Strategic Plan 2015-2020
Vision 20/20: INQUIRY INNOVATION INTEGRITY
Strategic Plan 2015-2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface by President Walter A. Brown
Where are we? Development of the Universityâ€™s Strategic Plan
Where are we going? Vision, Mission and Strategic Imperatives
How are we getting there? Goals and Objectives
How are we doing? Implementing the Plan and Measuring Progress
2 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Preface I am pleased to present to our campus family and community partners the Strategic Plan for Worthington University: Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity. The strategic plan outlined in the following pages is a collaborative work, a snapshot of our collective wisdom. This plan is a rededication to our mission and a reaffirmation of who we are. This plan embodies the deep passion and appreciation that students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends have for Worthington University, and it expresses our joint expectation of excellence in all we do. The steering committee that guided the planning process asked the campus community to reflect on our challenges and provide guidance on how to achieve a sustainable academic and financial future. During these discussions, we refined our shared vision for the next stage of Worthingtonâ€™s continued evolution. The future of Worthington University is our collective responsibility, and more collaboration, hard work, and creative thinking will be asked of the campus community as we implement this plan during the next five years.
Mission Statement. The mission of Worthington University is to seek promising, diverse students and provide them a high quality undergraduate education that brings the benefits of discovery to the world.
Vision Statement. By 2020, through inquiry learning, innovative teaching and integrity, Worthington University will be the nationally recognized liberal arts university of selection â€“ known for its excellence in building leaders for tomorrow, who are able to think, judge, care, and ultimately act responsibly in the changing the state, the nation and the world.
3 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Worthington History Worthington University is a public, coeducational, liberal arts university located on a serene 125 acre urban campus in the heart of Nashville, TN. Presently, Worthington has over 35 academic majors in six colleges with student enrollment of 5,819 and an academic staff of 473. The university has a 12 to 1 student/faculty radio, and about half of all classes have 20 or fewer students. Demographics: Sex - 73.5% Female, 26.5% Male; Race/Ethnicity Identification 3.4% Asian, 5.4% Latino/a, 20.7% African-America/Black, 68.2% White, 1.0% Native American, and 1.3% other categorizations. Worthington University was brought into existence by act of the Tennessee General Assembly in 1889 and name after William Worthington, III, the University’s sole benefactor. This BritishAmerican billionaire philanthropist recognized the need for education to all mankind. Worthington was originally established to train the political leaders for public service as well as practical education for commerce for the southeastern United States. This was in response to the increasing rebellion by the South to accept defeat by the Union. Mr. Worthington, a descendent of the Mayflower’s pilgrimage, had no children and determined he would use his wealth to do something for “other people’s children.” From the beginning, he wanted to create a practical university that was untraditional and coeducational when most southern universities were private and all male. He also wanted it nondenominational while most were associated with a religious organization. Above all, the university’s founding grant stated that the objective is to qualify its students for personal success, thereby promoting the public welfare of all by exercising an influence on behalf of humanity and civilization.
4 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Mr. Worthington devoted to the University the fortune he had earned from his U.S. business endeavors of tobacco and cotton farming, coal mining, and railway construction. He would further establish a trust that the university would have access for expansion. Following the American Civil War of 1861-1865 and the slow progression of the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877), the state recognized the need to provide for the improvement of the system of Public Education of the State of Tennessee. This legislative act would become known as the General Education Bill of 1909. Until this time, Worthington University was able to maintain its public independence from any state governing body outside of the Board of Directors. In 1975, Worthingtonâ€™s board of directors thought it best to dissolve the board and authorized the Southeastern Board of Regents (SBR) to oversee the operation of the University. The SBR is one of three systems of public higher education in Tennessee and is the tenthlargest system of public higher education in the United States, supervising all public higher education institutions in the state that are not governed by the Tennessee Board of Regents and the University of Tennessee system. SBR institutions do not have their own board of directors, board of trustees, or similar bodies at the campus level; the SBR hires institution presidents and directors and approves the promotions of senior faculty and staff. The SBR system is governed by 18 board members. The 18 members consists of: 12 lay citizens appointed for six-year terms by the governor, one faculty member from among the system institutions appointed by the governor for a one-year term; one student from among the system institutions appointed by the governor for a one-year term; and four ex officio members The Governor of the Tennessee, the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner of Agriculture, and the Executive Director of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, who is a non-voting member.
