Date of Award
2002
Document Type
Dissertation
Degree Name
Doctor of Education
Department
Programs for Higher Education
Advisor
Anne E. Mulder
Committee Member
Susan A. Torbenson
Committee Member
Delores M. Smiley
Keywords
accreditation, administration, ANOVA, Board of Trustees, college district residents, community collaboration, consensus, facilities, faculty, focus groups, formative committee, funding, higher education, information technology, infrastructure, Joliet Junior College, key performance indicators, licensure examinations, performance indicators, pilot study, quality measures, stakeholder expectations, stakeholder input, stakeholders, strategic planning, student outcomes, student services, summative committee, support services, validation
Abstract
The strategic planning process at Joliet Junior College had been dormant since 2000. The problem, therefore, was that no strategic planning was being conducted that adhered to the institution's accreditation mandates or addressed stakeholder expectations. The purpose of this dissertation was threefold. First, a systematic methodology to develop key performance indicators by soliciting the input of various stakeholder groups was generated. Second, an inventory of those key measures was developed via the input of a formative committee and validation by a summative committee. A pilot study was then conducted to further corroborate lucidity of those quality measures. The final inventory included quality measures extending across nine performance indicator categories: (a) faculty and instruction, (b) student outcomes, (c) community collaboration, (d) information technology, (e) student services, (t) funding, (g) facilities and infrastructure, (h) staff, and (i) miscellaneous.
Third, the most important of those quality measures were determined by the administration of the inventory to each of the following stakeholder groups: (a) Board of Trustees, (b) administrative and support staff, (c) full-time faculty, (d) part-time faculty, (e) students, and (f) college district residents. Follow-up focus groups were also conducted at the community planning meetings to discern any additional insights to why the various stakeholders regarded specific quality measures as crucially important.
The results indicated that faculty ability to teach, faculty preparation, and faculty training were paramount among all constituent groups. Among the student outcome indicators, success on licensure examinations was considered as most important by all stakeholder groups. Few differences among the stakeholder groups were revealed. The Board of Trustees was the only stakeholder group to rate funding quality measures as among their most important. On the other hand, the college district resident sample was the only group to rank information technology expenditures as one of their most important.
In addition, one-way ANOVA statistics were computed for each of the quality measures. Twenty-six ANOVA comparisons were statistically significant (12 < .01). Among those quality measures that posted statistically significant results were GP A at transfer institutions, collaboration with business and industry, and state appropriation (funding). Ironically, no stakeholder group distinguished any of these quality measures as most important.
Before the academic programs and support services were designated for the strategic plan, five quality areas were assembled based on the results of the Quality Measure Questionnaire and focus group discussions. Again, this identification of the academic programs and support services was accomplished by consensus of a formative committee and affirmation by a summative committee.
One suggestion for future administrations of the Quality Measure Questionnaire was the inclusion of non-credit students as a separate constituent group. Another suggestion was the expansion of the focus groups to include all constituent types.