The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.
The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs, learning environments and support services, and it evaluates their effectiveness for student learning through processes designed to promote continuous improvement.
IU Northwest fosters a culture of continuous improvement by promoting and maintaining the quality of our educational programs. Assessment practices continue to evolve at IU Northwest, and those efforts include course-, program-, and institutional-level assessment. ILOs created in 2022 led to the revision of the general education program in 2024 as well as to an ongoing effort by programs to map their outcomes to the ILOs and then regularly assess these revised program learning outcomes. Academic programs are expected and do make use of the results of their assessment processes to improve outcomes. The assessment of support services will be enhanced with the development of co-curricular goals and their alignment with the campus ILOs.
Investment in faculty development has equipped our faculty with modern pedagogical techniques for various modalities while funding from the Department of Education has allowed us to renovate classrooms to create spaces that foster active learning. Spurred on by campus participation in AASCU's RFY Project and HLC's Student Success Academy, PIGS, HIPS, and other evidence-based interventions are proving effective in improving student learning, retention, and persistence. This is evidenced by our record high first- to second-year retention rate of 71.4% as well as our closing the opportunity gap in retention for Pell-eligible, 21st Century Scholars, underrepresented students of color, and first-generation students. There is still work to be accomplished in this regard related to six-year graduation rates coming out of the pandemic. The development of the Office of Student Success and new IU Student Success Dashboards will allow the campus to efficiently track and evaluate ongoing student success efforts as well as communicate them widely to the campus community.
There are no sources.
The institution ensures the quality of its educational offerings.
4.A.1: The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews and acts upon the findings.
IU requires regular academic program review (ACA-65) to ensure that student learning as well as the teaching, research, and service of faculty align with a unit’s mission. The goal of such reviews is academic program improvement and to have program review information prepared should it be requested by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE), per Indiana Code (IC 21-18-9-2). IU Northwest maintains that such reviews provide an opportunity for academic program improvement and to communicate future goals; moreover, the process allows programs to connect their goals with those of the campus. The IU Northwest Academic Affairs website provides guidelines for program review as well as a schedule of upcoming reviews.
In programs without external accrediting bodies, reviews are done approximately once every seven years. Self-studies are evaluated by an outside reviewer and include quantitative indicators and input from all the program’s stakeholders. Once completed, members of the program respond to the outside reviewer’s report and meet with administrators (Chair/Program Director, Dean, EVCAA) to discuss strengths and opportunities. Examples of completed program reviews are included illustrating this process (BA/BS Biology, BS Criminal Justice, BA English, BA/BS Geosciences, BA History, BS Health Services Management, BA Performing Arts, BA/BS Psychology and Neuroscience).
In some colleges and programs, accreditation continues as a regular part of degree certification. These programs use this process to remain current with national standards in those fields. These professional accreditation self-studies and reports count in lieu of internal program review. The online consortial (collaborative) programs also conduct regular program reviews implemented through the cross-campus faculty committees, per their assessment plan. Only a few programs have been in existence long enough for reviews to date (e.g., BS in Informatics, BS in Medical Imaging Technology).
4.A.2: The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning, or relies on the evaluation of responsible third parties.
IU Northwest evaluates all credit that it transcripts, including what is awarded for prior learning. When students are admitted, their transcripts are loaded into the Transfer Evaluation System (TES) and OnBase via the central office of University Enrollment Services. All transfer credit must originate from a regionally accredited institution, and the system relies on an existing database that contains all previous transfer decisions. If any courses fall outside of the database, then the transfer is handled by an Admissions Processor who uses the TES interface to have department chairs, directors, or deans evaluate the transfer credit and add to the database. TES helps to keep these decisions recorded and provides a national network to improve transfer evaluation. Awarding of test credit, including CLEP, IB, Cambridge, and AP, follow guidelines established by IU Northwest faculty.
Three state affiliated components of our curriculum, the Core Transfer Library (CTL), the Transfer Single Articulation Pathways (TSAPs), and the Indiana College Core (ICC) provide students important, regularly reviewed opportunities for transfer within Indiana's public universities (see C.3.A.1).
Additionally, IU Northwest recognizes that learning can occur through many avenues; thus, Admissions evaluates several types of credit assessment, including military academic achievement and experience (ACA-78), credit by examination (described above), dual enrollment credit earned during high school, testing out, portfolios, and department assessment of prior learning. IU Northwest lists these forms of credit on the Admissions website. Trends in awarding these types of credit include increases in AP test credit awarded, transfer credit, and non-AP test credit (CLEP, IB, etc.). Additionally, there have been decreases in non-ACP (Advanced College Project) credit awarded related to the changes in the dual credit system in Indiana and increases in IU ACP credit as a result. IU Northwest has explored working with CAEL (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning) to develop more structured pathways to award credit for prior learning (CPL) as part of the work from a taskforce of IU regional campuses. IU Northwest is committed to implementing CAEL recommendations along with aligning practices with other regionals to ensure that students who might participate in collaborative online degrees are being evaluated by the same standards. Experiential learning assessment is de-centralized to the school level, except when test based.