5 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Worthington University At-A-Glance Established 1889
School Color Blue
Vision 20/20Motto Consulatio, Innovatus, Integritas (Latin for Inquiry, Innovation, Integrity) UNIVERSITY INCOME (FISCAL YEAR 2013) $349.2 million UNIVERSITY EXPENSES (FISCAL YEAR 2013) $304.9 million WORTHINGTON FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT (FISCAL YEAR 2013) $4.8 billion
Worthington University Shield
6 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Where are we? Development of the University’s Strategic Plan In October 2012, President Brown appointed a University Strategic Planning Council (USPC), asking it to think strategically and be far reaching in discussions of the many challenges and opportunities facing Worthington. Although USPC was representative of many of the University’s constituents, the President and Provost encouraged the Council to seek additional input from faculty, staff, and students as well as trustees, alumni, and others who care about, and contribute to, defining the vision of the future. USPC was charged with developing a Worthington Strategic Plan for 2015-2020. The Council began meeting in January 2013. Over a twelve-month period, Worthington University conducted an intense, searching, sometimes difficult but forward-looking inquiry into itself and its role in the local, national, and international communities of which we are a part. Our collective discussion has been reflective and revelatory and has resulted in an inspiring and achievable plan for our university over the next five years. HIGHER EDUCATION: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES BEYOND THE CAMPUS The Council decided early on to address the overarching challenges facing Worthington. “We are in a ‘new normal’ when it comes to public higher education,” Chancellor Thomas Durant said. “The old days and old ways of structuring, funding and advancing higher education are gone and will not return. Our responsibility at Worthington is to seize the day and ensure the University is structured and focused in ways that serve students well.” Traditional financial resources for the support of higher education are not likely to increase. Cut-backs are the norm in educational financing. Yet demands for services continue to expand. Public higher education has changed dramatically in the last ten years. Looking beyond our gates, we see several trends affecting all of higher education and likely to affect Worthington
7 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
directly. These include students’ increasing need for financial aid, a difficult fundraising environment, decreasing endowment income, an unsustainable tuition model, the challenges of living up to the promise of access, the growing gap between wealthy and less wealthy institutions, changing populations of students including life-long learners, changing delivery methods including online modes, challenges to liberal arts education as not relevant—or not perceived to be relevant—to the real needs of students, the challenge of updating a traditional curriculum, the challenge of adapting to constant change in technology, and an increasingly competitive higher education market both nationally and globally. This is the overall landscape for higher education. The challenge to liberal arts education is acute for us, but not without opportunity. Our model of a liberal arts education values a low student-faculty ratio; students and faculty closely working together, not only inside but also outside the classroom; a robust campus life; a diverse and inclusive experience for students with a wide variety of extracurricular activities; and both infrastructure and staff to support a deeply engaged community. Needless to say, this way of providing an education requires an incredible commitment and investment of time, energy, and resources. But the power of this model is undeniable—students become critical and creative thinkers and leaders who are trained to be ethical, collaborative, and innovative. Americans developed this model as a social investment in the formation of citizens who could cultivate democratic society while pursuing a productive and satisfying life. Now this model is under assault by critics who question its value and challenge its ability to prepare students with the skills required in the current and future workplace. Paradoxically, this criticism comes just as many others around the world increasingly recognize the liberal arts as a type of education that is peculiarly suited for the 21st century. So we asked Can Worthington illuminate and shape the
8 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
relevance of the residential liberal arts model for the 21st century? If so, how can we support our faculty and encourage others to continue to innovate in the liberal arts? How do we ensure that this model continues to educate for lifelong learning, leadership, and service for our graduates? Against the backdrop of these complex and compelling issues, we engaged in rigorous dialogue and critical review of ourselves. THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS AT WORTHINGTON There are four common steps of strategic planning. The steps include deploying a planning committee, surveying the institutionâ€™s current state, setting institution-wide goals, and presenting a visible strategic plan report. At the first meeting, the committee decided to utilize the strategic planning model developed by Thompson and Strickland (1999). According to Thompson and Strickland strategic management is an ongoing process: "nothing is final and all prior actions and decisions are subject to future modification." This process consists of five major five ever-present tasks: 1. Developing a concept of the business and forming a vision of where the organization needs to be headed. 2. Converting the mission into specific performance objectives. 3. Crafting a strategy to achieve the targeted performance. 4. Implementing and executing the chosen strategy efficiently and effectively. 5. Evaluating performance, reviewing the situation, and initiating corrective adjustments in mission, objectives, strategy, or implementation in light of actual experience, changing conditions, new ideas, and new opportunities.
