University Strategic Alignment Process

Data Analysis Information

USAP Banner 1

Explanation of Academic Performance Metrics Visualization

 In order to better understand the academic performance data provided by the Office of Academic Affairs, the Task Force met with VCAA Drummond on March 4, 2016 to review possible methods for interpreting the data. In that meeting, VCAA Drummond noted that, without external benchmarks, it may be advisable to compare like departments. Moreover, he suggested using academic clusters that were previously discussed by his office and, as a way for the task force to focus on relative contribution and cost structure versus individual numbers, an IPFW average (or baseline) to compare the most recent annual data with 2006 and 2007; the results of which would provide the most accurate representation of a unit's trend. The following data were used in the analysis:


The Community Research Institute (CRI) was contacted by the Facilitation Team to visualize this data provided by the Office of Academic Affairs into charts and graphs. It was noted that some variables, such as the number of degrees, were highly variable throughout the visualization process. Therefore, the Facilitation Team requested a three-year average to provide a more stable comparison. The following charts were created by CRI and referenced in the task force’s analysis:


  • Graduates by Department: 3 year average of annual total graduates (number of degrees) by department (2012-14). Note: 3-year average is on annual total graduates, not an average of each data point.
  • Enrollment Charts: Summary charts at the cluster level, and a set of department charts for each cluster for UG Major Indices, Credit Hour Indices, IPFW Indices, Academic Cluster Summary Charts: Indexed to 2006 for Credit Hours, Number of Majors and Minors, and Number in Graduate School.
  • Persistence Charts: 3 year average for persistence, 3 year average # grads (2012, 2103, 2014), Total Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty


This data was reviewed within the context of other information, including each unit’s self-authored USAP report, which provided important contextualization. CRI was available to answer task force questions, and no such requests were made.