This month we looked in at the assessment work by the Summer Sessions Initiatives (SSI) team and their continuous improvement work for the Ignite Summer Launch Program. Christina Wan, Assistant Director of Summer Sessions Initiatives, serves as one of the OUE Assessment Committee members. We asked her, How does SSI think about the continuous improvement process?

Specifically, for our team in Summer Session Initiatives (AEP), we use a lot of quantitative data to measure specific targets such as enrollment in courses, and for the iGniTe program we use a great deal of qualitative data such as focus groups. We rely on the qualitative data because it is richly nuanced, and helps us to really capture student experience. We are also able to really get the improvements we need from it. One of the unique parts about qualitative data such as focus groups is that it can be really clear what your weaknesses are as a program, because the weaknesses are stated by the participants. We approach this as a lesson to be learned! We are clear in our reports that are produced what the areas for improvement are and what the strengths are, as stated by students themselves.

One example of this was our exploration of the communications process prior to the start of summer. We saw in our surveys and focus groups and through our experiences that this is something we could improve upon. As such we’ve been able to implement new ways of communicating with students pre-enrollment (such as using Canvas LMS) and new partnerships (such as with the Office of Undergraduate Admission) to get important messaging out to students.

I don’t know that we think of the weaknesses in our programs pointed out by students as anything other than it is – a need for improvement! It’s important, in this work, to look at our data as opportunity to do something differently. To have that supported by data is very helpful when you go to make changes later on! You can point right back to assessment data and clearly say, “This is what students wanted to see”. That, to us, is compelling – and helps us to market and approach our recruitment for programs the next year. We’re open about our need for improvement. We also engage our student advisory board in talking about this feedback, and are clear that students can feel free to provide constructive criticism, because that’s how we’re going to get better! I think we change something every year, or multiple things, based on students’ feedback. This year, we piloted a faculty/staff focus group in addition to two student focus groups, so we are very excited to see what areas for improvement the staff and faculty have identified out of that.