9 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
The Five Tasks of Strategic Management The strategic management process has two distinct yet interdependent phases: strategy formulation, which is about deciding what to do (Tasks 1-3); and strategy implementation, which is about making it happen (Tasks 4 & 5 plus the revisions). The model is supplemented by four fundamental strategic management questions: Where are we? Where are we going? How are we getting there? How are we doing? At the outset of this planning process, the committee identified a series of principles to guide us through the Strategic Planning process. These included: broad participation from the university community, building on existing planning documents and processes, focusing planning on what we want to be different in 2020, an awareness of the impact on unit planning, and an awareness of the impact of external change agents on WU operations and strategic directions. In subsequent meetings, the committee also revisited the eleven strategic challenges for higher education as identified by Hanna (2003). These include: removing boundaries,
10 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
establishing interdisciplinary programs, supporting entrepreneurial efforts and technology, redesigning and supporting personalized student support services, emphasizing connected and lifelong learning, investing in technologically competent faculty, building strategic alliances with others, incorporating learning technologies into strategic thinking, measuring program quality, achieving institutional advantage, transforming bureaucracy, culture and assumptions. These challenges helped shape the final plan. When engaging in a strategic planning process, it is helpful to define terms so everyone is on the same page. STRATEGIC PLANNING TERMINOLOGY Mission - A short written statement describing the purpose of the university. Vision â€“ a short written statement describing the optimal desired future state, what the university wants to achieve and how it wants to be perceived. Strategic Imperative - A category or statement identifying an area of emphasis that addresses the universityâ€™s critical issues and/or provides a strategic direction. Goal - A statement of what we want the university to achieve or accomplish. Objective - A statement of what you will do to achieve your goal. Action Steps - Concrete activity(s) that will be taken to achieve the objective. Measurement - Tangible results of the action steps. Stakeholder - any person, group or organization that can place a claim on the universitiesâ€™ resources, attention, output or is affected by its output. Assessment - An evaluation of the measurements and determine next action steps Having surveyed the university community about its understanding of the mission and engaged in campus wide discussions about the mission, we called together a strategic planning
11 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
council. The Council reviewed the “Strategic Planning in Higher Education” guide developed by the Rutgers University’s Center for Organizational Development and Leadership (CODL). The guide, as outlined by Hinton (2012), aims to provide direction for leaders entering the strategic planning process or overhauling any plans already in place. The CODL approach outlines seven “planning phases” that institutions should undertake: 1. Mission and Vision: Review or create a declaration of relevant institutional values to aid in setting and prioritizing institutional goals. 2. Collaborators and Beneficiaries: Reach out to relevant stakeholders in the campus and local communities, working together to set shared ideas of current and future states. 3. Environmental Scan: Gather a coherent picture of currently pressing characteristics, events, and constraints that will affect the goal-setting process. 4. Goal-Setting: Present detailed, clear, and realistic steps that will lead to the desired state. 5. Strategies and Action Plans: Translate the goals into steps that employ measurable actions and projects within a set, realistic timeframe. 6. Plan Creation: Present goals and their relevant steps to the involved parties and public in a comprehensive, straightforward document. 7. Outcomes and Achievements: Monitor ongoing progress, evaluating task completion and any associated achievements or missteps.
12 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
COLLABORATORS AND BENEFICIARIES The task force identified the following as key stakeholders as illustrated below.
13 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN Before developing a strategic plan of action we conducted an inventory of the Universityâ€™s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The list below is the starting point to be used in considering strategic issues facing Worthington.
14 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
The Council also discussed the groundbreaking work of George Keller (1983) who began the call for strategic planning in higher education. Keller noted the following features that distinguish strategic planning from prior management methods to help plan and make decisions. 1. Academic strategic decision making means that a college, school, or university and its leaders are active rather than passive about their position in history 2. Strategic planning looks outward and is focused on keeping the institution in step with the changing environment 3. Academic strategy making is competitive, recognizing that higher education is subject to economic market conditions and to increasingly strong competition 4. Strategic planning concentrates on decisions, not on documented plans, analyses, forecasts and goals. Strategic planning is people acting decisively (and roughly in concert) to carry out a strategy they have helped devise 5. Strategy making is a blend of rational and economic analysis, political maneuvering and psychological. Interplay It is therefore participatory and highly tolerant of controversy 6. Strategic planning concentrates on the fate of the institution above everything else. The Council continued to refine the plan and its organization throughout the fall semester. In early January, the final draft of the plan was promulgated for additional community feedback, and additional university community forums were held. As a result of the input from the working committees and broader community, the Strategic Plan embodies three strategic imperative and five strategic goals as well as related initiatives that will act as a guiding strategy for moving Worthington forward over the next several years.
15 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Where are we going? Vision, Mission and Strategic Imperatives Following considerable discussion, the University Strategic Planning Council has agreed upon the following statements of Vision, Mission, and Values. We believe these elements provide a strong foundation for addressing the challenges that lie before the University. Worthington University, proud of its rich history and traditions, is poised to build on its strength as one of the country’s leading liberal arts universities. The University will provide and be seen as providing the one of the best undergraduate educations of any university in the United States, and the university will be internationally recognized for its academic excellence. Our vision flows from our extraordinary legacy, our commitment to excellence and innovation, and our focus on helping all of our people – students, faculty, staff, and alumni – change their own worlds and the broader world around them. We will do this the Worthington Way,
through Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation, and Integrity.