4.A.3: The institution has policies that ensure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer.
IU coordinates transfer credits from a central office called University Transfer Operations. This office follows policies and guidelines to ensure the quality of the credit accepted at the university and to ensure that the process is equal across all student populations. Many of these policies apply state-wide and are governed by Indiana law. In addition, our admissions office has a dedicated staff member for transfer credit evaluation who makes sure student courses meet our specification for transfer, that the credits are coming from accredited universities, and, if needed, follows up with faculty about individual transfer issues.
TransferIN serves as the website which applies legislation that requires Indiana public colleges and universities to accept agreed upon credit transferred from other Indiana institutions (all publics and some privates). Agreement is reached through a series of meetings of disciplinary faculty from participating institutions in the CTL on the courses listed there. There are regular processes for currency, additions, changes, and deletions to the CTL to ensure transferability.
In conjunction with the CTL, the Indiana College Core (ICC) was created through legislation in 2012. Public institutions that have accepted transfer students or high school students with dual credit and whose transcripts indicate that they completed the ICC milestone successfully are required to accept a minimum of 30 credit hours toward general education. Students at IU Northwest who have met this milestone are considered to have completed their general education except for a science lab (1-2 c.) and a course in cultural diversity (3 cr.) (unless those were a part of their ICC milestone).
For courses that are not covered by the above measures, IU has policies that cover faculty oversight, evaluating credit by examination, credit from regionally or nationally accredited universities, credit from two-year campuses, graduate credit, intercampus transfers, and international institutions. Additionally, Indiana University has articulation agreements with several universities. These agreements are current and public. Students are allowed to appeal initial decisions on transfer credit to faculty experts, and those experts review the course descriptions, the syllabi, and, if needed, talk to faculty at other universities to ensure the quality of the credits.
4.A.4: The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs.
In compliance with IU policy ACA-04, “the faculty has legislative authority to establish policy and determine procedures for its implementation governing the teaching, research, and service aspects of the University’s academic mission.” The authority is duly exercised locally through the IU Northwest Faculty Organization (FO) (Article 10.1 Authority of the Faculty) and its Curriculum Committee and General Education/Assessment Committee.
Each academic unit is responsible for developing courses to support its programs, and if applicable, the general education curriculum. They work with their colleagues across campus to ensure that courses needed for degree completion are regularly offered and serve students’ needs. The IU course approval system, CARMIn, provides the opportunity for courses to be vetted at multiple levels before final approval (see 3.A.1). Pre-requisites and course expectations (including student learning outcomes) are included as part of the CARMIn documentation process. The Campus Registrar and the University Registrar review new courses for functional issues, such as proper course numbers as well as ERGS (which allow pre-requisites to be enforced at the time of registration), and courses at IU go through a remonstrance process before being added to the IU Master Course Inventory. General education courses receive an additional level of scrutiny by the General Education Assessment Committee to ensure that they meet the learning outcomes for the general education program and are now reviewed every three years for currency and assessment of learning outcomes. The program development approval process provides another venue for ensuring the quality of curricula (see 3.A.1). The IU Northwest Bulletin is checked and updated every two years by department and unit chairs/heads and includes a list of the courses offered on campus, their descriptions, and their pre-requisites.
Departments and faculty maintain program and course rigor through sequencing and course pre-requisites; review of syllabi; departmental committee meetings focused on course and program outcomes (example minutes); faculty course evaluations and annual reviews; and in-person faculty classroom observation. Expectations for student learning are developed for each course by the faculty and the departments and are included in course syllabi. The syllabi also include expectations about teaching mode, learning resources, student support, and learning goals and objectives.
All units conduct program reviews that, in part, evaluate pre-requisites, course rigor, and learning outcomes (see 4.A.1). These reviews include an examination of course grade distributions in individual courses to ensure appropriate and fair standards within the specific discipline. Along with program review, departments/programs submit annual assessment reports (e.g., Chemistry, English, Math, Psychology, Dental, Radiography, Business). This provides an opportunity for documenting changes made to courses and programs and their effects on student learning.
IU Northwest employs faculty that meet the standards set forth by HLC and further articulated by IU Northwest FO through adherence to the credentialing policy for new hires and through credential audits for long-term employees. HLC requires all dual-credit faculty meet faculty credentialing standards by Fall 2025, so IU’s ACP offers full tuition assistance online courses at the graduate level, which lead to a graduate certificate or a Master's degree in the academic discipline for ACP instructors. IU Northwest no longer offers any traditional high school based dual credit courses. All dual-credit offerings transitioned to IU ACP, and they monitor the credentialing and assessment processes to ensure compliance (see 3.A.3).
