursingMSRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
EducationRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
LawRate
UNH
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
AthTrainingBSRate
PSU
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
AthTrainingMSRate
PSU
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
NursingBSRate
PSU
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
CounselorEdRate
PSU
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
EducationRate
PSU
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
AthTrainingBSRate
KSC
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
DietitianRate
KSC
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
Diet InternRate
KSC
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
NursingBSRate
KSC
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
EducationRate
KSC
0
50
100
2016 17 18 19
EducationRate
GSC
Page 71 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes
LEARNING ASSESSMENT
ATTACHED: UNH Capstone and Collegiate Learning Assessment PSU General Education “Habits of Mind” Assessment KSC Collegewide Learning Outcomes, Integrative Studies Assessment, Survey Findings GSC Student Learning Outcomes
Page 72 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes
LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Granite State College
Executive Summary
Granite State College is institutionalizing an assessment process to provide data across the student lifespan on multiple direct measures of learning. This data is regularly informing curricular improvements and student support systems at the college. Over the past two years, there have been over 12,000 individual assessments of student learning in multiple sections of undergraduate general education, major, and capstone courses. From Fall 2018 through Winter 2020, 1,785 unique students produced work that was assessed relative to the learning outcomes associated with their course(s). These results have been used to improve learning experiences and academic supports for students, inform decisions about changes to undergraduate majors and programs, and offer a roadmap for improvements to all our educational programs. In addition to the work in the undergraduate area, there have been ongoing assessments of each GSC graduate student’s ability to demonstrate professional competencies. During this academic year, analysis of these results helped to guide curriculum changes following program reviews. This year, we made significant progress on the four goals set forth in last year’s update, namely:
1. Revise general education courses and implement assessment protocols in all remaining general education courses as per the recent General Education program review.
2. Implement the signature Assignment/Embedded Assessment design throughout the General Education, Program, and Capstone levels of two academic programs.
3. Continue to review data from redesigned courses and graduate e-portfolio assessments and implement needed changes to curriculum, pedagogy, and/or student support programs.
4. Develop methods for connecting student learning outcome data with other data about student success.
These four initiatives are further described below. Expansion of Assessment Work
At GSC, students demonstrate their growing knowledge, skills, and abilities by completing signature assignments incorporated into courses. Faculty then provide students feedback through regular grading processes, but they also assess students on associated learning outcomes and competencies. Since 2017, faculty have been building signature assignments in general education and capstone courses and this year, began incorporating these opportunities into program courses (courses in the major). Growth in participation in the learning outcomes assessment process has increased in terms of the numbers of courses, sections, faculty, and students, as well as the total number of individual competency assessments conducted.
Page 73 of 110
Implementation in BS Health Care Management and BS Allied Health Leadership
Incorporation of student learning outcomes assessment has occurred throughout the curriculum in two undergraduate academic programs this year. As a result of the work of the faculty in these two programs, 66 students were assessed at the program level on the Specialized Knowledge institutional outcome, which measures students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge and skills in their major field of study.
Transparency of Data and Use for Improvement
Data gathered through learning outcomes assessment is only valuable to the degree that it is used to inform students about their growth and to initiate improvements to curriculum and student support services. Toward that end, GSC has been working on creating data dashboards in several formats, to make the results of student learning more transparent and actionable for relevant audiences. In our assessment protocols, there are increasing levels of achievement students are expected to demonstrate to meet proficiency at each course level (General Education, Program, and Capstone). This results in fewer students reaching proficiency as the rigor increases at each course level. As Figure 1 illustrates, 90% of students demonstrate the expected level of proficiency in general education courses, 80% do so in the program-level courses, and only 75% do so in capstone courses. While almost all students in Capstone courses successfully completed the class and almost all students performed at Program Level Proficiency or above, such trends in the learning outcomes data reinforce the need for greater support to ensure that all students will be able to reach the highest levels of performance. Some support is provided, but more on-demand assistance, particularly for academic research and writing, is being developed by faculty for use across the curriculum.
Figure 1: Proficiency by Course Type
Matrices, like the sample in Figure 2, enable faculty members to look at the learning outcomes included in the course(s) they teach and facilitate a conversation with colleagues about how to interpret the results and use them in future course planning. All faculty who teach a particular course are invited to participate in a two-hour workshop where they complete the matrix for the outcomes associated with the course and discuss needed improvements with the program director and/or faculty lead for the course. This year, reflection on course-level data resulted in changes to course design, assignment expectations, and student support resources.
Page 74 of 110
Figure 2: Sample Learning Matrix
Further Research & Benchmarking It is a continuing goal of the learning assessment program to validate the data GSC is collecting through comparisons to national benchmarks and/or other internal data sources. This year, we used publicly available data from the VALUE Institute and the Multi-State Collaborative to compare GSC students’ performance on specific competencies to the student outcomes assessed by these two national studies. Figure 3 shows typical results of these comparisons: GSC students were generally assessed at a higher level of performance when compared to this national benchmark data. Benchmarking GSC assessment data in this way and, eventually, through direct submissions of student work to the VALUE Institute, will help to validate both the process and product of our assessment efforts.
Page 75 of 110
Figure 3: GSC Data Compared to Similar Competency Data from Multi-State Collaborative and VALUE Institute
This year, GSC also had the opportunity to present some of the assessment work to colleagues through the New England Educational Network Fall Forum, an invited poster session at the annual NECHE conference, and the New England Assessment Conference. Feedback from presentation participants has contributed to ongoing improvement of our assessment program.
Future Learning Assessment Plans
In AY 2020-2021 we intend to complete the following components of this multi-year curriculum re-design and assessment project:
1) Further standardize faculty training and development protocols for student learning outcome
assessment in the undergraduate and graduate programs; 2) Implement the Signature Assignment/Embedded Assessment design throughout the General
Education, Program, and Capstone levels of half of the undergraduate academic majors; 3) Continue to create greater transparency of assessment data for specific audiences:
a. Faculty/staff: Developing data analysis and visualizations of undergraduate assessment results by major to facilitate use in program reviews;
b. Accreditors and other external stakeholders: Creating data visualizations of institutional outcomes that can be easily updated and made available on the GSC website;
c. Students: Partnering with faculty members and advising staff to empower students with information about the goals and results of learning outcome assessment.
4) Implement recommended improvements to curriculum, pedagogy, and/or student support that result from analysis of assessment results;
5) Develop a data warehouse linking student learning outcomes data with other variables associated with student achievement and the learning environment, allowing us to seek opportunities to conduct further evaluation and public scholarship on the assessment work being conducted at GSC.
