final version of the self-study document - Keuka College's Middle ...

Table of Contents
Table of Contents……………………………….…………………………………………….
List of Appendices……………………….…………………………………………………...
Eligibility Certification Statement.…………………………………………………………...
Executive Summary……………………….………………………………………………….
Introduction……………………….………………………………………………………….
Chapter 1 Mission, Goals and Integrity………………………………….……………….
Standard 1: Mission and Goals
Standard 6: Integrity
Chapter 2 Planning and Resources………………………………….……………………
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional
Renewal
Standard 3: Institutional Resources
Chapter 3 Leadership, Governance, and Administration……………….………………
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
Standard 5: Administration
Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment of Student Learning…..................
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Admissions, Retention, and Support……………………….………………….
Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
Standard 9: Student Support Services
The Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education of Keuka………
Standard 10: Faculty
Standard 11: Educational Offerings
Standard 12: General Education
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
Glossary…………………….………………………………………………………………... 1 - 6
i
i
ii - ix
x
1 - 4
1 - 8
1 - 10
1 - 23
1 - 19
1 - 31
1 - 39
1 - 39

Appendix Document
Middle States Self-Study
Introduction
Appendix Document List
I.1 State of the College 11-1-11
I.2 Financial Indicators Tool July 2012
I.3 Organizational Charts
I.4 Proposed Program Review/Self Study Guidelines
I.5 TAPP Program Matrix
ii

Appendix Document Title
Middle States Self Study
Chapter 1 Mission, Goals and Integrity
Appendix Document List
1.1 Faculty Handbook 2012-2013
1.2 Employee Handbook
1.3 Mission Statement Survey
1.4 E-LEAP Goals
1.5 KC 2009-2012 Strategic Plan
1.6 US News World Report Debt Load 2012
1.7 Student Handbook
1.8 GDA Marketing and Branding Report
1.9 2008 STAMATS Report, p. 3
1.10 LRSP-BOT Retreat June, 2012
1.11 COE-COI Policy
1.12 Bias-Incident Response Protocols
1.13 BIRT Incidents and Outcomes
1.14 ARB Reports of Academic Dishonesty
1.15 Student Employment Contract
1.16 FP Code of Conduct Form
iii

Appendix Document
Middle States Self-Study
Chapter 2 Planning and Resources
Appendix Document List
2.1 Long Range Strategic Planning Board Retreat June 14-15, 2012
2.2 TAPP Final Report June 6, 2012
2.3 KC Strategic Planning Community Day 1-30-2007
2.4 Keuka Strategic Development Process
2.5 Key Keuka Strategic Planning Processes
2.6 Final Summary Academic Strategic Plans February 2010
2.7 Form III Directions Proposal New Academic Program
2.8 Visual Verbal Art Strategic Plan Update
2.9 Goals and Benchmarks November 2010
2.10 Strategic Benchmarks Document Actuals 10-28-12
2.11 Strategic Plan 2009 – 2012 Report Card
2.12 State of the College November 2012
2.13 Community Day Agenda February 1, 2011
2.14 Five Year Forecast
2.15 2012-2013 Operating Budget Key Dates Schedule
2.16 Preliminary 2012-2013 Budget Requests Worksheet
2.17 Model for FLC and SPBC Participation in Budget Process
2.18 Consolidated Enrollment Report
2.19 2012-2013 KC Operating Budget
2.20 Operating Budget 2012-2013 Planning Assumptions
2.21 Actual vs. Budget Analysis 2011-2012
2.22 AY 2011-2012 Five Way Split Exhibit
2.23 ASAP Programs Cohort Graduation Rates
2.24 Fundraising Totals
2.25 Information Technology Assessment Strategic Plan
2.26 Memo: Vendors ERP Recommendations
2.27 Building Occupancy Spreadsheet
2.28 Five-Year Housing Forecast
2.29 Faculty Meeting Minutes 5-28-09
2.30 Audit Report
2.31 Management Letter
2.32 2010 MSCHE Supplemental Information Report
iv

Appendix Document
Middle States Self-Study
Chapter 3 Leadership, Governance and Administration
Appendix Document List
3.1 Major Administrative Changes Since 2002
3.2 Board Bylaws Final 6-16-12
3.3 Board Committee Responsibilities
3.4 KC Board Approval Process for New Programs
3.5 Statement of Commitment for Keuka College Trustees
3.6 Board of Trustees Meeting and Retreat Minutes 2010
3.7 Board of Trustees Self Assessment Survey Spring 2012
3.8 President’s Search Prospectus Job Description
3.9 Presidential Transition Report
3.10 President’s Cabinet Job Descriptions and Resumes
3.11 Sample Cabinet Meeting Agenda
3.12 Bylaws of Staff Advisory Council
3.13 Constitution of Student Association
3.14 Selection of Peer Group Process
3.15 College Advisory Council Bylaws Draft 11-27-12
v

Middle States Self-Study
Chapter 4 Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment of Student Learning
Appendix Document List
Appendix Document
4.1 IR Office Activity Report 2011-2012
4.2` Table 4.1 – Keuka College Mission & Goals Assessment: Closing the Loop
4.3 Fundraising Totals
4.4 Strategic Plan Report Card 2009-2012
4.5 Table 4.2 – Approaches to Assessment Among Non-Academic & Discipline Units
4.6 KC Strategic Planning Community Day 1-30-2007
4.7 Keuka College Strategy Development Processes
4.8 Keuka College Strategic Planning Process and Overview
4.9 Strategic Planning Committee Presentation J. Burke
4.10 Interview with KC Budget Director Kirk Meritt
4.11 SPBC Prioritization Chart 2-11 Parking Lot Requests
4.12 Keuka Strategic Technology Plan 2009
4.13 Presidential Letter Future Academic Admin & Faculty Governance
4.14 Alpha Peer Group List
4.15 Keuka College Directory screen shot
4.16 E-LEAP Definitions
4.17 Assessment of Student Learning at Keuka Plan Diagram
4.18 Alignment of New E-LEAP and Old Graduate Outcomes
4.19 Existing Graduate Outcome Statements
4.20 Course Syllabus Checklist
4.21 Table 4.3 – Keuka College Assessment Plan Matrix
4.22 General Education Learning Goals
4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course Alignment Examples
4.24 Gen Ed Learning Goal Assessment Process
4.25 Gen Ed Assessment Cycle
4.26 Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report Template
4.27 Gen Ed Assessment Ethical Inquiry June 2012
4.28 Gen Ed Assessment Oral Communication June 2012
4.29 Gen Ed Assessment Physical Natural World 2009-2010
4.30 Gen Ed Assessment Quantitative Reasoning 2010
4.31 Gen Ed Assessment Self & Individual
4.32 Gen Ed Assessment Verbal Arts 2010
4.33 Gen Ed Assessment Wellness Phase 2 2012
4.34 Writing Assessment Report
4.35 E-LEAP and Program Goals Alignment
4.36 E-LEAP & Program Assessment with Learning Opportunities Packet v4.2
4.37 Sociology/Criminology, Criminal Justice Assessment Plan and Report
4.38 English Program Assessment 2012
4.39 Business Traditional Program Outcomes Assessment 2011-2012
4.40 TAPP Final Report 6-6-12
vi

4.41 Business China Program 2011-2012 Outcomes Assessment
4.42 Business Vietnam Program 2011-2012 Outcomes Assessment
4.43 Psychology Assessment June 2012
4.44 Nursing Assessment June 2012
4.45 Noel Levitz Nursing Assessment Results 2010-2012
4.46 Assessment Report for the Master of Science in Literacy (Birth-6; 5-12)
4.47 Gen Ed & E-LEAP Goal Alignment
4.48 Assessing Course Program Gen Ed E-LEAP Goals SOC 101 Sample
4.49 CEL Annual CCT 2010-2011 Report Aligned with E-LEAP
4.50 2011-2012 Work Study Supervisor Survey Results
4.51 FP Supervisor Evaluation Form with E-LEAP
4.52 Moodle Assessment Page screen shots
4.53 Director of Institutional Assessment Position Keuka College
4.54 KC Assessment Handbook
4.55 Pilot Program for Foliotek Eportfolios Spring 2012
vii

Appendix Document
Middle States Self-Study
Chapter 5 Admission, Retention, and Support
Appendix Document List
5.1 Keuka College Faculty Handbook
5.2 Keuka College Record 2012-13
5.3 Comprehensive Enrollment Plan for Traditional Undergraduate Studies
5.4 Enrollment Management Retreat Priorities 2009
5.5 STAMATS 2008 p. 36
5.6 ASAP Locations Map – ASAP Viewbook
5.7 Keuka China Enrollments Graduation Totals 2003-2011
5.8 Keuka Vietnam Student Handbook 2011
5.9 Center for Global Education Admissions Policy and Procedures
5.10 Cohort Default Rate History
5.11 ASAP Graduate and Undergraduate Handbooks
5.12 Global Admissions Scholarship Rating System
5.13 Traditional Program Transition Week Schedule
5.14 New Student Orientation NSO Evaluation Survey Data 2008-2012
5.15 New Student Orientation Flyer Summer 2012
5.16 International Student Orientation Schedule Fall 2012
5.17 ASAP Orientation Flyer
5.18 Lightner Library Annual Report 2010-2011
5.19 Library Resources Added 2008-2012
5.20 ASAP Programs Cohort Graduation Rate Analysis 2002-2003 to 2010-2011
5.21 FYE Task Force Final Report
5.22 Diversity Task Force Final Report
5.23 Diversity Report Card Summary 2008-2012
5.24 Multicultural Affairs Events Attendance 2013
5.25 Keuka College Student Handbook
5.26 Counseling Services Stats Document
5.27 Health Services Brochure
5.28 Intramural Student Survey Supporting Doc and Student Interest Survey Doc
5.29 Campus Recreation Strategic Plan Document
5.30 Center for Spiritual Life Usage
viii

Middle States Self Study
Chapter 6 The Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education of Keuka College
Appendix Document List
Appendix Document Title
6.1 Faculty Credentials Service List
6.2 ASAP Adjunct Faculty Credentials
6.3 ASAP New Adjunct Hire Process
6.4 Guidelines for Recruiting Underrepresented Faculty at Keuka College
6.5 NFO Assessment of Student Learning
6.6 Instructor Self Review Online Course
6.7 Online Instructor Mentor Evaluation Sample
6.8 Faculty Development Funds 2008-2012
6.9 Center for Teaching and Learning Fall 2012 Brochure
6.10 Keuka China Faculty Self Evaluation and Program Feedback Form
6.11 Assessment Handbook
6.12 Rigor Rubric
6.13 Rigor Relevance Framework
6.14 Hess, Carlock, Jones & Walkup Cognitive Rigor Matrix
6.15 Information Literacy Exam Spring 2011
6.16 Lightner Library Mission and Vision Statements
6.17 Mapping Student Information Literacy to Bloom’s
6.18 Keuka College Transfer Admissions Process
6.19 Transfer Evaluation examples ASAP & Traditional
6.20 Motion for New General Education Program Development Dec. 2012
6.21 Keuka College Writing Rubric
6.22 Kolb Model Reflection Paper Rubric
6.23 Keuka Gen Ed webpage
6.24 Faculty Advising Resources on Moodle
6.25 Assessment on Moodle
6.26 ASK Office Developmental Courses Outcomes
6.27 Keuka China Programs Narrative
6.28 Keuka Vietnam Programs Narrative
6.29 Vietnam Academic and Student Support Services ISVNU
6.30 Vietnam Outcomes Assessment Presentation October 2012
6.31 Criteria: Experiential Learner of the Year
6.32 Field Period Graduate Outcomes Trend Analysis (2009-2012)
6.33 FP Contract Explanation and Examples
6.34 Field Period Resources on Moodle
6.35 China Field Period Survey 2010
6.36 KC MDS New Development Program for Online Instructors
6.37 KC Network Policy
ix

Executive Summary
Keuka College has chosen a comprehensive approach to self-study in fulfillment of the requirements for
reaffirmation of our accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. The Self-
Study Report has provided an opportunity for reflecting on our past and present so that the College is
better prepared to move into a future marked by the realities of a highly competitive educational market
and an uncertain economy. Keuka College moves toward this future under the leadership of a new
President, Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera, who replaced Dr. Joseph Burke, the president for 14 years. Shortly
after his arrival in July 2011, President Díaz-Herrera began a campus initiative to develop a new
strategic plan, with the goal to bring the plan to the Board of Trustees for approval in February 2013. As
the new strategic plan is in draft stage at the time of this writing, the Self-Study will both address the
initiatives and accomplishments that preceded the arrival of President Díaz-Herrera and incorporate new
institutional initiatives since July 2011 as appropriate. While President Díaz-Herrera leads an institution
that has changed dramatically from the time of the last decennial review in 2002, Keuka has maintained
its commitment to its liberal arts-based foundation, experiential learning, student success, and
affordability.
Since Keuka conducted its last Self-Study, the College has experienced a number of significant changes.
Most notably:
Student enrollment (headcount) has increased 216%, reflecting the expansion of its adult degree
completion program, graduate programs, and overseas partnerships
Significant changes have occurred in staffing, including new faculty
A capital campaign provided $10 million to renovate Ball Hall, the historic centerpiece of the
College
A five-year, $1.82 million U.S. Department of Education Title III grant awarded in October 2005
allowed the College to re-engineer educational technology
A migration of the administrative enterprise resource planning (ERP) system from Jenzabar to
Elucian (formerly Datatel) was launched in 2010
The College expanded its residence living options through the acquisition of two apartment
complexes adjacent to the main campus
The College moved from its Carnegie baccalaureate classification to master’s smaller programs
These changes have allowed Keuka to achieve its mission more readily, but challenges remain in
assuring financial resources.
Given these changes and challenges, Keuka chose the comprehensive model option for the self-study as
this would provide the opportunity to conduct a thorough appraisal of Keuka’s programs and services,
governing and supporting structures, and educational outcomes as they relate to Keuka’s mission and
goals. This work has informed the strategic planning initiative now underway which promises to lead
the College into a healthier financial future with stronger academic programs.
In Fall 2010, President Joseph Burke appointed a Middle States Steering Committee of 11 members, cochaired
by Professor Ann Tuttle and Associate Vice President for Academic Programs Dr. Tim Sellers.
The Steering Committee, with broad representation from faculty and staff, met with administration and a
Middle States Self-Study consultant to begin identifying key institutional issues and anticipated areas of
study. Initial meetings of the Steering Committee focused on a review of the College’s Mission
statement as a first step in developing an understanding of the self-study process. To achieve broad
campus participation, the Steering Committee distributed an electronic survey to the campus, asking for
Page 1 of 4 Executive Summary

esponses to open-ended questions about institutional strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and
opportunities, as a means to develop the analytical research questions that would shape the Self-Study.
With this comprehensive input from the College community, the Steering Committee generated research
questions which they shared at the Community Planning Day in late January 2011, inviting participation
in the creation and refinement of research questions. From this work, the Steering Committee defined
the scope of the Self-Study and established seven working groups to conduct research, organize
evidence, draft responses to the research questions, and make recommendations for improvement. Draft
responses were utilized by the co-chairs who wrote substantial draft chapters and shared them with the
respective working groups for feedback. Draft chapters were then posted on the College website for
community feedback. The primary goal was to create a community-owned document in an open process
that would involve as many College constituents as possible and provide ample opportunity for all to be
heard.
Structure of the Self-Study
The Self-Study is organized into six chapters which combine Middle States standards:
Introduction to the Self Study
Chapter 1—Mission, Goals, and Integrity (Standards 1 and 6)
Chapter 2—Planning and Resources (Standards 2 and 3)
Chapter 3—Leadership, Governance, and Administration (Standards 4 and 5)
Chapter 4—Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment of Student Learning (Standards 7 and 14)
Chapter 5—Admissions, Retention and Support (Standards 8 and 9)
Chapter 6—The Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education (Standards 10, 11, 12,
and 13)
Chapter 1: Mission, Goals, and Integrity
Keuka College has experienced many changes in the last ten years, many of which can be attributed
to the strategic initiatives of President Joseph Burke to increase enrollment in diverse education
markets. Dramatic growth in the adult degree completion program, expansion of overseas programs,
and entry into graduate programming provided needed revenues and improved financial stability.
The revision of the Mission Statement in 2008 acknowledges these important changes to our student
body. Chapter 1 addresses this diversification of revenue streams as directed by the Strategic Plan
2009-2012 and the campus consensus that the Mission and Vision statements need to be reviewed
again to reflect more accurately our institutional strengths and the new direction that the College
wishes to take for its future.
Institutional integrity resides in the College’s commitment to protecting the rights of every member
of the academic community. Institutional policies and procedures identify the rights and
responsibilities of the various constituencies and ensure that fair and impartial processes exist to
resolve breaches in moral or ethical conduct. The College’s strong shared governance system
provides additional support to ensuring that concerns are voiced and addressed appropriately.
Chapter 2: Planning and Resources
The recent economic situation has affected the College, as it has all academic institutions,
particularly those which are heavily tuition-dependent. However, Keuka has been able to improve
its financial picture due to conservative financial management and as a result of following the
revenue-generating activities of the Strategic Plan 2009-2012. Areas of concern remain the tuition
Page 2 of 4 Executive Summary

discount rate which has increased in recent years as a response to strained financial resources on the
part of our traditional student population, limited support to the operating budget from the
endowment which has only partially met the strategic goal of providing increased net revenue,
faculty and staff compensation, and deferred maintenance although the College has made some
progress in capital improvements through debt, grants, and capital campaigns. A 5-year faculty
salary plan met its goal to achieve parity with IIB-Church related schools in AY 2008-2009, and
conversations are underway between faculty leadership and the administration to develop a new
salary plan, using a peer group established in spring 2012.
Strategic planning and budgeting processes have improved, with recent investment in planning
capacity through the hires of a budget analyst for the Center for Professional Studies and
International Programs and a Director of Institutional Assessment, but stronger integration,
transparency, and communication is needed. The recent initiatives under President Jorge Díaz-
Herrera, including the creation of a College-wide Long Range Strategic Planning Steering
Committee (LRSPSC) and six taskforces to conduct research and provide recommendations to the
LRSPSC, will assist greatly in this endeavor.
Chapter 3: Leadership, Governance, and Administration
The College President is the chief executive officer. Five vice presidents report directly to him, and
other administrative officers are responsible for daily operations. Recent restructuring of the
executive administrative staff seeks to streamline the duties of several positions, realign academic
programs under one position, and provide stronger accountability for achievement of institutional
goals.
The College’s strongest asset is its qualified and dedicated personnel. Despite improvements in the
College’s financial resources, compensation budgets remain tight, staffing is lean in some areas, and
discretionary budgets are limited. Nonetheless, a hard-working faculty and staff demonstrate a high
level of commitment to the institution, and most of the men and women who work at the College,
regardless of their positions, are proud to be part of the College staff. The excitement occasioned by
the appointment of a new President in July 2011 is now reflected in the commitment of the Long
Range Strategic Planning Steering Committee members who have stepped up to the task of crafting
a new strategic vision and plan which will ensure a stronger financial foundation and greater renown
for its academic programs.
Chapter 4: Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment of Student Learning
Keuka College is committed to a culture of assessment, and since its last decennial review, has
worked to develop organized, systematized, and sustainable assessment processes. Additionally, it
has recently hired a Director of Institutional Assessment to support the development of stronger
assessment processes across the College. Institutional effectiveness is measured by the degree to
which programs and resources are organized to achieve institutional and program-level goals and by
the ability of the College personnel to use assessment results for continuous improvement. Through
a variety of assessment measures, including but not limited to retention rates, graduation, financial
reports, and surveys, Keuka regularly collects and analyzes data to make decisions. Measurement of
student learning occurs through portfolios, capstone coursework/presentations, pass-rates on
qualifying exams in certain majors, and field experience evaluations. Assessment results are then
used to enhance student achievement of learning goals.
Page 3 of 4 Executive Summary

Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention and Support
Since the last self-study, Keuka College has developed new program opportunities for traditional,
adult, graduate, and international students, leading to increased enrollment across all areas. The
College’s emphasis on the whole student is illustrated through programs and services that support
student learning and success. Investment in retention, through the collaborative efforts of increased
academic support staff and student affairs staff, has begun to bear fruit. Work has begun on creating
a plan to revisit the Keuka brand and develop a new strategic Communications and Marketing Plan
with improved metrics to gauge success. These activities are dependent on the Long Range Strategic
Plan and accordingly will follow that process. Recent restructuring of the Enrollment and Marketing
units under one Vice President for Enrollment, Marketing, and International Relations will allow
more focused attention on achieving institutional enrollment targets and improving the academic
profile of enrolled students.
Chapter 6: The Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education
The faculty at Keuka College is fully engaged in the curriculum and committed to student learning.
Installing a qualified faculty in the adult degree completion program has been a priority, illustrated
by a significant increase in the number of full-time faculty —from 6 to 19 tenure track lines—and
increasing salary substantially for all faculty over a five-year compensation plan, ending in 2008.
The faculty has initiated a process for evaluating its governance structure to address the challenges
of an institution which has grown in complexity as it has expanded across New York State and
through its international programs as well as to ensure its ability to meet the needs of newer faculty
members. Keuka College has committed to a culture of assessment, evidenced by the hiring of a
Director of Institutional Assessment, regular program reviews, the incorporation of learning goals in
all courses, and the use of assessment results for continuous improvement. The general education
curriculum was revised in 2006, moving away from a discipline-based core to an integrated learning
outcomes-based curriculum, and in 2010, the faculty adopted the LEAP Essential outcomes of the
Association of American Colleges & Universities, renamed the E-LEAP outcomes to reflect Keuka’s
hallmark emphasis on experiential learning. Keuka offers a number of programs and services that
fall under the umbrella of “related educational activities.” Although somewhat independent of one
another, as a whole they illustrate an abiding commitment to providing student-centered academic
support and quality educational experiences that extend beyond the walls of a traditional classroom.
Through tutoring and academic counseling services for under-prepared and struggling students,
distance learning, ESL support for non-native speakers, and extensive opportunities for experiential
learning, service learning, and community service, Keuka demonstrates its commitment to
developing learning opportunities that meet the needs of its student body.
Page 4 of 4 Executive Summary

Introduction
Keuka College, on the shores of Keuka Lake in New York State’s Finger Lakes region, was
founded in 1890 as the Keuka Institute, a coeducational preparatory college dedicated to serving
the educational needs of rural youth. Its motto then, “committed teachers and scholars devoted
to providing maximum attention to the individual student,” remains Keuka’s philosophy, as
underscored in its mission statement. This commitment to student success is at the heart of
Keuka’s endeavors, although the College has expanded its mission and educational program
beyond serving rural youth to meeting the educational needs of a diverse group of learners,
including adult, traditional, online, and international students. As this self-study will document,
Keuka has done an excellent job of fulfilling its mission to provide a supportive and
intellectually challenging educational experience to a diverse group of learners.
Keuka offers 30 bachelor’s degree programs on its home campus at Keuka Park, many with
specialized concentrations; 27 minors; and self-designed majors. Four master’s degree programs
are offered at the home campus, in Occupational Therapy, Literacy (B-6 and 5-12), and a Master
of Science in Management—International Business concentration. Through its Accelerated
Studies for Adults Program (ASAP), the College offers bachelor’s degree completion programs
in organizational management, criminal justice systems, social work, and nursing, as well as
master’s degrees in management, criminal justice administration, and nursing at sites across New
York state. The College also extends educational opportunities via the Internet through its
Wertman Office of Distance Education.
The Self-Study process got underway in fall 2010, with the appointment by President Joseph G.
Burke, Ph.D. of an eleven-person Middle States Self-Study Steering Committee, to be chaired by
Dr. Tim Sellers, the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs and faculty member Ann
Tuttle, Professor of Business and Management. The Committee and their respective working
groups are comprised of representatives from the key functional areas of the College: faculty,
finance, admissions, student affairs, professional studies, students, and trustees.
Some members of the Steering Committee engaged in training relevant to the Self-Study and
Reaccreditation process. This training included attendance by Anne Weed, Vice President for
Academic Affairs, and Tim Sellers, Associate Vice President for Academic Programs, at a
number of MSCHE events: “A Basic Toolbox for Assessing Institutional Effectiveness” in
August 2010, “Meeting Middle States Expectations for Student Learning Assessment” in
September 2010, the MSCHE Self-Study Institute in November 201, the 2011 MSCHE Annual
Meeting (Tim Sellers), “Integrating Planning and Assessment” in April 2012, and the 2012
MSCHE Annual Meeting, including Dorothy Schramm, Director of Institutional Assessment.
The other members of the steering committee also participated in training through a joint retreat
with members of the administration in October, facilitated by a Middle States Self-Study
consultant. At this retreat, the Committee discussed communication strategies, College
community readiness for participation in self-study, key institutional issues, and self-study
outcomes.
The Middle States Steering Committee began meeting in September 2010, and at the Steering
Committee’s first meeting, the committee members began to review the College’s mission
statement as a first step in understanding the nature and scope of the self-study process. In
Page 1 of 8 Introduction

esponse to their recommendations, this review of the mission statement became part of a larger
institutional initiative set into motion by the new president’s strategic planning process, as noted
below and described more fully in Chapter 1. In December 2010, the Middle States Steering
Committee constructed a web survey and invited the entire College community to participate in
identifying institutional strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges. These responses
were used to generate numerous research questions. In February 2011, the College community
was invited to attend several break-out sessions on the self-study process, including one which
involved College members in assisting with the creation of research questions. As each working
group completed their drafts of responses to the research questions, they were reviewed and
discussed by the Co-chairs who then developed drafts of the self-study. Preliminary and full
drafts of the Self-Study have been shared on the College portal for review and feedback by the
College community. Additionally, the Board of Trustees’ involvement in the Self-Study has been
considerable: presentations by senior administrative leadership at its three annual board
meetings with Q&A follow-up, review of and feedback on a draft of the research questions for
the self-study design document, serving on a working group as well as answering research
questions for various Middle States working groups, meeting with the Middle States liaison and
Chair of the Evaluation Team, and reading/commenting on drafts of the Self-Study.
The Self-Study research phase and writing process has occurred simultaneously with a number
of profound institutional changes: the transition of Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera as Keuka’s new
president in July 2011, the creation of six taskforces whose preliminary and final reports served
to inform and guide an intensive and ongoing strategic planning process, the adoption of a new
mission statement, a restructuring of organizational leadership, and the implementation of a new
data management system. These simultaneous changes have been both energizing and stressful
to the College’s personnel who have worked tirelessly to meet these multiple demands. In
particular, the Long Range Strategic Planning (LRSP) process has galvanized the College
community, with participation of faculty, staff, administration, trustees, alumni, and students on
the six taskforces and on the LRSP Committee itself. The six taskforces—Taskforce on
Revisiting Mission, Vision, and Values, Taskforce on External Environmental Analysis,
Taskforce on Academic Program Prioritization, Taskforce on Administrative Services Review,
Taskforce to Review Academic Support Services, and Taskforce on Revitalizing the
Curriculum—generated many proposed initiatives to transform the College as well as
recommendations in the spirit of continuous improvement. Some initiatives have already been
implemented, most significantly the creation of a new Mission, Vision, and Values document,
and other recommendations are under discussion and review by the Long Range Strategic
Planning Committee. The extensive work done to date underscores the dedication of Keuka’s
faculty and staff to the success of the institution and to serving the intellectual and social
development needs of its students. Without question, Keuka’s faculty and staff are its most
valuable resource.
Since its last reaccreditation in 2002, Keuka College has submitted annual monitoring reports
(excluding 2010 and 2012) focusing on the College’s finances, enrollment management, and
assessment of student learning. The following discussion provides a brief analysis of these three
areas.
The coordination of planning and assessment activities has improved substantially since the time
of the last decennial review in 2002, and the College’s financial situation, although still impacted
by the current state of the economy, is stronger as a result of the strategic decisions to add new
programs and to expand international and adult programs. A review of the College’s overall
Page 2 of 8 Introduction

financial picture reveals an institution which has struggled but has also made very considerable
progress toward achieving financial sustainability.
Central to a comprehensive long range strategic planning exercise, President Díaz-Herrera began
his tenure with an intensive focus on the College’s external and internal environment. At his first
annual State of the College address in November 2011, President Díaz-Herrera provided
valuable information regarding stress factors and their possible impact on the College (Appendix
I.1 State of the College 11-1-11). As part of establishing an institutional baseline, President Díaz-
Herrera applied the critical parameters developed by Martin and Samels (2008) in Turnaround:
Leading Stressed Colleges and Universities to Excellence to point out nine areas of concern
(Table 1.1 Stress Factors Summary). Although the identification of these nine areas of concern,
primarily financial stressors, did not come as a surprise to the College’s personnel, the frank
discussion of these challenges signified a new and welcome era of transparency.
Table 1.1 Stress Factors Summary
TURNAROUND 20 STRESS FACTORS Stress factor?
1. Tuition Discounting more than 35 percent YES-1
2. Tuition dependency of more than 85% YES-2
3. Student default rate above 5% (paying back fed. loans) NO
3 Alternate: Bad debt write off greater than 10% YES-3
4. Debt Service more than 10% operating budget NO
5. Less than 1:3 ratio between endowment & operating budget YES-4
6. Average tuition rate increase greater than 8% NO
7. Deferred maintenance at least 40% unfunded YES-5
8. Short-term bridge financing in 4 th quarter NO
9. Less than 10% of operating budget dedicated to technology YES-6
10. Average alumni gift is less than $75 and fewer than 20% give
annually
11. Institutional enrollment of 1000 students or fewer NO
12. Conversion yield 20% behind primary competitors NO
YES-7
13. Student retention 10% behind primary competitors YES-8
14. Institution on probation, warning or financial watch with accreditor – but
it was just two years ago.
15. The majority of faculty do not hold terminal degrees (73% of full time
faculty hold terminal degrees; majority of adjuncts do not)
16. Average full time faculty is 58 or higher NO
NO
YES-9
Page 3 of 8 Introduction