4.A.5: The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.
IU Northwest encourages all programs with specialized accreditation to pursue accreditation as soon as they are eligible. IU Northwest maintains external accreditation for 20 specialized programs through various accrediting bodies. A list of programs with specialized accreditation is included on our website.
4.A.6: The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution ensures that the credentials it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission.
The IU First Destinations Survey provides insight into the success of our graduates. During the pandemic, results indicate decreasing numbers of students accepting employment or pursuing continuing education immediately after graduation as might be expected. These data are compared and amplified by the IU post-secondary employment outcomes (PSEO) dashboard that uses tabulations from the U.S. Census Bureau to further our understanding of employment outcomes of our graduates, one-, five-, and ten-years post-graduation. 77-81% of our graduates were employed, and 69% were working in Indiana. One of the performance funding metrics for public universities in Indiana is retention of graduates, which aligns with the mission and roles of regional campuses in Indiana to put local economies and workforce needs at the forefront and these data suggest we are succeeding in that mission and role. Health professions are our highest category of employed graduates, followed by business, education, and liberal arts and sciences. Median earnings increase with level of degree and years since graduation. These dashboards are available to the faculty and staff and can be drilled down by CIP code for use in departmental/school planning. This information is shared by Institutional Analytics and Institutional Effectiveness (IAIE) during the Strategic Enrollment Management Group meetings, and the Northwest Council.
IU Northwest conducts an alumni survey each year (one year and three years past graduation). The results are shared at Northwest Council, disaggregated, and shared with academic units to use in their planning processes. Most students one year past graduation (79%) and three years past graduation (78%) indicate they would choose IU Northwest if they were making the decision again. Trends in both groups show increasing percentages of graduates believing that IU Northwest helped prepare them for their career or to pursue post-graduate education, to find a job after graduation, and to contribute to their community. The survey asks whether respondents are interested in assistance from Career Services, as their assistance is available to all alumni. Those who respond affirmatively are contacted to offer career-related assistance as appropriate. Additionally, several programs collect alumni data separately for the purpose of improving their programs (e.g., Nursing, Radiography, Business, Radiation Therapy, Public & Environmental Affairs).
Licensure pass rates are another way to assess the success of graduates. The pass rates for the 10 programs we offer have remained consistently high in the last five years.
Finally, Third Way, a national policy institute, recognized IU Northwest as having the highest economic mobility index score (ROI) for students in Northwest Indiana and in the top 20% of institutions nationwide provides evidence that the credentials we award do contribute to our graduate's future success.
The institution engages in ongoing assessment of student learning as part of its commitment to the educational outcomes of its students.
4.B.1: The institution has effective processes for assessment of student learning and for achievement of learning goals in academic and cocurricular offerings.
IU Northwest’s assessment efforts include course-level (General Education, Assessment of the Major), program-level (Program Review, Assessment of the Major), and institutional-level learning (NSSE, Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs) mapped to Program Learning Outcomes). Both direct and indirect measures of student learning are part of the annual review process, promotion and tenure processes (p. 10-11, 23-25, 37-38), program review, consideration for teaching awards, and membership in IU’s teaching academy, FACET.
General Education As described in 3.B.2 our original general education program was created in 2010 and an assessment plan created for that plan as an AQIP action project (2010-2014). As suggested by the reviewers of the project, we adopted a common rating system (Highly Proficient, Proficient, Partially Proficient, Not Proficient) in 2013. Additional modifications have been made to the assessment plan since then, all intended to improve the assessment process, including accelerating the four-year cycle to two years, providing written feedback on assessment reports, and creating a template report among others. Assessment procedures, practices, and results are available on the Academic Affairs website. The assessment data reported in this assurance argument is based on this assessment plan as our new general education program was just approved by the faculty in Spring of 2024 and required a new assessment plan.
The assessment letters, results, and feedback for the recent cycle of the former general education program include Foundations for Effective Learning and Communication (Written Communication, Mathematical Reasoning, Oral Communication, Scientific Reasoning), Critical Thinking, Diversity, and Ethics in Citizenship and Breadth of Learning (Social and Behavioral, Arts and Humanities, Cultural and Historical, Math, Physical and Life Science). This version of general education also included Advanced Foundations for Effective Learning and Communication components (courses that were offered within the major). The new general education program has eliminated this component as it was decided it was more appropriately assessed within the major.
During the summer of 2024, the General Education Assessment Committee established an assessment plan for the new general education program. This plan incorporates practices we were already using as well as adds best practices learned in the 2021 HLC General Education Assessment Workshop. The first assessments under this plan will be in Fall 2025 and allow for the entire program to be assessed and courses re-approved based on participation in the assessment process in a three-year recurring cycle.