Page 76 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes
LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Keene State College
Prepared by Kim Schmidl-Gagne, Program Manager for Diversity and Multiculturalism Initiatives/NEASC and George Smeaton, Director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research
National Survey of Student Engagement Overall Findings Administered every three years to freshmen and senior students, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) assesses student involvement in high-impact educational practices found to promote learning, foster retention, and speed degree completion. KSC administered the full NSSE survey and the Civic Engagement supplementary module in April 2019. In addition, for the first time, KSC administered the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement and its Civic Engagement module. FSSE asks faculty parallel questions to those asked of students by the NSSE survey. Administering the two surveys will enable KSC to determine if there are discrepancies in student and faculty perceptions regarding student participation in high-impact educational practices and in Civic Engagement skills and involvement. Results from the 2019 survey will be available in August and will be shared with the USNH at that time. Key findings from the 2019 administration of the survey are as follows. Engagement Indicators First-Year Student Findings. KSC first-year students scored significantly lower than regional comparators in engaging in discussions with diverse others. They did not statistically differ with comparators in measures of academic challenge, experiences with faculty, and perceptions of the overall campus environment. Senior Student Findings. KSC seniors had significantly higher scores than comparator institution students in Reflective & Integrative Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction, Effective Teaching Practices, and the perception of a supportive campus environment. KSC seniors did not significantly differ from peers in the use of effective Learning Strategies and Quantitative Reasoning. High-Impact Practices First-Year Student Findings. First-year KSC students were significantly more likely to have engaged in research with a faculty member than were regional comparator institution students. They did not statistically differ from comparators in participation in service Learning or taking part in a learning community. Senior Student Findings. KSC seniors were significantly more likely than comparators engage in service learning, complete an internship or field experience, study abroad, and participate in a culminating senior experience. Further, they were significantly more likely to have participated in at least one high-impact practice, and to have participated in two or more of them. They did not differ from comparators in being part of a learning community or conducting research with a faculty member. Graduating Student Survey Findings Each year, a satisfaction survey is attached to the form students use to register for Commencement. Typically, the response rate to this survey is in excess of 90%. Findings from the 2020 survey relating to academic quality include the following.
• 91% of graduates agreed or strongly agreed that their academic program challenged them to do their very best.
• 82% agreed or strongly agreed that KSC has provided the assistance I need to succeed academically.
• 87% indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with their KSC education.
• 82% would recommend KSC to friends or siblings as a good place to go to college.
Page 77 of 110
Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — KSC, continued
College-Wide Learning Outcomes (CWLO) Assessment
All Keene State College students gain proficiency in the content of their own major, and they learn academic, career, communication and interpersonal skills to prepare them to pursue meaningful work.
Regardless of major, by the time Keene State College students complete their undergraduate experience they develop critical thinking, creative inquiry, intercultural competence, civic engagement, and commitment to well-being that will serve them as active citizens and lifelong learners. Keene State College students will achieve each of the following College-Wide Learning Outcomes (CWLOs): Critical thinking, Creative Inquiry, Intercultural Competence, Civic Engagement, Commitment to Well-Being, and Sustainability.
Assessment rubrics have been formulated for each CWLO and are being piloted in a variety of academic and co-curricular settings including the College’s Academic Excellence Conference. In addition, an assessment test was developed to assess the newest outcome, Sustainability. This test will be administered to incoming students and seniors in the coming academic year.
Civic Engagement.
Civic Engagement was the only CWLO for which new data was collected during the 2019-2020 academic year. Assessment of KSC student achievement of this CWLO was conducted using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement’s (NSSE) supplementary Civic Engagement module and from responses to the Graduating Senior Survey.
NSSE’s Civic Engagement Topical Module. In addition to the standard portion of the NSSE, KSC administers the supplementary Civic Engagement topical module as a means of assessing the Civic Engagement CWLO. In 2019, our freshmen scored significantly higher than our comparator institutions in voting in campus, local, state, or national elections. However, they scored significantly lower in
• Discussing state, national, or global issues with others
• Being encouraged to address important social, economic, or political issues in class discussions
• Being informed about campus or local issues
Seniors in 2019 scored significantly higher than seniors from comparator institutions in
• Agreement that KSC emphasizes o Discussing important social, economic, or political issues with others o Organizing activities focused on important social, economic, or political issues o Being an informed and active citizen o Being involved in an organization or group focused on important social, economic, or political issues o Encouraging free speech and expression o Voting in campus, local, state, or national elections
• Agreement that KSC encourages addressing important social, economic, or political issues o In course assignments o In course discussion o Outside of class
• Informing themselves about campus or local issues
• Informing themselves about state, national, or global issues
• Discussing local or campus issues with others
• Discussing state, national, or global issues with others
• Raising awareness about campus or local issues
• Raised awareness about state, national, or global issues
• Asking others to address campus or local issues
• Organizing others to work on campus or local issues
Graduating Student Survey Findings
Findings from the 2020 Graduating Student Survey relating to Civic Engagement include the following.
• Half of graduates indicated that they were satisfied or extremely satisfied with KSC’s civic engagement/community service opportunities.
• 35 graduates provided specific examples of classes, assignments, our outside-of-class experiences that helped them achieve the Civic Engagement CWLO
Page 78 of 110
Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — KSC, continued
Integrative Studies Program (ISP) Assessment
KSC’s ISP program is designed to foster in our students the capacity to integrate learning within the curriculum, between the curriculum and the co-curriculum, and with communities beyond the classroom. Integrative learning is both a framework for teaching and learning in all ISP courses and a summative learning outcome for the program. Keene State College students will achieve each of the following ISP outcomes: Integrative Learning, Critical Thinking Creative Thinking, Writing, Quantitative Literacy, and Information Literacy.
In 2016, the ISP director and ISP Committee collaborated with the director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research to formulate a four-year schedule for assessing each of the outcomes of the ISP. As of the 2019-20 academic year, all ISP outcomes have been assessed. A Formal report on the results of outcome assessment was prepared by the Director for Institutional Effectiveness and Institutional Research, which was shared with the Director of the ISP, and the campus community.
Key findings and recommendations from the report are as follows:
• Critical Thinking. Critical thinking skills of KSC students are below the level expected based upon their SAT scores. Additional assessment using rubric scoring of student artifacts recommended.
• Writing. After completing one writing course (Integrated TW), 25% of KSC students demonstrated ISP Writing outcome achievement. This indicates that students acquire a solid writing foundation in ITW, but further development of writing skills from subsequent courses is required for nearly all students.
• Quantitative Literacy. Between 25% and 50% of the students completing the College’s Quantitative Literacy Exam achieved satisfactory-level performance on the test’s subscales.
• Information Literacy. KSC students IL proficiency is largely in the College-Ready range, a finding comparable to results from peer institutions.
• Integrative Learning. After completing the II course requirement of the ISP, 21% of the students demonstrated satisfactory outcome achievement in both dimensions of Integrative Learning. The findings indicate that this single course requirement is insufficient in enabling students to achieve this ISP outcome.
• Creative Thinking. After completing only one course in graphic design, almost no students exhibited senior-level performance in any of the dimensions. The findings suggest that a single course in a creative discipline is insufficient in enabling students to achieve this ISP outcome.
Funding for Assessment. Up to $30,000 is available each year for assessment grants. Over the past three years, $74,283 in assessment grant funding was awarded to support 45 assessment projects—an average of $1,651 per funded project. Assessment grants are intended to support innovation in assessment at the program level, not to fund routine assessment activities.