TURNAROUND 20 STRESS FACTORS Stress factor?
17. Leadership team more than 12, less than 3 years of service NO
18. No complete online program has been developed NO
19. No new degree or certificate developed last two years NO
20. More than 1 year to approve a new degree program YES-10
As will be addressed more fully in subsequent chapters of this Self-Study, tuition discounting,
retention, and deferred maintenance are chief among the financial challenges facing the College,
and accordingly they figure prominently in the financial initiatives and benchmarking metrics
developed in the draft of the long range strategic plan.
In addition to monitoring progress on the 20 Stress Factors, the President has also identified the
Composite Financial Index (CFI) from the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) Financial
Indicators Tool (FIT) as a strategic planning metric for benchmarking and assessing the financial
progress of the College. Like the “Turnaround Stress Factors” above, the most recent FIT
presents a sobering view of the College’s finances, with the most recent year of the report FY
2009-2010 showing a Composite Financial Index (CFI) of 1.0, measured against the financial
health threshold score of 3.0. The previous fiscal year 2008-209 yielded a CFI of -1.0 (Appendix
I.2 Financial Indicators Tool July 2012). However, analysis of these indicators reveals that the
downward trend on all four core ratios experienced by Keuka in 2008-2009 parallels that
experienced by similar institutions. More importantly, the College has substantially improved
both its financial performance and its ability to fund mission-critical components. Below are
important indicators supporting the improvement of Keuka’s overall financial health since the
submission of the Periodic Review Report in 2008:
1. Increase in Operating Budget Surpluses
2011-2012 Operating Budget Surplus = $1.4M (3.9%)
2010-11 Operating Budget Surplus = $1.0M (2.9%)
2009-10 Operating Budget Surplus = $0.3M (1.1%)
2. Beginning 2009-10, discontinued practice of using prior-year surpluses in order to
balance budget
3. Beginning 2010-11, instituted practice of building a surplus into the operating budget to
help insure the College meets the bank's debt covenant requirement, and to improve the
fiscal health of the College
4. Passed the bank's debt covenant test for the past 2 years (2010-2011, 2011-2012)
5. Endowment growth from $4.9M in June 2002 to $10.0M in June 2012
6. Have not had to use line-of-credit since 2002-03
7. "Bad Debt" expense as % of student revenues: 2001-02: 0.8%, 2011-12: 0.4%
8. Growth of debt: 2009-10 = $9.9M, 2011-12 = $13.0 M
Page 4 of 8 Introduction

Although the College has recently undertaken greater indebtedness, as per #8 above, it should be
noted that the College has opted to expand residential housing options for students through
purchase of adjacent apartment buildings and to make substantial repairs and renovation
expenditures because improvements to operating facilities were critical to supporting the
College’s mission. Taking advantage of historic low interest rates, the College’s strategic
expenditures demonstrate a significant investment in capital.
In communications to the Board, alumni, and college constituents, President Díaz-Herrera has
repeatedly stressed three themes as central to the College’s achievement of financial
sustainability: Reorganization—improve existing organizational structure; Restructuring—
redefine the organizational structure by rearranging/ adding/ deleting existing constituent parts;
and Transformation—change the strategic core by leading a cultural revolution that changes
who we are.
In the first six months of his tenure, President Díaz-Herrera moved quickly to reorganize and
restructure college leadership. In response to his assessment of the enrollment picture— strong
numbers in the adult program and international programs but a relatively flat traditional program
enrollment— President Díaz-Herrera reorganized all of enrollment management and marketing
(traditional, adult education, and international programs) under one Vice President, providing the
then-Chief Operating Officer/Executive Vice President greater opportunity to focus on
Advancement. The resignation shortly afterwards of this individual left a critical vacancy in
Advancement, and the President is actively working with a consultant to hire a Vice President for
College Advancement and to reconstruct the College Advancement unit, including the
development of aspirational, yet achievable, fund-raising goals, particularly with regard to
improving our weak endowment position. Subsequent to this resignation, the position of Chief
Operating Officer and Executive Vice President was deleted. Also, in August 2012, the position
of Vice President for Center for Professional Studies and International Programs was deleted,
with academic and administrative oversight of the adult degree completion programs and
international programs transferred to the Vice President for Academic Affairs (Appendix I.3
Organizational Charts). Assessment of these changes in organizational leadership will be tied to
key initiatives of the strategic plan and part of annual performance evaluations.
The current draft of the strategic plan includes continuing to offer a diversified portfolio of
academic programs, a strategic path begun under former President Joseph Burke (1998-2011)
and sustained under President Jorge Díaz-Herrera (July 2011- present). As noted above, the
College has lacked a comprehensive enrollment management plan, as responsibilities were
formerly divided between the Executive Vice President/COO and the Vice President for the
Center for Professional Studies. A principal task for the newly reorganized Enrollment
Management unit under the Vice President for Enrollment Management and International
Relations is to develop this comprehensive plan, with inputs from the academic programs,
finance and administration, marketing, and financial aid, according to the following directive:
“Set sustainable [total] enrollment goals that maximize our facilities, capabilities, and resources.”
Keuka’s successful implementation of a multi-faceted strategic growth plan since its last
decennial review, in particular its movement into the adult education market, was a response to
national higher education reports and trends which showed a declining number of high school
graduates in the Northeast, especially in Keuka’s recruitment areas, and the increasing number of
non-traditional students seeking a college degree. In response to increased competition within the
immediate geographic region for the declining pool of traditional students, the Burke
Page 5 of 8 Introduction

administration identified three growth strategies: to initiate new majors and degree programs
consistent with the College's mission and values and responsive to societal needs; to establish
graduate programs that meet community needs; and to initiate off-campus, degree completion
programs to service full time working, non-traditional age students. The last two strategies
resulted in new academic programs or delivery systems that had not been previously offered by
the College.
Since the College’s implementation of the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) in
2001, it has continued to monitor and analyze the market for possible new majors and locations.
As a result, ASAP has significantly expanded its offerings and access across New York State,
thereby meeting or exceeding annual enrollment projections. Since 2002, the Accelerated Studies
for Adults Program has increased enrollment from 152 to 625 students (FTE), increased the
number of undergraduate programs offered from three undergraduate programs to four
undergraduate programs, increased from one graduate program to three graduate programs, and
increased the number of active NYS sites.
On the home campus, the Burke administration added new major programs and new minor fields
of study. Since 2002, the traditional home campus has Increased enrollment from 907 to 952
(headcount), increased the number of undergraduate programs from 29 to 30, and increased the
number of graduate programs from 2 to 4.
Enrollment expanded substantially in overseas programs, with Keuka providing a joint B.S.
Management degree to students at four sites in China and two in Vietnam. At each site, through
a transfer articulation agreement, the partner university provides 90 credits of Keuka Collegeapproved
courses, parallel to the curriculum taken by undergraduate students at the NYS home
campus, and Keuka College faculty deliver the remaining 30 hours of the campus business
curriculum. Although enrollment in the Keuka China Programs has declined from its highest
point of 4515 students (headcount) in 2007-2008 to 2711 students for 2012-2013, due to Chinese
government quotas for foreign partnerships, the programs recently begun in Hanoi (March 2010)
and Ho Chi Minh City (October 2011) have grown from 123 students headcount (28.7 FTE) to
605 students headcount (129 FTE). Under discussion is expansion of the B.S. Management
degree to the University of Danang, Danang City, in Vietnam, with expectations for submitting a
substantive change request to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education in spring
2013.
Of significance, too, is the increased presence of international students on campus. By working
with our Chinese and Vietnamese academic partners, the College has developed a recruitment
strategy for bringing select Keuka China Program (KCP) and Keuka Vietnam Program students
to campus as one-year exchange students or to study in the campus-based M.S. Management—
International Business program. For the 2012-2013 academic year, 54 students are participating
in the one-year exchange program, with another 25 students enrolled in the MSM-IB program.
Also, the Global Education Admissions team has developed recruitment plans for international
students from countries other than China and Vietnam as a further diversification strategy for
traditional, on-campus academic programs, with 17 students now hailing from 8 countries. These
international initiatives, part of the overall strategic growth plan, have broadened the global
perspective and understanding of the Keuka community in addition to improving the bottom line.
The final facet of the strategic growth plan—incorporating distance education delivery systems
and markets—has shown considerable promise, with the Wertman Office of Distance Education
Page 6 of 8 Introduction

(WODE) serving as the foundation for this initiative. To date, 42 accelerated online courses have
been developed since its inception in July 2008, largely to meet the needs of students in the
ASAP program, but since summer 2011, a small number of general education courses have been
offered online to traditional home campus students. In addition, the Wertman Office of Distance
Education supports the overall Accelerated Studies for Adults programming through its staff who
provide instructional design, instructional resources, and student and instructor technical support.
At the end of its fourth year of operation in 2011-2012, WODE generated a gross margin of
$175,000 for the College, and it has strengthened its foundation for further growth in both the
traditional and non-traditional program areas.
While online course offerings have grown as a result of this strategic direction, students are not
yet able to complete more than fifty percent of any program or certificate offered through Keuka
College using distance education. Keuka expects to continue to build competency and capacity
related to distance education course offerings with the goal of offering students the option of
completing more than fifty percent of programs and certificates online. Currently, Keuka has a
proposal for an online M.S. Management under review by New York Education Department. The
revenues from these different facets of the academic portfolio have allowed the College to invest
in program quality through increased faculty lines and enhanced faculty salaries, increased
student support services, improvements to academic and residential facilities, and improved
educational technology.
Keuka’s faculty and staff continue to improve their processes for assessment and use of
assessment information to improve teaching and learning. Faculty and staff review data from
program entry to program completion, including but not limited to freshman placement, major
curricular outcomes, general education outcomes, and institutional student learning outcomes.
Direct measurement of student learning occurs through portfolios, capstone
coursework/presentations, pass-rates on qualifying exams in certain majors, and field experience
evaluations. Along with regular collection, reporting, and monitoring of grades, retention, and
placement data, student learning and institutional effectiveness are also indirectly assessed
through student self-reported responses on institutional, programmatic, and commercially
prepared surveys (NSSE, Noel-Levitz) and student feedback on course evaluations. As of
December 2009, all traditional academic programs had concluded a strategic planning exercise,
using a template approved by the Strategic Planning Committee and vetted by Division Chairs;
this exercise led not only to proposals for new majors and minors/concentrations, but also to
recommendations, many since implemented, to add or replace necessary equipment to meet
student learning outcomes in the natural sciences, to provide introductory workshops focusing on
career preparation within liberal arts programs, and to support undergraduate student research
and creative projects through mini-competitive grants.
In December 2010, per the request of the Vice President of Academic Affairs (VPAA), each
undergraduate program completed a formal self-study, with a focus on assessment of student
learning (see Appendix I.4 Proposed Program Review/Self Study Guidelines). Prior to the
submission of the program reviews, the VPAA and the Associate Vice President of Academic
Programs (AVPAP) met with each program to review assessment work to date, discuss how
assessment of program goals was driving their program’s improvement, and provide tools and
advice for future assessment needs. The AVPAP, along with the ad hoc faculty Graduate
Outcomes Team (GO Team), developed and distributed a “Fundamentals of Assessment” tool kit
to ensure each program had the same program elements in place. These fundamentals included
clearly articulated program goals; a learning opportunities (curriculum) map showing in what
Page 7 of 8 Introduction

courses, Field Periods, practica, etc., students had the opportunities to be introduced to and
develop the knowledge and skills detailed in the goals; an assessment cycle that showed when
evidence of formative and summative assessment of the goals would be collected; and an
assessment plan worksheet identifying the faculty responsible for analysis of the assessment data
and for determining what actions would result from these analyses. At the end of the academic
year, program faculty prepare an annual assessment update to the AVPAP who shares key results
with the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Annual reports are available to all faculty through
the College Assessment page, hosted on Moodle.
Most recently, in Spring 2012, building upon the previous strategic planning work and program
self-study work, the faculty across all delivery formats and degree levels completed an academic
program prioritization exercise as part of the larger institutional strategic planning work, and
again assessment of student learning was highlighted (Appendix I.5 TAPP Program Matrix).
This process, conducted by the faculty Taskforce on Academic Program Prioritization with
trustee participation, followed the guidelines detailed by Robert Dickeson in Prioritizing
Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance and
adhered to principles of transparency and fairness; the resulting reports and overall summary
were made available on the College share drive and presented to the Board of Trustees at their
June 2012 Retreat, which was also attended by members of the College Long Range Strategic
Planning Steering Committee. A culture of assessment—organized and comprehensive—is truly
developing at Keuka College, underscored by the current strategic planning process with its
commitment to accountability at all levels.
Page 8 of 8 Introduction

Standard 1: Mission and Goals
Chapter 1
Mission, Goals and Integrity
The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher education and
indicates who the institution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated
goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how
the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission and goals are developed and recognized by the
institution with the participation of its members and its governing body and are used to develop
and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.
Standard 6: Integrity
In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves,
the institution demonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing
support for academic and intellectual freedom.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 1 and Standard 6.
Keuka College Mission
The Keuka College Board of Trustees just approved a new Mission, Vision, and Values statement at its
Fall 2012 Board Meeting, thus concluding a process which began in early Fall 2010 when the newly
formed Middle States Steering Committee began its review of the Mission Statement as part of its
charge.
Keuka’s new Mission Statement 2012, developed by the College community and included below,
clearly identifies its purpose and what it intends to accomplish:
To create exemplary citizens and leaders to serve the nation and the world of the 21 st century.
We provide a transformational liberal-arts based education, strengthened by experiential learning,
which challenges students to develop their intellectual curiosity and to realize, with purpose and
integrity, their full personal and professional potential.
The following narrative provides an analysis of Keuka’s compliance with Standard1 and addresses the
process whereby the Mission Statement was changed to reflect the College’s renewed sense of purpose.
When the Middle States Self-Study Steering Committee began its work in early Fall 2010, its members
reviewed carefully the 2008 Mission Statement as a first step in understanding the nature and scope of
the self-study process:
Mission Statement (2008)
Keuka College is a student-centered, liberal arts-based learning community offering a range of
undergraduate and graduate programs delivered in traditional, non-traditional, and international
formats. The learning environment at Keuka is intellectually challenging, supportive, and fosters
personal as well as academic development. We offer a unique blend of traditional classroom knowledge
and innovative experiential learning that provides students with a solid foundation for a lifetime of
learning, service, and leadership while valuing social responsibility and diversity. Keuka graduates
Page 1 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

possess the knowledge and experience to excel in today’s workplace and the ability to adapt to
tomorrow’s challenges.
The Committee readily determined that the Mission Statement was easily accessible to all stakeholders,
as it is prominently displayed in the Keuka College Record, on the College website
(http://keuka.edu/about), the Faculty Handbook (Appendix 1.1 Faculty Handbook 2012-2013), the
Employee Handbook and Supervisor’s Procedure Manual(Appendix 1.2 Employee Handbook), and in
admissions materials. As a general rule, print pieces are updated at least once per year, and Web pieces
are updated when new information is available. The link to the College’s website
http://keuka.edu/institutional-compliance also provides all the information for the compliance topics of
the Higher Education Opportunity Act.
Analysis then focused on how well the Mission articulated what the College seeks to accomplish
through its educational offerings. The College Mission Statement 2008 was clear in identifying its
purpose—“provid[ing] students with a solid foundation [of knowledge and experience] for a lifetime of
learning, service, and leadership while valuing social responsibility and diversity.” Additionally, the
Mission Statement 2008 emphasized that Keuka College provides an intellectually challenging and
supportive learning environment, fostering both personal and academic development. However, a
survey administered to a cross-section of College administrators and faculty (response rate 34/48, or
71%) revealed dissatisfaction with what was described as the generic and rather pedestrian quality of the
Mission Statement (Appendix 1.3 Mission Statement Survey), leading to the recommendation from the
Standard 1 working group that a review and revision of the Mission Statement be undertaken by a
institution-wide committee. This recommendation was enthusiastically embraced by the College’s new
President, Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera. In December 2011, President Díaz-Herrera charged a College-wide
committee, including faculty, staff, students, alumni and trustees, to develop and implement a
collaborative process that would address the fundamental question, “Why do we exist?,” by a thorough
assessment of the existing mission, vision, and values statements. Campus conversations repeatedly
focused on the transformative nature of a Keuka College education, in particular the enduring value of
the liberal arts for educating the citizenry of the future, and accordingly, draft statements incorporated
this central theme. Over the spring 2012 semester, the Taskforce on Revisiting Mission, Vision, and
Values drafted and refined a new set of institutional statements, incorporating the feedback from faculty,
staff, alumni, trustees, and students at several town hall meetings, and then sharing its work again at the
August 2012 Community Day. The outcome was a new mission statement, approved by the Board of
Trustees, which is now being used to guide the development of the next Strategic Plan, as the current
Plan expired at the end of 2012. 1
While continuing to stress the importance of academic quality, social responsibility, and integrity from
the 2008 Mission, Vision, Values Statement, the revised Values Statement 2012 newly emphasizes
stewardship, citizenship, and a global perspective as central to a Keuka College education. The
following identifies key Keuka College shared values:
Integrity. At Keuka College, behaving ethically and with integrity means being honest,
keeping promises, and respecting the property and interests of others. Our personal and
professional integrity guides the actions of our College community, supports the character
development, wellness, and spirituality of our students, and makes us a more civil society.
Keuka College develops integrity and ethical behavior in its students through the curriculum
1 As the new Long Range Strategic Plan is under development at the time of this writing, aspects of this Self-Study are
written in alignment with the 2009-2012 Strategic Plan.
Page 2 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

and by consistent modeling of honest and forthright behavior by the faculty, staff,
administration, and alumni.
Academic Excellence. At Keuka College, academic excellence is central to the College’s
educational mission, and high expectations are set for students and faculty alike. We value
intellectual achievement and scholarship, employ innovative and engaging educational
practices to develop the whole person, and emphasize the cultivation of critical thinking
skills and the love of learning. Academic excellence is not solely a function of the intellectual
abilities of the College’s students, but rather is highly dependent on the quality and rigor of
the teaching/learning process.
Student-Centeredness. At Keuka College, we provide a holistic learning experience
fostering the intellectual and personal growth of each student. Students, teachers, staff, and
alumni are engaged in a way that connects the learning process to the world beyond the
College. Through academic programs, collaborative partnerships and experiential learning
experiences, Keuka students broaden their skills and perspectives of careers, personal
responsibility, wellness, and civic engagement.
Diversity. At Keuka College, we acknowledge, respect, and celebrate our differences. Our
community consists of many identities, each of which provides a valued perspective. We
foster an inclusive environment in which we intentionally work toward understanding,
respecting, and appreciating diversity. In doing so, we move beyond tolerance to
understanding and mutual respect.
Global Perspective. At Keuka College, having a global perspective means being openminded
when working with people of diverse geographical origin and cultural heritage –
learning from them, and they from us. In order to prepare students for the world of the 21st
century, we provide them with opportunities to learn and interact with other cultures,
peoples, and perspectives. Student exposure occurs in many ways – in the classroom through
our domestic and international academic programs and curricula, and outside the classroom
through multiple opportunities to interact with people from diverse backgrounds and
experiences.
Stewardship. At Keuka College, we are committed to preserving and building our legacy for
future generations and to fostering a sense of responsibility and commitment to the College.
Active stewardship is an ethical and institutional responsibility that embodies careful,
prudent utilization and management of our resources, including our people, financial
holdings, natural resources, and capital assets. The College and its constituents have a moral
and financial imperative to use our many and varied resources in ways that are effective,
efficient, and sustainable.
Citizenship. At Keuka College, we believe citizenship includes aspects of leadership,
service, and social responsibility. All members of the Keuka College community strive to be
good leaders and exemplary citizens. Effective leaders and citizens exhibit common traits of
wisdom, determination, vision, emotional intelligence, empathy and social responsibility. We
actively model these qualities and mentor their development, thereby demonstrating and
encouraging exemplary citizenship – locally, nationally, and globally.
These added values form part of an ongoing General Education curricular discussion, following the Fall
2012 recommendations of the Taskforce on Revitalizing the Curriculum to address these values
explicitly in a new and seamlessly integrated General Education program. Whereas the faculty in 2006
had redesigned the general education curriculum from a discipline-based program to an outcomes-based
program, the faculty are in agreement that further redesign of the general education curriculum is needed
to align with the College’s new Mission Statement.
Page 3 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

As this Self-Study documents, Keuka College has significantly expanded its scope and educational
programming in response to external forces and to ensure its long-term financial resiliency and is in the
midst of a rigorous strategic planning exercise which promises to put the College on new footing, but its
essential sense of self remains the same. At Keuka, we define ourselves as a liberal arts-based
institution with a strong emphasis on career and pre-professional education. Liberal learning provides a
solid foundation for specialized study and serves as a principal means of achieving the College’s
institutional student learning outcomes. Our commitment to learning from experience—integrating
theory and practice—is manifest in our hallmark Field Period program, begun in 1942, which provides
students with the freedom to design unique educational experiences, from career development, cultural
exploration, community service learning, research, to spiritual/faith-based exploration. In 2010, the
Keuka College faculty officially adopted five “E-LEAP” goals, aligned with the AAC&U Liberal
Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, as our institution-level essential learning goals
(Appendix 1.4 E-LEAP Goals), with the “E” goal to represent Keuka’s hallmark experiential learning.
These E-LEAP goals replaced our existing 15 Graduate Outcomes (of which only eight were formally
defined and operationalized) that had been in place for over 15 years. This initiative was lead by a
faculty Graduate Outcomes (GO) Team. A detailed description of the process for the development and
adoption of the E-LEAP institution-level learning goals will be provided in chapter 4. As part of its
charge, the Curriculum Committee oversees assessment of these essential learning outcomes on an
ongoing basis.
The adoption of the E-LEAP institutional goals underscores the importance of the liberal arts foundation
to the overall academic endeavor. Although the majority of our students graduate with a degree from
one of the professional programs (business, education, occupational therapy, nursing, social work, and
criminal justice), program curricula across the College adhere to the bedrock principle, reiterated in our
new Mission Statement (2012) that a general education curriculum grounded in the liberal arts best
prepares graduates for twenty-first century careers and fulfilling lives; accordingly, students in all
academic majors complete a minimum of 60 liberal arts credits.
The College ensures that a liberal-arts based foundation is implemented across the campus and at
satellite locations through the discipline-specifics goals of the academic programs and through annual
academic program assessment. All of the academic programs provide a rigorous capstone course, often
in a seminar-format, which is either research-based (Natural Sciences, Psychology, English,
Mathematics, History/Political Science, Nursing, Criminal Justice Systems) or advanced applicationbased
(Education, Social Work, Business, Nursing, ASL, ASL-English Interpreting, Organizational
Communication, Sociology, Criminal Justice, Visual/Verbal Art, Organizational Management).
Students encounter opportunities for personal growth through meeting the general education
requirement for ethical inquiry, through participation in community and campus service, through student
affairs programming, and, in the case of particular academic programs, through meeting disciplinary
outcomes. The allocation of academic credits to experiential learning—through the Keuka College Field
Period—ensures that students apply and integrate classroom learning with direct hands-on experience in
the field, especially those disciplines that require field work in the major (70% of the academic
programs require at least one discipline-specific field period), and acquire the necessary experience to be
successful in entry-level positions in their chosen field.
At the time of Keuka’s last reaccreditation in 2002, its adult degree completion program was in its
infancy, offering three undergraduate programs with enrollment at just over 15% of the overall student
population. Similarly, the College’s international outreach had been just launched at one site in China.
Both of these initiatives had their origins in the Keuka Plan 1998-2003, which identified the need to
insure the College’s long-term financial viability through new revenue-generating activities. The Keuka
Page 4 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