The impact of our general education program is reflected in NSSE results. NSSE has a question that asks about students’ perception of the effectiveness of coursework that satisfies the principles of general education. The question—to what extent did your courses (whether in the major or general education) contribute to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas?—had students link their experiences in classes to the principles. While an indirect measure of student learning, reports suggest a high level of belief that the general education program significantly contributes to individual students' knowledge, skills, and personal development.
High-Impact Practices NSSE asks specific questions regarding High-Impact Practices (HIPs) and the results display the percentage of students who participated in HIPs at IU Northwest and compares the percentage with external benchmarks. Our seniors consistently show substantially more participation in HIPs than our first-year students. Comparisons with our peers, other IU regionals, and master’s level public institutions show comparable results to ours. As part of our student success efforts, we have specifically targeted increasing access to learning communities, research with faculty, and internships over the last several years, to complement our existing field experiences and capstones. In 2024, our first year and senior students have a record high 60% and 89% participation in HIPS, respectively.
Major/Program Each program has program learning outcomes for their degrees. The current learning goals/outcomes (examples) for each undergraduate and graduate program are listed in the academic bulletin along with degree requirements. Each academic unit has its own assessment plan (some plans mirror those done for accrediting bodies). Each program reports annually on their assessment of the major (e.g., BA/BS Chemistry, BA English, BS Math, BA/BS Psychology, BS Dental, AS/BS Radiologic Sciences, BS Business). This provides an opportunity for documenting changes made to courses and programs and their effects on student learning. These annual reports are referenced and discussed in program reviews.
The online consortial (collaborative) programs have adopted an assessment plan at the university level as well that is implemented for each of the degrees at the participating campuses through university-wide faculty committees. Each program reports annually on their assessment of the major (e.g., BS Informatics, BS Sustainability, Certificate in Communication, MA/MAT Political Science.)
Institutional Learning Outcomes IU Northwest has recently implemented campus-wide ILOs. They were developed by a team of faculty over the 2021-2022 academic year and approved by the FO in April of 2022. Beginning in the 2022-2023 academic year, the Office of Academic Affairs began working with programs as they revise their existing program learning outcomes to align with ILOs, followed by mapping of curricula and annual assessment of these aligned program learning outcomes. This process is being completed on a unit/department basis (example). The new general education program was the first to begin the process of aligning learning outcomes and mapping the curricula to the new ILOs.
Co-curricular offerings The general education principles have been used as a guiding framework for aligning co-curricular and curricular learning outcomes for all undergraduates. As part of AASCU’s RFY program (2016-18) the campus began the process of developing a co-curricular transcript to recognize and encourage student participation in important co-curricular activities. As a result of that process, it was decided that the campus would benefit from the development of formal principles of co-curricular learning rather than the more informal use of the general education principles as a guiding framework for designing, aligning, delivering, and assessing co-curricular activities. A draft of co-curricular goals was in the process of receiving feedback from campus constituents, including students, prior to the pandemic. After the pandemic, using feedback from Student Government (SGA), the Strategic Enrollment Management Group (SEM) began re-envisioning co-curricular goals to align with our ILOs and focused on enabling the campus to provide a broad array of intentional learning opportunities for students to apply their acquired knowledge and skills. This new draft of co-curricular goals will route to the Student Affairs Committee of the FO upon completion.
Co-curricular learning opportunities are designed to meet outcomes at the departmental, school, and campus level. Our recurrent co-curricular activities (aligned to general education principles and ILOs) are programming/events in which our students participate in significant numbers. The academic programs selected these activities to support both general education and program goals.
Formal assessment of co-curricular programs is in its infancy at IU Northwest. The Division of Student Affairs participated in the Student Affairs Assessment Leaders (SAAL) open course in 2022, followed by the IU Assessment Institute, and then hired an assessment consultant in 2023. Using the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) they began the process of creating student learning outcomes for their programs, including Counseling Services, Athletics, Student Support Services, Student Activities, and ASAP (Veterans Services, Accessibility Services, 21st Century Scholars, and New Student Orientation). They are in the process of their first round of assessment using these learning outcomes.
4.B.2: The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning.
Programs are expected to make use of the results of assessment to drive data informed pedagogical and/or programmatic changes on behalf of student learning. The faculty within their programs are responsible for determining the most effective ways to use assessment data to enhance student learning. Evidence for this can be found in the annual assessment of the major processes and reports described in 4.B.1. Each report asks for a description of any programmatic changes that are planned based on the data reported that year as well as to report on their progress on changes reported in the previous year.
For example, the Biology department in the College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) has spent the last five years focused on improving student success outcomes based on their annual assessment of the major reports and the suggestions offered by the external reviewer in their Program Review in 2017-2018 who felt they were not adequately focused on and assessing student learning and success in their courses. They explored a variety of pedagogies through a STEM PIG (Pedagogical Interest Group) as well as through the ACUE Effective Teaching Practices course and are working their way through their curriculum, one course at a time. They eliminated the biology placement exam (2017-18 assessment), introduced collaborative learning to Molecular Biology (2020-21), adopted a mastery model for Anatomy and Physiology 1 & 2 (2022-23), and most recently have introduced team-based learning with a flipped classroom in Introductory Biology. All of these pedagogical interventions have lowered the DFW rates in those classes significantly.