Page 79 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE,25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes
LEARNING ASSESSMENT — Plymouth State University
The university decided to discontinue administration of the CLA+ in July of 2019. Despite significant effort, PSU was unable to obtain a representative sample of 100+ students, thus providing unreliable results. Instead, the university is now utilizing assessment of the General Education program to determine student growth in the areas of purposeful communication, problem solving, integrated perspective, and self-regulated learning, which PSU calls the “Habits of Mind.” Assessment of the General Education program is focused on two classes in the program: IS1115 (Tackling a Wicked Problem or TWP) and IS4220 (Signature Project). These two classes form “bookends” to the General Education program. All first-year students are required to take IS1115, and IS4220 is the pilot course for a new General Education capstone (INCAP) starting in Fall 2020 to be required of all students in their junior or senior year. All sections of IS1115 and IS4220 incorporate a common assignment, which will allow PSU to compare the percentage of students at each Habit of Mind level of achievement in the first year with the percentage at each level of achievement in the INCAP. There are four levels of achievement: pre-basecamp, basecamp, climbing, and summit. The expectation is that most first year students will be at the basecamp level and most INCAP students will be at the summit level. If the assessment findings differ from this, PSU will investigate and implement appropriate changes. The methodology allows the university to interpret assessment findings and then take actions to improve student learning each academic year, while maintaining the ability to measure student growth from first year to capstone from a cohort standpoint. First-year students: IS1115 in Fall 2019 Sample size: 242 Population size: 864
Habit of Mind Pre-Basecamp Basecamp Climbing Summit
Purposeful Communication
28% 64% 8% 0%
Problem
Solving 24% 69% 7% 0%
Integrated Perspective
31% 63% 6% 0%
Self-Regulated Learning
36% 51% 13% 0%
Summary
Results 30% 62% 8% 0%
Note: Due to COVID-19, the university did not assess IS1115 in Spring 2020. The majority (82%) of students who took IS1115 in AY20 did so in Fall 2019. The INCAP course, IS4220, will be offered in Fall 2020.
Page 80 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Student Learning Outcomes
LEARNING ASSESSMENT — University of New Hampshire
Capstone and National-level Assessment
The overall student learning outcome for an undergraduate student is reflected in and determined by successful completion of a capstone. Every academic program has a required capstone. Every capstone has five components:
• Demonstrated ability to define, analyze, and research a problem;
• Demonstrated ability to evaluate, analyze, and synthesize data;
• Demonstrated ability to transfer that data and analysis to a new situation or context;
• Demonstrated ability to communicate the answer in a way that is appropriate for the professional community defined by the major.
Each student capstone is designed by faculty in the major to measure disciplinary or professional learning outcomes; each is graded individually by faculty. Examples, rubrics, and summative data are archived in the Academic Assessment Inventory (AAI) and presented to NECHE every five years. NECHE requires that we demonstrate how summative data informs program improvement. A passing grade is a requirement for earning a BA, BS, or BSE degree. Hence, 100% of graduates complete this. The relative quality of student accomplishment is reflected in the assigned grade. This requirement aligns with recommendations by both the Degree Qualifications Profile and the AAC&U LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. In addition, UNH tracks other AAC&U-designated High Impact Practices. Finally, to be genuinely useful, data needs to be contextualized. We use the following regularly reported data to inform our assessment of student learning:
• Retention rates
• Completion rates
• Default rates
• Licensure passage rates, where applicable
• First Destination survey data
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data
• Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) data:
In 2013, the Council for Aid to Education expanded the scope of the CLA with the introduction of CLA+. This enhanced version of the examination provides useful and reliable information about educational growth at the student level as well as the institutional level. Other features new to CLA+ include sub-scores for scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical reading and evaluation, and critiquing an argument. The addition of mastery levels also supports the reporting of criterion-referenced results in relation to skill proficiency. CLA+ includes two major components: a Performance Task (PT) and a series of Selected-Response Questions (SRQs). The Performance Task presents students with a real-world situation that requires a purposeful written response. Students are asked to address an issue, propose the solution to a problem, or recommend a course of action to resolve a conflict. They are instructed to support their responses by utilizing information provided in a Document Library. This repository contains a variety of reference materials, such as technical reports, data tables, newspaper articles, office memoranda, and emails. A full PT includes four to nine documents in the library. Students have 60 minutes to complete this constructed-response task. In the second part of the examination, students are asked to answer 25 Selected Response Questions. Ten questions measure scientific and quantitative reasoning, ten measure critical reading and evaluation, and five measure students’ ability to critique an argument. CLA+ is a valuable tool that measures critical thinking and written communication skills of students in higher education.
Page 81 of 110
Student Learning Outcomes LEARNING ASSESSMENT — UNH, continued
Institutions use CLA+ to estimate institutional and individual student growth of these essential skills, measure the efficacy of curricular and other programs, and demonstrate individual, class, and institutional proficiency. CLA+ results give individual students an opportunity to better understand their strengths and areas for improvements in order to master the skills necessary for post-collegiate success. CLA+ Digital Badging gives students who are proficient and beyond an opportunity to communicate these skills directly to employers. CLA+ results are a tool to measure growth on these skills and determine how your institution compares to other colleges and universities using CLA+.
In fall 2017, we administered CLA+ to undeclared freshmen in the College of Liberal Arts. UNH has a freshman total CLA+ score of 1049; this score is greater than or equal to the average freshman score at 55% of CLA+ schools. A score of 1049 demonstrates basic mastery of the critical thinking and written-communication skills measured by CLA+. We plan to administer the CLA+ to a sample of still-in-residence graduating seniors during the spring 2021 semester. (These are among the same students who completed the CLA+ as first-year students in fall 2017.) The cohort was part of a recently initiated program designed to promote undeclared students’ academic success and to guide them as they selected a major. We wanted to assess longitudinally the impact of the program by means of the CLA+.
Page 82 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Granite State College
State Approval
Program
Approving Body
Approval Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Educator Preparation: Initial
General Special Ed General Special Ed & Elem Ed Early Childhood Special Ed Early Childhood Math Grades 5-8 Secondary Math Grades 7-12 Ed
Technology Integrator Blind & Visually Impaired Teaching Deaf & Hard of Hearing Teaching
Advanced Specific Learning Disabilities Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities Intellectual & Developmental
Disabilities Reading & Writing Specialist Reading & Writing Teacher Education Technology Integrator
NH State Board of Education Continued - NO conditions
n/a 2011 April 2021
Note: GSC offers a nursing RN to BSN program, which does not require NH Board of Nursing approval as does an RN licensure program.