OUR MISSION The mission of Worthington University is to seek promising, diverse students and provide them a high quality undergraduate education that brings the benefits of discovery to the world.
OUR VISION By 2020, through inquiry learning, innovative teaching and integrity, Worthington University will be the nationally recognized liberal arts university of selection – known for its excellence in building leaders for tomorrow, who are able to think, judge, care, and ultimately act responsibly in the changing the state, the nation and the world.
16 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES In a world that so desperately needs the agility of thought and ethical leadership our graduates offer, our goal must be to ensure that the power of a Worthington education remains viable and strong. The Strategic Imperatives: Inquiry, Integrity and Innovation are meant to help Worthington and each of us build upon our heritage, serve our students, and provide the world with thinkers and leaders who can set the world anew and aright.
We believe that the educational experiences of Worthington students can be enhanced by the incorporation of inquiry learning. We also believe that we need to create a culture of civility for the entire university community. Coupled with this idea is the need for Worthington ensure that students learn civility and are team players. To take Worthington to the next level, we also have to be innovation and think of new ways of thinking about the future. We need innovative teaching, innovative fundraising, innovative fiscal management. These strategic imperatives are described below.
17 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
INQUIRY Worthington University just as other institutions of higher learning in the United States as well as outside has captured the widespread appeal of the power of inquiry as a way of learning. Worthington seeks to provide a rich instruction and curriculum program that defies a simple prescription for practice. As a tradition liberal arts colleges are known to have a predominance of lecture-based courses. In 1998 a commission of educators sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and chaired by its president Ernest L. Boyer released its report, entitled Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (Boyer, 1998). After reading this report Worthington decided to take advantage their unique research-related resources, integrating undergraduate education into the ongoing process of inquiry. The report challenged universities to transform their undergraduate courses, currently taught primarily in large lectures, into a primarily inquiry-based curriculum. Inquiry-guided learning promotes the acquisition of new knowledge, abilities, and attitudes through students’ increasingly independent investigation of questions, problems, and issues, for which there often is no single answer (Lee, 2004 and 2012). As a strong liberal arts college, Worthington University desires to promote critical thinking, problem solving, taking responsibility for one’s own learning, and the desire for lifelong learning, as being particularly important. Inquiry-guided learning promotes these kinds of outcomes and the specific skills associated with them. Worthington’s desire to implement active learning strategies is demonstrated in Figure 1.1.
18 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
These strategies are also known as inductive teaching and learning methods (Prince and Felder, 2006). Problem-based learning is a specific type of inquiry-guided learning that arose in fields such as medicine and engineering in which problem solving is a dominant mode of inquiry. Undergraduate research, properly structured is also a part of inquiry-guided learning. Worthington University has empowered faculty by taking away the frustration of the elusiveness of inquiry-guided learning. Very broadly inquiry-guided learning requires faculty members to reimagine their discipline as a framework for learning rather than a framework for scholarship, Kuhlthau (2012). Worthington has also answered the challenge of the developmental aspect of inquiry-guided learning which is the degree to which students are able to engage in independent inquiry, how much guidance is permissible in inquiry-guided learning and how to characterize or represent guidance at successive stages of student development toward independent inquiry. Worthington created a set of model to address the developmental implications of inquiryguided learning ; specifically, the nature and degree of guidance at successive stages of student development toward independent inquiry and expectations regarding student performance at
19 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
various stages of the inquiry process at each developmental stage. The faculty of Worthington University created a Holistic Developmental Rubric on the Use of Inquiry-Guided Learning. Exhibit 1.1. Holistic Developmental Rubric on the Use of Inquiry-Guided Learning by Instructors Committed Inquiry is the dominant mode of learning and the primary stimulus for knowledge acquisition. Seamless development of the skills of inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge through the process of inquiry itself. Skillful, and often invisible, balance of challenge and support in ways appropriate to the developmental level of students; enables students to function with a high degree of independence. Primary source of trust is in the process of inquiry as a mode of learning and the outcomes and products of inquiry as credible or valid assessment. Instructor exhibits a tolerance for uncertainty in the inquiry process and openness to unexpected directions set by students. Instructor functions chiefly as a collaborator with students in the process of inquiry.
Developing Inquiry as a mode of learning but often after explicit preparation of students using more traditional instructional methods. Separate development of the skills of inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge through explicit instruction. Balance of challenge and support in ways appropriate to the developmental level of students; mechanisms of support are visible. Primary source of trust is in the guidance of the instructor with guidance taking a variety of forms. Instructor exhibits some tolerance for uncertainty within anticipated boundaries of student performance. Instructor functions chiefly as a guide to students during the process of inquiry.