The English department in COAS regularly assesses student learning. In 2017 the writing program implemented an online essay placement test, replacing the self-assessment the campus had used for many years based on growing dissatisfaction with the results. An analysis of the new scores led to the discovery of a set of students that fell on the cut-off between the two first-year writing courses. The writing program created a bridge program where both courses could be taken in 8-week sessions taught by the same instructor. The assessment report for 2020-21 indicates the success of this method, with DFW rates significantly lower than the two full-length courses individually and this bridge program continues to be offered as a result. Assessments of upper-level literature and writing courses have also resulted in changes to the curriculum, including adding components to the capstone course focused on career options, professionalization, and graduate study based on student feedback (before and after syllabi).
The Chemistry department in COAS undertook a longitudinal study of the preparatory course for General Chemistry with lab as their assessment of the major in 2020-21. They evaluated 14 years of previous data for this course, which was designed to prepare STEM majors to succeed in General Chemistry with lab. Historically the course has a high DFW rate for both science and non-science majors, serves a much larger population than just STEM majors, does not have adequate math prerequisites, does not have a lab component, and the percentage of students who funnel into General Chemistry and succeed is very low – indicating it is not an effective preparatory course. Based on these results they developed a new course intended for students with a STEM major focused on preparing students for General Chemistry, developing math, scientific problem solving and lab skills. The efficacy of the course to serve as a preparatory course will be assessed in an upcoming assessment cycle. This and other assessment results from Chemistry are provided in this summary report.
The School of Business and Economics (SOBE) regularly reflects on student learning and assessment. For the last few years, they have been focused on improving student success in three outcome areas: ethics, diversity, and critical thinking. Between 2018 and 2023 they implemented the Paul-Elder (elements of Thought) Critical Thinking Framework and encouraged its use across the curriculum, resulting in a substantial increase in the number of students with satisfactory scores (54% to 92%). A summary of their assessment reports shows other changes that have been made as well.
The Master of Nursing (MSN) degree welcomed its first cohort in 2017. Assessment of the major began in 2020. Since that first report the program has revised the program outcomes based on new national nursing standards, reported positive outcomes for six of the eight outcomes reported to date, developed a standardized syllabus and course reporting tools to improve assessment processes, and is evaluating the original outcome measures chosen to determine whether they are the best choices for assessing the LOs.
An illustrative example from the collaborative degree programs is the graduate certificate and MA in Teaching (MAT) of Chemistry. These programs were created to provide dual credit instructors the educational background needed to satisfy faculty credentialing for teaching college-level courses. The certificate is stackable into the MAT, and they are assessed together as a result. Between 2020-2023 their annual assessments have led to a revision in program outcomes to make them more measurable and appropriate to the degree (including eliminating one that was deemed more appropriate for a course level outcome), adjusted a rubric, and have adjusted the entrance criteria for the program to require one year of undergraduate Organic Chemistry, based on discovering the uneven preparation that some students had upon entry into the program, which led some to struggle with graduate-level chemistry assignments.
Changes to Processes As our campus conducts assessments at the department/program, unit, and campus levels, we engage in evaluation and revision of the processes as well as reflection on our culture of assessment. Changes to the processes are described more fully throughout C.3 and C.4.
4.B.3: The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty, instructional and other relevant staff members.
Student learning and success is at the heart of the work of the faculty, including annual faculty reviews, promotion and tenure (p.10-11, 23-25, 37-38) and teaching awards. Faculty create their own Learning Outcomes (LOs) for their courses as well as their programs and align them to the ILOs (see C.3). They design assignments to assess those LOs, collect and analyze data from their courses as well as use data provided by the Office of Institutional Analytics and Institutional Effectiveness (IAIE) or IU Institutional Analytics. They make changes to their courses and curriculum based on those assessments (see 4.B.1 and 4.B.2). Online courses include an additional layer of assessment, using practices developed from Quality Matters, the encouragement of peer reviewing of courses, the faculty approval of best practices for online instruction, the collaboration with faculty from other campuses, and the involvement of staff from CISTL and the Office of Online Education.
The FO monitors assessment of student learning through the General Education Assessment Committee (e.g., recent minutes focused on new assessment plan, feedback on recent assessments, and general education course approval). The regular cycle of general education assessment requires intentionality and faculty discussion and collaboration within and across departments and disciplines.
Annual assessment of the major and program review encourages the substantial participation of all faculty in departments/programs, and across multiple campuses for the collaborative degree programs, in reviewing student data and making informed decisions based on those data (see 4.A.1 and 4.B.1-2).