National Accreditation
Program
Accrediting Body
Accreditation Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Nursing RN-BSN Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Continued accreditation - NO conditions
Annual report 2019 Fall 2029
Nursing MS: Nursing Health Care Leadership
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Initial accreditation - NO conditions
Annual report with additional progress report due June 2021
2019 Fall 2024
Project Management MS Project Management Institute, Global Accreditation Certification
Initial accreditation - NO conditions
Annual report 2015 2022
Educator Preparation: General Special Education Elementary Education Early Childhood Early Childhood Special Ed Math Grades 5-8 Secondary Math Grades 7-12 Reading & Writing Specialist Reading & Writing Teacher Specific Learning Disabilities Intellectual & Developmental
Disabilities Emotional & Behavioral Disabilities
Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation
Initial accreditation - NO conditions
Annual report 2016 2023
Page 83 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Keene State College
State Approval
Program Approving Body Approval Status Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Educator Preparation: Initial
Early Childhood Elementary Ed English Mathematics Modern Languages Sciences Social Studies Dance Education Music Education Physical Education
Advanced Curriculum & Instruction Educational Leadership School Counselor Special Education
NH State Board of Education Continued – NO conditions
Complete NH Department of Education annual report in August.
Spring 2014
Spring 2021
Nursing BS NH Board of Nursing Approved – NO conditions
2019 Spring 2023
National Accreditation
Program Accrediting Body Accreditation Status Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Chemistry American Chemical Society Continued – NO Conditions
n/a 2013 Spring 2021
Educator Preparation: Initial
Early Childhood Elementary Ed English Mathematics Modern Languages Sciences Social Studies Music Education Physical Education
Advanced Curriculum & Instruction Educational Leadership Special Education
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
Continued – NO Conditions
Complete the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) annual report each year in April and report specifically on progress toward correcting areas for improvement cited in the action report. CAEP 2020 Annual Report was submitted in April 2020.
One-Year Good Cause Extension granted by CAEP on November 8, 2019. Dance Education and School Counselor Education voluntarily withdrawn from accreditation.
Spring 2014
Spring 2022
Public Health Nutrition DPD Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics
Continued – NO Conditions
Final ‘Program Assessment Report’ submitted and accepted March 2019. Next review delayed till Fall 2023
2018-19 2023
Public Health, Post-Baccalaureate Dietetic Internship
Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics
Continued – NO Conditions
Reviewed in 2019-2020; outcome pending 2013 2020
Music BA/BM National Assn of Schools of Music
Continued – NO Conditions
n/a 2012-13 2020-21
Nursing BS Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Continued – NO Conditions
n/a 2018 2028
Educator Preparation: Initial - Early Childhood
National Assn for the Education of Young Children
Continued – NO Conditions
n/a Fall 2018
2026
Educator Preparation: Initial - Elementary Ed
Assn for Childhood Education International Elementary Ed (ACEI)
Continued – WITH conditions
ACEI has discontinued its program review role, Program in transition to using CAEP Evidence Review Standard 1 (or State Program Review Option). Institution to submit response to conditions as part of CAEP Standard 1 submission in Summer 2021.
Spring 2018
Spring 2022
Page 84 of 110
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Keene State College
National Accreditation, continued
Program
Accrediting Body
Accreditation Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Educator Preparation: Initial - English
National Council of Teachers of English
Continued – NO conditions
n/a Spring 2018
Spring 2025
Educator Preparation: Initial - Math - Middle School
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Continued – NO Conditions
Nationally recognized after Response to Conditions report submitted and approved January 2020.
Fall 2018
Spring 2027
Educator Preparation: Initial - Math - Secondary
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Continued – NO conditions
n/a Spring 2018
Spring 2025
Educator Preparation: Initial - Modern Languages
American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages
Continued – NO Conditions
Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ March 2019; Nationally recognized; approved March 27, 2020
Spring 2018
Fall 2026
Educator Preparation: Initial - Physical Education
Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE)
Continued – WITH conditions
SHAPE has discontinued its program review role, Program in transition to using CAEP Evidence Review Standard 1 (or State Program Review Option). Institution to submit response to conditions as part of CAEP Standard 1 submission in Summer 2021.
Spring 2018
Spring 2022
Educator Preparation: Initial
Earth/Space Science Chemistry Life Sciences Middle Level Science Physics
National Science Teachers Assn
Continued – NO conditions
n/a Spring 2018
Spring 2025
Educator Preparation: Initial - Social Studies
National Council for the Social Studies
Continued – WITH conditions
‘Response to Conditions Report’ submitted March 2020.
Spring 2018
pending
Educator Preparation: Advanced - Educational
Leadership
Educational Leadership Constituent Council
Continued – NO Conditions
Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ February 2019. Nationally recognized; approved July 26, 2019.
Spring 2018
Fall 2026
Educator Preparation: Advanced - Special Education
Council for Exceptional Children Continued – NO Conditions
Submitted ‘Response to Conditions Report’ March 2019. Nationally recognized; approved July 29, 2019.
Spring 2018
Fall 2026
Page 85 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Plymouth State University
State Approval
Program Approving Body Approval Status Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Educator Preparation: Institution & programs
.
NH State Board of Education Approved – WITH conditions for four programs
Approved with no conditions for all programs except: Special Ed Admin, Library Media Specialist, School Superintendent, and School Principal (all of which hold national NCATE accreditation and conditional approval by NH Board of Education pending 2021 CAEP submission).
2018 2024
Nursing BS NH Board of Nursing Approved – NO conditions
Previously approved on probation. Full approval restored Oct. 2019. Review scheduled this fall as a follow up to full approval.
2019 Fall 2020
National Accreditation
Program Accrediting Body Accreditation Status Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Athletic Training – Professional Program (MS)
Council for Accreditation of Athletic Training Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2026
Business – Undergraduate: Accounting Business Administration Finance Management Marketing Sports Management
Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs
Continued – NO conditions
Previous conditions were addressed and report provided Sept. 2019.
2017 2027
Business – Graduate: MBA
Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs
Continued – NO conditions
2017 2027
Business – Graduate: MSA
Accreditation Council for Business Schools & Programs
Continued – NO conditions
2017 2027
Clinical Mental Health Counseling
Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2015 2022
Educator Preparation: Initial Teacher Preparation
Assn for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP)
Recognized – NO conditions
Recognition newly sought and obtained July 2019.
2019
2026
Educator Preparation: Advanced
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2014 2021
Educator Preparation: Initial Teacher Preparation Programs below are recognized by professional orgs as part of CAEP review
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)
Recognized – NO conditions
Taskstream accountability system and recruitment plan successfully resolved issues related to probationary recognition. CAEP recognition continued with no conditions May 2020.
