seer RS A

Establishing Academic Objectives by Consensus

A massive educational unit with diversified views
and directions can link itself to the goals and objectives
of an institution, During the 1986-1987 academic year,
| experimented with a consensus process of linking the
objectives of the social sciences, humanities, and
developmental studies divisions with those of the
college. Faculty were asked to develop, agree, monitor,
and assess the progress of objectives designed to give
their divisional areas a common direction and to
support the mission of the institution.

Identifying Institutional Goals and Objectives

The first step was to identify the goals and objectives
of the institution. Using the institutional ten-year plan,
I extracted those goals applicable to the areas that I
supervised and translated them into a list of objective
statements. The list incorporated certain key
idcas-such as, quality instruction, professional devel-
opment and course/ program review and was distrib-
uted among the faculty for their review.

First Round. At the first Teaching Arca Mccting, |
discussed the statements and the importance of estab-
lishing objectives with the faculty. The objectives
would guide us in our spending priorities, support
services, and instructional decisions and enable us to
measure Our progress.

Initially, | asked the faculty to examine, revise, and
react to the statements, then prioritize the list. After re-
ceiving the initial responses, | edited, regrouped the
material, and sent the list to the faculty for reaction,

Second Round. The second round came back in a
more refined way. Many of the ideas were refocused,
changed, and rearranged from the initial listing.
Faculty wanted to add something special, a word here
or there, to their initial responses and to those of their
colleagues. The priority list again was juggled, was
almost unrecognizable from the original list, buta
direction began to unfold. Instruction and quality time
in the classroom were at the top.

Third Round. The third round became one of final
refinement. Many of the faculty began to look at the
ratings of others and adjusted their own accordingly.
There were some minor changes to the second list; but
asa whole, the ideas and rankings remained essentially
the same. The faculty, diversified in their disciplines,
had arrived-in about three wecks—at a consensus that
would provide the direction for the entire year.

Now that the road map was established, I proceeded
to monitor our progress by soliciting faculty comments.
Throughout the year, | would send them copies of the

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

November 11, 1988, Vol. X, No. 27

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1988
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBEA
institutions for tha own personnel

SE

 

 

objectives and ask for input. Many colleagues ignored
the request, at least initially, but those who submitted
materials began to build a database of measurable
progress. By the end of the first semester, | could see a
pattern forming, one that would help facilitate spend-
ing during, the second semester and would help me in
the preparation of the next year’s budget. By the end
of the year, | had evidence supporting, the accomplish-
ment of our objectives.

Evaluating Progress

The final step in the process was lo assess our
progress. At this point, [ sent the list of objectives to
the faculty; each objective was accompanied by an ac-
cumulation of comments made during, the year; and
each faculty member was asked to review and make
additional comments. This process took two or three
rounds, but in the end we had an excellent picture of
our accomplishments. The initial one-page list of 10
objective statements expanded into a three-page
description of the year’s activities. It was a clear
picture of where we had placed our emphases.

‘To portray the results, | designed a simple survey-
type instrument, based on a Likert scale, that could
assess perceptions in minimum time. Each faculty
member was asked to rate cach objective based on the
degree of successful completion. | calculated the
results and created a bar-graph. At the final Teaching
Area Mecting, | distributed the graphs and gave faculty
an opportunity to comment. The discussion provided
a productive way of collectively evaluating our accom-
plishments, as well as setting the stage for redevelop-
ing the objectives for the upcoming year.

As well, Lcould write the annual report and descrip-
tions of the activities in my instructional areas. The ob-
jective list had facilitated my assessment of our aca-
demic progress.

Developing a process for measuring success in an
academic setting is no casy task, but it is worth the
additional effort. When the objectives are established
by faculty consensus, they become more meaningful,
serve as better tools for making academic decisions,
and promote a commitment to success.

Alvin J. Marrow, Associate Dean, Instruction

For further information, contact the author at Genesee
Community College, College Road, Batavia, NY 14020-

9704.

 

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Insttute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD),
EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austn, Austn, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscnptions are available to nancansor
tum members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the WK. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W Richardson Foundation
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISSN 0199 106%