Full- and part-time faculty members participate in workshops offered by CISTL, focused on inclusive teaching, active learning strategies, new online tools for enhancing student learning, foundational and advanced online teaching, and Quality Matters, among others. These programs focus on training in best practices for in-person, hybrid, and online teaching and attest to faculty intentionality related to pedagogy and student success. The ACUE programming offered for the last two years for full-time and part-time faculty is based on their Effective Teaching Practice Framework and endorsed by the American Council on Education (ACE).
Efforts to improve student success have been guided by our work with the AASCU RFY project (2016-18), and since 2019 by our work in the HLC Student Success Academy. More than 60 faculty, staff, and students were a part of the implementation team for the RFY project. The RFY Committee presented the results widely at campus convocations, the campus Board of Advisors, and AASCU meetings, and several manuscripts were published based on results in the special RFY issue of JOSOTL. The careful planning of the project yielded a feedback loop that held value to faculty and staff at IU Northwest in the continued improvement of our first-year experience.
The HLC Student Success Academy (SSA) allowed us to expand our student success work to the larger student population. It provided a process for the campus to deeply consider the current realities in our institution and discover opportunities for improving student success based on an examination of who our students are, existing success initiatives, policies and practices, and then propose a success plan targeting improvement areas. The SSA team had representation from a broad range of units and functions, including Academic and Student Affairs, and the FO. It included faculty and staff administrators, support staff, and faculty members (non-tenure track as well as tenure-track). The SSA plan was vetted across campus, including the Northwest Council, and the FO and was then integrated into both the IU Northwest Strategic Plan 2026 and the IU 2030 plan, demonstrating our ongoing campus commitment to student success.
The campus has benefitted from our mentored relationships with AASCU RFY and the HLC SSA. They have advanced our student success efforts significantly. We believe our next Quality Initiative should be the HLC Assessment Academy. Our assessment program pieces were all developed separately over time and would benefit from more integration. Developing a more systematic approach to assessing student learning at the institutional and program levels will enhance the learning experience for our students.
The institution pursues educational improvement through goals and strategies that improve retention, persistence and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.
4.C.1: The institution has defined goals for student retention, persistenceand completion that are ambitious, attainable, and appropriate to its mission, student populations and educational offerings.
IU Northwest has defined goals and strategies for student retention, persistence and completion that are ambitious, attainable, and appropriate to its mission, student populations and educational offerings in its 2026 Strategic Plan and then reflected in the IU 2030 strategic plan (top quartile of our peer group). These achievable (as compared to our peer institutions) yet aspirational metrics were determined by a task force within the larger strategic planning group.
One of the strategic planning task forces focused on student retention, persistence, and completion. Their starting point was the HLC Student Success Academy work, where retention, persistence, and completion rates were analyzed by student demographics in order to design a student success plan for the campus. IAIE provided trend data to the task force as well. This data allowed us to compare our retention, persistence, and completion results with the other IU regional campuses, as well as our peer institutions. Taken together, this data allowed the task force to develop a plan for reaching the desired retention, graduation and completion outcomes shown below.
4.C.2: The institution collects and analyzes information on student retention, persistence, and completion of its programs.
IU Northwest and IU collect data on a wide variety of student success metrics. IU Institutional Analytics (IA) produces official university reports on admissions, enrollment, retention, graduation rates, degree completions, and financial aid for IU and all its campuses. The underlying data and dashboard summaries maintained and supplied by IA are available to campus community members and accessed with IU credentials. They are used by faculty, staff, and administrators to identify and monitor trends in student populations, courses, and curricula. This information is discussed at all levels of the campus, including administration, unit, and department/program levels. To further aid communication of student success initiatives and metrics, the Office of Student Success has begun a monthly newsletter that highlights initiatives and outcomes that goes to all faculty, staff, and students.
Dashboard summaries can be disaggregated in multiple ways for important comparisons. For example, the Undergraduate Beginner and Transfer Cohort Retention dashboard can display results by individual campus, the regional campuses combined, whether students are retained at IU or their home campus, part-time (PT) or full-time (FT) status, a variety of demographic characteristics, academic major, and retention term or cohort. These charts illustrate our record high first- to second-year retention for first-time full-time (FTFT) students (71.4%), that the retention to the second year for underrepresented students of color is very similar to the rest of their cohort (71% vs 71.7%), but that first-generation students are still not retained at as high a level as the rest of their cohort (69.3% vs. 72.6%). We believe these results are clear evidence that our recent student success initiatives (see 4.C.3) are having an effect. The first-generation student retention gap which continues to grow in subsequent years (4th year – 40.9% vs 50.4%) is being addressed by our recent selection as a FirstGen Forward institution, which will provide opportunities to work with peer institutions to create environments that improve the success of first-generation students on campus in a mentored multi-year relationship. The Academy Project, which will be implemented in Fall 2025 focuses on first-generation sophomores, providing opportunities for integrated learning, research, leadership, and networking.