Plan, revised and expanded under the leadership of President Joseph Burke, continued to guide the
setting of institutional financial and educational goals through 2007. In particular, President Burke
identified a series of strategic alternatives to describe the major directions and level of commitment of
the College. These included expansion of the traditional undergraduate program through the
establishment of new majors and concentrations, the development of selected graduate programs, the
expansion of sites for the adult degree completion program, and expansion of international programs. In
the Fall of 2007, the Strategic Planning Committee identified three additional strategic alternatives to
contribute to College revenues:
the creation of multidisciplinary majors and concentrations
the initiation of a distance education delivery program for the ASAP (Accelerated Studies for
Adults) program
the establishment of new international programs
In 2009, College assessment and strategic planning processes, led by the Board of Trustees, President’s
Cabinet (formerly known as the Administrative Team), and Strategic Planning Committee, culminated
in the Keuka College Strategic Plan 2009-2012 (Appendix 1.5 KC 2009-2012 Strategic Plan or
accessible at http://president.keuka.edu/files/2011/08/2011StrategicPlanLoRes.pdf ). This Plan provided
a set of nine strategic goals –also known as vectors—developed in response to the many economic
forces and regional demographic changes that impact higher education today and was designed to
enhance Keuka’s ability to provide high quality educational programs. The diversification of Keuka’s
revenue streams through implementation of these strategic vectors has not only stabilized the College’s
financial status, but has also provided substantial funds to improve all academic programs. In particular,
the adult degree completion program (ASAP) and the international programs are today a substantive part
of Keuka’s academic programming and revenue stream. More information on these how the institution
set about achieving the goals/vectors will be provided in chapter 2.
Further clarification of the scope of College operations in terms of programs and services offered and
markets served is found in the Strategic Plan 2009-2012 which highlights Keuka’s position as a price
leader. Keuka takes pride in offering an affordable education for undergraduate and graduate students,
including adult students who attend classes at one of our many satellite campuses located across New
York State and our international students at campuses in China and Vietnam. As noted in the US News
& World Report college rankings reports for both 2011 and 2012, Keuka offers a “best value” to
students who graduate with a lesser debt load (Appendix 1.6 US News World Report Debt Load 2012).
As an aspect of stewardship, Keuka exercises discipline in tuition increases and allocates substantial
institutional resources to its students to support their success.
Commitment to student success guides literally all that we do, and evidence for this exists throughout
institutional policies, practices, and services, as will be further detailed in Chapters 2 and 3. In brief,
however, the institutional imperative of meeting student needs is provided through a comprehensive
array of services, including general campus services available in a one location and online (Admissions,
Alumni and Family Relations, Registrar, Financial Aid, Human Resources, and Student Accounts in the
renovated Ball Hall), student affairs programming, housing and residential life programs, campus safety,
counseling and health services, library resources, campus ministry, academic advising, and academic
support services (Appendix 1.7 Student Handbook). Moreover, assessment of students’ needs is
ongoing, and as students’ needs and demands have changed, the College has acted to provide necessary
resources. The expectation that the College will be “student-centered” has guided decisions to invest in
a stronger IT structure with advanced educational technologies available in 96% of its classrooms and to
create four computer labs, to increase academic support personnel, to introduce web-advising tools, to
Page 5 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

offer online course and accelerated formats, to expand counseling hours, and to enhance multicultural
programming, to name some of the recent student-centered initiatives. Strong congruence exists, then,
between our self-described mission to be student-centered and our institutional actions.
In summary, Keuka College lives its mission, guided by its principles and values, in all of its actions.
Vision and Message
Working with the consultant GDA Integrated Services in 2003, the College underwent a branding
exercise to identify more clearly its unique contribution to higher education. Not surprisingly, the report,
entitled, “Marketing and Branding Report Based on Surveys of Inquirers and Alumni,” singled out
experiential learning as a key defining feature: “Rarely have we discovered more opportunities for a
college than we found for Keuka… in our view, [Keuka] is truly the leader in the opportunities for
hands-on, experiential learning” (Appendix 1.8 GDA Marketing and Branding Report). This report led
the College to announce as its new vision statement that Keuka’s goal was to be “the national leader in
experiential, hands-on learning.”
For many years, the brand resonated. Keuka College – the small, undergraduate school on the shores of
Keuka Lake – was the national leader in experiential, hands-on learning. Keuka’s commitment to
experiential learning as underscored by its hallmark Field Period made it distinctive among its peers, and
students regularly cited this as a top reason for their enrollment at the College. To an even greater
extent, the College’s robust Accelerated Studies for Adults Program, designed for the working adult
learner, emphasized the value of the experiential learning model, recognizing the wealth of experience
adult learners bring to the classroom and the enhanced skills they carry back to the workplace. Keuka
continued to use this vision statement and brand for the next 6 years. All print and online publications
included this vision, and the College invested in physical renovations to create the Center for
Experiential Learning. In addition, the High School Experiential Learner scholarship was created to
honor those students who made a difference in their communities. Television campaigns for this
scholarship program were also created. Keuka’s prominence in experiential learning was a source of
institutional pride.
In working on the Strategic Plan 2009-2012, an additional commitment to this brand was made, while
simultaneously acknowledging the College’s international growth. The College announced that the new
vision statement would be “to become the global leader in innovative, experiential learning,” following
the work of a planning team from the College Strategic Planning Committee. However, many people,
both internal and external, started to question this new vision statement. A 2008 STAMATS study of
prospective students in New York State noted that although “The intentional nature of students acquiring
multiple internships during the course of their college career is a value-added option that is likely to be
prized within the marketplace because it leads to better jobs after graduation” (Appendix 1.9 2008
STAMATS Report, p. 3), it pointed out that Keuka’s brand was too little known overall to be effective
in recruiting students successfully. Moreover, as the educational value of experiential learning became
more widely known, increasing numbers of colleges began to embed experiential learning practices
within their own curricula and to market aggressively this aspect of their portfolio. The result is that
experiential learning, although a still highly valued learning outcome at Keuka, is no longer a trait
distinctive only of Keuka College.
At the June 2012 retreat, attended by the Board of Trustees, members of the Long Range Strategic
Planning Committee, and various subject matter experts from all of the LRSP task forces, the Taskforce
on Updating the External Environmental Analysis underscored this salient point that Keuka could no
Page 6 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

longer claim its pre-eminence in experiential learning and recommended a rebranding initiative
(Appendix 1.10 LRSP/BOT Retreat, June 2012). Following the completion and approval of the next
Strategic Plan in 2013, President Díaz-Herrera has committed to investing in a re-branding initiative.
Although it is unlikely that Keuka’s new brand will trumpet experiential learning as it did in the past,
experiential learning will remain an important part of a Keuka College education, for we value deeply its
ability to help students build bridges between formal classroom study and life beyond the classroom
walls. Indeed, its continued relevance to students’ development and to Keuka’s sense of self is
acknowledged in the new Vision Statement 2012 which includes experiential learning as central to
Keuka’s future:
To be renowned as a global leader in comprehensively integrating liberal arts, digital technologies,
experiential learning, and professional practice.
Integrity
As Keuka strives to sustain the momentum of growth and diversification of offerings well into the
future, a strong foundation of institutional, academic, and civic integrity is imperative. To assist the
institution in this effort, College Trustees and personnel have created policies which they review and
update periodically to help Keuka maintain a culture of high ethical standards. The words of Keuka’s
Code of Ethics/Conflict of Interest policy best convey the College’s position on ethics and integrity, and
are as follows:
Society entrusts institutions of higher learning with the critical charge of education, and with this
charge comes a great responsibility for the institution to create an appropriate environment for
learning. Board members, faculty, administration, and staff have a responsibility to achieve and
maintain a high standard of ethical practice both for maintaining the integrity and public
confidence of the institution and for the mentoring of tomorrow’s leaders. Our behavior reflects
both on the institution and on the higher education profession as a whole. As a matter of
fundamental principle, Keuka College and its representatives should adhere to the highest ethical
standards simply because it is the right thing to do. All employees, subcontractors and
volunteers shall acquire the knowledge necessary to maintain compliance with all laws, rules and
regulations applicable to the conduct of business at Keuka College. Certain employees have a
fiduciary responsibility, as the College is the steward of student, grant, loan, and donor funds,
and these employees shall fulfill their fiduciary responsibility with a duty of care and in
accordance with regulations and student and donor expectations and direction. Ethics, however,
involves more than merely complying with the law or policy manuals; it is about doing what is
right.
As an example of this commitment, new employees and members of the Board of Trustees read and sign
the Keuka College Code of Ethics/Conflict of Interest policy when they are hired or appointed to the
Board (Appendix 1.11 COE-COI policy).
A key aspect of institutional integrity is providing its constituents an appropriate role in shared
governance. To safeguard and respect the rights and freedoms of all their students, Keuka College
supports the Student Association of Keuka College. Students elect representatives to form a Student
Senate, and through this vehicle, ensure that their concerns are voiced and addressed appropriately. In
the ASAP program, adult learners elect a cohort representative who serves on the Student Advisory
Board.
Page 7 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

The Student Code of Conduct, as provided in the Student Handbook, ASAP Undergraduate Handbook,
and ASAP Graduate Handbook, clearly conveys expectations of conduct. These documents include
policies on sexual harassment, smoking, acceptable technology use, and drug and alcohol use, as
appropriate to the audience. Moreover, as articulated in the Student Handbook, the Mission Statement
for Student Affairs makes clear that its philosophical approach to student development is based on the
principle of personal growth as ethical beings: “The Keuka College Division of Students Affairs
develops citizens of the world who possess the essential qualities of Integrity, Leadership, Acceptance,
Compassion, & Social Responsibility.” Students are expected to “demonstrate personal responsibility
for their behaviors…and respect and affirm the dignity of all persons” (pp. 17-18). Students’ rights of
confidentiality and due process are likewise respected. For on-campus students, the Student Code of
Conduct outlines the student judicial panel and how residence directors and Student Affairs staff handle
concerns related to students. The Judicial Panel is comprised of 10 students elected by the student body,
with one student serving as the Chief Justice, and is overseen by a Resident Director that acts in the
capacity of Judicial Advisor. Information on the election process and judicial incident protocols can
also be found in the Student Handbook. As an outgrowth of the work concluded by the Diversity
Taskforce, the College has also formed a Bias-Incident Response Team, which has protocols for
handling any cases of alleged bias incidents (Appendix 1.12 Bias-Incident Response Protocols). Since
2010, there have been 9 bias-related incidents, in which two concluded with students receiving
disciplinary probation, 5 hours of community service, and required to write a letter of apology. The
College was unable to find the students responsible for the other 7 incidents (Appendix 1.13 BIRT
Incidents and Outcomes).
Academic integrity and ethical behavior are demonstrated through a set of policies that spell out the
nature of academic integrity (and academic dishonesty as well). These policies also describe the
penalties for violations, the process that is mandated to be followed in determining degree of guilt and
the imposition of those penalties, and the student appeal process. The following definition (found in all
the student handbooks) captures the essence of the College’s understanding of the issue: “Keuka
College expects students to fulfill academic assignments independently and honestly. Any cheating,
plagiarism or other form of academic dishonesty at Keuka College will be penalized, with sanctions
ranging from an ‘F’ on a specific assignment to expulsion from the College.” Students receive direct
instruction on how to use and document sources appropriately in required composition courses, with
instruction reinforced in subsequent courses within the academic majors. The Keuka College Academic
Review Board (made up of faculty members of the Instruction Committee and the AVP for Academic
Programs) maintains records on all reported cases of Academic Dishonesty. The total number of cases
for each of the past six academic terms has ranged between 5 and 11 (Appendix 1.14 ARB Reports of
Academic Dishonesty).
At the end of each semester, the Academic Review Board (ARB) meets to review the academic
performance of traditional undergraduate students to determine their academic status, as defined in the
Faculty Handbook. This review serves as a mechanism for tracking academic progress and to alert
students, advisors, and coaches if that progress is deemed unacceptable. When students are placed on
probation, they are unable to participate in athletics for that semester, so as to focus their time and
attention on academics. A faculty member also serves as the College Faculty Athletic Representative
(FAR) and works with the Athletics Department as a checks-and-balance to protect academic integrity
and the wellbeing of student athletes. The prevailing philosophy of the ARB is to alert students to
academic deficiencies at the earliest point possible as a way to encourage them to work with their
instructors and advisors so as to return to good standing.
Page 8 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

Because of the accelerated nature of ASAP, the process for informing them of their academic status
occurs more frequently than the end of each semester. In place of the Academic Review Board, an
Academic Progression and Retention (ARP) Committee meets every other week to review the GPA for
students who have received a C or below in any course within the last two weeks and to determine if the
students are meeting the progression requirements of their major program. Students who are not meeting
the progression requirements may receive a letter of concern, probation, or “stop progress” notification.
This “stop progress” or early intervention process typically stops progression in a program area or
requires a student to join a new cohort to re-take missed/failed courses before a student is required to be
heard at the ARP. The ARP committee, then, is typically able to notify the students of their status
within two weeks of the posting of their course grades.
Students in the international programs are informed of their status at several checkpoints. To keep them
fully apprised of their status, the College monitors student progress at three intervals in the program:
at the end of the fall semester of the sophomore year
at the end of the fall semester of the junior year
at the completion of all their Keuka College course work (they may have course work to
complete at their home institution). At this time, a graduation audit is performed.
Upon the completion of each review period, the Keuka College Registrar’s office evaluates each
overseas student’s record using the following criteria to determine academic status:
Minimum 2.0 GPA
Length of time since enrollment in program (students have two years beyond the original
expected graduation date in which to complete satisfactorily their Keuka College coursework)
These safeguards ensure that the students are kept informed of their progress toward degree completion
as well as to ensure that only students having met the requirements actually receive the degree.
Policies created to support integrity apply to student employment as well. Students involved in workstudy
employment positions at the College are required to read and sign a Student Employment Contract
and a Confidentiality Statement. These are both designed to guide expectations and behavior
(Appendix 1.15 Student Employment Contract). Similarly, students must submit a signed Field Period
Code of Conduct for each Field Period, whether their Field Period is in the United States or overseas.
The form provides guidelines that detail the expectations for the students’ behavior while conducting the
experience (Appendix 1.16 FP Code of Conduct Form).
Issues of institutional integrity occasionally surface in the form of conflict between faculty, staff and
and/or students. For these instances, both formal policies and informal practices apply. Student
complaints about faculty or staff members are typically brought to their academic advisors, division
chairs, or an administrator. In cases that appear to be a misunderstanding, the students are encouraged to
meet with the faculty or staff member to try to resolve the conflict.
In cases when the complaint against a faculty member cannot be resolved with a discussion, the
Associate Vice President for Academic Programs will intervene, meet with all parties involved and
strictly apply the policies of the Institution to mediate the case. The Associate Vice President for
Academic Programs may choose to include the Vice President of Academic Affairs or even consult with
legal counsel to learn if the College can be held liable for ethical misconduct on the part of a faculty
member and determine how to appropriately address ethical misconduct. Student complaints against
staff members are addressed through the VP of Finance and Administration.
Two handbooks govern College personnel, the Faculty Handbook and the Employee Handbook and
Supervisor’s Manual. Relevant policies within the Employee Handbook are replicated in the Faculty
Page 9 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

Handbook, but policies governing faculty/staff conflict are inadequate, except with regard to sexual
harassment and whistle blowing policies. Because no formal process for the resolution of staff
grievances or complaints against faculty exists, the College needs to create a more comprehensive
grievance policy. A recommendation is that the College review, update, and align its personnel
handbooks to address inconsistencies or gaps.
The Keuka College Faculty Handbook employs the language of the American Association of University
Professors on the matters of academic freedom and responsibility. This policy covers all teachers at the
College including Adjuncts, Instructors, Visiting Professors, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors,
and Professors. Additionally, the Faculty Handbook employs the AAUP guidelines regarding
evaluation, promotion and tenure. The steps to achieve tenure are clearly stated within the Faculty
Handbook. Inasmuch as tenure protects academic freedom, one way that Keuka demonstrates support
for academic freedom is with its adherence to the tenure process, and hiring qualified educators and
professionals into tenure track positions. Of the 89 (non-adjunct) faculty on contract for the 2012-2013
2011-2012 academic year, ranked Assistant Professor or higher, 79 (89%) are tenured or in tenure track
positions. Of the 10 non-tenure track positions, 5 are ASAP faculty positions (3 part-time), and 5 are oncampus
faculty positions (4 part-time). It is clear from this data that the College supports the principle
of tenure. For the 2012-3012 academic year, there is one Visiting Assistant Professor teaching full
time. In the traditional program, approximately 75% of the courses offered in the 2011-2012 academic
year were taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty. The ASAP programs employ a greater number of
adjunct faculty, but hiring of full-time faculty to support the adult programs has been substantial since
2009, increasing from 8 to 19 full-time faculty members.
In all of its communications, Keuka seeks to be complete, accurate, and truthful. In its actions, Keuka
faculty, staff, administrators, and trustees strive to lead by example and to enact its guiding principles of
student-centeredness, the promotion of equality, the fostering of quality, and the promotion of a
supportive living, learning, and working community (“Keuka College Code of Ethics”).
Recommendations:
1.1 Conduct a branding exercise to specify what is distinctive about the Keuka educational
experience.
1.2 Update and ensure alignment between the Faculty Handbook and Employee Handbook and
Supervisor’s Manual.
Page 10 of 10 Chapter 1: Mission, Goals & Integrity

Chapter 2
Planning and Resources
Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal
An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission
and goals, develops objectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assessment
activities for institutional renewal. Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the
success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and
change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.
Standard 3: Institutional Resources
The human, financial, technical, facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve an
institution’s mission and goals are available and accessible. In the context of the
institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are
analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 2 and Standard 3.
As noted in the Introduction, the College is currently engaged in an intensive strategic planning
initiative, in response to the charge articulated by President Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera shortly after
his arrival in July 2011. In Fall 2011, six taskforces were created, with the goal of developing
and answering critical questions so as to generate reports that would inform the work and
recommendations of the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee. The Long Range Strategic
Planning Committee, like the Taskforces themselves, brings together faculty, staff,
administrators, trustees, alumni, and students. Meeting regularly over the course of the 2011-
2012 academic year, members of the six taskforces—Taskforce on Revisiting Mission, Vision,
and Values, Taskforce on External Environmental Analysis, Taskforce on Academic Program
Prioritization, Taskforce on Administrative Services Review, Taskforce to Review Academic
Support Services, and Taskforce on Revitalizing the Curriculum—provided key analysis of the
College’s strengths and challenges and generated many recommendations to transform the
College as well as recommendations in the spirit of continuous improvement. Their work is
described briefly below, with the full reports available in Appendix 2.1 Long Range Strategic
Planning Board Retreat June 14-15, 2012.
The report created by the Taskforce on Updating External Environmental Analysis (ENV)
expanded upon the 20 stress factors identified in Chapter 1. Through a SWOT analysis of both
external and internal factors that affect the College, the ENV Taskforce also highlighted the
increasing competitiveness of the adult education and international market, the prominence many
colleges now give to experiential learning as a cornerstone of their curriculum, the lack of a
strong brand for the College, and the potential impact of the distance education model.
The Mission, Vision, and Values Taskforce (MVVT) drafted a new set of institutional
statements, incorporating the feedback from faculty and staff at several town hall meetings, and
then shared their work again at the August 2012 Community Day. These statements were
brought to the Board of Trustees at the Fall Board Meeting and approved.
Page 1 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

The Taskforce on Academic Program Prioritization (TAPP), charged with conducting a
costs/benefits, opportunity, and quality analysis of the academic programs, ranked a number of
programs as weak or strong on the grounds of enrollment and quality measures (Appendix 2.2
TAPP Final Report June 6, 2012). Those programs marked as weak were extended a “get-well
card,” with the expectation that they would work to address the problems identified in the TAPP
Final Report; the VPAA and division chairs have begun to develop action plans for this set of
programs. Discussion continues on the opportunities identified in the TAPP reports. In addition
to making specific recommendations regarding the programs that currently comprise the
academic portfolio, TAPP contributed three overarching recommendations in support of
academic excellence to the long range strategic planning work: 1) significantly improve the
quality of Keuka’s academic programs and the College’s reputation for academic quality, 2)
invest in faculty resources to deliver a high quality educational experience, and 3) provide a 21 st
century infrastructure to meet the needs and expectations of faculty, staff, and students in support
of a high quality educational experience as identified through a comprehensive master plan.
In a similar vein, critical assessment of the College’s administrative services and practices by the
Taskforce on Administrative Services Review (TASR) generated multiple recommendations now
incorporated in the draft of the Long Range Strategic Plan. These recommendations include
increasing institutional resources, improving ongoing institutional assessment, improving
diversity practices, developing sustainability efforts in the day-to-day operations of the College,
and improving the College’s administrative structures and services. To these recommendations,
the Taskforce on Academic Support Services (SUPP) added ones focusing on the need to
develop stronger benchmarking of student support services, to improve collaboration between
College units, and to improve the strategic advantage of technology across the campus.
Aligned with the theme of transformation and the new mission, vision, and value statements, the
Taskforce on Revitalizing the Curriculum (CURR) focused its efforts on developing innovative
ideas that promise to change significantly the general education curriculum. Their
recommendations address digital technology, sustainability, intentionality and integration, and
leadership and citizenship. In particular, this Taskforce has emphasized the need to rethink our
approach to experiential learning, keeping in place our hallmark Field Period, but also
developing a core curriculum conceived as a series of interdisciplinary seminars combining
traditional with experiential learning, co-curricular, and extra-curricular activities.
As recommendations have been developed and forwarded to the Long Range Strategic Planning
Steering Committee for consideration, some have already been taken up by the appropriate
governance structures for further discussion and/or implementation. For example, the Faculty
Liaison Committee has charged a working group to examine faculty workload, the Curriculum
Committee has charged a working group to begin the research and development stage of a new
general education program, and the Academic Division Chairs, as charged by the Faculty Liaison
Committee, prepared a preliminary proposal for the administration that recommends adoption of
a dean/school structure, so as to create an academic administrative structure that supports
growth, increased collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and innovation. Further work on these major
initiatives is planned for Spring 2013.
Page 2 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

The Taskforces have also been mindful of the need for stronger assessment measures in the
development of the strategic initiatives. Accordingly, a key component of the current long range
strategic planning process is the enhanced emphasis on measurable outcomes and accountability.
Whereas the Strategic Plan 2009-2012 did largely accomplish its goals, metrics were often not
well-defined and accountability was diffused. Under discussion by the Long Range Strategic
Planning Committee are the targets and benchmarks that the College will use to evaluate its
overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals at the institutional level as well as those
metrics that will be employed to assess the effectiveness of initiatives at the program or unit
level, both administrative and academic. For example, the Registrar’s Office has recently
implemented staff training to achieve new service level agreements in this important student
services office, and it will evaluate the results annually to inform future improvements. Ongoing
and routine assessment of our achievements and missteps will help shape decisions regarding the
allocation of human and fiscal resources more effectively than has hitherto been the case. Next
steps for the Long Range Strategic Planning document are prioritizing of initiatives, refinement
of objectives, further development of measurable outcomes, and further sharing of the document
with the College community for feedback before moving to approval by the Board of Trustees.
Whereas the above focuses on a strategic planning initiative still in process, the remainder of this
chapter focuses on the College’s earlier strategic planning initiatives, in particular the Strategic
Plan 2009-2012 which has guided institutional planning and resource allocation until very
recently http://president.keuka.edu/files/2011/08/2011StrategicPlanLoRes.pdf (also
Appendix 1.5 Strategic Plan 2009-2012). Although no formal strategic plan was in place during
the period of 2004-2009, the document record provides evidence of continued planning and
institutional analysis, based on the overarching institutional goals established in the Keuka Plan
1998-2003 which continued to inform the College’s strategic directions and decision-making.
The goals identified in the Keuka Plan 1998-2003 were echoed and expanded upon in the
Strategic Plan 2009-2012.
These goals were the following:
Pursuing Educational Excellence
To enhance the living, learning, and teaching environment for all students,
faculty, and professional staff.
Achieving Financial Equilibrium
To assure the institution is fiscally sound, maximizing the full potential of
available resources, and pursuing additional funding opportunities.
Building a Better College Community
To maintain and enhance a living and learning community that fully reflects our
core values and principles and that assures an environment in which learning,
mutual support and personal growth flourishes
Administrative-level planning documents from 2005-2006 include a SWOT analysis, an analysis
of strategic priorities, a draft set of inspirational and aspirational statements, and an early draft of
a revised Keuka Strategy. These documents form the core of a College-wide strategic planning
initiative which began in earnest in January 2007 at the College Community Day where the
faculty chair of the Strategic Planning Committee provided an overview of the upcoming process
and timeline (Appendix 2.3 KC Strategic Planning Community Day 1-30-2007).
Page 3 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

The Strategic Planning Committee (renamed the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee,
SPBC, in January 2010) had broad representation from all areas of the College. (The SPBC has
been temporarily suspended while the new Long Range Strategic Planning Steering Committee
is developing the new strategic plan; once the plan has been approved, the SPBC will be
reconstituted and resume its operation.) Membership included the Administrative Team, a
faculty chair appointed by the President, two elected faculty representatives, one representative
from the Faculty Liaison Committee, the Director of Multicultural Affairs, the Associate Vice
President of Admissions, the ASAP Business Analyst, the Director of Institutional Research, and
the Dean of the Center for Experiential Learning. From this group, three planning teams were
created to work on vision, mission, and values; to identify a set of goals and priorities; and to
complete a College environmental analysis. A campus community update in April 2007
provided information on work completed, namely a draft of a revised mission statement that
incorporated the adult degree completion students and international programs, clarified value
statements, and a vision statement that declared Keuka “the global leader in innovative,
experiential education.” Breakout sessions provided the opportunity to offer feedback and
suggestions. Work continued by the Strategic Planning Committee on the mission, vision, and
values statements which were approved by the faculty and Board of Trustees in October 2007.
A structured process was then used for the development of three strategies: A) College strategy;
B) Degree Program strategy; C) Support (infrastructure) strategy. A summary chart is included
(Appendix 2.4 Keuka Strategic Development Processes) with descriptions of the key steps
discussed below. An additional summary of the frequency and responsibilities for each strategic
component is found in Appendix 2.5 Key Keuka Strategic Planning Processes.
Following completion of the A) College strategy, planning efforts were directed to the
development of B) Degree program strategies consistent with the strategic initiatives described
above. In fall 2007, the academic division chairs, working with the chair of the Strategic
Planning Committee, initiated strategic planning at the academic program level. Their charge
was to identify growth opportunities and to specify how the College could maintain a
competitive advantage in a highly competitive higher education market, especially in light of
New York State’s changing demographics. These degree program strategies were developed
over a two-year period by the appropriate faculty; in February 2010, the Vice President of
Academic Affairs summarized the results of the academic degree program strategic work which
was reviewed by the Administrative Team, and then shared with the Academic Affairs
Committee of the Board of Trustees in May of 2010 (Appendix 2.6 Final Summary Academic
Strategic Plans Feb 2010). The process steps that were followed in each program area were
similar to those utilized for the College strategy development and included internal and external
analyses, that concluded with recommendations in each program area.
These recommendations took the form of new majors, concentrations, degree completion
options, and new international programs. Where appropriate, we also considered program
elimination. Those that were best aligned with the Strategic Plan and showed economic
potential were given high priority and further developed into detailed business plans. If
approved, the necessary resources were assigned and integrated with the budget. Once the degree
program strategies were completed, specific outcomes were established and short-term
operational plans were developed in each of the academic divisions to accomplish these
outcomes, and were integrated with budget development. In this manner, expansion of the
Page 4 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Occupational Therapy program was moved forward, as well as expansion of the Business and
Management programs. It was also recognized at this time that the method of assigning
priorities to competing program opportunities had been somewhat ad hoc and needed to be
clarified between the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Division Chairs, and the President’s
Cabinet. Consequently, the VPAA worked with the Curriculum Committee to refine the process;
in February 2011, the faculty approved this amended process which provided for a review of
resource feasibility with the Vice President for Academic Affairs concurrent with a review of
curricular feasibility by the Curriculum Committee (or Graduate Program Committee, in the case
of a proposed new graduate program), a discussion of alignment with mission and the Strategic
Plan, and stipulated the inclusion of an assessment plan (Appendix 2.7 Form III Directions
Proposal New Academic Program). This revised process was recently employed to create an
interdisciplinary Child and Family Studies major within the Psychology department which had
recommended this new program in its Fall 2009 strategic planning work. As a further example of
the integration of strategic planning with academic program review, in January 2012, program
faculty teaching in the Visual and Verbal Art major submitted their annual strategic plan update
in which they proposed significantly restructuring the program as an Art and Design major with
more contemporary student learning outcomes, based on market analysis and consultation with
enrollment management (Appendix 2.8 Visual Verbal Art Strategic Plan Update). This program,
approved by the faculty, will be submitted to the New York State Department of Education in
Spring 2013 for registration as a new program.
Development of the C) support/infrastructure strategy generally follows and supports the College
and Degree program strategies. They include information technology, facilities, marketing, and
human resource planning. Thus far, these planning efforts have been piecemeal, driven by
necessity, and constrained by limited resources. However, the development of an integrated and
coordinated support/infrastructure strategy to address more effectively these crucial
interdependencies is a key feature of the current long range strategic planning process now
underway.
Concurrent with degree program strategic planning work, during AY 2008-2009 the Strategic
Planning Committee in concert with the Administrative Team developed a comprehensive
review of the benchmarks, goals, and priorities. In early February 2009, an electronic draft of the
Keuka Strategy was placed on the College share drive, and a series of special meetings were
convened by the Strategic Planning Committee for discussion and feedback, and academic
division meetings were also scheduled for more focused discussion. Academic division chairs
were responsible for summarizing the feedback from their respective faculty for input to the
Strategic Planning Committee, and a draft was reviewed by the Board at their February meeting.
Additional recommendations were incorporated into a final document, the Keuka College
Strategic Plan 2009-2012, which was approved at the May 2009 Board meeting. Following
implementation of the Strategic Plan in 2009, the Plan was reviewed annually, with modification
of strategies in response to changing environmental factors and assessment of successes and
challenges.
The Strategic Plan 2009-2012 identified three pillars to support the College’s mission and goals
and to drive strategic initiatives. These pillars were as follows: A) increased net revenue through
expanded enrollment, B) increased revenue through fund raising, and C) investment for the
Page 5 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