2021 2024
Educator Preparation: Early Childhood Education
National Assn for the Education of Young Children
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2025
Educator Preparation: Elementary Ed (undergrad)
Assn for Childhood Education International
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2016 2024
Educator Preparation: English
National Council for Teachers of English
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2016 2025
Educator Preparation: English to Speakers of Other Languages
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2025
Educator Preparation: Health Education
Society of Health & School Educators
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2016 2025
Educator Preparation: General Special Ed
Council for Exceptional Children Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2016 2025
Educator Preparation: Math 5-8
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2021
Educator Preparation: Math 7-12
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2019 2021
Page 86 of 110
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: Plymouth State University National Accreditation, continued
Program Accrediting Body Accreditation Status Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
Educator Preparation: Physical Education
Society of Health & School Educators
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2025
Educator Preparation: School Library/Media Specialist
American Library Assn/American Assn of School Librarians
Recognized – NO Conditions
n/a 2017 2025
Educator Preparation: School Principal
Educational Leadership Constituent Council
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2013 2021
Educator Preparation: School Psychologist
National Assn of School Psychologists
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2016 2025
Educator Preparation: Social Studies
National Council for the Social Studies
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2017 2025
Educator Preparation: Superintendent
Educational Leadership Constituent Council
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2012 2021
School Counseling Council for Accreditation of Counseling & Related Educational Programs
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2015 2022
Nursing BS Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Recognized – NO conditions
n/a 2018 2028
Physical Therapy Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE)
Recognized – NO conditions
Full (first-time) accreditation decision issued May 2020.
2019 2025
Social Work Council on Social Work Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2015 2023
Page 87 of 110
USNH ACADEMIC QUALITY METRICS EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE, JUNE 25, 2020
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: University of New Hampshire
State Approval
College Program Approving Body
Approval Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
CEPS Chemistry BS American Chemical Society Continued – NO conditions
Review time frame (originally 2019-20) was changed while ACS moved to an online review format during AY 2019-20. Program will be reviewed between July and Dec. 2020.
2014-15 2020-21
CEPS Teacher Education: Math Education (undergrad
& grad included in Secondary Ed grad programs. No certification or NHBOE review at this level)
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
COLA Teacher Education: Early Childhood MEd
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
COLA Teacher Education: Early Childhood MEd, Special
Needs option Special Education MEd
NH State Board of Education
Continued – WITH conditions
Progress report due by August 13, 2020.
2019-20 2022-23
COLA Teacher Education: Music BM
NH State Board of Education
Continued – WITH conditions
Progress report due by August 13, 2020.
2019-20 2022-23
COLA Teacher Education:
Elementary MEd Secondary MEd, MAT
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2022-23
COLA Teacher Education: Educational Administration &
Supervision EdS
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
COLA Teacher Education:
Educational Administration & Supervision EdS - Principal & Special Ed Administrator
NH State Board of Education
Continued – WITH conditions
Progress report due by August 13, 2020.
2019-20 2022-23
CHHS Family Studies, P-3 Teacher Certification (undergrad)
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
CHHS Kinesiology/Pedagogy (undergrad)
NH State Board of Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
CHHS Nursing (undergrad) NH Board of Nursing Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2015-16 2020-21
National Accreditation
College Program
Accrediting Body
Accreditation Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
CEPS Engineering: Bioengineering, Chemical, Environmental, Mechanical
Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2017-18 2023-24
CEPS Engineering: Civil, Computer, Electrical
Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology
Continued – NO conditions
Previously accredited with conditions. Interim reports of corrective action were submitted July 2019 and Nov. 2019. Interim review Nov. 2019 found that issues were resolved. Official report shared with CEPS Feb. 2020 granting full accreditation with no conditions.
2019-20 2023-24
CEPS Computer Science: Computer Science BS Computer Science BS -
Bioinformatics
Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology - Computer Science Accreditation Board
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2014-15 2020-21
CEPS Computer Science (grad) External review Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2012-13 2022-23
CEPS Information Technology BS Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology – Computer Science Accreditation Board
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2014-15 2020-21
CEPS Engineering Physics Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology
Initial accreditation in process
To resubmit for accreditation, must submit a Request for Evaluation by Jan. 31 of the calendar year in which a visit is desired.
2017-18
Page 88 of 110
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: University of New Hampshire
National Accreditation, continued
College Program
Accrediting Body
Accreditation Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
COLA Music (undergrad & grad) Music Education (undergrad) (BM MUED)
National Assn of Schools of Music
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2012-13 2021-22
COLA Music BM (pre-teaching) National Association of Schools of Music
Continued – NO conditions
Final approval received Dec. 2019. Added degree program was provisionally approved until we had enough graduates to submit for final approval.
2012-13 2022-23
COLA Teacher Education: Elementary Ed MEd Secondary Ed MEd
Council for the Accred. of Educator Preparation
Continued – NO conditions
NOTE: UNH is not pursuing continued national accreditation through CAEP.
2013-14 n/a
CHHS Communication Sciences & Disorders
Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology & Speech Language Pathology
Continued – NO conditions
Previously accredited with conditions. Site visit Oct. 2019 found issues successfully resolved.
2019-20
2020-30
CHHS Family Studies, P-3 Teacher Certification (undergrad)
National Assn for Education of Young Children
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2026-27
CHHS Health Management & Policy (undergrad)
Assn of Univ. Programs in Health Administration – Undergraduate
Re-accreditation pending
Report submitted. Decision and next review date expected by end of June 2020.
2018-19 Pending
CHHS Kinesiology/Athletic Training (undergrad)
Joint Review Committee on Educational Programs in Athletic Training
Probation continued
Continued noncompliance with Standard 11. April 2020 Show Cause accepted and 1-year extension of probation granted. Progress Report and Action Plan due June 2020.
2017-18 2027-28
CHHS Kinesiology/Outdoor Education (undergrad & grad)
Assn for Experimental Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2018-19 2028-29
CHHS Marriage Family Therapy Commission of Accreditation for Marriage & Family Therapy Ed.
Continued – WITH conditions
Re-accreditation pending. Conditional stipulations met. Additional reporting submitted spring 2020; site visit scheduled for AY 2020-21. Everything is pushed back due to COVID-19, new date has not been set yet.
2013-14 2020-21
CHHS Nursing: Bachelor’s, master’s, doctor of nursing practice, post-graduate APRN certificate
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
Continued – NO conditions
CCNE site visit scheduled Sept. 23-25, 2020. 2015-16 2020-21
CHHS Occupational Therapy MS American Occupational Therapy Assn, Accred. Council for Occupational Therapy Education
Continued – NO conditions
Previously continued with conditions. 2011 Standard A.2.8. licensed OT and OTA faculty noncompliance considered fully corrected by progress report submitted May 2019 per ACOTE March 27-28, 2020.
2013-14 2020-21
CHHS Occupational Therapy Doctoral Program
Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education
Candidacy status granted
Will start enrolling students fall 2021 April 2019
2024-25
CHHS Public Health MPH Council on Education for Public Health
Probation continued
Submitted report June 2019; re-accreditation site visit held Nov. 2019. Decision and next review date expected by end of June 2020.