Graduation rate dashboards track 4-, 5-, 6-, and 8-year graduation rates and can be disaggregated by major, age, ethnicity, gender, and financial aid status, among other factors. As a commuter campus with a student population that works a significant number of hours in addition to going to college, we focus on the six-year graduation rate as described in our strategic plan. These graphs show a steady increase in graduation rates, especially for Indiana 21st Century Scholars who receive 100% of tuition at public colleges in Indiana as long as they meet specific requirements. The campus has a dedicated 21st Century Scholar Coordinator, and their work is reflected in higher retention and graduation rates as compared to the other regional campuses of IU.
DFW rate dashboards allow departments/programs to assess individual course sections, courses with multiple sections per term, teaching modality, instructor type, and multiple demographic descriptors for students. The illustrative graphs and table show DFW rates for first-year composition for the last several years, indicating quite a bit of variability between instructor types, and decreasing variability between teaching modalities. The English department has discussed this as part of their assessment of written communication in general education and is working on improving consistency in assignments and grading. The department participated in a campus PIG focused on freshman composition, and six full-time faculty and nine part-time faculty have participated in ACUE training in the last two years, with a focus on asset-based and active pedagogy. This has been instrumental in reducing the DFW rates of our 40 largest introductory level classes from 39% in 2021-22 to 26% in 2023-24.
Using data like these has enabled the faculty, staff, and administration to develop and deploy interventions, effective pedagogies, and curricula modifications that have led to robust increases in student success over the past decade. We have almost eliminated the gap in first- to second-year retention in many demographic groups, however we still have work to do in terms of the gap in six-year graduation rates.
4.C.3: The institution uses information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs to make improvements as warranted by the data.
Faculty, staff, and administrators have used data to identify opportunities for improvement in pedagogy, curricula, and administrative processes to help students. Interventions, pedagogical improvements, curricular changes, and process improvements are then introduced, and the data are interrogated to assess efficacy. This process underlies much of the improvement in grades, retention, and graduation reported above. We highlight a few examples below.
PIGs (Pedagogical Interest Groups) Inspired by our membership in AASCU’s RFY project (2016-2018), the campus created a faculty community of practice program, self-named the PIGs, in which faculty meet to discuss evidence-based pedagogical techniques and commit to implementing at least one technique. By the end of the Fall 2018 Semester, 11 PIGs had formed, and 62 faculty had participated. Cumulatively, members of the PIGs investigated 38 different pedagogical techniques. Members of the PIGs have introduced new pedagogy in 19 different courses, have redesigned 14 courses, and have extended the pedagogical techniques to every section of five multi-sectioned courses. These interventions have increased the mean GPA of students in redesigned courses from 2.2 to 2.6, decreased the DFW rate from 36% to 25%, increased the first- to second-year retention rate for those students from 68% to 74% (2016-2018), and decreased the opportunity gap, leading the PIGs to being recognized as a finalist in the 2024 Examples of Excelencia (pp. 20, 22).
Block Scheduling The Retention Strategies group (which became the Strategic Enrollment Management Group) identified in 2018-19 that conditionally admitted students (those who have not yet met all admission requirements) are not treated differently than fully qualified students (who have met all requirements), and they have low levels of student success, with fewer than half retained to the second year, and only about 10% graduating. Additionally, they frequently enroll at the university in the last few weeks prior to census. A working group proposed mandating a common set of classes that includes a first--year seminar, as well as courses in writing, math, and public speaking. We call the program the Blocks. It was piloted in the Fall of 2019 with late enrolling first-time students. Based on its success we expanded the program to all conditionally admitted students in the Fall of 2020. Conditionally admitted students in the Blocks earn markedly higher grades, are retained to the first year at nearly 20% points higher, and more than twice as many of them finish the general education level of mathematics and composition during their first year. In 2023 we added our ACES (Achieve, Connect, Engage, Succeed) students (who do not meet the university’s regular or probationary entrance criteria) to the Blocks, and they have found success there as well. This led to a revision of the ACES program for Fall 2024, now known as Redhawk Scholars, who are provided with additional academic support and a scholarship upon achieving success during their first year.
Summer Bridge Programs Our analyses indicate that many of our students struggle with the transition from high school to college, as indicated by our first- to second-year retention rates. We developed and instituted a series of summer bridge experiences that focus on belonging, gaining familiarity with the university, and establishing connections with faculty, staff, and students. The retention rates of students (including “at risk” students) completing the summer bridges are substantially higher than comparable students. As a result of the initial success of the COAS Summer Bridge, additional bridges have been added in Business and Health and Human Services (2023). This also led to the formation of a campus-wide Summer Bridge Steering Committee in 2023, which meets regularly to coordinate the Summer Bridge Programs. We anticipate similar positive retention results from these new bridge programs.