Experimenting Some inquiry as a mode of assessment but only after explicit preparation of students using traditional instructional methods. Acquisition of knowledge through explicit instruction with some experimentation engaging students in the skills of inquiry through isolated learning activities. Primary source of trust is in instructor control over knowledge delivery. Instructor exhibits little tolerance for uncertainty beyond isolated and carefully controlled opportunities
20 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
for student engagement. Instructor functions chiefly as an organizer and presenter of knowledge.
Worthington University has experienced four broad student learning outcomes- taking responsibility for oneâ€™s own learning, critical thinking, developing habits of independent inquiry, and intellectual growth and maturity. Further, as instructors integrated inquiry-guided learning into courses, they drew upon varied sources of inspiration to guide their practice including course goals and objectives that interpreted the broad outcomes more specifically in the context of their disciplines, alternative models of inquiry and representations of critical thinking, information literacy outcomes, rubrics, compatible teaching strategies, and innovations adopted by other instruct. As a liberal arts university, Worthington University implemented inquiry-guided learning to capitalize on teaching expertise of their faculty, bridge their teaching and research missions, further a broad set of desirable student learning outcomes, and enhance the intellectual culture on their campuses. Because inquiry-guided learning comprises a suite of teaching practices that defies a simple prescription for practice, mental rubrics as a necessary first step implementation. Taken together these frameworks, models, and rubrics represent a collective effort to a define inquiry as a site of student learning rather than faculty scholarship INNOVATION â€œBy not teaching our students liberal arts we will hinder their capacity to innovate." The ability to take intellectual risks, to think creatively, and to create new knowledge and thought are all necessary for leaders to meet 21st-century challenges. Yet, there have been too few structured, systematic initiatives at the liberal arts college level that encourage the development of creative, innovative skills. To assist our students in developing these skills, the innovation strategic imperative is indeed an imperative and Worthington will incorporate
21 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
entrepreneurial and creativity in teaching and learning to prepare 21st century learners (Chopp, et.al, 2013). The future is not what it used to be. Liberal arts colleges are facing important questions about how to educate the next generation of students in this era of global change, technological innovations, new approaches to engaged learning, continued economic challenges, and increased competition for the very best students and faculty. This is Our Time. Innovation is one answer. At the same time the demise of Liberal Arts is being predicted in the media, we are getting studies and data from employers that the skills they really need in their employees are the exact kind of things the Liberal Arts teaches. We educate students with the ability to think critically, the ability to integrate ideas, the ability to problem solve, oral communication, and teamwork skills, all of those things. Employers are saying they need not just people with technical skills, but people who can think critically, people who know how to work collaboratively. They need fast, agile thinkers who can think deeply and quickly about a topic. Education cannot be solely about training for jobs. Education is about developing sophisticated thinking and learning skills. This, then, is the challenge for liberal arts colleges: to realize that we are already on the leading edge of entrepreneurial innovation. By nature of our educational framework, we are preparing our students to solve the next great puzzles of our global society. Let us now ensure that they also graduate prepared to make these solutions useful, marketable, and viable--because it's at this juncture of holistic thinking and entrepreneurial ethos that the common good will thrive in this generation. Schneider-Bateman (2012), state that innovation is needed to champion the important role of the liberal arts and to indicate where and how those wishing to integrate principles of entrepreneurship across the university might begin to make their case for those in non-technical
22 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
discipline. Through the enhancement of our interdisciplinary centers, student-led initiatives, partnerships with larger universities, nonprofits and companies, Worthington can reinvent the learning experience by challenging the limits of traditional disciplines, and demonstrating the power of liberal arts education to enable the next generation of innovators and inventors. Schneider-Bateman (2012) say that this, then, is the challenge for liberal arts colleges: to realize that we are already on the leading edge of entrepreneurial innovation. By nature of our educational framework, we are preparing our students to solve the next great puzzles of our global society. Let us now ensure that they also graduate prepared to make these solutions useful, marketable, and viable--because it's at this juncture of holistic thinking and entrepreneurial ethos that the common good will thrive in this generation. A 2007 report prepared by a panel of business, labor, philanthropy and policy leaders and issued by the Association of American Colleges and Universities concluded: “In an economy fueled by innovation, the capabilities developed through a liberal arts education have become America’s most valuable economic asset.” The report also identified four “essential learning outcomes” that graduates should possess: 1. A broad base of knowledge across multiple disciplines; 2. Intellectual and practical skills such as teamwork and problem-solving; 3. A sense of personal and social responsibility, including ethical reasoning; and 4. Experience applying what they learn to real-world problems.
23 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Worthington aspires to be what the Europeans call an “entrepreneurial university.” Grudzinskiy & Bedny (2013) say that the main characteristic of the entrepreneurial university is a comprehensive entrepreneurial culture of employees and the development of such a culture among students. A new mentality of researchers, teachers, students and postgraduates , and a new organizational culture of the university as a whole – that’s what the term ‘entrepreneurial university’ means. The Europeans also talk about a “Knowledge Triangle.”