future through expanding programs and improvement in compensation for faculty and staff
(http://president.keuka.edu/files/2011/08/2011StrategicPlanLoRes.pdf).
The 2009-2012 strategic planning process had 4 objectives:
1. Specify and document the process used to (1) create strategies, (2) develop tactical
programs for their implementation, (3) monitor outcomes, and (4) take corrective
actions as necessary.
2. Specify the integration points with other campus planning activities including
budgeting.
3. Communicate to the campus community our current strategies.
4. Serve as an integrative vehicle for our various planning and resource allocation
activities.
The Plan included the following elements:
A vision statement that defines a long-term “destination” to which we aspire – To
become the global leader in innovative, experiential learning
A mission statement that outlines the purpose of the institution, how we will achieve our
vision, and the different strategic program areas
A list of shared values that were developed with input from the College community
Inspirational and aspirational statements (who we are, and what we want to become)
Based on a detailed environmental assessment that provided an objective analysis of the key
environmental issues that impact the College and our subsequent choice of strategies, the
Strategic Planning Committee created a set of strategic initiatives that provided a broad sense of
direction and mission and a sustainable growth plan. These initiatives were:
1. Strengthen the culture of assessment across the institution.
2. Increase traditional enrollment by expanding program opportunities and enhancing
academic excellence.
3. Increase non-traditional enrollment by expanding program opportunities and enhancing
academic excellence in graduate and accelerated professional studies.
4. Capitalize on existing expertise in experiential learning and enhance the services
provided to students.
5. Increase traditional student retention.
6. Develop international-global and multicultural perspectives for Keuka College that focus
on academic excellence and student development.
7. Implement targeted fund raising for increasing returns and gradual increase in
endowment.
8. Create a campus technology plan.
9. Enhance facilities and maintain current level of deferred maintenance.
To assess our progress toward these outcomes, the executive leadership established annual goals
that provided measurable outcomes against which the College tracked the progress made in the
implementation and execution of its strategies. For example, the Benchmarks Document for
November 2010 provides Forecast/Goals measured against Actuals for many key planning items:
enrollment across all areas, residential housing, retention, graduation rates, compensation,
fundraising, etc. (Appendix 2.9 Goals and Benchmarks Nov. 2010). The Benchmarks document
Page 6 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

is updated annually as part of a regular review process (see Appendix 2.10 Strategic Benchmarks
Document Actuals 10-28-12).
The final assessment of the Strategic Plan 2009-2012 was conducted through the use of a
Strategic Planning Report Card (Appendix 2.11 Strategic Plan 2009-2012 Report Card). This
report card lists the initiative, the person responsible for initiative, the status, the next step, the
timeline, and the budget impact of the initiative. Those initiatives which need to be continued in
the development of the new long range strategic plan are also noted. For example, in Fall 2011,
the stress factors analysis (see Introduction chapter) identified outstanding deferred maintenance
as an on-going concern, despite the fact that in FYs 2003, 2007, 2010 and 2011 the College took
advantage of the low interest rates and state/federal programs to issue debt and secure grants to
address its accumulated deferred maintenance. In FY 2005-06, a $10m capital campaign
was undertaken to renovate and address the deferred maintenance needs of its signature building,
Ball Hall. More recently, the College has instituted a modest budgeted line item in the annual
operating budget for deferred maintenance. However, the College recognizes that relying on the
periodic issuance of debt and capital campaigns is not conducive to the long term success of
maintaining the deferred maintenance at acceptable levels.
Overall, communication of strategic planning and budgeting processes and decisions occurs
throughout the year. Each President’s Cabinet member has regularly scheduled staff meetings
and periodic retreats that are inclusive of the broad strategic planning and budgeting efforts as
well as more granular planning at the unit level. The President provides a State of the College
presentation in the fall of every year, which includes a status update on the progress of the
College plans, and he solicits feedback in the Q&A session after his presentation. In the latest
State of the College presentation, the President highlighted the work done to date on the Long
Range Strategic Planning process, including major strategic goals and proposed metrics
(Appendix 2.12 State of the College Nov. 2012). To improve communication of institutional
progress toward achieving its goals, the President has identified the need for a more readily
accessible dashboard approach for future tracking of the Strategic Plan, once implemented;
development of the dashboard approach is part of the current discussion with Long Range
Strategic Planning Committee.
Prior to the start of the fall and spring semesters, Keuka holds a bi-annual Community Day,
which brings together all faculty, staff and administrators to update the campus on the overall
planning and budgeting status as well as various aspects of the College activities since the
previous Community Day. Agendas for the most recent years include campus diversity
initiatives, information technology and Datatel Conversion, the Middle States Self Study, the
long range strategic planning initiative and the work of the six strategic planning taskforces, to
name but a few (see Appendix 2.13 Community Day Agenda February 1, 2011).
Due to the importance of adequate funding for both the strategic and operational plans, a
thorough budgeting process is essential. The operating budget is aligned with the College’s
Strategic Plan and with the overarching institutional goals of educational excellence, financial
equilibrium, and a supportive College community. The budget development process is fairly
lengthy and involved. During the past ten years, the College has worked to continually expand,
improve, and standardize the process. The College’s annual operating budget has grown
significantly over this period, from $17M in 2001-02 to $36M in 2011-2012. The budget
Page 7 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

process, and associated timeline, reflects the fact that we are a tuition-dependent, smallendowment,
institution. For fiscal 2011-2012, 93% of the College’s revenues came from tuition
(net of financial aid), room and board, and fees. Only 1% came from endowment. Revenue
forecasts/budgets are prepared primarily via a “zero-based” methodology, while expense
forecasts/budgets are prepared largely via an “incremental” methodology. The budget cycle for
the College’s fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) typically begins a year in advance, with the
preparation of the “Benchmarks” document and the 5-Year Forecast (Appendix 2.14 Five Year
Forecast) in the fall. The process concludes with the approval of the “final” annual operating
budget, by the Board of Trustees at the fall Board meeting in October. The process has involved
a great many people and groups, including the President, the Board of Trustees, the President’s
Cabinet, the Budget Director, department heads/chairs, the Faculty Liaison Committee, and the
Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee.
The timetable for the development of the College’s annual operating budget typically follows
that which was used for preparation of the 2012-2013 budget (Appendix 2.15 2012-2013
Operating Budget Key Dates Schedule). The budget process as described below includes some
modifications which have been implemented since the arrival of President Díaz-Herrera. The key
steps, and modifications, are as follows:
Up until FY 2011-2012, the “Benchmarks” document was prepared by the President’s
Cabinet each October in conjunction with the Board of Trustees. This document
reflected, among other things, a multi-year quantification of some of the key elements of
the College’s Strategic Plan. It provided key technical assumptions, such as enrollment,
retention, giving, etc., for use in development of the 5-Year (budget) Forecast. However,
the use of the “Benchmarks” document is being replaced with new metrics in conjunction
with the development of the new strategic plan.
The 5-Year Forecast is developed by the President’s Cabinet and the Budget Director.
This serves not only as a strategic planning tool, but provides a first-cut “operating
budget” for the forthcoming fiscal year. A new 5-year forecast will be developed upon
completion of the new strategic plan for the FY 2013-2014 forecast.
In mid-late December, the Budget Director distributes worksheets to the President’s
Cabinet members, requesting their incremental/new comp (personnel), non-comp, and
capital expenditure needs for the forthcoming fiscal year (Appendix 2.16 Preliminary
2012-2013 Budget Requests Worksheet). The President’s Cabinet members in concert
with their department heads complete and submit these to the Budget Director in mid-
January. The Budget Director compiles, analyzes, and refines these requests into a
notebook entitled the “Parking Lot.”
Typically at the winter meeting of the Board of Trustees, tuition, room, board, and fee
rates for the forthcoming fiscal/academic year are approved and adopted. This further
enables revenue forecasts to be refined. However, as of AY 2012-2013, the President’s
Cabinet has moved up this process for determining all rates and fees for the traditional
campus program to the fall Board meeting instead of the later winter meeting, to better
accommodate recruitment efforts. Tuition rates for ASAP will continue to be set at the
Winter Board of Trustees meeting.
Page 8 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

During the course of the winter and spring, the “Parking Lot” requests are discussed,
analyzed and prioritized. (Up until the budget preparation for FY 2012-2013, input was
provided by the Faculty Liaison Committee and the Strategic Planning and Budgeting
Committee, as described in Appendix 2.17 Model for FLC and SPBC Participation in
Budget Process. The SPBC was suspended in fall 2011 as work began on a new strategic
plan, but the FLC continued to provide input during the 2012-2013 budget discussions.)
Based upon available projected revenues and the strategic/tactical focus for the coming
fiscal year, the President’s Cabinet will review and analyze the requests and decide which
will be included in the preliminary operating budget, which is then presented to the
Financial Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees for review and recommendation for
approval by the full Board at the spring Board of Trustees meeting.
During the course of the summer, enrollment, revenue and expense assumptions are
continually refined, and gap-closing discussions and actions take place as necessary. In
2011 a Consolidated Enrollment Report was developed in order to track and
communicate changes in enrollment forecasts for all student types (Appendix 2.18
Consolidated Enrollment Report). This report is used to help develop the operating
Budget.
In September, the Day-10 enrollment figures are then used to finalize the budget or the
budget is amended based on the most recent enrollment information.
Traditionally, at the fall Board of Trustees meeting, a final balanced operating budget,
including key assumptions, is adopted; however, the new President has set a goal of
achieving a balanced budget by the spring Board of Trustees meeting, to be amended at
the fall Board of Trustees meeting if necessary (Appendix 2.19 2012-2013 KC Operating
Budget and Appendix 2.20 Operating Budget 2012-2013 Planning Assumptions).
The department budget detail is then loaded into our Datatel/Colleague College-wide
ERP system.
As the execution of the budget during the course of the fiscal year is the task of the entire
College, the adopted budget is communicated back to the various stakeholders in a variety of
ways. As noted earlier, the President’s Cabinet members share budget information with their
department heads, faculty, and staff at regularly scheduled meetings, and the annual State of the
College provides the College community the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.
In spring 2012, President Díaz-Herrera opened the budget planning process to greater constituent
participation, requesting that representatives from the Student Government, the Faculty Liaison
Committee, and the newly formed Staff Advisory Council attend a Cabinet budget meeting to
provide feedback prior to finalizing the budget that would go to the Board for approval.
Management of the budget now involves on-line access to expense and revenue actuals available
to the President’s Cabinet members, department heads, and other key individuals, made possible
due to the conversion from Keuka’s Jenzabar ERP system to Elucian (formerly Datatel) ERP
system in early 2011. The Budget Director also prepares a 5-page management report three-four
Page 9 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

times per year for the Vice President of Finance & Administration, the President, the President’s
Cabinet, and the Financial Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees (Appendix 2.21 Actual
vs. Budget Analysis 2011-2012). This report presents/compares year-to-date actual detailed lineitem
revenues and expenses vs. the forecasted budget amounts. The Vice President of Finance &
Administration prepares a report prior to each Board of Trustees meeting, for the President and
the Board, and year-to-date results are shared with the Financial Affairs Committee and the rest
of the Board at these meetings.
A number of supporting documents are prepared by the Budget Director at the end of the fiscal
year to provide a more thorough analysis of the budget. These documents are shared with the
appropriate key individuals and groups to be used in review of strategic initiatives and future
decision-making. Some of these supporting documents include variance analysis of revenues
and expenses, President’s Cabinet level department expense summaries, and individual analyses
of the key budget subcomponents, and a Key Program Areas Split Exhibit (Appendix 2.22 AY
2011-2012 Five-Way Split Exhibit).
Given that Keuka College is largely a tuition-dependent institution, with a relatively small
endowment, resources are limited. The following Tables 2.1 – 2.7 illustrate some of the key
outcomes achieved since fiscal year 2007-08, the year before the Strategic Plan 2009-2012 was
adopted. These outcomes support the three primary goals or “pillars” of the Strategic Plan 2009-
2012, mentioned earlier in this chapter. Following the tables is a brief analysis of the strategies
employed to achieve the outcomes.
A. Increased Net Revenue through Expanded Enrollment.
The goal to increase net revenue through expanded enrollment has largely been
achieved. In fiscal 2007-08, tuition (net of financial aid), room & board, and fees
revenue totaled $24.4M The Fiscal 2011-12 budget was $33.9M, or a +39% increase.
Overall budget figures have improved due to an increase in enrollment, as well as
improved retention of existing students. Some of the initiatives which led to increased net
revenues follow.
1. Enrollment management: Because traditional student tuition, fees, room & board
represent approximately 57% of the College’s annual total revenue, Enrollment
Management employs an extensive planning and assessment process. Targets based on
the College’s Strategic Plan are developed annually. Among the data used in the
assessment process are application status reports, early warning reports, and the Day 10
enrollment reports. To improve the enrollment figures, new targeted scholarships have
been developed, recruitment efforts and territories have been redefined, affinity groups
have been developed in addition to the school guidance counselors, new and innovative
visit days have been developed (which include guidance counselors, summer visit days,
and institutional visits), and targeted marketing has occurred. A modest enrollment
growth of 5% in the traditional program from 2002 to 2012 is reflected below.
Page 10 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Table 2.1 Traditional Undergraduate Program
Number of Number of
Freshmen
to
Sophomore 6 Year
Total UG First Year Transfer Retention Graduation
Year Enrollment Students Students % Rate
2012-2013 952 244 49 73.9% 50.9%
2011-2012 970 262 66 70.9% 51.5%
2010-2011 943 267 75 68.1% 54.4%
2009-2010 913 253 67 62.9% 52.1%
2008-2009 934 270 66 68.9% 51.3%
2007-2008 935 274 71 64.0% 45.1%
2006-2007 940 232 75 69.8% 42.7%
2005-2006 944 268 68 72.6% 48.9%
2004-2005 934 248 68 72.9% 50%
2003-2004 937 244 59 69.7% 53.9%
2002-2003 907 198 78 70.8% 52.1%
The tuition discount rate also plays an important role in enrollment management. The
trend for the discount rate over the last 5 years has increased, as we see in Table 2.2:
Table 2.2 Tuition Discount Rate
Traditional UG
Incoming
Incoming
All
Freshmen
Transfers Undergraduates
2005-06 52.5% 28.1% 44.8%
2006-07 51.1% 28.5% 45.4%
2007-08 49.9% 28.2% 45.2%
2008-09 46.9% 32.4% 46.0%
2009-10 48.9% 33.8% 44.6%
2010-11 53.7% 35.9% 46.8%
2011-12 56.0% 35.2% 48.50%
2012-2013 53.9% 34.6% 48.9%
The rise in the discount rate has been a strategic decision made to compensate for the
financial difficulties of the students and their families struggling through the extended
economic downturn. This, however, is not ideal for the institution, and much work needs
to be done to lower the discount rate. Given the need to address the traditional student
discount rate and increase net tuition revenue, a financial aid consultant, Scannell & Kurz
Page 11 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

was retained in early Fall 2012 to review historic financial aid practices. The
recommendations of this review were implemented in fall 2012.
2. Investment in retention: In November 2009, the College worked with consultant
Performa (now Credo) to address retention challenges. Keuka invested a combined
$37,750 from 2009-2012 in Performa’s retention model, identifying which students were
most at risk of leaving the institution. This allowed staff to intervene earlier to help
students overcome obstacles to success. Performa also provided two workshops to
faculty and staff on key retention strategies. The College implemented several of their
strategies, including hiring an additional full-time staff person for the Academic Success
at Keuka (ASK) Program; developing an early alert/intervention process which involves
the ASK Office, academic advisors, instructors, and student affairs staff; and employing
stronger outreach/contact to students at-risk through coordinated Academic Affairs and
Student Affairs efforts. Six part-time Student Affairs staff were upgraded to full-time
status during 2011-12 in order to provide additional staffing for retention efforts. These
“Success Advocates,” who also work in Residence Life, meet and communicate with new
students throughout the summer before their arrival on campus, and help to make
important connections between the students and the resources at the College. Each new
student is assigned to a Success Advocate, who works closely with Orientation Mentors
and faculty to ensure a smooth transition to the College. In a similar fashion, ASK staff
communicate over the summer with all entering first year students who are placed into
Developmental English or Developmental Mathematics to inform them of services and
assistance available to them. As evident in Table 2.1, this investment in retention has
yielded positive results, with a freshmen-to-sophomore retention increase of 11% since
AY 2009-2010.
3. Expansion of program offerings and sites to non-traditional students: The Strategic
Plan 2009-2012 called for expansion of the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program
(ASAP). The actual revenue growth rate for ASAP over the past five years ranged from
4.9% to 14.5%, for an average compounded growth rate of 8.9%. This was achieved
through the addition of new program offerings and expansion to new sites at community
colleges and hospitals. Retention and completion rates within the ASAP programs are
strong, reflecting commitment on the part of the adult learners and support from faculty
and staff (see Appendix 2.23 ASAP Programs Cohort Graduation Rates).
The process for identifying new sites and programs can come from either internal or
external sources. The marketing manager for the ASAP programs researches the
educational offerings in the community, alumni feedback helps us assess need, and our
admissions counselors survey the environment and identify unfilled niches.
Alternatively, some new programs are initiated by our partners who have identified a
match between our programs and workforce needs. This, for instance, was the case of
SUNY Jefferson Community College in Watertown, NY. Keuka College was contacted
by Jefferson Community College to form an articulation agreement for a Social Work
Program to help them meet their demand for workers in the human services field. After a
series of meetings, necessary approvals, marketing plans, and a recruitment process, the
result was a Keuka Social Work Program at Jefferson Community College, a communityinitiated
and community-based program which began in Fall 2010.
Page 12 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Chart 2.1 Enrollment for Accelerated Studies for Adults Programs (ASAP) and ASAP
Graduate Programs (FTE) 2002-2012
4. Expansion of international opportunities, both abroad and at NYS campus, and
enhancement of support infrastructure: Keuka’s first international program in China,
which began in 2002, provides Bachelor of Science in Management degrees to 2771
Chinese students (enrollment AY 2012-2013) in four partner universities throughout
China, through the assistance of a third party agent, KCP International. The program
provided approximately $0.7 million dollars of gross revenue to the College 2011-2012.
To support this program, the Dean for China Program position was created and filled in
October 2008. This program has gone through many reviews and improvements since its
inception and is now the model for a similar program in Vietnam that began in 2010, run
by Keuka College without the assistance of a third party agent. As of fall 2012, the
Vietnam program has approximately 333 Vietnamese students enrolled in the Keuka
program in Hanoi and 170 students in Ho Chi Minh City. It provides approximately $0.6
million dollars of revenue to the College. To support this program, the Program Director
for Vietnam position was created and filled in early 2010.
Both of these programs have created the opportunity for an influx of students from both
China and Vietnam to the Keuka Park campus, which has helped to increase campus
enrollment. To provide the needed support for these international students, the College
created the Center for Global Education, which opened in 2010 and houses a staff of six
Page 13 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

full-time and two part-time employees. The position of Associate Vice President of the
Center for Global Education was created to oversee the growth and development of these
international relationships.
Table 2.3 Keuka China Program Enrollment & Graduation Totals 2003-2011
Keuka China Program Enrollment/Graduation Totals
Expected
Graduation Dropped*
Original
Enrollment Withdraw
Chart 2.2 Vietnam Enrollment
Degree
Candidates Incomplete** 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Graduation
Rate by
Year
Cumulative
Graduation
Rate
2003 0 29 0 29 0 29 29 100% 100%
2004 0 120 1 119 5 104 10 114 95% 96%
2005 0 72 0 72 1 66 3 2 71 99% 97%
2006 1 285 3 282 22 258 1 1 260 91% 94%
2007 23 813 18 795 65 699 27 3 0 1 730 90% 91%
2008 32 865 42 823 81 720 15 6 1 742 86% 89%
2009 82 1156 97 1059 92 949 14 2 2 967 84% 87%
2010 28 1313 104 1209 83 1118 6 2 1126 86% 87%
2011 40 1306 98 1208 115 1082 11 1093 84% 86%
2012 19 840 36 804 140 657 657 78% 85%
2013 8 700 43 657
2014 19 732 56 676
2015 6 770 18 752
2015 0 626 0 626
Dropped*
Original
Enrollment Withdraw
GRADUATES
Degree
Candidates Incomplete** 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL
Totals 258 9627 516 9111 604 29 104 76 261 702 748 967 1138 1092 672 5789
Page 14 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Chart 2.3 Visiting International/Global Education Student Trends
5. Development of online course offerings:
As the ASAP program grew, the challenge arose of enabling students with deficits in
their liberal arts coursework to complete their degree requirements for graduation. Keuka
recognized that this was an unmet need for our ASAP students, and thus the goal of
incorporating distance learning was added to the Strategic Plan. In 2008, the Wertman
Office of Distance Education (WODE) was created through the funding support of a
member of the Keuka College Board of Trustees. With the creation of this office, the
College was able to expand the number of on-line course offerings that meet the prerequisite
and “bridge” course requirements of students, which supported and helped to
build program enrollment and improve completion rates to approximately 77-84%. This
has also spurred the creation of the first on-line Master’s Degree program—the online
Masters of Science in Management, International Business—which has been submitted to
the New York State Education Department, but approval is still pending.
Page 15 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Table 2.4 Distance Education Enrollment
Number of
online
course
registrations
Number of
online
credit hours
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Fall 2012 (budget)
280 547 614 551 567
840 1761 1975 1772 1824
6. Development of academic programs to meet demand: Over a six year-period, a number
of programs were refined or added in response to market surveys, faculty initiatives, and
student demand, as noted below:
Traditional program
Concentrations: International Business (2007)
Minors: Accounting (2006), forensic chemistry (2006), human resources
management (2006), marketing (2006), environmental studies (2008), applied
mathematics (2009), visual and verbal art (2008)
Master’s of Science in Literacy B-6 (2008)
Master’s of Science in Literacy 5-12 (2009)
Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP)
Nursing: Master’s of Science to prepare Nurse Educators (2009)
Master’s of Science in International Business (2010)
Social Work (B.S.) (2008)
7. Development of Board oversight: In 2009, the Board of Trustees formed the
Committee on Alternative Programs (CAP) to provide insight, oversight and guidance to
new, non-traditional programs at Keuka, and the position of Vice President for Center for
Professional Studies and International Programs was created as a Cabinet position. In
concert with the President and the President’s Cabinet, the CAP has worked to identify
opportunities consistent with the Strategic Plan, mission and resources of the College.
Recent Board discussion has focused on the future purpose of this committee, given the
administrative reorganization that occurred in August 2012, when the Vice President for
Academic Affairs assumed responsibility for the Center for Professional Studies and
International Programs and its former Vice President took over new duties as the VP for
Enrollment Management for all of Keuka’s programs.
8. Website Design: In July of 2009, the College undertook a redesign of the College
website to both improve the functionality and better present what Keuka has to offer
today’s diverse student population. Using design consultant, Intuitive Design, and input
from students, faculty and staff, a successful redesign was launched in October 2010. An
Page 16 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

improved taxonomy and an enhanced site search function deliver information in a more
user friendly way. The College continues to review and update the website as needed to
keep pace with student expectations, and as such, has added an additional position in
2012 to assist the webmaster with this function.
B. Increased net revenue through fundraising.
In fiscal 2007-08, the Gifts & Grants revenue (all categories excluding the Ball Hall
Capital Campaign) was $2.0M. In fiscal 2011-2012, this figure was $3.0M. This goal
has been partially met. The report below identifies key aspects of Keuka’s fundraising
initiatives. (Appendix 2.24 Fundraising Totals)
1. In 2008, the $10M Ball Hall Capital Campaign was concluded successfully with the
complete renovation of Ball Hall, which is used for 3 floors of dormitory space and 2
floors of administrative offices.
2. The grant writing process has been developed through the support of the administration
and trustees, to expand from the College’s traditional concentration on development to
encompass four sectors for fundraising: 1) academic support, 2) infrastructure, 3)
programming, and 4) scholarships. In an effort to better inform the academic community
of the expanded goals, the Moodle course management system has been employed to
alert appropriate faculty and administration about identified donors, and to solicit their
participation in pursuing these opportunities. Examples of grants received include a
grant from the Dreyfus Foundation that was used for science equipment in the labs, the
JM McDonald Foundation that was used for the Academic Success at Keuka (ASK)
program, the George I. Alden Trust that funded an Occupational Lab for $43,000, and the
Booth-Ferris Foundation that funded the Pediatric Lab, Clinical Lab, and Driving
Simulator for $150,000 to support Occupational Therapy program outcomes.
3. In 2005 the College acquired a Title III Technology Grant for $1.8 M, which resulted in
improving educational technology tools and training throughout the campus. The grant
was a five-year grant that ended in 2010. A $500,000 educational technology
endowment was also created to fund future educational technology needs.
4. In 2010, Keuka entered into a partnership with lead agency University of Rochester, to
secure a federal grant and receive 25% of the funds for an on-campus DRIVE (Diversity,
Responsibility, Inclusion, Vision, and Experiential learning) Program, serving
developmentally-delayed 18 to 21 year-old special education students and providing a
completion certificate through the collaboration of the Yates County ARC, the Penn Yan
Central School District, and the College. The grant money does not represent an increase
to revenue, but does reimburse the College for DRIVE program expenses.
5. In the weak economy of the past few years, the College has been able to keep its donor
base stable, but finds that individual donations have decreased. The College has
responded in several ways to improve these results. The endowment was moved from a
passive to active fund management system with the switch to Commonfund in January of
2008. In addition, the Board of Trustees voted to pay off a long outstanding endowment
Page 17 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Interfund loan of approximately $1.6M with a one-time modest transfer, an annual
payment of $75,000 for several years, and finally a transfer of College-owned real estate
valued at approximately $900,000. With the resignation of the Chief Operating
Officer/Executive Vice President in December 2011, the combined position of COO and
Executive Vice President of Advancement and Enrollment has been discontinued; a
separate position of Vice President for College Advancement has been created and will
be filled so that this position can concentrate exclusively on development, advancement,
and planned giving. At the time of this writing, the VP for College Advancement remains
vacant, as does the position of Director of Planned Giving which was created in 2010 to
support this area of fundraising.
6. In addition to fundraising, development of the Conference Services area has also
occurred. This source of revenue to the College has made a significant jump from
$288,375 in fiscal 2007-08 to approximately $356,541 in fiscal 2011-2012. This jump is
attributed to the more effective use of technology to both advertise and market the chapel
for weddings (45/year, up from 15/year), tradeshow cooperation with local chambers of
commerce, expanded hours to nights and weekends, and better use of campus dormitories
and apartments throughout the summer months.
C. Investment for the future.
This goal addresses facilities, employee compensation, and information technology. In
each area, the College has sought to build a better College community. In fiscal 2007-
08, investment in facilities, information technology, and employee compensation/benefits
was $16,694,678. In fiscal 2011-12, this figure was $23,557,585 as shown in Table 2.5
below. The analysis that follows the Table identifies key aspects of how the College has
invested for the future.
1. The President, President’s Cabinet, and Board of Trustees through the Building and
Grounds Committee make the strategic facilities and capital improvement decisions.
Capital improvements have been primarily funded through debt, grants, and capital
campaigns.
Table 2.5 Facilities, Information Technology, and Employee Compensation
Facilities I.T. Comp Total
2007-08 $1,427,600 $ 717,175 $14,549,903
2008-09 $ 168,799 $ 835,689 $16,308,609
2009-10 $ 218,210 $1,208,271 $17,553,885
2010-11 $ 572,800 $1,574,314 $19,283,683
2011-12 $1,484,640 $1,777,018 $20,295,927
$16,694,678
$17,313,097
$18,980,366
$21,430,797
$23,557,585
Page 18 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