Student Success Plan Our institutional endeavors to assess student success utilized the HLC Student Success Academy (SSA) as a catalyst for change. In 2019, IU Northwest joined the SSA as our Quality Initiative, a three-year project aimed at evaluating and improving institutional factors that affect student success.
A strategic gap analysis revealed misalignment between our definitions of student success, initiatives that were successful at helping students succeed, policies and practices that impact student success, and who is responsible and actively engaged in student success. Three groups of students who experience lower levels of student success were identified: 1) conditionally admitted students, 2) students who have not selected/entered a degree seeking major, 3) traditionally under-represented student groups. There were relatively few initiatives specifically designed to meet the needs of these students. The initiatives we did offer were not always well assessed, and there was no mechanism for identifying, institutionalizing, scaling and budgeting initiatives that have demonstrated efficacy in our context. There was also no individual, office, or committee responsible for student success initiatives, resulting in no formal process for oversight, strategy, or evaluation. The SSA plan was adopted by the campus and was integrated into both the IUN 2026 and the IU 2030 plans. Additionally, the campus used the SSA plan as the basis for two successful grant (DHSI-INVEST and HSI-STEM-TRIUNFOS) applications.
As a result, since 2022 the campus has been able to offer to many of the full- and part-time faculty and staff professional development (analysis) focused on belonging, asset-based and active learning pedagogies; supported significant course redesign; renovated classrooms to enable active learning opportunities; built a STEM Center focused on academic and career support to STEM students; expanded summer bridge offerings to better support students beginning their academic journey; developed a Career Exploration month of programming to help students select majors and prepare for their careers; offered increased wrap-around support to students with basic needs insecurity; and created a cross-divisional Student Success Team with a Student Success Director to coordinate initiatives and evaluation. IU has invested considerable resources into new Student Success Dashboards that allow us to better track opportunity gaps and to benchmark against our peers. We are also renovating space on campus to create a Student Success Center to centrally locate a sizable portion of our student success programming. These efforts have already led to an increase in first- to second-year retention in FTFT, Hispanic and low-income students; an increase in STEM student success; an increase in belongingness; and decreased the opportunity gap and DFW rates in the top 40 undergraduate courses taught at IU Northwest (evidenced in metrics from both grants and the strategic plan).
First Year Seminars As part of the AASCU RFY project, the campus developed a number of new first year seminars (FYS). Prior to the RFY project the School of Business and Economics (SOBE) was the only academic unit with an FYS. Both CHHS and COAS have since developed courses and they are required in SOBE and COAS for all undergraduates and in CHHS for conditionally admitted students. Results have been positive, improving first semester and first year retention and GPA, especially for conditionally admitted first year students.
AdvisingThe 2019 Retention Strategies Summit recommended increasing the number of professional advisors on campus and providing more qualified student success coaching to improve support. Since that time, professional advisors have been added to all academic units – and all undergraduates are now assigned a professional advisor. All academic advisors participated in the IU Coaching Conversations training program, and it is a component of new advisor onboarding as well. AdRx advising notes software allows for record keeping and communication. However, we have also used it to effectively track the number of students who have received quality academic advising. The data is now provided regularly to the campus Student Advising Center and the number of students receiving academic advising during the leadup to the fall semester increased from just over 50% to just under 90%. This data is also used to identify groups of students who need advising but have been able to register without it as the data indicates that students who have not had contact with an advisor are less likely to be retained. NSSE and Graduating Students survey results reflect these changes to academic advising with increases in satisfaction during the time period when these changes were made.
4.C.4: The institution’s processes and methodologies for collecting and analyzing information on student retention, persistence and completion of programs reflect good practice.
IU defines, collects, and uses data that conforms to the definitions established by the Integrated Postsecondary Education/Data System (IPEDS). As part of the IU system, IU Northwest has access to institutional analytics, which display data on student retention, persistence, and completion at the school, unit, and program level. Data are captured at census from the Student Information System (SIS) and transmitted to IUIA for processing each semester. Externally, IUIA reports retention and graduation data to IPEDS and the ICHE, both of which track first-time full-time student success. Internally, we track, aggregate, and disaggregate all students' progression, not just FTFT students. Other information comes from the campus registrar concerning completion of courses by students, enrollment patterns, and withdrawals. Units evaluate data on student persistence in heavily enrolled classes, including DFW rates in individual courses, student GPAs in programs and by instructor, and number of credit hours attempted. We use the National Clearinghouse to determine whether students have persisted elsewhere after leaving IU Northwest. The campus also supports professional development through CISTL’s training on assessment and by sending professionals to relevant conferences such as HLC, IU Assessment Institute, SAAL open course, AIR, and INAIR to continue to ensure our processes and methodologies reflect good practice.