2019-20 Pending
CHHS Recreation Management & Policy, Program Administration option (undergrad)
National Recreation & Parks Assn, Council on Accred. of Parks, Recreation, Tourism & Related Professions
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2015-16 2020-21
CHHS Recreation Management & Policy, Therapeutic Recreation option (undergrad)
Commission on Accred. of Allied Health Education Programs, Committee on Accred. of Recreational Therapy Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2024-25
CHHS Social Work (undergrad & grad)
Council on Social Work Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2017-18 2025-26
CHHS Child Studies & Development Center
National Assn for Education of Young Children
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2019-20 2023-24
COLSA Biomedical Science BS - Medical Laboratory Science option
National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2014-15 2024-25
COLSA Didactic Program in Dietetics BS
Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, Accred. Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics
Re-accreditation pending
Site visit held Oct. 2019. Program response provided in Jan. 2020. Positive decision expected July 2020.
2019-20 2024-25
Page 89 of 110
Academic Programs with State Approval and/or National Accreditation: University of New Hampshire
National Accreditation, continued
College Program
Accrediting Body
Accreditation Status
Follow Up Action by Institution
Most Recent Review
Next Review
COLSA Nutritional Sciences MS combined with Dietetic Internship (MSDI)
Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, Accred. Council for Education in Nutrition & Dietetics
Re-accreditation decision pending
Site visit held Oct. 2019. Program response provided in Jan. 2020. Positive decision expected July 2020. (MSDI is a new program but considered a “re-accreditation” because it is classified as a program change.)
2019-20 2024-25
COLSA Forestry Program BSF Society of American Foresters
Continued – NO conditions
2016-17 2026-27
UNHM Engineering Technology Technology Accred. Commission of the Accred. Board for Engineering & Technology
Continued – WITH conditions
Program evaluated end of 2019 with 1 finding in Criterion 8 “Institutional Support” regarding machine shop staffing. Issue was addressed and documentation provided to ABET April 2020. Decision expected July 2020.
2019-20 pending
UNHM Sign Language Interpretation Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2016-17 2026-27
TSAS Veterinary Technology AAS Committee on Veterinary Technician Education & Activities, American Veterinary Medical Assn
Continued – WITH conditions
Annual report due Sept. 2020. 2019-20 2024-25
TSAS Forest Technology AAS Society of American Foresters
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2016-17 2026-27
PAUL Business Administration BS/MS
Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2018-19 2023-24
PAUL Accounting MS Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2018-19 2023-24
PAUL Hospitality Management BS Assn to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business – International
Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2018-19 2023-24
LAW UNH School of Law American Bar Assn Continued – NO conditions
n/a 2014-15 2020-21
Page 90 of 110
USNH Institutional Comparator Groups as designated by institution
UNH Bentley University Waltham, MA Boston University Boston, MA Northeastern University Boston, MA Quinnipiac University Hamden, CT Rutgers University-New Brunswick New Brunswick, NJ University at Buffalo (SUNY) Buffalo, NY University of Connecticut Storrs, CT University of Delaware Newark, DE University of Maine Orono, ME University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI University of Vermont Burlington, VT
PSU Bridgewater State University Bridgewater, MA Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD Millersville University of Pennsylvania Millersville, PA Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania Shippensburg, PA SUNY College at New Paltz New Paltz, NY SUNY College at Plattsburgh Plattsburgh, NY The College of New Jersey Ewing, NJ University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth North Dartmouth, MA University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Whitewater, WI Western Connecticut State University Danbury, CT Westfield State University Westfield, MA
KSC Eastern Connecticut State University Willimantic, CT Fort Lewis College Durango, CO Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Ithaca College Ithaca, NY Longwood University Farmville, VA Ramapo College of New Jersey Mahwah, NJ Shepherd University Shepherdstown, WV Southern Oregon University Ashland, OR SUNY at Geneseo Geneseo, NY Truman State University Kirksville, MD University of Mary Washington Fredericksburg, VA
New Britain, CT LaGrande, OR Boca Raton, FL Naples, FL Plymouth, WI Lewiston, ID Midway, KY Minot, ND
GSC Charter Oak State College Eastern Oregon University Everglades University Hodges University Lakeland University Lewis-Clark State College Midway University Minot State University Saint Joseph's College of Maine Standish, ME
Page 91 of 110
Enhancing the Value and Efficacy of the USSB 2.0
Trustee Cailee Griffin
Page 92 of 110
History of Students as Stakeholders
Page 93 of 110
What improvements have been made so far?
Progress & Action
Page 94 of 110
Training and Orientation Progress
• After a presentation by USSB members entitled Enhancing the Value and Efficacy of the USSB was given in 2017, board leadership:
– developed a liaison to the USSB
– took steps to develop orientation materials for new Trustees
– encouraged mentor relationships between new and veteran members
Page 95 of 110
Inner- USNH Student Government Council
• Discussion of common issues or concerns among student governments facilitated by USSB members in Concord
• Meets once per semester to share best practices, set goals, and discuss progress
• Encourages cross- system collaboration and awareness at a time when “systemness” is paramount
• Provides an opportunity for student government leaders to relay any major concerns directly to their Board Reps
• Has the ability to function as a strong, student-centered focus group (for example in marketing and admissions discussions)
Page 96 of 110
Ongoing Work Within Campuses
• Encouraged individual student governments to revisit their bylaws and institutional practices to ensure greater training and mentoring for incoming USSBRs
– Example: UNH Student Senate revitalized its student leadership orientation plans
• Encouraged student governments to strengthen student elections
– Promote and track voter turnout,
– Encourage competition by encouraging a larger candidate pool
– Facilitate student campaigning opportunities
Page 97 of 110
How can we utilize USSBRs to their full potential?
Areas for Improvement
Page 98 of 110
Encourage and Embrace Student Perspective
• Encourage active engagement during student presentations
– Understand that students often have a high transactional cost for their time (missing class/ work)
– Understand that students are often nervous and are acutely aware of the experience gap between themselves and their audience
– Encouragement inspires confidence
• Enable the USSB to provide more pertinent insight by reaching out with specific questions regarding student opinion
• Recognize that student updates are also a place for them to elevate concerns that are not already on an agenda
Page 99 of 110
Remember the Value Proposition of Student Perspective
• Students will help the board to be more proactive, rather than reactive, in their approach to student concerns
• They can preempt PR failures and predict reactions of the student body
• Students are versatile liaisons
• Student experience impacts the opinion of other stakeholders including colleagues, family members, potential students, and alumni
• their perspective and experience are especially vital to admissions and marketing endeavors
• Students are a consumer and a product of the university
Page 100 of 110
Incorporate the USSB into Additional Committees
• Appointing students to more than one committee is beneficial for everyone:
– Students are better equipped, and empowered, to understand their respective institutions and their fellow students
– It allows for greater integration and understanding of students’ (our customers’) perspectives in a variety of contexts
– USSBRs will be more effective liaisons to their constituents because they will have a greater sense of the board’s rationale
– Increasing USSBR responsibilities will strengthen the job description and provide a sense of fulfilment for position holders
Page 101 of 110
Incorporate the USSB into Additional Committees
• The appointment of USSBRs to additional committees enables them to participate alongside Student Trustees in non- public sessions of committees like Financial Affairs, Audit, or Governance– This will increase student engagement from all four campuses
which is in line with our synergistic goal of becoming more “system oriented”
– It is critical, especially now, that student representatives from all campuses be privy to sensitive information (especially regarding COVID planning) so that they can share their perceptions and concerns with us preemptively
• Eliminating the information gap between Student Trustees and USSBRs would ensure that Board Reps can more effectively, and knowledgeably, advise the board
• Leadership transitions would improve if the information gap between Student Trustees and Board Reps were eliminated– Better transitions are important for students who serve shorter
terms of 1 year and who often do not have time to be reelected
Page 102 of 110
UNH Graduate School Representative’s Report to USSB Chair Submitted in advance of the June 25-26 2020 USNH BOT Meeting
COVID19 As the administration at UNH continues to grapple with the mountain of decisions that
will determine the nature of teaching and learning environments in Fall 2020 and beyond, new issues have demanded significant attention and resources. We in the Graduate Student Senate thank President Dean, his Cabinet, the Deans, each and every unit director, and all the staff for putting into swift operation new measures to ensure the health and safety of students and everyone else who will return to a campus transformed by this pandemic and our response to it. No one signed up for this, but everyone has shown up to do the work. Thank you!