2. In 2009, the College commissioned an Information Technology Assessment and Strategic
Plan (Appendix 2.25 Information Technology Assessment Strategic Plan), which
recommended a re-organization of the ITS department, creation of a new Director of
Information Technology and several other key support positions, an upgrade in the server
capacity, a security profile, and the upgrading of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
system. This upgrade was commenced in 2010 and the implementation of a new network
infrastructure, utilizing a unified computing platform, creates a new flexible datacenter
that offers redundancy with key hardware components and a fail-over capability, should
one component exhibit issues or operational failure. The new infrastructure now
provided ubiquitous wireless coverage across campus and provides scalable performance
and storage options that can be configured in hours instead of days or weeks.
3. As a result of the Information Technology Assessment and Strategic Plan mentioned
above, the decision was made to improve both data quality and access through replacing
the 2001 Jenzabar ERP system with Elucian’s (formerly Datatel) Colleague ERP system.
Although there were many attempts to update and revise the original Jenzabar ERP
program to meet Keuka’s evolving needs, it became obvious that the current platform
was unable to accommodate the needed changes. Harris Consulting Associates was hired
to work with a College-wide vendor team that was formed to recommend a new ERP
system. The team sent out a request for proposal to vendors, and went through an
extensive procurement process, detailed in a 2009 document (Appendix 2.26 Memo:
Vendors ERP Recommendations). This process resulted in the procurement and
implementation of Elucian’s Colleague ERP application solutions for academic,
financial, and human resources management at Keuka, allowing College personnel to
make better informed decisions across all areas and programs.
Due to the critical nature of replacing the ERP system, a Core team to oversee the
implementation was formed and made up of representatives from Financial Aid, IT
Services, Admissions, Experiential Learning, Student Affairs, Human Resources, the
Registrar’s Office, the Business Office, and Instructional Design. The Core team met
weekly and commenced extensive training sessions in June of 2010, continuing through
the completion of the project.
The goals and expectations of the new ERP system are as follows:
A Customer Resource Management module for Admissions that will allow for
better management of the life cycle of a student from prospect to accepted student
On-line student access to information on all of their academic and financial
accounts, at the times that are convenient for them
On-line student registration
On-line access for advisors to student information
Classroom scheduling capability
Reporting and operating analytics that will align data with reports that will help in
decision-making
Financial tracking and analysis needs from purchasing and accounts payable, to
general ledger and budget management
Page 19 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

A systems management component that allows the IT Department to manage the
system more efficiently
A retention alert system tied to attendance and grade notification
A dashboard capability on everything from enrollment information to faculty
teaching load
A mobile application for student access
Most of the system was fully implemented by June of 2012. Although early results
indicate that efficiencies have been realized, it is too early to determine the level of
efficiency achieved. The obvious advantages of the system capabilities assure that
students, faculty members, staff, and administration will have much more access to
information. It is the timely access to information that will allow all involved to be more
effective in their decision-making and efficient in providing accurate assistance to those
constituents that they are serving.
4. As a result of the growing enrollment of on-campus students and the demand for alternate
housing options, the College has invested in several property purchases to address
housing needs. Two small, private College rental properties were converted to student
housing. The College also purchased the Strong Hall Apartments and Keuka Park
Apartments, and the College entered into a one-year lease (2011-2012) with a local
developer for a 5-unit apartment complex to be used until the Keuka Park Apartments
were ready in 2012-13. The Building Occupancy Projections document is used to make
the necessary housing decisions (Appendix 2.27 Building Occupancy Spreadsheet and
Appendix 2.28 Five- Year Housing Forecast). In addition to providing increased housing
capacity to accommodate enrollment growth, the purchase of the apartment complexes
has allowed for more housing choices for undergraduate and graduate students seeking
alternatives to the standard residence halls, and the apartments can also be used for
summer programming and conference service rentals.
5. Increased enrollment has also created challenges with finding adequate classroom space,
faculty, and staff offices. In 2007, the College leased space in the Keuka Office Park,
approximately 4 miles north of the main campus. The space rented was initially 7,700
square feet and has been expanded to 10,200 square feet, with additional room for
expansion, if needed. This space is the primary location for the Center for Professional
Studies and International Programs (CPSIP), which administers all of the ASAP,
Distance Education, and overseas International Programs.
With the acquisition of the adjacent Strong Hall Apartments, Keuka also acquired a 3,000
square foot building that was converted to two additional 50-seat classrooms.
6. Another effect of an increase in enrollment is the increase in compensation expenses, the
result of hiring additional faculty and staff. In 2007-08 Keuka had 257 FTE employees,
and by 2010-11, the number grew to 305, an increase of 48 employees or 18.7%. In
addition, the payroll grew from $12.0M in 2007-08 to $16.6 M in 2011-2012. This
represents an increase of $4.6 M or 38%. Tables 2.6 and 2.7 below show a comparison
between Keuka College faculty compensation and that of the AAUP IIB Church Related
Page 20 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Schools (IIB-CRS) comparison peer group which served as Keuka’s compensation peer
group until spring 2012.
Table 2.6 AAUP Church-Related Schools (faculty salary peer group 2003-2012)
2011-
12
2010-
11
2009-
10
2008-
09
2007-
08
2006-
07
2005-
06
2004-
05
2003-
04
2003-04
to 2011-
12
Prof 77.4 74.9 74.4 75.1 72.5 68.9 66.5 63.9 62.6 23.6%
Assoc 62.8 61.3 60.7 60.7 58.3 56.1 55.4 52.3 51.1 22.9%
Assist 53.1 51.8 51.1 51.1 49.2 47.5 45.9 44.6 43.2 22.9%
Instr 44.7 44.1 43.5 43.3 41.7 40.5 38.5 37.5 36.7 21.8%
Table 2.7 Keuka Faculty Salaries
2011-
12
2010-
11
2009-
10
2008-
09
2007-
08
2006-
07
2005-
06
2004-
05
2003-
04
2003-04
to 2011-
12
Prof 74.7 73.1 73.1 72.5 70.6 63.7 57.9 54.9 54.1 38.1%
Assoc 62.6 62.7 62.7 59.1 57.4 53.2 52.2 49.2 46.1 35.8%
Assist 54.8 53.1 53.0 52.9 49.0 45.3 43.5 40.5 39.7 38.0%
Instr 47.7 40.4 40.4 37.9 35.2 N/A N/A 38.9 35.1 35.9%
7. In 2003-2004 academic year, Keuka College embarked on a 5-Year Salary Plan. The
goal had been to reach “parity” with IIB-CRS colleges by the end of the 2008-2009
Academic year. Table 2.8 below shows the percentage increase in faculty and staff
salaries over a ten-year period to meet that goal. Due to difficult economic circumstances
in AY 2009-10, Keuka chose to enact a salary freeze as a measure to prevent layoffs,
recognizing the importance of maintaining staffing across the institution in support of the
mission. Additional information on the salary plan can be found in Appendix 2.29
Faculty Meeting Minutes 5.28.09.
Table 2.8 Faculty Annual Salary Increases
Historical Trend of "Nominal" Annual Salary Increases
Faculty Admin & Staff
2003-04 Actual 3.0% 2.0%
2004-05 Actual 5.5% 3.5%
2005-06 Actual 7.5% 4.5%
2006-07 Actual 8.0% 4.5%
2007-08 Actual 8.5% 3.5%
2008-09 Actual 5.5% 4.0%
2009-10 Actual 0.0% 0.0%
Page 21 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

2010-11 Actual 2.0% 2.0%
2011-12 Actual 3.5% 3.5%
2012-13 Actual 3.5% 3.5%
Notes:
-faculty increases include equity adjustments ($ pool); exclude promotions
- admin & staff increases exclude equity adjustments (ad hoc)
- in 2010-11, there was a one-time 0.75% stipend (excl above), in addition to annual increase
8. In 2008, a Facilities Plan Update was written, but is not as comprehensive as a Facilities
Master Plan would be. The need for a new master plan was identified in the Strategic
Plan 2009-2012, in the ongoing work of the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee,
and a new Master Plan will be completed in 2013-2014.
Keuka College conducts an annual independent audit and follows all recommended and
appropriate financial and reporting guidelines. The auditors meet with the Board of Trustees’
Audit Committee and review the annual audit and any management letter recommendations. The
President and Vice President of Finance and Administration report the status of any outstanding
management letter recommendations to the Audit Committee and the full Board (Appendix 2.30
Audit Report and Appendix 2.31 Management Letter). Most recommendations are addressed in
the subsequent fiscal year, except for those that require a multi-year effort. The College has also
provided Middle States with periodic review reports outlining the status of our finances, with the
most recent and final report submitted in November 2010 (Appendix 2.32 2010 MSCHE
Supplemental Information Report).
Although Keuka has greatly improved the integration of strategic planning with budgeting over
the last several years, as noted earlier, one of the major goals of the Long Range Strategic
Planning Steering Committee is to strengthen the integration, transparency, and communication
of this process even further. To facilitate these goals, the Long Range Strategic Planning
Steering Committee is currently reviewing carefully a set of metrics that it anticipates
benchmarking with other institutions and implementing once the final plan is approved so that
Keuka can more readily set data-driven priorities and make recommendations for actions.
Recommendations:
2.1 Create a new Master Plan that directly integrates with the Long Range Strategic Plan.
2.2 Implement the financial aid consultant’s recommendations for increasing net tuition
revenue and reducing the discount rate over the next five years and monitor for progress
in achieving institutional enrollment and net tuition revenue goals.
2.3 Complete the re-organization of the Advancement Offices with a concentration on
planned giving efforts and increasing the endowment.
Page 22 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

2.4 Establish an acceptable deferred maintenance threshold and metric (e.g. facility condition
index), along with annual allocation of funds which includes a mix of capital
indebtedness, grants and operating funds to achieve the outcome. In addition, explore the
feasibility of budgeting for annual depreciation as a dedicated funding source to address
deferred maintenance.
Page 23 of 23 Chapter 2: Planning and Resources

Chapter 3
Leadership, Governance, and Administration
Standard 4: Leadership and Governance
The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional
constituencies in policy development and decision-making. The governance structure
includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy to assure institutional
integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development, consistent
with the mission of the institution.
Standard 5: Administration
The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/
scholarship, foster quality improvement, and support the institution’s organization and
governance.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 4 and Standard 5.
The leadership of the College is vested in the Board of Trustees, the President, and the Vice
Presidents who comprise the Cabinet. These groups provide leadership in ensuring the College’s
mission is implemented. Keuka College is operated through a system of shared governance.
The constituencies involved in this system include the Board of Trustees, the President, the
Faculty, the President’s Cabinet (formerly known as the Administrative Team or informally as
the A-Team), the Student Association of the College, and the recently established Staff Advisory
Council (SAC) and College Advisory Council (CAC). Each has a formalized set of policies,
procedures and/or By-Laws that clearly articulate their role in the governance of Keuka College.
As the College has increased in complexity, particularly with regard to the scope and size of its
academic programs, the Board has regularly assessed the effectiveness of the College’s
administrative structure and institutional leadership. The Board recognizes the need for an agile
and dynamic leadership team, and with the counsel of the College’s chief executive officer,
accordingly approves new or restructured leadership positions that would allow greater
effectiveness and efficiency. The major administrative changes since 2002, detailed below and
discussed at length in Appendix 3.1 Major Administrative Changes, reflect the College’s growth
in the non-traditional arenas, that is, the growth of the adult degree completion programs and the
overseas programs.
At the Cabinet level, the President has recently reorganized institutional leadership in profound
ways. Major changes included integrating oversight and accountability for the Accelerated
Studies for Adults Programs (ASAP) and support functions under the Vice President for
Academic Affairs, and consolidating the enrollment management and marketing functions,
previously divided between the traditional and ASAP programs, under one Vice President for
Enrollment Management and International Relations. Implemented in August 2012, these
changes were the result of the President’s assessment of the enrollment and marketing functions
and recognition that duplication of efforts could be reduced and recruitment strengthened
through integrated activities, such as recruiting transfer students for either the traditional
program or ASAP programs during college fairs at partner community colleges. The unification
Page 1 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

of the traditional program and the ASAP program under the Vice President for Academic Affairs
strengthens the faculty integration process begun three years ago when the College moved to hire
full-time tenure track faculty for the adult degree completion programs, and accordingly
promotes greater opportunities for collaboration and improves institutional connectedness,
enhancing the quality of the work environment. The President has also restored as a separate
position that of the Vice President for College Advancement which had been previously
combined with enrollment management under the title of Executive Vice President/Chief
Operating Officer. The performance of the College’s vice presidents, especially as pertains to
their changed responsibilities, will continue to be evaluated on an annual basis. Overall, the
organizational restructuring will be evaluated in alignment with the assessment of the long range
strategic plan, currently in draft form at the time of this writing.
Table 3.1 Major Administrative Changes since 2002
Date ** Change Positions Involved Rationale
5/30/2004 Split Associate Dean roles Assoc. Dean of Academic
Affairs; Assoc. Dean of ASAP
7/01/2004 Executive Vice President
responsibilities added to the VP
of College Advancement,
Enrollment Mgmt & Marketing
9/06/2006 Associate Vice President titles
created to replace Associate
Dean titles
3/15/2008 Chief Operating Officer (COO)
responsibilities added to
Executive Vice President
7/1/2009 Chief Technology Officer
position removed from A-
Team; IT reports to CFO
Creation of position - Director
of IT
7/1/2009 Creation of position - Vice
President of Center for
Professional Studies &
International Programs
1/26/2010 Create position - Associate
Vice President, Center for
Global Education
11/10/2011 Create position – Interim
Director of Enrollment
Management (DEM)
8/1/2012 Integrate Center for
Professional Studies under
VPAA; Associate Vice
& International Studies
Vice President of College
Advancement, Enrollment
Management & Marketing
Increased volume and complexity
of administering ASAP
and international programs
Expansion of oversight of
institutional functional areas
Alignment of Associates’ titles Consistency in titles &
responsibilities as ASAP and
international programs are
expanded
Executive Vice President Coverage of institutional
functions while President
traveled and focused on revenue
Eliminate CTO position
Create new position
Director of Information
Technology Services
New
Hired a replacement Associate
Vice President of CPS
generation
Realignment of IT
responsibilities, address the
needed expertise required post
Title III grant, under
administrative team oversight
Increased volume of ASAP and
International Programs required
attention
New Develop a strategic plan for our
international education
programs, establish an ESL
program and new international
New
Position reports to VP CPSIP
instead of COO
VPAA, Associate VP for
Center for Professional
Studies; former VP for CPS
initiatives
Consolidate traditional,
graduate, ASAP and
international enrollment
functions along with a
consolidation of marketing and
website management
Leverage strengths of both
ASAP and traditional program,
provide more centralized
Page 2 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

President for Center for
Professional Studies now
reports to VPAA
Restructure position—VP for
Enrollment, Marketing, and
International Relations
Create VP for College
Advancement
Former Executive Vice
President/Chief Operating
Officer position eliminated
position eliminated
New
New
management and academic
oversight, and improve
collaboration
Consolidate enrollment,
marketing functions under one
VP, focus attention on new
venture development, including
international
Restructured to strengthen
College Advancement unit
Former duties reassigned to VP
Enrollment, Marketing, and
International Relations; duties
reassigned to VP College
Advancement
** Dates were determined by reference to the Personnel Action Form (PAF) in employee files,
authorized and signed by the President of the College as required for all executive position
changes. Detailed explanations of these changes can be found in Appendix 3.1 Major
Administrative Changes Since 2002.
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees consists of between twenty-one and forty people, including three alumni
trustees and two student trustees. Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, the Chair of
the Board, or in his/her absence the Vice Chair, presides at all meeting of the Board of Trustees
and Executive Committee. The President of the College serves as a member of the Executive
Committee of the Board of Trustees during his/her presidency.
The powers and responsibilities as they relate to the Board of Trustees are spelled out in the
Keuka College Bylaws Board of Trustees (Appendix 3.2 Board Bylaws 6-16-12), and the
companion document Board Committees Responsibilities, Board Approved Policies and
Procedures further defines these responsibilities as well as policies pertinent to the operations of
the College (Appendix 3.3 Board Committee Responsibilities). These documents are reviewed
and revised as needed, by the full Board.
In response to the increased regulatory environment following the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Audit
sub-committee of the Financial Affairs committee of the Board of Trustees became a separate
standing committee (Audit Committee) in March 2005. The role of the Audit Committee is to
assist the Board in its fiduciary responsibilities. The Audit Committee oversees the
Administration's conduct of the financial control, reporting and accounting systems, which
include the financial reports and other financial information provided by the College to
regulatory bodies, the public, financial institutions and internal users in the College community.
The effectiveness of this committee is assessed through reports to the Executive Committee on a
regular basis, as well as through the annual audit and management letter issued by the
independent auditors (Appendix 3.3 Board Committee Responsibilities).
Page 3 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

In 2009, in response to the growth of non-traditional and international program areas, the Board
of Trustees created the Committee on Alternative Ventures (CAV), later renamed Committee on
Alternative Programs (CAP) to provide oversight to a growing segment of the College. This
Committee’s responsibilities include reviewing proposals to offer academic programs in
alternative formats and/or locations from the traditional programs of the College and monitoring
the enrollment and financial performance of these programs. This committee has representatives
from each of the standing committees of the board. The Vice President for Enrollment
Management and International Programs is the primary liaison with the CAP. The committee
meets monthly to review issues related to new program development, strategic planning, and
fiscal performance. The CAP chair provides reports to the Board of Trustees at their regularly
scheduled meetings. This committee allows the Board to focus greater attention and oversight on
expanding non-traditional programs, and to better integrate Board review activities across the
many committees that now are affected by ASAP. In February 2011, the full Board approved a
resolution which clarified the respective roles and responsibilities of the faculty, the Academic
Affairs Committee of the Board, and the Committee on Alternative Programs with regard to
proposals for new academic programs, new instructional sites and new program formats
(Appendix 3.4 KC Board Approval Process for New Programs). The resolution was shared with
the faculty Curriculum Committee and Graduate Program Committee and their feedback
solicited.
The Board’s structure facilitates governance of the College and includes the following
committees:
Executive Committee
o Presidential Development Subcommittee
o Executive Compensation Subcommittee
Financial Affairs Committee
o Investment Subcommittee
o Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee
Audit Committee
Committee on Trustees
Academic Affairs Committee
Enrollment Management and Marketing Committee
College Advancement Committee
Student Affairs Committee
Committee on Alternative Programs
An administrative vice president is assigned to each committee, as appropriate to the nature of
the committee work, with the exceptions of the Executive Committee and Committee on
Trustees. The Board committees exercise appropriate oversight and decision-making authority
with regard to those responsibilities that are fiduciary or central to the College’s achievement of
its mission. For example, the Board’s fiduciary responsibility is overseen by the Financial
Affairs and Audit Committee, whereas the Academic Affairs Committee assures the quality of
the College’s academic programs. At each Board meeting, the respective committees provide a
report that addresses key initiatives, identifies challenges within their area of responsibility, and
solicits input from the general Board.
Page 4 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

The Committee on Trustees has been historically responsible for presenting a slate of potential
candidates that have been nominated by multiple sources, to the full Board for consideration.
Anyone may nominate a person for consideration by contacting the College President, the Chair
of the Board of Trustees, the Chair of the Committee on Trustees, or the Nominations Committee
of the Alumni Association. In order to be considered, candidates must meet the criteria
described in the Statement of Commitment for Keuka College Trustees (revised in December of
2011), and have the ability to bring unique strengths and support the goal of promoting the
financial and overall strength of the College (Appendix 3.5 Statement of Commitment for Keuka
College Trustees). Candidates are then queried about potential conflicts of interests. Developing
a broad and diverse Board of Trustees has been the historical, as well as current, goal of the
Board. Currently our Board includes a diverse group from academic or professional
backgrounds in finance, marketing, operations, human resources, law, and student affairs. They
also include members that represent industry, community relations, Keuka alumni, and current
Keuka students. Specific Trustee expectations include, but are not limited to, regular attendance
and active participation at the three meetings of the full Board per year, a contribution to the
Keuka Annual Fund, active service on at least one committee, and participation in capital
campaigns.
New Trustees participate in a formal orientation process which includes meetings with the
President, the President’s Cabinet, and other Trustees. An overview of the College’s history is
provided, along with background on current activities and issues. The President’s Cabinet
members provide an overview of their units as well, identifying areas of responsibility and key
functional goals. Development of newly elected trustees continues over the first year, with new
members paired with a current Trustee to provide them with support, guidance, and answer
questions, and assignment to board committees by the Chair of the Board.
Board development has been a key activity in recent years. In August 2010, Board Chair Melissa
Brown and President Joseph Burke initiated with the Executive Committee and Administration a
discussion of best practices and characteristics of effective Boards, sharing insights from their
participation at the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) 2010 Summer Institute. At this
meeting, there was strong consensus that the trustees and the administration enjoy positive and
respectful working relationships, and information is provided in a timely manner to allow for
active participation in governance. Dialogue focused on the need for the Board to be more
engaged in “foresight” activities (greater discussion of strategic agenda issues) and “insight”
activities (Board professional development activities which update members on key
developments and trends in higher education). To achieve these goals, committee meetings have
been restructured to allow more time for discussion of key strategic issues, and the Committee on
Trustees has expanded its responsibilities to oversee the professional development of the Board
at the general meetings. The following topics have been presented as part of this initiative to
provide stronger professional development of the Board: Planned Giving, Distance Education,
Assessment of Student Learning, and Trustees Statement of Commitment.
Evaluation of all Trustees occurs on a bi-annual basis through their completion of a selfevaluation
form, and Board meeting evaluations are completed by all Board members following
each Board meeting. These evaluations ask Trustees to assess the usefulness of information
received prior to and at the meeting, the quality of discussion, the appropriateness of time
Page 5 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

allotted to committee and general meetings, and allow for general comments and suggestions.
The evaluations are utilized by the Board Chair, Board Vice Chair, and the President of the
College to assist in planning for future meetings.
The Board holds retreats, generally occurring every two years, and hosts various guest speakers
and consultants at their meetings. A retreat in October 2010, planned by the Chair of the Board
of Trustees with input from Board Executive Committee and the President’s Cabinet, focused on
improving overall Board functions, reflecting the assessment of the Board Chair and President of
Board needs, following their attendance at the Spring 2010 AGB Institute. As noted in
Appendix 3.6 Board of Trustees Meeting and Retreat Minutes 2010, topics covered at the retreat
were:
Enhanced charges of duty to the Committee on Trustees (i.e., development of a Board
commitment statement, planning for expanded Board orientation, and current Board
education)
Specific efforts at balancing the Board’s responsibilities of oversight, insight, and
foresight in a variety of methods
Change in format of President’s Report at Board meetings to include current needs for
Board consultation, strategy discussion, and evaluation of major Administration/Board
management since past Board meeting time
The need for a new sub-committee on Presidential Development with the change in
administration at Keuka
Board dialogue of this last item regarding the need for a new sub-committee on presidential
development intensified during the 2010-2011 Presidential Search process. Over the summer of
2011, the Executive Committee of the Board continued its discussion of how best to support its
newly appointed president and to develop goals and performance criteria. The Presidential
Development Sub-Committee was formally approved at the October 2011 Board meeting and
charged with assisting the new president during the first year of his presidency and beyond,
focusing on key result areas such as financial stability, institutional leadership, and Board
relationships. The subcommittee meets with the President at least quarterly to review and revise
goals and development needs of the President as appropriate. Additionally, the subcommittee is
charged with reviewing and evaluating the president’s performance annually and reporting its
findings to the Executive Committee and to the Executive Compensation Subcommittee for
consideration in determining and approving reasonableness of the President’s compensation
(Keuka College Board By-Laws Revised October 2011, p. 9). The Executive Committee is
invested with the authority to enact/renew Presidential terms of employment, so long as they are
within the guidelines approved by the Board’s policy on Executive Compensation, revised in
2009. The total remuneration offered to the president and the executive staff is regularly assessed
with a knowledgeable and objective third party, with the most recent assessment occurring in
Spring 2012. The authority to hire, fire and renew the President’s contract is reserved for the full
Board.
The Board maintains communication with staff and faculty in a variety of ways, such as hosting
various College staff and faculty members at Board events throughout the year, so as to provide
opportunities for staff and faculty to interact with Board members both in the structured setting
of the Board meeting, or at unstructured social events. Faculty and staff members of the Long
Page 6 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Range Strategic Planning Committee participated in the June 2012 Board Retreat which focused
on strategic planning, and the newly formed College Advisory Committee (CAC), comprised of
faculty, staff, students, and alumni, attended the general session of the Fall 2012 Board of
Trustees meeting, an historic first for the College.
At each of the Board’s tri-annual meetings, the entire Faculty Liaison Committee is invited to
represent faculty concerns and initiatives to the Academic Affairs Committee. Over the last
three years, the Faculty Liaison Committee has continued a dialogue regarding faculty
compensation as well as faculty workload issues. Additionally, at each Board meeting,
representative student groups attend either a lunch or dinner meeting with the Board, providing
Trustees and students alike the opportunity to share perspectives on Keuka College. In recent
years, the Trustees have met with the members of the College Honor Society Sigma Lambda
Sigma; student mentors participating in the Achieving a College Education (ACE) program;
students from the adult degree completion programs; and international students.
The Presidential Support Specialist and Board Liaison also facilitates communication between
trustees, faculty, staff and students by maintaining records of communications and providing
documents to the Trustees from the President and others via email. Trustees utilize technology
to securely store documents in electronic format, to facilitate access by all Trustees, and thereby
streamline the communication/information sharing process.
The Board conducted assessments of their performance in 2008 and again in 2012 to identify
ways to improve Board development and effectiveness. Questions on the Board survey were
aligned with good-governance practices, as identified by the Association of Governing Boards,
with the goal of stimulating dialogue among trustees and motivating change as needed for
continued improvement. An analysis of the Board survey shows that ratings went up between
2008 and 2012 on all items regarding duties of loyalty, care, and candor. Ratings also showed an
increase in general knowledge of higher education, general knowledge of higher education
finance, and knowledge of Keuka strategies. An area identified as an ongoing need is for
continued education, “especially with the increased demands for accountability being made on
boards” (Appendix 3.7 Board of Trustees Self-Assessment Survey Spring 2012). The results of
the 2012 assessment will now be used to inform board development plans for the future.
President
As the formal leader of Keuka College, the President participates in shared governance with all
constituents of the College through meetings and regular communications with the College
community. He conducts weekly meetings with the President’s Cabinet as a group; weekly oneon-one
meetings with each Vice President; monthly meetings with the Faculty Liaison
Committee, the College Advisory Council, and also the Staff Advisory Council; bi-annual
meetings with the Chairs of the Faculty Standing Committees; monthly meetings with the faculty
as a group; weekly meetings with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees; monthly
meetings with the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees; tri-annual meetings with the
full Board of Trustees; and periodic meetings with the Board of Trustees subcommittees, alumni
members, student groups, athletic and advisory groups. He also attends meetings with external
constituents, such as the Chamber of Commerce and other regional organizations as needed. The
Page 7 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