The Knowledge Triangle aims to create an interaction between education, research and innovation thereby creating the conditions for increased relevance and utilization of universities’ activities. The Knowledge Triangle aims to create an interaction between education, research and innovation thereby creating the conditions for increased relevance and utilization of universities’ activities. We believe that incorporation of the Knowledge Triangle is important to the realization of the innovation strategic imperative. “I think it’s going to be a brilliant place to be in five years,” said President Brown. ”I think we will have really come into our own as an incredibly innovative institution when it comes to curriculum, when it comes to the learning
24 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
experiences that we provide for our students, when it comes to active engagement, when it comes to creating a new understanding of the Liberal Arts as relevant and desirable.” INTEGRITY “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784); Poet, Essayist, Lexicographer For quite some time, we have observed that the disengaged, disrespectful, and unruly student behavior that used to be confined to secondary schools has reached higher education. In college classrooms across the U.S., tardiness, unfamiliarity with assigned readings, and unjustified absences are routine (Forni, 2008). How did we get to this? Many students are simply not prepared to engage in serious academic work and do not know how they are expected to behave on campus. Most of them bring a consumer mentality to school and very little concern about approval from the older generation. Of course, professors are not blameless either. They can be unfair, unhelpful, disillusioned, disengaged, arrogant, and sarcastic. And sometimes, just as our new breed of students is not prepared for college, we are not prepared for them (Forni, 2008). In an effort to address these challenges, Worthington had the foresight five years ago to institute a first-year-experience program to help students learn how to behave civilly with both peers and teachers. This included treating each other with respect, being responsible, always displaying honesty, and refraining from all forms of cheating and plagiarism. We’ve observed from other institutions that these first-year-experience programs were not enough, so we’ve collected a few reflections on the challenges and the ways of responding to them that have been working for us.
25 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
If we want to slow down the continuing decline of traditional civil interaction on American College campuses, we must train ourselves too. ESTABLISH A CLIMATE OF RELAXED FORMALITY As you foster a learning environment where restraint, respect, and consideration are the norm, your students learn better and more. TRAIN STUDENTS TO DISTINGUISH THE TRIVIAL FROM THE VALUABLE & SELL YOUR PRODUCT AND YOURSELF Students need to understand what they can get from attending your class that they would not from sitting in their dorms in front of a digital screen. BE PROACTIVE. CONVEY CONTENT AND MEANING IN WAYS THAT ARE INSIGHTFUL, CHALLENGEING, AND MEMORABLE. If you have been dealing with a widespread student attitude mixing disengagement with disregard, you are not alone. STIPULATE A FAIR COVENANT – MAKE THINGS BETTER BY MAKING YOUR EXPECTATIONS EXPLICIT. Place plenty of emphasis on the notion that it is not acceptable to come to class without having read and assimilated the assigned material. A MIXED-BAG FOR THE ROAD-THE SMALLER THE GAP BETWEEN THEIR COMPETENCE AND YOURS, THE MORE RESPECT YOU WILL RECEIVE, AND THE MORE IN CONTROL OF THE CLASS YOU WILL BE.
26 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
In express our in-depth commitment and recognition to civility for our students, faculty/staff, and the entire surrounding communities, Worthington is proud to be an active University wide participant of the Actively Caring For People Campaign. Actively Caring For People refers to any behavior that goes above and beyond the call of duty on behalf of the health, safety or welfare of another person. For decades, Dr. Geller, Alumni-Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Virginia Tech, has applied behavioral science to keep people safe at work and on the road by increasing the quantity and quality of AC4P behaviors. In the aftermath of the April 16th, 2007 tragedy, Dr. Geller and his students initiated a culture shift at Virginia Techâ€”the Actively Caring for People Movement. Thousands of green actively-caring wristbands were distributed across the country to individuals performing acts of caring with the instructions to pay it forward, by passing on the wristband, when (s)he observes someone else performing an act of kindness. By using the wristband to recognize helping behavior, a tangible reminder of kindness is associated with the feeling of self- transcendence.
The SAPS Process See
Observe an act of kindness. Act
Thank the person for actively caring. Pass
Pass the wristband and tell the person to "pass it on." Share
Share your story at AC4P.org
27 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Research The Center for Applied Behavior Systems (CABS) at Virginia Tech develops and evaluates research-based interventions to target compassion and bullying in schools, at-risk driving and pedestrian behavior, credit-card safety in retail stores, and alcohol abuse on university campuses.