In addition to the basic risk to individual health presented by the virus, some of the most troubling and seemingly intractable aspects of our society have also been laid bare. In terms of the broader economic and community health effects it has been low-wage and underrepresented minorities who have felt the effects most harshly:
● A recent report from NPR focuses on labor statistics showing that “African Americans are disproportionately likely to be doing so-called essential jobs - in the food industry, working in health services, driving taxis.”
● That same report also notes disparities in government aid to small business owners, with 38% of applicants receiving aid but only 12% of African American and Latino applicants.
● This piece from The Guardian summarizes testimony before a COVID-19 sub-committee that on “minority Americans are more likely to be infected and die from Covid-19, because structural racism has left those populations with inferior health, housing and economic conditions.”
● This report from APM Research Lab gives state-by-state statistics on mortality rates sorted by race and ethnicity. In states with large Native American populations, like New Mexico, the numbers of deaths for those communities are as much as 8 times higher than those reported among White residents, a group 4 times the size of the state’s Native population. Overall, African American deaths related to COVID-19 amount to close to 55% of all deaths nationally, even though the portion of Americans identifying as Black or African American is only 13.4%.
COVID19 and Graduate Students The issues noted above will continue to affect our university in the weeks and months
ahead, and the Graduate Student Senate will be there to provide insight into our constituents’ experiences and to assist by providing our broad expertise and deep commitment to the success and thriving of our university. However, our participation in these issues and discussions is only possible if we are in the room or at least in the loop. With that in mind, we remind our administration:
● Graduate students need to be invited to sit on COVID-19 Planning Teams. ○ The list of teams published mid-May 2020 includes precisely zero students from
either undergraduate or graduate populations. ● Graduate students need to be included in surveys and to have those results reported out.
○ This survey, shared with EdEx in April, mentions graduate students in terms of online enrollments, but does not include any outputs from the survey.
● Graduate students need to be assured of and in their collective role, necessary by definition, in the processes of shared governance that are the foundation of the Graduate Student Senate Constitution.
○ GSS unanimously passed an amendment in November 2019 requiring firmer commitments to shared governance by the UNH administration, specifically asking for “time enough for the GSS to conduct at least two full meetings in order
Page 103 of 110
UNH Graduate School Representative’s Report to USSB Chair Submitted in advance of the June 25-26 2020 USNH BOT Meeting
to review proposed changes, and to hold a vote before responding to those proposals.” We ask this because the absence of a clear understanding of timely notice has resulted in a pattern of non-notice and late notice of significant changes affecting graduate students. At the time of this report’s submission in early June 2020, that amendment has not been approved or denied by Graduate School Dean Moorhead, and so has yet to be approved or denied by President Dean.
As we wrote in the amendment proposal about graduate student participation in shared
governance: “This participation, and therefore the right and responsibility enabling and motivating it, can only be exercised when GSS receives proper and timely notice of, and adequate time to respond to, policy changes affecting graduate students [...].” Priorities have shifted in the past two months, but the foundations of shared governance must not be moved or weakened – they must be fortified and stabilized, and to that end we look forward to a response from the UNH administration. Respectfully submitted, Jacob A. Bennett, Ph.D. UNH Graduate School Representative & USSB Member
Page 104 of 110
1
Status Report – CCSNH/USNH Priorities for Collaboration June 17, 2020
The Community College System of New Hampshire (CCSNH) and the University System of New Hampshire (USNH) share a responsibility to provide the State of New Hampshire and its citizens with access to high quality and affordable education and training programs, in addition to the benefits of research and service, that contribute to effective civic engagement, economic vitality, and social and cultural vibrancy in our communities and across the State. CCSNH and USNH also share a more direct responsibility for thousands of students whose education represents a bridge between the two Systems and among 11 unique institutions. For these reasons, CCSNH and USNH have worked for years to strengthen academic partnerships and to develop articulation agreements that facilitate efficient degree and career pathways for our students.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and recognizing the heightened urgency for achieving efficiencies that will allow us to focus increasingly scarce resources in ways that best serve our students and that support our missions, executives from both systems have been meeting to redouble efforts to identify opportunities for collaboration. Working with a short timeline (45 days) to identify areas where meaningful progress can be made, the group first cast a wide net to catalog ideas and then refined that list to prioritize those initiatives that represented the greatest potential for real impact as measured by improved outcomes for students, financial savings, and feasibility. This effort has given rise to four key initiatives that are described in more detail in the accompanying document.
A statement was drafted to describe the purpose of this work, as follows: The purpose of the CCSNH/USNH synergies project is to identify opportunities where collaboration will create operational efficiencies, improved services, and allow New Hampshire’s public higher education systems to focus resources and effort on providing high quality, affordable postsecondary education for New Hampshire’s students, responsive to the current and anticipated economic, civic, and cultural needs of the State, and reflective of the distinct missions of each institution and the important contributions that they make to their host communities and the regions and State that support them.
The first of these relates to sharing expertise and planning in preparation for campuses across both Systems to re-open safely and mitigate risk from COVID-19 this fall. The second focuses on a set of opportunities for better integration of academic programs, initially focusing on Healthcare and Precision Manufacturing, but also serving as a template for broader collaborations in the future. The third seeks to more fully leverage shared IT platforms that have the potential to build bridges, not just between CCSNH and USNH, but to span the lifelong learning needs of New Hampshire citizens from pre-K through 16+. Finally, the last initiative involves procurement and purchasing, capitalizing on shared expertise and combined scale with the potential to achieve significant savings on the range of goods and services required by both Systems. Summaries to date of each of these four initial priority areas are attached.