President’s duties are outlined in his job description (Appendix 3.8 President’s Search
Prospectus Job Description), and he is responsible for evaluating all members of the President’s
Cabinet (formerly known as the Administrative Team), on an annual basis.
In February 2010, former President Joseph G. Burke confidentially announced his retirement to
the Board of Trustees. At that point, the Board appointed a Search Consultant Committee. This
committee consisted of the Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Board of Trustees,
and the Chair of the Committee on Trustees (a former college president himself). In May 2010,
the Search Consultant Committee interviewed three consultants and made recommendations to
the Board. The Board of Trustees approved a consultant from Academic Search, Inc. In June
2010, a public announcement was made of the President’s retirement.
Two Board of Trustees members were selected to co-chair the Presidential Search Committee,
and they sent out an invitation to the staff, faculty, alumni, and students that might be interested
in serving on their committee. Volunteers from each group came forward, and the Co-Chairs
formed the 13-member Presidential Search Committee which included members from the
faculty, staff, alumni, Board of Trustees, and students.
The Presidential Search Committee and the search consultant met to discuss the search process,
organizational matters, a timetable, and the charge from the Board of Trustees, in July 2010. The
consultant came to the campus to conduct a pre-search study and met with all constituencies.
The Search Committee and consultant met to debrief and review an advertising plan and finalize
the prospectus. At each stage of the search and throughout the complete search process, the
entire campus community was updated via a series of e-mails from the Search Committee Chair.
At the fall 2010 Board of Trustees meeting, an update on the Search Committee progress was
provided, in particular that the Search Committee had met to adopt screening procedures, and the
screening process began. The committee reviewed 61 applicants in the pool, and after lengthy
discussions, decisions were made to begin reference checks on 15 of the candidates. Following
review of each applicant’s reference checks, the committee met in December 2010 to select eight
candidates from this group of candidates to participate in confidential interviews with the Search
Committee. In January 2011, the Search Committee conducted these eight preliminary
interviews and selected three candidates to be invited for on-campus interviews. The three
finalists were interviewed on campus in February 2011 by all of the relevant constituents of the
College. The Search Committee collected evaluations from all members of the interview groups
and met to determine their recommendation for President. The recommendation was then
submitted to the Board of Trustees for their approval at their winter February meeting. The
Board of Trustees approved the recommendation for Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera, a widely
recognized scholar in the field of computer studies with significant leadership experience at a
number of renowned institutions, most prominently as Dean of the College of Computing and
Information Sciences at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Following the Winter Board
Meeting, the Chair announced Dr. Díaz-Herrera as the next President of Keuka College.
In March 2011, the Presidential transition planning activities began. The newly appointed
President met with many different campus groups, such as the vice presidents, academic division
chairs, standing committee chairs, student groups, and community associations to assist him in
Page 8 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

the transition process. He was fully transitioned to begin his role as the President of Keuka
College in July 2011. The Keuka College Presidential Transition Report, prepared by the Chair
of the Board of Trustees (Appendix 3.9 Presidential Transition Report), outlines the goals of the
transition plan; the activities to prepare the president, including the aforementioned series of
meetings; introductions to and meetings with the leaders of our international partner universities;
meetings with mid-level administrative staff; meetings with individual Trustees; and attendance
at the summer 2011 Harvard Seminar for New Presidents to enhance further his leadership
abilities and familiarize him with the diverse responsibilities and constituencies of his new role.
President’s Cabinet
The President’s Cabinet (formerly known as the Administrative Team) is the primary level of
administration, and consists of five functional unit Vice Presidents that report to the President
and have day-to-day management responsibilities for their functional areas. As of August 1,
2012, the Cabinet includes the President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice
President of Finance and Administration, the Vice President for Student Development, the Vice
President for Enrollment, Marketing, and International Relations, and the Vice President for
College Advancement (position restructured following the December 2011 resignation of
Executive Vice President/Chief Operation Officer, position not yet filled).
The Table of Decision-Making Authority details the parameters of each Cabinet member’s
decision-making authority, and the College’s organizational chart describes where each person
falls within the organizational structure of the College. Cabinet job descriptions clearly define
the duties and obligations of each position which are reviewed on an annual basis with each
cabinet member at his/her annual review (Appendix 3.10 President’s Cabinet Job Descriptions
and Resumes). The President conducts an annual performance appraisal of the Cabinet members,
reviewing their effectiveness at achieving goals, and provides written feedback.
As defined within their roles, the President’s executive staff is to engage in broad, cross-unit
decision making, addressing questions of policy, setting strategic goals, and implementing new
initiatives in support of the College mission. Consequently, the Cabinet meets with the President
on a weekly basis, with minutes taken by a Cabinet member and distributed to the other
members. Typical agenda items include a focus on budgetary matters, capital projects, retention
and enrollment planning, employee compensation, Board preparation, and unit updates
(Appendix 3.11 Sample Cabinet Meeting Agenda). There are typically three-five retreats of the
Cabinet during the year for purposes of long term planning. The President also regularly meets
individually with each Cabinet member.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) serves as the chief academic officer for the
College with academic authority and accountability for curricular oversight, academic policy,
faculty, and decision-making for all of Keuka College’s academic programs. In addition, all of
the academic student support services report to the VPAA: Registrar, Academic Success at
Keuka (ASK), Educational Technology, Center for Experiential Learning (CEL), Lightner
Library, the Wertman Office of Distance Education (WODE), Advisement Services for the
Center for Professional Studies, the Office of Grants and Compliance, the Office of Institutional
Research, and the Office of Institutional Assessment. Representatives from all of these areas, the
Page 9 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

academic division chairs, program directors for the international programs and for the Distance
Education program, the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs, and the Associate
Vice President for the Center for Professional Studies meet monthly with the VPAA as the
Academic Council. This group discusses relevant issues and provides updates on what is
happening in each unit. Minutes are taken at each meeting and distributed to all members.
The academic division chairs, program directors, Associate VP for Academic Programs, and
Associate VP for the Center for Professional Studies also meet as a group with the VPAA
immediately following Academic Council meetings. These meetings focus on the issues relevant
to the academic programs of the College. It is the venue for division chairs to present input from
their division faculty, and for the VPAA to communicate any institutional challenges or issues
that may be relevant to faculty, including budget and enrollment updates by program,
accreditation matters, retention initiatives, impending faculty retirements and faculty hires.
Division chairs share the discussions and decisions from these meetings with their divisional
faculty at regularly scheduled divisional meetings.
The VPAA serves as ex-officio for all standing faculty committees, with the exception of the
Faculty Liaison Committee (FLC) and Instruction Committee (IC) and attends all meetings as
such. With regard to the Instruction Committee, the Associate VP for Academic Programs
attends all meetings and serves to organize the bi-annual meetings of the Academic Review
Board. The VPAA also meets weekly with the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs
and the Associate Vice President for the Center for Professional Studies. As the chief academic
officer, the VPAA supports the work of the Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee of the
Board and meets with the Academic Affairs Committee at its three annual Board meetings as
well as by teleconference between Board meetings.
The Vice President for Student Development (VPSD) serves as a senior administrator of the
College and as the Chief Student Affairs Officer (CSAO), leading a comprehensive Student
Affairs Division which includes Student Life & Activities; New Student Orientation; Residence
Life & Housing; Center for Spiritual Life; Multicultural Affairs; Campus Safety; Athletics,
Intramurals and Recreation; Counseling and Health Services; Women’s Center; and Student
Judicial Affairs. The Vice President for Student Development oversees all of the student life
needs, and as such meets weekly with the Associate VP for Student Development and bi-weekly
with the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Student Development and
the Associate VP for Student Development meet regularly (or at least bi-weekly) with the
directors of each of the units within Student Affairs. As the Chief Student Affairs Officer, he
supports the work of the Chair of the Student Affairs Committee of the Board and meets with the
Student Affairs Committee at its three annual Board meetings as well as by teleconference
between Board meetings. The VPSD also meets regularly with the Buildings & Grounds
Committee of the Board of Trustees.
The Vice President of Finance and Administration serves the financial and business operations of
the College, overseeing the business offices (including budget), Information Technology
Services, Human Resources, Facilities, Dining, Bookstore and Conference Services. He holds
weekly meetings with the Directors of Conference Services, IT Services, Facilities, the Budget,
the Controller, and bi-weekly meetings with the Vice President for Academic Affairs. He
Page 10 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

provides advice, recommendations and support services for the Board of Trustees and the
Financial Affairs Committee, Executive Committee, Audit Committee, Building and Grounds
Committee and Investment Subcommittee by meeting with the Board of Trustees at each of the
three Board of Trustee meetings per year, via teleconference between Board meetings, and
electronically when information is requested. He also supports the work of the Chairs of the
Financial Affairs Committee and the Audit Committee.
The December 2011 resignation of the Chief Operating Officer (COO)/Executive Vice President,
who was responsible for enrollment, marketing, communication, and development, occasioned a
thorough review and assessment of key administrative assignments. As noted earlier, the
President initiated a dialogue with his senior executive staff regarding administrative leadership
and organizational structure with the goal of separating advancement from enrollment
management and integrating more fully the operations of the Accelerated Studies for Adults
Program, the international programs, and distance education under the leadership of the VP for
Academic Affairs. These changes have been recently implemented, and a national search
continues for a Vice President for College Advancement, following a failed spring 2012 search.
When appointed, the Vice President for College Advancement will serve as chief development
officer responsible for overseeing all fund-raising strategies and programs as well as alumni,
family, and community relations and have responsibilities for establishing and directing major
College fund-raising campaigns. The VP for College Advancement will work closely with the
President, the President’s Cabinet, members of the Board of Trustees, and other administrative
leaders to achieve annual fund-raising goals in concert with the Keuka College Strategic Plan.
The Vice President for Enrollment, Marketing, and International Relations develops and directs a
consolidated enrollment strategy for the traditional program, the ASAP program, and the
international program, and oversees the activities of the admissions and financial aid offices, and
the marketing and communications function. He leads the strategic planning process for all of
these areas and provides leadership for new venture development and implementation. The VP
for Enrollment, Marketing, and International Relations meets weekly with the President’s
Cabinet, and regularly with the Directors of the Keuka China Program and the Keuka Vietnam
Program. He also meets regularly with the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the
Associate Vice President for the Center of Global Education. He supports the work of the Chair
of the Committee on Alternative Programs and the work of the Chair of the Enrollment
Management Committee of the Board of Trustees. He meets with these committees at the three
annual Board meetings as well as by teleconference between Board meetings.
The members of the President’s Cabinet are all significantly involved in the ongoing Long Range
Strategic Planning process, with each assigned as a co-chair of the six task forces—as noted in
the Introduction, the Taskforce on Revisiting Mission, Vision, and Values, Taskforce on External
Environmental Analysis, Taskforce on Academic Program Prioritization, Taskforce on
Administrative Services Review, Taskforce to Review Academic Support Services, and
Taskforce on Revitalizing the Curriculum—and they will be instrumental in leading those
initiatives brought forward by these groups. They present to the entire campus at the beginning
of each semester in a Community Day that is designed to bring together all faculty and staff to
introduce new employees, recognize longevity of service to the College, and to update the
College community on any new initiatives or necessary information. The VPAA, VP for Student
Page 11 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Development, and VP for Enrollment Management, Marketing, and International Relations also
provide a report to the faculty at each of the formal monthly faculty meetings.
Faculty
In addition to their roles in teaching and scholarship, the faculty members of Keuka are actively
involved in the governance of the College. The Faculty, as a group, holds monthly meetings and
provides service on six standing committees. These committees are open to any member of the
Faculty, excluding adjuncts, and faculty are nominated and voted on from the floor of regularly
scheduled faculty meetings. Each committee is comprised of five Faculty members and the three
year terms are staggered to provide continuity and stability. The committees play a central role
in establishing institutional priorities regarding student learning and oversight of academic
programs. The Vice President for Academic Affairs serves ex-officio on four of the committees,
and the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs serves ex-officio on the Instruction
Committee. Their active participation on these key faculty committees ensures a solid
communication channel between faculty and administration to set institutional priorities for
student learning and to support the faculty work in the service of the College mission.
The current Faculty Handbook (section B) (Appendix 1.1 Faculty Handbook) clearly outlines the
role and responsibilities of each committee in detail, which are summarized as follows:
Curriculum Committee - oversees the design, operation and adjustments in the
curriculum and makes recommendations concerning academic programs in keeping with
the mission of the College
Faculty Development Committee - ensures the excellence of instruction by offering
new faculty orientation programs and increasing opportunities for faculty growth and
professional development
Faculty Liaison Committee - is concerned with faculty welfare and benefits and
provides a liaison between the faculty and other governing groups of the College, such as
the President and the Board of Trustees. It is responsible for monitoring and acting on
agreed upon changes to faculty governance
Instruction Committee – is responsible for the development and review of policies
related to classroom instruction, other instructional matters, student advisement and
evaluation of student academic performance
Professional Standards Committee – is charged with oversight of academic
professional standards and ethics, staffing the faculty with the most qualified personnel,
re-appointment, promotion and tenure decisions, and maintaining a high level of teaching
by means of recognition of professional accomplishments and maintenance of academic
standards
Graduate Program Committee – serves an oversight function for policy development
and curriculum for graduate programs
These faculty committees provide appropriate oversight, decision-making, and accountability for
the academic programs, instructional matters, and faculty quality. Changes to policies and
procedures to ensure academic integrity, rigor, and student learning have their origins in faculty
Page 12 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

committee work and are brought to the faculty floor for discussion and approval. New academic
programs, developed by faculty, follow a two-phase process: during the first phase, a review of
resource feasibility with the Vice President for Academic Affairs is concurrent with a review of
curricular feasibility by the Curriculum Committee (or Graduate Program Committee, in the case
of a proposed new graduate program). In the second phase, the sponsoring academic faculty
provide a proposed curriculum, complete with assessment plan, to be reviewed by either the
Curriculum Committee or Graduate Program Committee, and pending approval, to be brought
before the faculty for a vote, before the Board of Trustees for approval, and then submitted to
NYSED and accrediting bodies as necessary (2.7 Form III Directions for Proposing a New
Academic Major).
The faculty is very committed to the principle of shared governance, yet often feels that
committee work has become more onerous as the College’s range of activities has expanded. In
particular, the Professional Standards Committee has seen its workload increase as the number of
faculty it must evaluate has grown over the last three years. The Faculty Liaison Committee has
proposed a thorough review of the academic governance structure as it affects faculty workload,
and discussion of this topic is in progress for the 2012-2013 academic year.
The President of the College or his designee is the presiding Officer of the Faculty and is the
channel of formal communication between the Faculty and the Board of Trustees. It is the duty
of the President to ensure that faculty views and recommendations are presented to the Board in
those areas and on those issues where responsibilities are shared. Similarly, the President
informs the Faculty of the views of the Board on like issues. If the President fails to fulfill these
duties, the Faculty is empowered to authorize the Faculty Liaison Committee to request a
meeting with the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees to transmit faculty concerns and
recommendations.
The President per Article I, Standing Committees, of the Bylaws of the Keuka College Faculty is
an ex-officio member of all Standing Committees and, as such, attends monthly meetings of the
Faculty Liaison Committee. He also holds two group meetings during the semester with the
chairs of the other faculty Standing Committees. Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Keuka College
Faculty Handbook, each standing committee must submit an annual report on committee
activities to the Faculty at the close of each academic year.
Faculty members serving as division chairs also participate in monthly meetings of the Academic
Council, which is comprised of all division chairs, program directors, and staff from academic
support units. Although it has no decision-making authority role according to the faculty
governance documents contained in the Keuka College Faculty Handbook, Academic Council
serves an important role in enhancing communications across campus and acting as a sounding
board on campus initiatives, thereby informing the work of the VPAA and their own areas of
operation.
The Keuka College Faculty Handbook provides the Faculty members with the guidelines,
policies and procedure to assist them with their role in Keuka’s shared governance. The
Handbook includes the Constitution of the Keuka College Faculty and the Bylaws of the Keuka
College Faculty. The Constitution of the Keuka College Faculty includes the following articles:
Page 13 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Article I: The duties of the Faculty
Article VII: The Presidential obligations with respect to the Faculty and the Board of
Trustees. This article also empowers the Faculty Liaison Committee to act if the
President fails to carry out his duties as specified in this article.
The Bylaws of the Keuka College Faculty:
Article I: Establishes the six Standing Committees of the Faculty
Article II-VII: Identifies the responsibilities of each of the Standing Committees
To ensure that Keuka’s faculty members are the most qualified personnel available, the
Professional Standards Committee (PSC) plays a vital role from the hiring process through to reappointment,
tenure and promotion. The full purpose, composition, and responsibilities of the
PSC are located in the Faculty Handbook, as is the evaluation, promotion, and tenure review
process of all faculty members. The Faculty Personnel Policies section of the Faculty Handbook
includes a full description of the evaluation process including timetable, criteria, and evaluation
procedure. As indicated under the evaluation criteria, there are (4) categories for all evaluations
which include classroom instruction, non-classroom instruction, professional development, and
institution/community service. Additionally, the College has an established post-tenure review
process, also outlined in the Faculty Handbook.
Faculty members also serve on ad hoc committees created to address specific issues at the
College that are beyond the scope of the standing committees. Members of the Faculty are asked
to volunteer, and nominations are voted upon using the same method as the standing committees.
Some examples of these ad hoc committees include: First Year Experience Task Force, Diversity
Task Force, IT-Advisory Committee, Web Committee, Graduate Outcomes Task Force, and the
Middle States Steering Committee. President Díaz-Herrera also implemented a Long Range
Strategic Planning Steering Committee, and faculty served on each of the six task forces which
reported their findings and recommendations to the LRSP Steering Committee at the conclusion
of their work in Spring 2012: the Task Force on Academic Program Prioritization, the Task
Force on Administrative Services Review, the Task Force on Revitalizing the Curriculum, the
Task Force on External Environmental Analysis, the Task Force on Academic Support Services,
and the Task Force on Revisiting the Mission/Vision.
As recommendations were developed and forwarded to the Long Range Strategic Planning
Steering Committee for consideration, the Taskforces were mindful of the need to operate within
existing governance structures. For example, proposals to transform general education will be
explored and developed by a working group, with oversight of the faculty Curriculum
Committee. Such oversight is necessary to ensure that those with a vested interest in the learning
outcomes of the curriculum are involved in developing, articulating, and assessing them.
Recommendations that address faculty workload, professional development, and scholarship
come under the purview of the Faculty Liaison Committee, the Faculty Development Committee,
and the Professional Standards Committee.
These committees, working groups, and task forces have added to the diversity of ways that the
members of the Faculty have contributed to the policy setting, restructuring, and governance of
the College.
Page 14 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Staff
The Staff of Keuka College participate in the governance structure of Keuka College through a
newly created Staff Advisory Council (Spring 2012), which was established at the request of
Keuka’s new President, Dr. Jorge Díaz-Herrera. The purpose of the council is to serve as a
means of communication and liaison for staff and the College administration on matters of
mutual concern; to provide staff perspective at other College councils and committees; to
provide advice and information to the President and the President’s Cabinet. This Council meets
a need that has been overlooked, specifically the need for stronger and timely communication on
institutional matters. The Staff Advisory Council has recently drafted its By-Laws which have
been shared with the College community at large (Appendix 3.12 Bylaws of Staff Advisory
Council). Officers of the Staff Advisory Council also serve on the College Advisory Council
(CAC).
All permanent, full-time, exempt and non-exempt, direct College employees who are
not faculty or members of the executive team, but including other College administrators, are
represented by staff council. Employees of those services subcontracted by the College are not
eligible (e.g., Sodexho, IKON, AVI, Follett, etc.). The President presides over the SAC and
attends the meetings, but members of the President’s Cabinet (vice presidents and similar
executive officers of the College) are not eligible.
Staff member concerns are also represented through their supervisors who share their concerns
with members of the President’s Cabinet, Division Chairs, or the President. The order of
supervision is detailed in the organization chart of the College. Their duties and responsibilities
are clearly spelled out in their job descriptions. An annual performance appraisal seeks to ensure
that staff members are meeting job expectations and to provide the opportunity for fair and
specific feedback, but performance evaluation is also an ongoing process aimed at involving staff
in their own professional development. Accordingly, evaluations include performance criteria in
the areas of quality of work, quantity of work, job knowledge, attitude, initiative, dependability,
interpersonal relations, attendance and supervisory ability, as applicable. Additionally, the
evaluations include areas for employees’ career and educational goals to foster supervisoremployee
communications and mutual goal setting. The policy for the staff performance
appraisal process is located in the Employee Handbook and Supervisors Procedure Manual (1.2
Employee Handbook and Supervisors Procedure Manual).
Although the College fully recognizes the invaluable work performed by staff in all operational
areas, it would benefit from a comprehensive staff professional development plan that would
help staff to identify opportunities for growth and develop the skills necessary for advancement.
The College does provide support through its Tuition Assistance Program, permitting employees
to receive free tuition in the Keuka undergraduate program and a 50% tuition reduction for the
Keuka graduate program, and many employees have enjoyed this benefit to advance their
professional development. However, the College has also identified a need for stronger
succession management, so as to identify and select talent to succeed incumbents in key roles.
As part of the long range strategic planning process, the College anticipates addressing this
important institutional need.
Page 15 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Additionally, the College anticipates an assessment of employee satisfaction, and evaluation of
administrative services and processes with regard to efficiency and effectiveness as part of the
long range strategic plan, in response to needs identified during the discovery phase of the
Taskforce on Administrative Services Review (TASR). This Taskforce identified the need for
process improvements, further training and development with regard to Elucian (formerly
Datatel), as well as opportunities for collaboration and cross training. The conclusions of this
Taskforce with regard to the need for administrative service improvements are underscored by
the Noel-Levitz survey. Administered every two years, the survey shows moderate success in
decreasing the satisfaction gap in all five areas, but makes evident the need for improvement in
the service dimensions, particularly in the areas of recruitment and financial aid, registration
effectiveness, and overall service excellence, as shown in Table 3.2 below. A more detailed
assessment of service quality in key areas is advisable as a way to identify gaps and to develop
improvement plans.
Table 3.2 Administrative Services Student Satisfaction
Noel Levitz Survey
Spring 2011
Spring 2009
Scale
Importance/Satisfaction/Gap Importance/Satisfaction/Gap
Recruitment and Financial Aid 6.34 / 5.24 / 1.10 6.38 / 5.19 / 1.19
Campus Support Services 6.25 / 5.68 / 0.57 6.29 / 5.66 / 0.63
Academic Advising 6.57 / 5.81 / 0.76 6.61 / 5.76 / 0.85
Registration Effectiveness 6.34 / 5.23 / 1.11 6.36 / 5.31 / 1.05
Service Excellence 6.26 / 5.23 / 1.03 6.30 / 5.10 / 1.20
Students
The traditional program students of Keuka College participate in the shared governance through
their two student members elected to the Board of Trustees, and the Student Association.
Pursuant to Article III, Membership of Board of Trustees, two Keuka students serve on the Board
of Trustees. They are nominated from among and by the membership of the student body and
then elected by the Board of Trustees for a term of two years. At least one student trustee is
elected from the incoming junior class each year. They have the same responsibilities as other
Board members, and as such, meet formally with the Board three times per year at the Board’s
regularly scheduled meetings. The student Board members have full voting rights, and serve on
the Student Affairs, Enrollment Management and Marketing Committees of the Board.
Adult learners in the ASAP program have the opportunity to participate in shared governance
through the Student Advisory Board, created in 2009. Students within a program cohort elect a
peer representative to act as a liaison between the cohort and the College. As a student leader, the
cohort representative serves as a spokesperson for the group in order to maintain a constructive
dialogue with the Center for Professional Studies (CPS); provides meaningful feedback, in the
form of problem-solving suggestions, to the CPS Director of Advisement Services, as needed or
requested; and encourages cohort cohesiveness by sharing effective, best practices at bi-annual
Student Advisory Board meetings.
Page 16 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

At this time, students in the overseas programs do not formally participate in the governance
structures of the campus program. They bring concerns or issues to the Keuka program staff as
well as to their home campus student support staff. Additionally, College administration is
available by email as well as in person on regularly scheduled visits.
Students from the traditional, ASAP, and international exchange programs have opportunities to
meet with Board of Trustee members at the fall Board meeting and the winter Board meeting.
Small groups of students meet with Trustees outside the presence of College officials in informal
settings where they may share their opinions, concerns, or any questions that they may have.
Selected student groups meet with the Trustees during the lunches and dinners that take place
during Board meetings. Students also have representation on the College Advisory Council
(CAC).
The Preamble to the Constitution of the Student Association of Keuka College (Appendix 3.13
Constitution of Student Association) states that the Student Association shall see that student
concerns are dealt with appropriately. The Association governs through the Student Senate,
which meets weekly during the academic year, as directed in the Bylaws of the Constitution of
the Student Association of Keuka College. The Vice President for Student Development or his
designee attends all meetings of the Student Senate. The President of Keuka College, the Vice
President for Student Development, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Vice
President and Finance and Administration also hold town hall type meetings with groups of
students during the academic year, where students can voice their concerns, ranging from
concerns about dining hall services, classroom issues, computing services, to violations of quiet
hours.
Shared Governance
Opportunities for enhanced shared governance have increased significantly since the arrival of
Keuka’s new President. Building upon the strong work of his predecessor, President Joseph
Burke, President Jorge Díaz-Herrera has sought to identify additional and expanded ways to
involve the constituencies of the College in informed decision-making. The composition of the
Long Range Strategic Planning Steering Committee serves as the most prominent example of
this. The Committee, of approximately 35 members has representation from faculty members,
including members of the standing committees and one adjunct faculty member from ASAP,
administrators including the President and his Cabinet, members of the Board of Trustees
including the Chair and Vice Chair, representatives from the Staff including its officers, 3
Alumni officer representatives, and students including an ASAP student. This group met with
the Board of Trustees at a June 2012 retreat to work on developing the College’s next strategic
plan. Additionally, the six Long Range Strategic Planning taskforces whose work informed the
current strategic planning process drew widely from the College constituencies, including faculty
members, trustees, staff, alumni, and on several, students.
In another prominent example, the College concluded a six-month exercise in which a new peer
group was selected. In a process which involved administration, faculty, and staff, a list of initial
characteristics to use in selecting the peer group was developed, faculty and staff ranked the most
important characteristics through a web-based survey, the director of Institutional Research
Page 17 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

worked with IPEDS variables according to the weight assigned to them by the survey, and a draft
list of institutions was created and discussed with the President and his cabinet and the Faculty
Liaison Committee. Collaborative review of the draft list led to further refinements, and facultyadministration
consensus was reached on a list of 35 institutions which was submitted to the
Board of Trustees for their review and approval. With the completion of the peer group list, the
College has begun to benchmark its performance on a number of key college metrics to improve
institutional effectiveness (Appendix 3.14 Selection of Peer Group Process).
In a recent major innovation with regard to shared governance, the President opened the budget
process to include staff and students. As part of 2012-2013 budget development process, the
President invited the leadership of the Staff Advisory Council, two Student Senate leaders, and
the Faculty Liaison Committee to meet with administration and to participate in an overview of
the budget draft. At this meeting, the Budget Manager explained how the budget is built,
identified key assumptions regarding expenditures and revenues, and answered questions. Those
invited provided valuable insights and feedback to inform the process going forward.
Another new organizational structure aimed at improving communication and participation in the
work of the institution is the College Advisory Council (CAC). At the August 2012 Community
Day, the President outlined the concept of a College Advisory Council which would address the
following general functions:
To serve as an integrative body by bringing together the various constituencies of the
College, and hence to act as:
A. An agency for multidirectional communication among constituent elements of the
College
B. A forum through which current or continuing issues affecting the College can be
discussed
Membership includes the leadership of the Staff Advisory Council, the elected officers of the
Student Senate, an ASAP student representative, the Academic Division Chairs, three
representatives from the Alumni Association, three elected representatives from the faculty, and
the College Cabinet, i.e., the President and the vice presidents (Appendix 3.15 College Advisory
Council Bylaws Draft 11-27-12). President Díaz-Herrera anticipates that this Council will serve
as a vital means of communication on the Long Range Strategic Planning activities, on the
budgeting process, and on other matters of interest to the College. As an important symbolic and
real step in increasing communication across the College, the College Advisory Council will
attend the tri-annual Board of Trustees General Meetings. The faculty themselves, through the
Faculty Liaison Committee, are embarking upon a critical examination of the faculty governance
structure, especially to review expansion of the sizes of the standing committees, their
responsibilities, and the concept of a “senate” model of faculty governance as part of their 2012-
2013 work plan.
As indicated in this chapter, Keuka College has many strengths related to leadership,
administration and governance. As an institution that values shared governance, the College has
instituted a number of mechanisms to foster and maintain strong interaction and collaboration
between the administration and principal College constituencies. Faculty, staff, and students have
Page 18 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

greater opportunities than ever before to be involved in decision-making. The College leadership
is mission-centered, and the strategic planning process currently underway will employ the
mission to guide its planning and decision-making. The Board of Trustees is actively engaged,
with a highly committed and talented group in all committee chair roles. The Board Committee
structure provides strong oversight of all essential areas of the College, and the charge to provide
an ongoing plan for professional board development promises to yield a Board better equipped to
address the complexities of their role. Metrics are used to measure progress toward annual goals,
and institutional data, resulting from the work of the Long Range Strategic Planning Task
Forces, is shaping the Strategic Planning process in profound ways, pointing to areas that need
more analysis, improvement plans, and areas of accomplishment.
Recommendations:
3.1 Develop a comprehensive staff development plan that will strengthen employee skills
and knowledge, support employee advancement, and provide stronger succession
management.
3.2 Conduct a campus-wide climate survey to ascertain employee satisfaction and identify
areas for improvement.
3.3 Identify and implement strategies to address student satisfaction gap for administrative
services; use Noel-Levitz survey biennially to assess gains as well as for trend analysis.
Page 19 of 19 Chapter 3: Leadership, Gov. & Admin.