28 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
How are we getting there? Goals and Objectives OUR FIVE STRATEGIC GOALS
Strategic Priority 1 PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Strategic Priority 2 CREATE A MORE ENGAGING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE THAT IS MEANINGFUL AND MEMORABLE
Strategic Priority 3 STRENGTHEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCOVERY AND CREATION THROUGH A COMMITMENT TO INNOVATION, RESEARCH AND SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT
Strategic Priority 4 INCREASE THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF WORTHINGTON TO ENSURE A WELCOMING, DIVERSE AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY
Strategic Priority 5 USE RESOURCES, INVESTMENTS AND ENDOWMENTS TO ENSURE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
29 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
OBJECTIVES Maintain a commitment to tailor educational programming to serve the needs of the surrounding community (SP 1) Expand the first-year experience programming (SP 1) Increase study abroad partnerships (SP 1 & 3) Develop a student-first culture (SP 1 & 2)
Establish learning communities (SP 2) Implement alumni programming within the major to link students with alumni and to bring them into the alumni association (SP 2 & 5) Create more experiential learning opportunities and student-centered engagement with faculty and staff (SP 2) Invest in technology to enhance innovative research opportunities and divisional efficiency (SP 3) Develop effective partnerships with local business, industry, and service agencies to exchange with students (SP 3) Provide effective academic assistance to support educational goal attainment (SP 3) Enhance recruiting initiatives to ensure a more diverse student body (SP 4) Recruit, hire and retain a diverse and talented faculty and staff (SP 4) Commitment to diversity is evident in all divisional websites and publications (SP 4) Connect student enrollment with revenue generation (SP 5)
Ensure financial aid packages support enrollment revenue goals (SP 5) Ensure fiscal stewardship and accountability (SP 5)
FINANCING THE PLAN: ACHIEVING VISION 20/20 The quest to become a nationally recognized, premier, c liberal arts college will require a vast amount of additional resources. Comprehensive financial planning has been enveloped to
30 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
support the implementation of the Strategic Plan. Many of the initiatives will not make demands on the university budget and others can be met with existing financial resources. The full implementation of the Plan, however, will call for substantial new funding. The Plan is, therefore, closely aligned with the comprehensive campaign and many initiatives will be funded through the Universityâ€™s philanthropic efforts. Certain other initiatives, including major capital projects, will be partially or fully financed through the prudent issuance of debt. Hinton (2013) also identifies various questions as relates to financing the plan: Is our budgeting process multi-year? If yes, does it align with the strategic planning cycle? If no, what steps do we need to take to develop a multi-year budget process? What is the current resource allocation/budget request process? How will this process be driven by a strategic plan? Will departments and divisions need? The current budgeting process at Worthington University is yearly from July 1 â€“ June 30 and does not align with the strategic planning cycle, which is a five year period. The budget process at Worthington University is both multifaceted and multilevel. A Budget Committee, composed of faculty and staff representing all functional areas of the institution, is responsible for recommending and approving the final budget to the president. Budget recommendations are made only after consideration of projected revenues, input from each department, and the determination that recommendations comply with the strategic plan. Recommendations and budget input flow from the department level through the appropriate supervisor to the respective vice president. Recommendations are reviewed, discussed and if need be defended by the appropriate vice president before submitted to the president for final approval.
31 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Funds for the budget are taken in from tuition and fees, state appropriations, federal and state grants, and private gifts. (See appendix A). The funds are then used to pay all functional areas, salaries, benefits, scholarships, and savings/reserves for future needs. A portion of the funds saved will be used to fund this strategic plan. Since Worthington University employees have been good stewards of their funds, there should not be a problem to fund new strategies.
How are we doing? Implementing the Plan and Measuring Success IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN AND MEASURING OUR SUCCESS As we implement the imperatives and goals set forth in this Strategic Plan, we will evaluate regularly our progress toward realizing our Vision 20/20. To that end, we have developed a list of key, but not exhaustive, measures against which we will track our progress. The measures listed below are objective and quantifiable and allow us to both evaluate ourselves internally and to provide meaningful comparisons to our peer institutions. In our Vision, we aspire to provide our students with a life-changing educational experience and to become a firstchoice destination liberal arts university. We are committed to academic excellence (reflected in innovative teaching and learning, and leading to sustained intellectual growth in our students); personal development in our students; diversity and strong community alliances; and institutional accountability and continuous improvement. The measures listed below focus on these qualities and impact one or more of the institutional core philosophy that guides our Strategic Plan.