Executives participating in the discussions: Susan Huard, CCSNH Interim Chancellor Lucille Jordan, President, Nashua Community College Alfred Williams IV, President, River Valley Community College Shannon Reid, CCSNH Executive Director of Government Affairs and Communications Charles Ansell, CCSNH Chief Operating Officer Cathy Provencher, USNH Vice Chancellor for Financial Affairs and Treasurer
Page 105 of 110
2
Melinda Treadwell, President, Keene State College William Poirier, USNH CIO Mark Rubinstein, President, Granite State College
Governing Board Liaisons: Jeremy Hitchcock, Chair, CCSNH Board of Trustees Alison Stebbins, CCSNH Trustee, Treasurer and Chair, Finance Committee Jackie Eastwood, USNH Trustee, Chair Educational Excellence Committee Joseph Morone, Chair, USNH Board of Trustees Rep. Marjorie Smith, USNH Trustee
Governor’s Office Liaison: Mac Zellem, Governor’s Office
USNH Staff Support: Tia Miller, USNH Chancellor’s Office
Page 106 of 110
July 7 Update to Governor – CCSNH/USNH Synergies Priorities
3
Priority 1: Meeting the Needs of COVID Response and Re-opening
Impact Areas: Re-opening all campuses
Discussion Notes: Includes multiple aspects of COVID response and re-opening.
Fiscal Impact: The ability to re-open preserves the institutions’ fiscal impact on NH which is nearly $3B annually. State and federal funds have been allocated to support multiple elements of the re-opening plans (see appendix 1 TBD).
Project Update, July 7, 2020
Current state • CCSNH campuses have re-opened this summer on a limited basis for lab completion. All
institutions are developing Fall re-open plans working in conjunction with DoE. Desired future state
• Both systems, having consulted with Public Health, move forward on re-open plans• Each institution will address campus-specific needs within the frameworks identified
Elements involved • Framework is comprehensive
Timeline • Framework developed (June 2020). Campus-specific preparation will continue throughout
summer in tandem with evolving State and CDC (and other as appropriate) data and guidelines, and respective system offices will house all institutional planning documents.
Other Considerations: • CCSNH and USNH have been allocated funds from GOFERR and CARES Act. Will need to monitor
ongoing costs to determine additional resources needed across duration of public health situation.
Page 107 of 110
July 7 Update to Governor – CCSNH/USNH Synergies Priorities
4
Priority 2: Learning Management Technology Platform
Impact Areas: Technology Infrastructure, Student Academic Experience, Pathways
Discussion Notes: The intent of this focus area is to achieve robust distance learning capability on a common/shared platform for seamless student learning and progression. We will begin with USNH/CCSNH and look to include K-12 as much as possible through DoE/school district decisions.
Fiscal Impact: Not yet quantified, but we anticipate structural cost savings to result, particularly if we are able to scale with K-12 participation.
Project Update, July 7, 2020
Current state • All seven community colleges use one learning management platform (Canvas), which is also
used by UNH and Keene State College. Desired future state
• A joint contract and a common learning platform for remote instruction state-wide. This wouldrepresent a strong partnership across all education sectors to provide a superior experience for students and efficiencies of a shared service.
• Adding K-12 would support a seamless student pathway experience from NH high schools,especially for dual credit students who take college courses while in high school.
Elements involved • We have evaluated current landscape of learning management software, including common
plug-ins for features like lecture capture and synchronous video-based learning Timeline
• We expect contracts for the higher education institutions to be completed in summer 2020,with exploration of staffing synergy possibilities and actual implementation throughout FY21 and FY22.
Other Considerations: • We would like to invite K-12 into this common LMS and have initiated those discussions. Doing
so would enhance the economies of scale and support student pathways, and promote a seamless student experience, especially for all the dual credit students who take college classes while in high school.
Page 108 of 110
July 7 Update to Governor – CCSNH/USNH Synergies Priorities
5
Priority 3: Common Advising Infrastructure to Support Seamless Academic Pathways
Impact Areas: Improved Retention and Graduation Outcomes, Curricular Efficiency, Retention of Students in NH, Shared Technology Platform
Discussion Notes: Keep more students in New Hampshire by guiding them from community colleges to four-year public institutions along clear, 8-semester academic plans, guided by effective advising that leverages shared technology.
Fiscal Impact: Ultimately, a goal is to increase cost-effective development of New Hampshire’s future workforce through efficient degree pathways that lower costs to students, increase retention and success in academic programs, and retain students within the State of New Hampshire.
Project Update, July 7, 2020
Current state • CCSNH students who complete specified high demand Associate Degree programs are too often
either discontinuing their studies or leaving New Hampshire to pursue additional education because of information gaps regarding seamless and more affordable public pathways available to them in New Hampshire, or because of actual gaps in seamless pathways offered.
• CCSNH and USNH rely, primarily, on the same technology platforms to support advising, butthere is currently no student-facing advising resource that allows students to evaluate options or to map degree plans that cross between the two Systems.
Desired future state • CCSNH and USNH faculty will collaborate to identify and to optimize pathways to bachelor’s
degree and graduate-level programs available through USNH that align with the State’s workforce needs. Leveraging a common advising platform between the two Systems will allow students to evaluate educational options across both CCSNH and USNH in order to capitalize on the most cost-effective pathways to achieve their educational and career objectives.
Elements involved • Faculty collaboration, professional advisors, and student information system resources.
Timeline • Work is underway and we will re-engage faculty starting this Fall.• Initial focus of this effort is on Precision Manufacturing and Nursing for which some pathways
have already been developed, which we anticipate completing in the upcoming academic year.• Modeling additional program area discussions after existing collaborations such as the
Humanities Collaborative, to include broader STEM initiatives.• Will prioritize groundwork on adapting the SIS Degree Works to accommodate inter-system
degree planning, allowing time to identify additional areas of academic opportunity.
Page 109 of 110
July 7 Update to Governor – CCSNH/USNH Synergies Priorities
6
Priority 4: Procurement
Impact Areas: Back-office, Technology Platforms, Contracting
Discussion Notes: Includes IT asset management and other areas for joint procurement.
Fiscal Impact: Not yet quantified, key performance metrics will be developed by 9/30/20. Savings and/or efficiencies will be identified and recognized as processes, skills and technology are aligned.
Project Update, July 7, 2020
Current state • In recent years CCSNH and USNH have jointly contracted in some areas (IT back-up data center,
waste management) and explored others. • Most procurement cycles are not in synch between the two systems• CCSNH uses standard form of contract; USNH does not• USNH is rolling out eProcurement technology, CCSNH is not; can look for shared technology
Desired future state • Synching up procurement cycles to enable more joint procurement• Alignment of contract terms and conditions where appropriate• Technology needs and personnel skills aligned where appropriate to enable joint procurement
Elements involved • See below
Timeline • See below
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Develop performance metrics to track savings achieved through joint CCSNH / USNH efforts
Share contract inventory to align similar goods / services procured and timing of
expiration dates where beneficial to renegotiate and jointly procure
Share supplier lists to identify joint suppliers in an effort to renegotiate existing contracts Review contract language to align terms and
conditions where appropriate Evaluate and align personnel skills needed to
build out strategic procurement function to serve both systems
Evaluate and align technology needs to support strategic procurement function to
serve both systems
Page 110 of 110
Top Related