Chapter 4
Institutional Effectiveness and Assessment of Student Learning
Standard 7: Institutional Assessment
The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that
evaluates its overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals and its
compliance with accreditation standards.
Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning
Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation or other
appropriate points, the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and
competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher education
goals.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 7 and
Standard 14.
In this chapter, Standard 7: Institutional Assessment and Standard 14: Assessment of
Student Learning are reviewed in tandem. Keuka College measures its effectiveness at
achieving its mission through a variety of assessment measures, both direct and indirect.
Direct measurement of student learning occurs through in-course assessments, portfolios,
capstone coursework/presentations, pass-rates on qualifying exams in certain majors, and
field experience evaluations. Along with regular collection, reporting, and monitoring of
grades, retention, and placement data, student learning and institutional effectiveness are
also indirectly assessed through student self-reported responses on institutional,
programmatic, and commercially prepared surveys (NSSE, Noel-Levitz) and student
feedback on course evaluations.
The College is supported in its goal to improve its assessment processes and overall
institutional effectiveness through the leadership of its new President who insists on more
“data-driven” decision-making and the promise associated with the recent hiring of a
Director of Institutional Assessment. With the advent of our new Director of Institutional
Assessment, we are building upon our previous assessment processes by
creating a new Assessment Handbook
retooling our old Assessment Committee to make an Institutional Effectiveness
Committee
intentionally integrating this committee’s work with the planning, budgeting and
decision-making process for the College
This improved assessment process at Keuka College is a more open process with
transparent results. The process is mission-focused at all levels: systematic, iterative,
collaborative, documented, and adaptable. The assessment process applies multiple
measures: both quantitative and qualitative, direct and indirect. Moreover, it identifies
strengths and supports efforts of continuous improvement; and it informs planning,
budgeting, and decision-making. These relatively recent modifications are discussed at
the end of this chapter; evidence for compliance of Standards 7 and 14 are presented first.
Page 1 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Data-Driven Strategic Planning
As noted in Chapter 2, “Planning and Resources,” strategic planning is an ongoing
process at Keuka College, and the College is presently engaged in drafting a long range
strategic plan as the current plan expires shortly. The current Strategic Plan 2009-2012
was developed by the President’s Cabinet (formerly called the Administrative Team) and
the Strategic Planning & Budgeting Committee (SPBC), with input from the campus
community, and it is aligned with the Mission, Vision, and Values of the College.
Multiple qualitative and quantitative measures inform decisions about strategic planning
and advance the institution in achieving institutional strategic goals. Approved by the
Board of Trustees, the Strategic Plan drives decision-making and resource allocation.
To evaluate our implementation and progress toward strategic goals and objectives, the
institution regularly utilizes a series of assessments. Operationally, this process ensures
that the stated goals and purposes of the College are accomplished. At Keuka College, the
Office of Institutional Research works with the President’s Cabinet, the Strategic
Planning and Budgeting Committee, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Budget
Director, and all departments and units, to provide key information that will guide
improvement and advancement efforts. The role of Institutional Research has evolved
over the last ten years, with IR initially reporting to Finance and Administration and
charged with locating, analyzing, and reporting primarily financial data to internal
constituents and external agencies. Reporting to Academic Affairs began in 2006 and led
to a shift toward increased expectations for tracking assessment of student learning as
well as institutional performance. In addition to administering the NSSE and Noel-Levitz
surveys in an alternate year rotation and sharing that data with the academic division
chairs, IR supports program-level assessment by providing data on retention, graduation
rates, faculty teaching loads, and internal/external demand for programs (Appendix 4.1
IR Office Activity Report 2011-2012). Institutional data and performance metrics are
also shared in the annual Fact Book and more widely at the President’s Annual State of
the College address, and this data is used to inform strategic planning and institutional
goal-setting activities. Institutional capacity for assessing effectiveness has also been
enhanced through recent hires. As noted above, the College hired a Director of
Institutional Assessment in 2012. In 2010, the College hired a business analyst to track
financial and completion data for the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program; this has
enabled the College to use data more effectively to support budget decisions, particularly
in forecasting revenues that may be allocated to increase faculty or support staff positions
to ensure stronger learning outcomes or institutional effectiveness, such as the recent
hiring of two student advisers in ASAP and a new assistant professor in the ASAP
Organizational Management program.
Appendix 4.2 Table 4.1: Keuka College Mission & Goals Assessment: Closing the Loop
demonstrates the relationship between institutional strategic goals and the College
Mission. Numerous direct and indirect assessments are used at various levels throughout
the institution to provide administration, faculty and staff information on how successful
efforts have been toward achieving stated goals. Assessment measures include the NSSE
and Noel-Levitz surveys administered biennially, academic program reviews, annual
Page 2 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

eports from the Center for Experiential Learning, annual ASK Office reports, the June
2012 Taskforce on Academic Program Prioritization Report, the New Student Program
Evaluation (NSPE), and annual program assessment reports. Results from these
assessments are available on the College Share drive. Performance indicators which are
annually shared with the Board and the community at large include annual reports on
enrollments across all programs, results of institutional fundraising efforts, as well as
retention and graduation rates. Progress in achieving institutional goals is systematically
assessed on a regular basis, with modification of initiatives and operational tactics as
necessary. Evidence of reporting and discussion with relevant constituents can be found
in the Board of Trustees Minutes, Faculty Minutes, the President’s Annual State of the
College address, and Academic Council Minutes.
Analysis of the soon-to-be completed Strategic Plan 2009-2012 provides evidence that
the College achieved many, but not all, of its goals. The nine initiatives of the Strategic
Plan focus on institutional growth, expanded programming, increased revenues, and an
enhanced learning experience for students. As noted in Chapter 2, the College has
expanded its offerings of degree programs across New York State and overseas,
sufficiently increased revenues which were reinvested in employee salaries and services
provided to students, and improved its financial stability. Significant institutional
resources were dedicated to supporting and building capacity in Keuka’s non-traditional
program areas, with limited ability remaining then to allocate resources to fundraising or
increasing the endowment. Consequently, fundraising has not improved substantially,
with but moderate growth in the Annual Fund, Capital Giving, and Endowment Giving
(Appendix 4.3 Fundraising Totals). Currently without a Vice President for Advancement,
the College recognizes the need to fill this key position and to develop a strategy that will
aggressively increase the endowment.
Appendix 4.4 Strategic Plan Report Card 2009-2012 also indicates that many activities,
ones that are essential to mission and institutional performance, will continue into the
next Strategic Plan, although the initiatives themselves will be reconfigured. The several
drafts-to-date carry forward several operational goals which focus on strengthening
academic programs, fundraising, lowering tuition dependency, and creating a better
learning environment. Stronger accountability through enhanced tracking and analysis of
results is also a key theme of the current strategic planning work, echoing the 2009-2012
goal to “strengthen the culture of self-assessment across the institution.”
In response to this goal of strengthening the culture of self assessment, the College has
raised awareness and expanded expectations of assessment across all areas. Formative
evaluation of assessments, including examining the quality, utility, and use of
assessments to inform decisions, is now ongoing and demonstrated in a number of ways.
Appendix 4.5 Table 4.2: Approaches to Assessment Among Non-Academic & Discipline
Units provides evidence that the College has improved its processes to assess institutional
effectiveness. For example, the non-academic units provide evidence of using the Noel
Levitz results more regularly to inform their self-evaluation. The use of the Noel-Levitz
not only provides the non-academic units with useful information for continuous
improvement, but allows administrators to utilize this data for decision-making purposes
Page 3 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

as well, such as continuing to invest in retention efforts through purchasing Performa’s
predictor model for entering classes and sharing the results with academic advisors, or
improving campus safety measures by expanding training opportunities for campus safety
staff and residence life. In addition, measures have been taken to improve the response
rates for the institutional assessment tool, the Comprehensive Alumni Survey. A low
response rate had made this tool unreliable; the College has recently moved to making
this web-based to make this a more effective tool for program and institutional
assessment. Formative evaluation of assessment is ongoing and observable at the unit
level as well, and is discussed later on in this report.
Institutionalizing Data-driven Decision-making
In addition to improving the quality or use of specific assessments, the institution has
made important strides toward installing structures and processes that compel and
facilitate use of assessment data in order to make decisions. These improvements
followed planning and budgeting decisions made in support of the institution’s strategic
goal toward strengthening a culture of assessment. Three of these major changes are
illustrated below.
(1) Reorganization of Planning and Budgeting Processes
At the institutional-level, we find organizational structures and assessment processes
being created and sustained for the purpose of informing decision-makers on planning
and budgeting decisions. Early in 2007, the strategic planning process was refined to
institutionalize the practice of incorporating a review of outcomes from various sources
of information (Appendix 4.6 KC Strategic Planning Community Day 1-30-2007,
Appendix 4.7 Keuka College Strategy Development Processes, and Appendix 4.8 Keuka
College Strategic Planning Process & Overview). These sources included an analysis of
the external and internal environment as well as the input of key stakeholders.
In January 2010, the role of the Strategic Planning Committee was expanded to include
active participation in the budget process. Throughout their development of the Strategic
Plan 2009-2012, the Committee had underscored the necessity of linking planning more
closely to the budgeting process, both in terms of short and long term planning, especially
with regard to comparison and prioritization of new initiatives. This, coupled with the
budgetary constraints experienced by the College in the face of economic recession and
anticipated increase in requests for expenditures, and the need for greater transparency
and shared decision-making, led to the expansion of their charge. Among the charges
were the following: “mak[e] recommendations to the administration concerning the
reasonableness of assumptions and the priority requests;…recommend to the
administration ways to reduce current expenditures and/or increase annual revenues…;
and review how to best use our existing resources to achieve our strategic plan goals and
initiatives” (Appendix 4.9 Strategic Planning Committee Presentation J Burke 1-18-10 p.
2). Renamed the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee (SPBC), the scope of
their focus was expanded to include major new budget initiatives and actions.
Page 4 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Although the SPBC has been temporarily suspended while the new Long Range Strategic
Planning Steering Committee is developing the new strategic plan, upon resumption of its
charge, its activities will be once again woven into the budgeting process, as briefly
described here. In October of each year, the budget process for the following fiscal year
begins with review of the Benchmarks document. As described in Chapter 2, with the
input of department heads, members of the President’s Cabinet submit their incremental
expenditure requests, including compensation, non-compensation/operating expenses,
and capital needs, as “parking lot” requests to the Budget Director (Appendix 4.10
Interview with KC Budget Director Kirk Meritt). During the spring semester, the
Cabinet meets with the Strategic Planning and Budgeting Committee to review and
discuss the prioritization of items in the “parking lot.” Appendix 4.11 SPBC Prioritization
Chart 2-11 Parking Lot Requests provides an example of the process whereby the
committee members provide a ranking of new/existing initiatives from most to least
critical, based on the data provided from the Cabinet and other units across the College.
As necessary, different units from across the College are invited to provide additional
information on budget needs, as aligned to the Strategic Plan. To ensure meaningful
faculty representation, membership on the SPBC includes two elected at-large faculty
representatives, a faculty Chair, and a member of the Faculty Liaison Committee (FLC).
As the FLC meets regularly with the President, the Vice President for Academic Affairs,
and the Vice President for Finance and Administration for budget discussions, they have
input into the decision-making process at two levels. Consequently, the faculty has
opportunity to represent faculty goals and the instructional needs of the College and to
participate in as well as to inform the decision-making process.
Although existing organizational structures and processes provide for participation in
institutional resource allocation decisions, the installation of President Jorge Díaz-Herrera
has occasioned a thorough review of the College’s planning and budgeting processes. In
particular, he has identified the following needs:
Involving staff and students in the planning and budgeting processes more fully
Moving the tuition-setting process to the fall semester with Board approval at the
October meeting, enabling the Enrollment Management staff to be more
successful in their recruiting and the Financial Aid staff to be more timely in their
aid packaging
Establishing a clearer timeframe for review of new program proposals to allow for
improved analysis of projected enrollment revenues and program expenses
Prioritizing capital projects and deferred maintenance projects by the Cabinet
according to a rubric aligned with institutional goals
Using the Composite Financial Index (CFI) to benchmark the College’s overall
financial health and provide a framework for resource allocation decisions aligned
with the strategic plan
During his first eighteen months in office, President Díaz-Herrera took steps to meet
some of these needs. He has created a Staff Advisory Council (SAC) which was invited,
Page 5 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

along with members of the Student Senate and the Faculty Liaison Committee, to attend a
Cabinet budget meeting prior to the May 2012 Board Meeting; developed a budget model
for tuition rates for the October 2012 Board review and approval; charged the Curriculum
Committee to clarify the timeframe for new program proposals; and created a capital
projects matrix. Under his leadership, the College continues to assess the effectiveness of
its planning and budgeting processes and the degree to which relevant stakeholders have
access to necessary data and are provided opportunity to participate in decision-making.
(2) Reorganizing and Improving Information Technology
A necessary step to improving stakeholders’ access to data was improving the College’s
overall information systems. Whereas a five-year Title III grant substantially improved
the faculty’s acquisition and use of educational technology, including how to employ a
learning management system to support the achievement of learning outcomes, the
institution as a whole was hampered by an outdated administrative software system and
lacked a systematic coordination of IT initiatives. As indicated in Appendix 4.5 Table
4.2: Approaches to Assessment Among Non-Academic & Discipline Units, analysis of
the existing Jenzabar information systems found that Jenzabar did not adequately support
non-traditional education programs, its many processes were paperbound, and it was
becoming an obstacle to Keuka’s vision, goals and objectives. To overcome these
challenges, the College conducted a comprehensive analysis of its information needs and
developed an information technology strategic plan (Appendix 4.12 Keuka Strategic
Technology Plan 2009). Part of this plan called for a new ERP system. Following an
extensive review of several ERPs by a campus-wide committee, Datatel (now Ellucian)
was selected as the new ERP and SIS vendor.
The College began replacement of the MIS system in 2010, and it has recently completed
the re-structuring of the entire campus technology infrastructure. The new system allows
for taking data from different systems from both non-academic and academics – like
student information (e.g. demographics, academic), recruitment, and learning assessment
– and using that information for making strategic and tactical planning decisions. Given
that the module is updated regularly, it allows for the most “real-time” information to
measure against goals and to inform decision-making and planning at various levels of
the organization (including institution-wide policies, program level decision-making, and
even course-based planning). Constituents with data needs can now access the system,
provided they have the appropriate access clearances, and work with accurate reports. As
an example, students can now access their academic records at any time, and academic
advisors can monitor online their students’ progress to degree completion. Improved
access, timeliness, and reliability of data allows for greater effectiveness and efficiency
across all areas of the College.
When comparing the quality and use of the resulting data and reports under the new
system with that of the previous system, the result is a substantial improvement in
assessment practices. In evaluating the budget, for example, Colleague, an Ellucian
software package, allows real-time budget data to be made available to Cabinet members
and department directors/chairs (Appendix 4.10 Interview with KC Budget Director Kirk
Page 6 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Meritt) in order to assess spending and revenue in relation to the fiscal budget. Earlier
practices have been much less efficient. Historically, each Cabinet member received a
monthly budget; there are 30 different budget departments for the collective
administrative team to manage. The data received in terms of revenues and expenditures
was often already outdated about 3 weeks past the end of the reporting month. Colleague
allows for better capabilities for mining and presenting current data in order to make
informed decisions.
The new Colleague software also allows the Cabinet members and other designated users
to drill down to the transaction detail, accessing Basic Colleague Financial Reports, and
Portal Basic Reports. In addition, in order to improve the currency of the data, the
software contains a Budget Actual Remain Encumbrance function, which allows for the
inclusion of latent expenses, or those that are to be expected, allowing for better
management information. Time efficiencies have been gained as supervisors can access
budgetary data as needed, rather than requesting and waiting for budget data from the
Office of Finance and Administration.
Although the College’s overall information systems capacity has improved as a result of
replacing Jenzabar with the Ellucian ERP, further training of a larger number of faculty
and staff on how to use the new system is needed to gain the greatest efficiencies. This
became evident during the Spring 2012Academic Program Prioritization Process when
key institutional data sets needed to complete program analysis were not readily available
in the allotted timeframe or were marked by discrepancies. Moreover, compiling the
necessary data for the prioritization process proved to be challenging, as the College
lacks a centralized data warehouse for this kind of comprehensive information need.
Consequently, the compilation of data occurred through the combined efforts of the
Registrar’s Office, the Office of Institutional Research, the Office of Academic Affairs,
Human Resources, and the Budget Office. Senior leadership has also recognized that
Institutional Assessment (including assessment of student learning) needs better
integration with Institutional Research and planning and budgeting, and consequently, is
exploring the creation of an Office of Institutional Effectiveness that would pool together
these human resources.
(3) Improving the Use of Peer Group Data & Benchmarking
Another important step forward for the College in institutionalizing data-driven decisionmaking
was the development of a peer group through a process that had community
support. The need for institutional consensus on a peer group had become acute, as the
College had changed significantly over a brief time period. In a paper distributed in 2007
to faculty and staff, Presidential Paper: Future Academic Programs, Faculty
Administration and Governance, President Joseph Burke captured the scope of this
change: “[o]ur college has rapidly expanded from a small, primarily residential, rural,
traditional, undergraduate college to a multi-campus, graduate and undergraduate,
traditional and non-traditional, worldwide, higher education enterprise. In 1997 our total
fall full-time enrollment (FTE) was 806 students. In 2006, our FTE included 932
traditional undergraduates, 381 ASAP undergraduates, 117 graduate students, and about
Page 7 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

4,000 students (1,000 FTE) in China. This means we grew by more than 300 percent
from 806 to 2,430 -- in less than 10 years. Most of this growth came within the past five
years, and occurred within the non-traditional, graduate, off-campus, and international
student portions of our community” (Appendix 4.13 Presidential Letter Future Academic
Admin & Faculty Governance 9-12-07). In part due to the rapid growth and complexity
of changes undergone by the College, we have struggled to achieve consensus and
consistency in regards to peer group(s) selection for the purpose of establishing baselines
and benchmarks.
Recognizing this need, in early fall 2011President Díaz-Herrera asked the senior
administrative staff to develop a peer group list that would be used for benchmarking on
a number of key college metrics. Each vice president asked his or her respective units to
identify possible characteristics that would be important to consider in developing a peer
group list. A list of 52 possible characteristics was developed, and via a survey, faculty
and staff were asked to rank the characteristics from least to most important. Eighty-two
faculty and 107 staff members completed the survey, the results were tallied, and the
results shared by email with the campus.
As part of this process, the Vice President for Academic Affairs worked with the
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to define an
initial group of institutions, out of a database of more than 3500 higher education
institutions, by clustering and rank distance analysis. The key variables used at this point
were size (Full Time Equivalent Enrollments), Student Mix (bachelors, masters),
Program mix (degrees by academic programs), and Carnegie Classification, based on
those characteristics identified as important by faculty and staff. NCHEMS generated a
list of approximately 150 colleges. To this initial list was added a number of colleges
that have adult degree completion programs and colleges that are direct competitor
institutions (i.e., there is significant and consistent overlap in undergraduate student
applications).
The Director of Institutional Research then followed a methodology presented at the
North East Association for Institutional Research. The process uses variables relating to
finance, size, complexity and quality. Working with the NCHEMS list, IR imported the
relevant data from IPEDS and then employed the statistical tool SPSS, using a process
called “ranked variables,” whereby each variable was weighted according to the
importance assigned them by the faculty and staff survey. These rankings generated a list
of 117 institutions, with each receiving a composite score. Institutions were then sorted
from lowest to highest, providing institutions above and below Keuka’s own composite
score.
This list was narrowed down by the administration team for further discussion with the
Faculty Liaison Committee. Each group separately reviewed the websites of the colleges
on the list, looking for alignment with mission, kinds of program offered, and other
pertinent information as available. This led to a list of approximately 50 institutions, and
these institutions were discussed between the administration and FLC. The two groups
agreed upon a list of 35 institutions, including both peer and aspirational colleges. The
Page 8 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

list was then brought to the Board of Trustees at its February 2012 meeting and approved
(Appendix 4.14 Alpha Peer Group List).
With the completion of the peer group list, the College is now in the process of
benchmarking its performance on key areas, including retention, graduation rates, tuition
rates, discount rate, deferred maintenance, endowment, salaries, diversity, and admissions
selectivity. This data will enable the College to set achievable goals, monitor
performance, inform decision-making, and improve institutional effectiveness.
Use of Assessment Data among Non-Academic Units
Ultimately, the realization of institutional strategic goals and student learning is achieved
through the successful implementation of processes administered through the College’s
units and programs. In addition to the institutional assessments used to evaluate the
College’s progress toward its goals indicated in Table 4.1, programs and units utilize
more local assessments to measure their progress toward accomplishing institutional
goals.
Appendix 4.2 Table 4.1: Keuka College Mission & Goals Assessment: Closing the Loop
also illustrates the communication of assessment information to various units and
constituents across the institution for use in improving programs. The cycle of outcomes
analysis varies, as identified in Table 4.1, and is captured through various routine
assessment reports at different levels of the college, some of which are referred to in this
table. The following section discusses the use of assessment data, institutional and unit
specific, across the College and among various units.
Numerous examples of the use of institutional and program-specific assessments for the
purpose of program or process evaluation at the program level among academic and nonacademic
units are documented in Appendix 4.5 Table 4.2 Approaches to Assessment
Non-Academic and Discipline Unit. This table also demonstrates how assessment and
decision-making activities relate to institutional strategic goals and student learning
goals. Because we are evaluating institutional processes, we consider student learning
goals to be a distinct category comparable to other institutional goals, such as those
articulated in the strategic plan. It is important to note that this table is not intended to be
an exhaustive account of the use of assessments among programs and units across the
College. Data included in this table were selected using purposeful sampling, and were
selected in order to demonstrate 1) the breadth of assessment practices across the
institution, and 2) the use of targeted, local assessments to improve upon processes that
directly pertain to College strategic goals and student learning. The sampling frame we
used for our analysis was the Keuka College Directory, which lists 53 separate academic
and non-academic units, located at http://keuka.edu/directories (Appendix 4.15 Keuka
College Directory screen shot). We selected units for analysis from this list, and drew a
purposeful sample of subunits from these for those units with greater complexity. For
example, the Division of Student Affairs contains multiple subunits that are treated
independently in this analysis, but are not listed individually in the sampling frame. As a
Page 9 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

esult, our analysis of non-academic units, described in Appendix 4.5 Table 4.2, Part 1,
includes 21 non-academic units and select programs therein.
Appendix 4.5 Table 4.2 provides multiple illustrations of the relationship between
assessment outcomes, benchmarks, and budgeting and planning. Budgetary allocations
that support staffing or resources, based upon implications drawn from analysis of
assessment data, are identified across the various units. For example, monies were
allocated to support improved programming or enhanced services in Academic Success at
Keuka Office, Academic Affairs, the Center for Professional Studies and International
Programs, Campus Safety, Counseling Services, Educational Technology, Facilities,
Food Services, IT Services, and Lightner Library. These budget allocations provide
evidence of the appropriate investment of resources to support and achieve institutional
effectiveness.
A review of Table 4.2 also reveals ongoing efforts to improve the quality of assessment
and use of assessment results at the unit level. Assessment activities featured for the
Center for Professional Studies and International Programs, Center for Experiential
Learning, Institutional Research, Facilities, Spiritual Life, Admissions and Marketing,
and Student Activities include plans for improving upon the efficiency, reliability, and/or
usefulness of assessment results in order to make informed decisions about student
admissions, placement, and services, and program evaluation. These plans are the result
of formative evaluation, or an assessment of their current assessment processes.
Ensuring Quality Assessment and Planning Processes
Assessment quality is paramount to the planning process. Multiple assessment measures
are now used routinely across the College and the measures themselves evaluated to
determine their usefulness in decision-making. While the College has significantly
enhanced its assessment processes and institutional planning capabilities during the last
several years, the monitoring and reporting of institutional effectiveness activities
remains largely decentralized. As noted earlier in this chapter, this was manifest as
members of the Long Range Strategic Planning Taskforces created in AY 2011-2012
found themselves querying multiple administrative offices for information to complete
their work and straining the capabilities of these offices as staff sought to answer
overlapping and duplicate data needs. A more consistent and centralized model for
monitoring continuous improvement, assessing progress and tracking change, and
communicating outcomes would increase efficiency and enhance planning activities. The
recently filled position of Director of Institutional Assessment, new to the College, has
provided Keuka the opportunity to develop an Institutional Effectiveness Plan that will
ensure a strategic, systematic, and continuous process of improving institutional
performance. This Plan is currently under development.
Assessment of Student Learning
Student learning is the primary objective of our institution. Accordingly, assessment is
incorporated as a goal within the Strategic Plan 2009-2012: “Engage in assessment of
Page 10 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