32 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Exp eri Dis en co ce v e Re r se a y, I n rch nov ,S oci ation Div al E , ers ng eC ag om em mu en n it t y Re sou En rces do wm , Inve en stm ts en ts,
gin g En ga
L ib era l
du c at io n
MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
X X X
Student Diversity Indicators Student Academic Indicators % Of students claiming Worthington University "first-choice"
Faculty/Staff Indicators % Faculty with Terminal Degrees % Faculty with Degrees from Top Institutions # Endowed Faculty Chairs and Professorships Faculty Diversity Demographics Staff Diversity Demographics
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X
Student Outcome Indicators Retention and Graduation Rates % Students who study abroad Assessment of Student Learning and Engagement Assessments of Student Attitudes, Beliefs,and Behaviors Assessment of Student Satisfaction # Post-baccalaureate Student Honors/Awards Employment and/or Continuing Education Rates
Course/Program Indicators Student/Faculty Ratio Average class size
Results of External Academic Program Reviews
Community Involvement/Success Indicators #/% Students/Faculty/Staff Engaged in activities #/% Students/Faculty/Staff Engaged in community activities 3/% Students engaged in leadership, involvement, wellness activities % Deparemtns/Programs with High-Quality Annual Assessment Work
Financial Resources & Philanthropy Indicators Total $/% Change in Annual Giving (pledges) Total $/% Change in Total Giving Total $/% Change in Corporation/Foundation Giving/Grants Total $ Value/% Change in Giving to the Endowment Alumni Giving % participation rate #/% Total Donors # Class Agents
33 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
X X X X X X X
REFERENCES Brown, W. A., & Gamber, C. (2002). Cost Containment in Higher Education: Issues and Recommendations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 5. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 941031741. Boyer Commission Report on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for Americaâ€™s Research Universities. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University, 1998. Chopp, R., Frost, S., & Weiss, D. H. (Eds.). (2013). Remaking College: Innovation and the Liberal Arts. JHU Press. Creating a strategic plan to further institutional effectiveness (2009). Retrieved from http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/20709/Creating-a-Strategic-Planto-Further-Institutional-Effectiveness-Membership.pdf Grudzinskiy, A., & Bedny, A. (2013). Raising innovators as a major task of leading universities. Guided Inquiry Design: A Framework for Inquiry in Your School. Carol C. Kuhlthau, Leslie K. Maniotes, and Ann K. Caspari. Santa Barbara, California: Libraries Unlimited, 2012. 188 pp, ISBN 9781610690096. Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a Leadership Vision: Eleven Strategic Challenges for Higher Education. Educause Review, 38(4). Hinton, K. E. (2012). A practical guide to strategic planning in higher education. Retrieved from Society for College and University Planning website: www.scup.org Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. JHU Press. Lee, V. S. (2012). What is inquiryâ€?guided learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2012(129), 5-14. Manchester Community College Vision Statement Concept Paper. Retrieved from http://www.mcc.commnet.edu/offices/pdf/2013-Vision-Statement-Concept-Paper.pdf Paris, K.A. (2003) STRATEGIC PLANNING IN THE UNIVERSITY. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.858&rep=rep1&type=pdf Pereira, M. A. C., & Da Silva, M. T. (2003, April). A key question for higher education: Who are the customers. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations (pp. 1-16).
34 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
Prince, M. J., and R. M. Felder. “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases.” Journal of Engineering Education, 2006, 95(2), 123–138. Providence College Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Retrieved from http://www.providence.edu/president/Documents/strategicplan10052011.pdf Schneider-Bateman, G. J. (2012). Innovation and Discourse: Integrating the Liberal Arts into Engineering Entrepreneurship Education. Strategic planning for dummies. Retrieved from http://www.dummies.com/howto/content/strategic-planning-kit-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html Thompson, A., Strickland III, A. (1999). Strategic management: concepts and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill. University System of Georgia Strategic Plan. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.usg.edu/news/release/regents_adopt_bold_strategic_plan William and Mary College Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Retrieved from http://www.wm.edu/about/administration/strategicplanning/_documents/strategicplan_fy14_18_ 040413.pdf
35 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity
APPENDIX SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Number of Students Source of Funds Tuition and Fees State Appropriations Federal Grants State Grants Private Gifts Other Sources Total
Use of Funds Instruction Academic Support Public Service Student Services Institutional Support Operational Support Scholarships Transfer to Reserves Total
Use of Funds Salaries Benefits Scholarships Operating Transfer to Reserves Total
4763 Worthington #s
6000 School Projection
13,974,068 9,773,551 7,160,180 2,082,365 663,945 220,442
41.3% 28.9% 21.1% 6.1% 2.0% 0.7%
17,603,276.93 12,311,842.54 9,019,752.26 2,623,176.57 836,378.33 277,693.05
11,076,280 1,811,230 131,900 2,803,979 3,376,443 2,153,908 9,204,423 1,693,727
34.3% 5.6% 0.4% 8.7% 10.5% 6.7% 28.5% 5.3%
13,952,903.63 2,281,625.03 166,155.78 3,532,201.13 4,253,339.91 2,713,300.02 11,594,906.15 2,133,605.29
12,124,489.53 4,357,921.51 9,204,423.00 4,871,328.96 1,693,727.00
37.6% 13.5% 28.5% 15.1% 5.3%
15,273,343.94 5,489,718.47 11,594,906.15 6,136,463.10 2,133,605.29
36 Vision 20/20: Inquiry, Innovation and Integrity