institutional effectiveness and student learning, including assessment of co-curricular
learning activities, to meet our regional (Middle States), state (NYSED), and specialized
accrediting requirements across all delivery formats and locations.” The Associate Vice
President for Academic Programs (AVPAP), who reports directly to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs, is responsible for coordinating the assessment of student learning
at Keuka College. The AVPAP oversees a prescribed assessment process, requiring the
submission of annual assessment reports each year which he reviews and posts on the
College Moodle Assessment site.
The first step in an effective student learning assessment plan is clearly articulated goals
at the course, program, and institutional levels. Over the last 5 years, we have
significantly strengthened our goals across all levels through intentional integration. In
April 2010, the Keuka College faculty officially adopted five goals as our institutionlevel
essential learning goals and labeled them our “E-LEAP Goals” (Appendix 4.16 E-
LEAP Definitions). These E-LEAP goals replaced our existing 15 Graduate Outcomes
(of which only eight were formally defined and operationalized) that had been in place
for over 15 years. This initiative was lead by the “GO Team,” an ad hoc committee on
graduate outcomes (GO), or the institutional-level essential learning outcomes. (The ad
hoc GO Team completed its charge at the end of the 2010-2011 academic year.) The E-
LEAP goals are based on the four AAC&U “LEAP” essential learning outcomes (see
http://www.aacu.org/leap/ for more information) which are: Knowledge of Human
Cultures and the Physical and Natural World, Intellectual and Practical Skills, Personal
and Social Responsibility, and Integrative and Applied Learning. The AAC&U Learning
Outcomes were designed around integration with one another for both General Education
and the programs, and with a “first to last” (freshman to senior) progression, and crossdisciplinary
ideals. Keuka added a fifth goal, the “E,” for our “experiential education” as
this is our institutional hallmark and is an important method and component of student
learning for Keuka students. During the 2010-2011 academic year, the ad hoc GO Team
put together an integrated plan for assessment of student learning which was approved at
the April 2011 faculty meeting, and posted prominently at the top of the Assessment
Moodle site (Appendix 4.17 Assessment of Student Learning Plan Diagram).
While the new E-LEAP essential learning goals and definitions are new, they are not a
complete departure from our old graduate outcome statements (goals). In two Spring
2010 presentations to faculty, the GO Team demonstrated how the E-LEAP goals were
aligned to the old graduate outcomes as part of the new adoption process (Appendix 4.18
Alignment of New E-LEAP and Old Graduate Outcomes). This alignment procedure
allowed the faculty and administration to ensure that we were fundamentally retaining the
same essential learning goals of Keuka College, but in a format that was easier for all
constituents (students, faculty, staff, alumni, administration and outside groups) to
understand, articulate, and for faculty and administration to assess. In addition, we
retained five of the graduate outcome essential learning goal definitions (Appendix 4.19
Existing Graduate Outcome Statements) to better define four of our General Education
(Gen Ed) goals. Because E-LEAP assessment is a function of both Gen Ed and Program
assessment, it is discussed following both Gen Ed and Program assessment below.
Page 11 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Effective learning assessment starts with clear learning goals, and the syllabus is the
tangible place where instructors communicate and students see the course expectations
and goals (course, Program, Gen Ed, and E-LEAP). Each semester, a copy of each
syllabus must be submitted to and retained by the Academic Affairs office. However, in
2011, to ensure the inclusion of syllabus learning goals, the Vice President for Academic
Affairs created a syllabus checklist (Appendix 4.20 Course Syllabus Checklist) that now
must accompany each syllabus copy each semester. Faculty must clearly indicate on the
checklist that all applicable goals are communicated on the syllabus and on the course’s
learning management system (Moodle) site, if applicable. The checklist is helping to
bring greater consistency to this (and other) important parts of the syllabus. It serves as a
beginning touchstone to both the faculty member and the students that learning and
assessment are critical to the success of the class.
The College has continued to make significant progress in developing assessment plans,
integrating goals (course, program and institutional), collecting assessment evidence, and
using this evidence to confirm and improve student learning. Assessment of student
learning routinely occurs across our learning locations (traditional campus, New York
State ASAP locations, and overseas sites) and across our different teaching platforms
(i.e., face-to-face, hybrid, and online). We continue to work to better align goals and
streamline assessment efforts to make our assessment more useful, cost-effective,
accurate, planned, and sustainable, with the ultimate goal of continuously improving
student learning. The assessment plan matrix provides an overview of the learning goal,
identifies where the learning goal is addressed, lists assessment activities, and includes
the analysis utilization plan (Appendix 4.21 Table 4.3 Keuka College Assessment Plan
Matrix), and the alignment and hierarchy of learning goals is presented in a diagram
(Appendix 4.17 Assessment of Student Learning Plan Diagram).
General Education
As described in the 2012-2013 Keuka College Record, “A Keuka College education is
based on the liberal arts courses as delivered primarily through our general education
program. The general education program is the common educational experience of all
Keuka College students, providing them with the breadth of knowledge, intellectual
skills, and personal dispositions of an educated person” (63). Gen Ed requirements are
based on a set of student learning goals which are organized into three learning
categories: Foundational Skills, Breadth of Knowledge, and Dispositions (Appendix 4.22
General Education Learning Goals). Students in the Accelerated Studies for Adults
Program typically are admitted with 60 credits or more of transferable credit and meet
most general education requirements through a credit evaluation process, although they
may need additional credits to meet prerequisite, liberal arts, or graduation requirements.
Students in the overseas programs take the same general education courses as their
traditional campus counterparts, delivered by their home universities, and these courses
are accepted as transfer credits and counted toward graduation requirements. Capstone
courses in the major build upon general education learning outcomes across all delivery
and format offerings.
Page 12 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Middle States’ expectations for a general education program (i.e., written
communication, oral communication, scientific reasoning, quantitative reasoning,
technological competence, critical analysis and reasoning, and information literacy) are
well covered in the 16 Gen Ed goals. Every general education course addresses one or
more of these student learning goals, and the articulated learning goals allow for direct
and indirect measures of assessment of student learning. The Gen Ed curriculum is
composed of classes taken primarily, but not exclusively, in the freshman and sophomore
years, comprising 41-42 semester hours. Program-specific graduation audit sheets
demonstrate how Gen Ed courses are aligned with program-specific courses (Appendix
4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course Alignment Examples).
Gen Ed Assessment of Student Learning
While Gen Ed learning assessment has been taking place since the Gen Ed restructuring
in 2008, the assessment process has become more systemized and robust in recent years.
The Curriculum Committee, a standing faculty committee, oversees the Gen Ed program
and facilitates its assessment. The most recent revision of the Gen Ed assessment process
(Appendix 4.24 Gen Ed Learning Goal Assessment Process) was adopted by the
Curriculum Committee in 2011. Gen Ed assessment is facilitated by the Curriculum
Committee, but the assessment measures and analysis are conducted by the faculty who
teach the specified Gen Ed courses. Typically, four to six different courses are offered as
options to fulfill each Gen Ed goal (Appendix 4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course Alignment
Examples), and a student can take one course from this category list to satisfy the
particular goal. Each Gen Ed goal (Appendix 4.22 General Education Learning Goals) is
parsed into measurable learning objectives by the faculty group. Faculty teaching a
course decide how they will assess this goal, but the timing of the assessment is stipulated
by the assessment plan and cycle (see Phase I, Appendix 4.25 Gen Ed Assessment
Cycle). After Phase I, the Curriculum Committee (CC) facilitates a meeting (“Phase II”)
among the different faculty teaching courses within the specified Gen Ed goal. These
faculty members discuss the relevancy of the goal and how the goal was measured, and
they analyze the results of the assessment measurements. As a group, they report back to
the Curriculum Committee their findings and proposed changes using the standardized
reporting template (Appendix 4.26 Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Report
Template). In Phase III the CC reviews the completed Learning Goal Assessment report
(created in Phase II) and makes recommendation on next steps to the particular Learning
Goal group. The Gen Ed assessment cycle is four years, allowing all 16 goals to be
assessed over this time period. The Curriculum Committee facilitates changes proposed
by the faculty assessment groups and ensures the annual reports are directed to the
Associate Vice President for Academic Programs (AVPAP).
Analysis of Gen Ed Assessment
Since the new Gen Ed assessment plan was recently adopted in 2011, analysis of the Gen
Ed assessment is limited to the work of the last several years. Using this new Gen Ed
Assessment Plan, the Curriculum Committee has been overseeing the assessment of
student learning for the General Education Learning Goals. Both phases I and II in the
Page 13 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

assessment cycle have been scheduled for all 16 Gen Ed goals and completed for five of
the goals. Gen Ed assessment progress varies by the various Gen Ed goals, their location
in the assessment cycle, and the faculty involved in the goal grouping.
Discussion of several General Education outcomes follows, and additional General
Education Assessment reports are included as appendices: Appendix 4.27 Gen Ed
Assessment Ethical Inquiry June 2012, Appendix 4.28 Gen Ed Assessment Oral
Communication June 2012, Appendix 4.29 Gen Ed Assessment Physical Natural World
2009-2010, Appendix 4.30 Gen Ed Assessment Quantitative Reasoning 2010, Appendix
4.31 Gen Ed Assessment Self & Individual, Appendix 4.32 Gen Ed Assessment Verbal
Arts 2010, and Appendix 4.33 Gen Ed Assessment Wellness Phase 2 2012.
Gen Ed Assessment Example: Physical/Natural World.
The Gen Ed learning goal for Physical/Natural World states: “Students will demonstrate
an understanding of (1) the nature of the physical world that encompasses and supports us
all, (2) the impact of human activity and decisions on that world, and (3) ways of
representing and interacting with the natural environment.” The range of classes that
cover this goal is indeed broad, bridging Physics to Environmental Literature. This goal
was last assessed before the “multiple phase” assessment plan for Gen Ed was created.
Individual professors, after an initial meeting, decided to assess the student learning in
ways that were unique to each class and instructor, but represented the learning goal well
(Appendix 4.29 Gen Ed Assessment Physical Natural World 2009-2010). For example, a
typical assessment report is shown in the BIO 208 course, Life and the Universe. In
addition to numerous formative assessments throughout the course, the instructor used an
existing project to get a summative assessment of the learning goal. The project had
students investigate and break apart a current environmental topic, write a paper on the
impact of the environmental activity, and the paper was assessed using a rubric based on
the learning goal. While the results from the first two learning sub-goals showed strong
demonstration of learning (93% and 95% scored either Excellent or Acceptable on the
rubric score), the assessment results stated, “… fewer students met the last goal (73%).
More students had trouble demonstrating how the current problem could be viewed each
from a physicist’s, chemist’s, and biologist’s perspective.” Using this data, the professor
stated, “A new and additional assignment, provided earlier in the semester, which focuses
on these same issues may help students better view contemporary problems from an
integrative approach. Using the same Gen Ed assessment final project measure can help
determine if this change promotes the desired student understanding.” In contrast, ENG
215, Environmental Literature, is not a typical science class; however, the learning goals
are not discipline-based outcomes. Using selected readings and targeted discussions, the
learning goal is addressed throughout this literature-based course. Selected “items
included on quizzes, exams, and in the environmental journal prompts, critical
paper/projects, and group presentation guidelines that focused on both objective scientific
and subjective-affective descriptions of the nature of the physical world” were used in
assessing the learning goal. In the assessment report, the professor notes, “A more
focused concentration on the concepts and principles of ecology as well as on the
principles and approaches of natural history—with texts reflecting this focus-- is likely to
strengthen the way the course addresses this learning objective.” Accordingly, the texts
Page 14 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

have now been changed. Given the newer Gen Ed assessment plan approach, the
instructors teaching the suite of courses in this learning goal will meet with a designated
Curriculum Committee member to review these data and determine the next steps for
improvement.
Gen Ed Assessment Example: Freshman Writing Sequence Assessment Report
Appendix 4.34 Writing Assessment Report details an assessment project by the
composition faculty to improve learning in the Gen Ed course ENG 112 College Writing
I. This course focuses on the Gen Ed goals “Written Communication” and “Information
Literacy.” Composition instructors, including both full time and adjunct faculty, read a
sample of English 112 final research essays and scored them using the Keuka Writing
Rubric. The report details the overall strengths and weakness of the students’ writing
competency, and based on the collected evidence, makes recommendations for changes.
Last year’s assessment results and subsequent changes focused on improving students’
ability to support their arguments:
“Last year’s assessment work highlighted the struggles that students were having
in two particular areas: support & development, and editing. With that in mind,
writing faculty introduced several modifications to their courses designed to
address these (and other) deficiencies. In the first place, conversations among the
writing instructors point to a greater emphasis on spelling, punctuation, and
grammar skills this year – skills which, in the past, we tended to assume that the
students should already have mastered. Instructors have also demonstrated a
greater focus on improving development and support in the papers through
techniques such as structured conference worksheets that require students to
reflect on the appropriateness of their sources. The issue of organization is very
closely related to this and some writing faculty have continued to make changes
in order to improve students’ capacity for writing organized arguments: for
instance, faculty have experimented with strategies such as reverse outlines and
dedicating more conference time to the issue.”
The information literacy assessment results led the composition faculty to suggest, among
other things, a change in the assessment measure:
“1. Rework the Information Literacy Exam. Faculty agreed that the Information
Literacy Exam in its current form is an unsatisfactory measure of student
achievement. It doesn’t measure what students can do, and analysis of the exam
suggests that it has not kept pace with the sorts of skills that students need in an
online research environment. However, there was also agreement that an exam of
some sorts is both appropriate and necessary, and a more sophisticated exam will
allow us to pinpoint specific areas of strength and weakness.”
The final English 112 research essays provided a solid assessment opportunity, allowing
for faculty to address more than one general education outcome with one artifact. In fact,
a valuable finding for the composition faculty was the point that students are able to
locate useful sources to support their arguments, that is, they can access information
effectively, but generally do not employ them well or integrate their sources into their
Page 15 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

own work effectively. Future assessment plans for written communication and
information literacy include continuing to use the English 112 final research essays, and
additionally the faculty are considering how to implement assessment of effective
thinking, using the same artifact.
The Oral Communication goal has also been assessed recently (Appendix 4.28 Gen Ed
Assessment Oral Communication June 2012). The assessment has been led by a faculty
member in the Organizational Communications department, using assessment data from
ENG 110 and ENG 112, the two General Education courses explicitly addressing this
goal. The report explains that a new oral communication rubric had been disseminated to
the faculty teaching these courses; however, as the professor noted,
“During the first semester that the new materials were in use, it became obvious
that there was some lack of clarity about how to evaluate the ‘topic’ criterion. As
an experienced instructor of Public Speaking, it has generally been my practice to
rate most topics as either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on the grounds that I must approve
all speech topics, and if I approved the topic, it is hardly fair to rate it as less than
good, since students’ topics (for speeches and research projects) are subject to my
approval. I emailed colleagues after I noticed quite a few lower topic ratings, and
the second-semester’s higher ratings in this area reflect that clarification. There
has been no face-to-face provided to teachers of ENG 110 & 112 on how to teach
oral presentation to their students; clearly, some ‘face time’ needs to be devoted to
‘teaching the teachers’ rather than simply relying on emails. I plan to suggest that
such instruction be added as a topic during writing program faculty meetings.”
In response to these observations, instruction on “teaching the teachers” how to teach oral
presentations is now included at the annual writing program faculty meeting. Training
includes introduction to and discussion of a speech outline format document which has
been successful in helping students to create effective oral presentations. Additionally,
orientation of writing faculty includes sharing of evaluation materials.
Gen Ed Assessment Example: Wellness.
The Gen Ed learning goal for wellness is considered a Foundational goal (cf. Breadth of
Knowledge or Dispositions), and all first year students must take and pass the FYE 140,
Wellness course that specifically addresses this learning goal. The goal states, “Students
will demonstrate an understanding of the processes and principles of effective physical
and emotional wellness; relationship with others of similar and different cultural
backgrounds; and College success skills, and the ability to apply these processes and
principles in maintaining wellness.” Unlike the previous Gen Ed examples, there is only
one course offered to meet this outcome, and this course has been taught primarily by one
adjunct faculty member the last three years. The Phase 2 report shows that more granular
assessment work needs to be completed: “Assessment results should be presented in more
detail. Very generic indicators were used, e.g., nutrition logs, 92% average. While this
response implies that most students satisfactorily completed the nutrition log, it does not
provide a good rationale for how the nutrition logs demonstrated that the students were
meeting the physical wellness learning goal” (Appendix 4.33 Gen Ed Assessment
Wellness Phase 2 2012). A new full-time faculty member is now teaching this course,
Page 16 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

with the expectation that this feedback will lead to stronger analysis and use of
assessment results.
Future Gen Ed Assessment Plans: With the addition of our newly hired Director of
Institutional Assessment, we will be working more closely with all Gen Ed faculty to
improve overall assessment of student learning. There is concern that we simply have
too many Gen Ed goals; condensing or reducing these goals may enhance our assessment
efficiency, increase student learning, and make the system work better. However, this
will necessitate considerable faculty work and involvement, and the goals have already
been reworked as recently as 2008. In the meantime, the Curriculum Committee will
continue to implement the assessment plan and cycle for the general education outcomes.
Program Assessment of Student Learning
Much work has been devoted to better articulation of each academic program’s goals.
The professional programs (i.e., Social Work, Occupational Therapy, Education,
Business, and Nursing) have long had in place well-articulated program goals,
performance indicators, and assessment processes, whereas programs in the nonprofessional
divisions (e.g., Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Humanities and Fine
Arts, Basic and Applied Social Sciences) have more variation in their programs’ goals
and assessment. As depicted in assessment plan diagram (Appendix 4.17 Assessment of
Student Learning Plan Diagram), Program Goals are integrated with both the Gen Ed and
E-LEAP goals. Appendix 4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course Alignment Examples shows
examples of how Program courses are aligned and sequenced with Gen Ed courses, and
Program and E-LEAP alignment is discussed below in the E-LEAP Assessment section
(See Appendix 4.35 E-LEAP and Programs Goals Alignment for examples of Program
and E-LEAP goals alignment).
Although program level assessment of student learning has been ongoing since the late
1990s, its effectiveness has varied by program over this time. Building upon a number of
assessment templates that had been updated in 2008 but which were used inconsistently,
the AVPAP and the GO Team in 2011 created a joint-purpose assessment kit for use by
all academic programs to reduce this variation in program assessment and better align E-
LEAP and program-specific learning goals. The set of documents called, “E-LEAP and
Program Assessment” (Appendix 4.36 E-LEAP & Program Assessment with Learning
Opportunities Packet v4.2) was distributed to all Division Chairs and Program Directors
at the beginning of the 2011 spring academic semester. The set of documents included
the assessment plan diagram, an “Essentials of Assessment” packet, and a set of learning
assessment tools intended to help programs conduct meaningful learning assessment.
The Essentials packet was composed of four parts: (1) an E-LEAP and Program goals
alignment matrix that linked institutional learning outcomes and program outcomes, (2) a
learning opportunities matrix template (curriculum mapping), (3) an assessment cycle
matrix, and (4) an assessment report template. This packet was designed to ensure each
program had well-articulated learning goals that were aligned to the E-LEAP goals, a
curriculum map and time-based plan of their learning goals associated with their courses
and/or activities, and a common template to report their assessment findings. While these
Page 17 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

documents provided each program with a specific and usable template to help structure
their assessment work, there was no requirement to use these exact templates. Some
programs (most notably the professional programs) had existing, very robust and useful
assessment and reporting structures, often dictated by their external accrediting bodies.
As long as the assessment ‘essentials’ (i.e., learning goals, curriculum maps, reporting
cycles, and reporting templates) were clearly evident, these different reporting documents
were approved for use. However, every program was required to submit the document:
“Part 1: Alignment of Program and E-LEAP Goals” from the “Essentials” packet to
ensure and document program and E-LEAP goal alignment.
Examples of Program Assessment of Student Learning
Program Assessment Example: Sociology/Criminology/Criminal Justice Program
As an example of the assessment plans and reporting that all programs are asked to
conduct, Appendix 4.37 Sociology/Criminology, Criminal Justice Assessment Plan and
Report shows the assessment plan and evidence for this major. The assessment plan
details the purposes for program assessment, guiding assessment questions, sources of
evidence, collection and analysis of evidence, the criteria for successful achievement of
the outcome, and the reporting and use of evidence by the program. The learning
opportunities/curriculum map also includes the assessment cycle built in (see color
coding). The assessment plan contains all of the ‘Fundamentals of Assessment’ plus
more information (e.g., ‘Guiding Assessment Questions’). The assessment report clearly
indicates the plan and analysis data. (Appendix 4.26 Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Report Template) Finally, the report shows how assessment evidence has
been used to “close the loop” in the “Use of Assessment Results” column. For example,
students in SOC 201 students were asked to complete multi-week projects involving
research and content analysis of news programs so as to demonstrate ability to apply
knowledge gained in the classroom to data sets to meet the program’s experiential
learning outcome. In the initial evaluation, students performed poorly, and it was
recognized that student needed more guidance in analyzing and interpreting numerical
data. Students were provided significantly more detailed instructions, examples, and
prompts to guide their conclusions. Resubmissions showed great improvement, with all
students then successful in meeting or exceeding the expected level of performance for
this course. Future program improvements as a result of this analysis include changes to
the coursework in other program courses so as to require more applications of statistical
techniques to analyze data relevant to their field of study.
Program Assessment Example: English
In another example of assessment reporting wherein the results of analysis have led to
changes, the English faculty came to the conclusion to alter their overall assessment plan,
as a result of evaluating students’ achievement of two program learning outcomes. In
their 2012 report, the English faculty noted that the list of courses identified in their
original assessment plan to measure “Historical Development and Cultural Context” and
“Language” was too long and the courses themselves were not well suited for assessing
these two goals. They determined that by working with a smaller grouping of courses
that are more applicable to the learning goal and “even more specifically to the aspects of
Page 18 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

the goal that the course will address, we are better able to get a complete picture of our
program and how well the courses are working together in its entirety to meet the goals
outlined in the assessment report.” Using this smaller grouping of courses, this year’s
assessment results showed that the English majors were generally not meeting the target
criteria for success for achieving the above learning outcomes, as measured against
rubrics implemented for the 2011-2012 academic year. In their final recommendations,
the English faculty concluded that they need to revise the assessment tool and/or reevaluate
the benchmark for success if the tool continues to be utilized for assessment:
“Based on these results, however, the English Program will be working in the 2012-13
year to re-evaluate the program overall and determine how the structure of courses in the
program work together to meet these program goals. In these discussions, we will
attempt to determine whether current assessment methods are inadequate or inapplicable
or whether we need to revise our program itself and its current goals” (Appendix 4.38
English Program Assessment 2012).
Program Assessment Example: Business
Accredited by the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE),
the Business program, Keuka’s largest, regularly assesses its student learning outcomes
across all programs and delivery models. In the campus-based traditional program, direct
measures of student learning are the semester-long project in the capstone course BUS
444 Strategic Management and a comprehensive business exam covering the functional
components of business, administered at the completion of the capstone course. Analysis
of the poor results for meeting the target benchmark for the financial management
component of the comprehensive business exam led to the decision in 2009 to hire a
finance/accounting tenure track faculty member, replacing a series of adjuncts, and to
build additional finance content into the BUS 444 course to reinforce prior learning.
Completing the assessment loop of this change to the program, the Business faculty note
in the 2012 report that students continue to struggle with this content; they have identified
the need to review the assessment tool itself to determine if the content taught matches
the expectations within the comprehensive exam. With regard to not meeting the target
goal of 88% for the capstone project, the Business faculty note that the average grade had
dropped from 87% to 86%, but point out that they had “introduced a much more rigorous
comprehensive grading rubric for both the oral and written portions of the comprehensive
term project, which resulted in the drop of 1 % in the average grade, but yielded much
more impressive written papers and oral presentations” (Appendix 4.39 Business
Traditional Program Outcomes Assessment 2011-2012). Their final analysis of the term
project grades indicates the same underlying issue identified with the comprehensive
exam, namely that they need to address the financial analysis and forecast sections of the
term project. Indirect measures employed in the traditional Business program include ten
NSSE items that measure students’ engagement in effective educational practices, with a
target goal of 3.0: analysis, synthesis, application, evaluation, critical thinking, written
and oral communication, and using computing and information technology. In their
analysis of results, the Business faculty noted success in achieving the target goals and
future improvement plans: “The four survey questions that showed the most
improvement, writing and speaking clearly and effectively, have been the focus of
campus-wide efforts to improve these skills. There is a continuing effort to have students
Page 19 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

make oral presentations and participate in classroom discussions, as well as casework that
will improve effective writing skills. We continue to better integrate this skill
development into our courses” (Appendix 4.39 Business Traditional Program Outcomes
Assessment 2011-2012).
In the Organizational Management program offered by ASAP, students directly
demonstrate achievement of program learning outcomes through ORG 465 Action
Research Project, the capstone course which requires students to complete “a major
research effort designed to apply the action research model to an organization or
student’s workplace.” Analysis of program outcomes demonstrates student success in
meeting the target benchmark for the capstone action research project. However, as
noted in the Organizational Management Response Report submitted to the Taskforce on
Academic Program Prioritization in June 2012, based on feedback from students, faculty,
and employers, the Business faculty have identified the need to update the curriculum to
meet marketplace needs and strengthen student learning in these content areas (Appendix
4.40 TAPP Final Report 6-6-12, p. 20). Accordingly, they seek to delete several
older/outdated courses and include Internet Marketing (a new course); the Legal, Ethical
and Regulatory Environment of Business (a course that would replace ORG 455 Personal
Values and Organizational Ethics), Management Information Systems (a new course) and
to restructure the experiential learning outcome as it currently exists in ORG 465 by
integrating the Kolb reflective process across the curriculum through a portfolio. To
achieve these improvements, the Business faculty, in consultation with community
business leaders and program alumni, has begun the process of revising existing
curriculum and developing new courses with the goal of submitting the new curriculum
to the appropriate faculty governance committee, the Curriculum Committee, this
academic year. Indirect measures employed in the ASAP Organizational Management
program include the Noel-Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS), a bi-annual
survey that was last conducted in 2012. The ASAP OM program’s goal is to achieve an
average satisfaction rating of 5 or over in five key areas that address satisfaction with
instructional effectiveness, academic advising, campus climate, service excellence, and
academic services. The OM program met that requirement in every area except for
academic services. Whereas students express satisfaction with the adequacy of library
resources and services as well as with academic support services, the item addressing the
adequacy and accessibility of computer labs shows the largest gap between importance
and satisfaction. Although this item overall is ranked as relatively low in order of
importance to the OM students, student dissatisfaction is troubling as the College has
worked closely with its partner sites to improve access to onsite computer labs and to
clarify policy in this area as a result of a low satisfaction ranking at the time of the 2010
ASPS administration. The ASAP program administration has begun further dialogue on
this issue with site administrators and program instructors.
China and Vietnam
While the overall head count in our overseas programs is comparatively large
(approximately 2771 students in all China schools and 500 total students in both Vietnam
schools) only one undergraduate academic program, Business Management, is offered in
both countries. A parallel review process is in place for assessing the Keuka China
Page 20 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Program and the Keuka Vietnam Program. For example, the same learning goals exist in
the overseas Business programs as in the traditional program in New York.
Consequently, the assessment measures are aligned among all three general locations
(i.e., Keuka Park, China, Vietnam), with all students completing the capstone course BUS
444 Strategic Management and taking a comprehensive business exam covering the
functional components of business, administered at the completion of the capstone
course.
Annual assessment reports for the Keuka China Program (KCP) reveal significant
challenges of meeting the target goals for the comprehensive business exam, linked to
English language proficiency and some coursework reflecting American principles and
practices. This exam has been a struggle for students since piloting in Dec. 2008, and as
a result, the test items were revised and a number of questions were eliminated. Poor
results in subsequent years were a factor in the revision of the curriculum in 2010 and the
implementation of curriculum mapping and syllabus template updates in 2011 and 2012
to focus on student learning outcomes. This year the spring faculty workshop will focus
on assessment at course level, with an aim to build up the English vocabulary, content
knowledge and analytical skills needed for business in general and for the comprehensive
exam in particular. The Business Division is also considering the adoption of a different
exam for 2013.
Analysis of the second direct measure of program outcomes, the capstone project in BUS
444 Strategic Planning, shows that 90% of all students (n=784) met the criteria for
success (a grade of C). Indirect measures employed in the Keuka China Program include
the Comprehensive Alumni Assessment Survey and the National Survey of Student
Engagement. Customized relevant questions were combined into the Chinese student
survey that Keuka administered online in May 2012 to students from the entering classes
of 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, with a response rate of 701 students or 24%. The overall
question measuring student satisfaction with the program was “If you had to do it all
over, would you attend the Keuka Program?” The target is for 80% of students to
respond positively, across all Keuka China campuses. Overall, Keuka met its goal for
2012, with 88.4% of respondents said they would definitely (51%) or possibly (38%)
attend the Keuka China program again. (In 2010, 6% had said they would not choose
Keuka again, and in 2011, 17.5% had said they would not attend the Keuka China
program again.) Other questions reflected student engagement, with 70% of students
responding positively that they experienced intellectual growth; a focus on experiential
learning, with 98% saying they worked with other students on class projects; and variety
in learning style, with student responses reflecting a distribution of student experience
over a range of learning styles rather than on one dominant type. Retention and
graduation rates are a reflection of the faculty and student efforts throughout the program,
and the overall cumulative graduation rate for the program from 2003-2012 is 85%.
Recent improvements that were implemented in 2011-2012 include providing a study
guide for the comprehensive exam to KCP students, more tightly constructed syllabus
templates with assessment measures tied more explicitly to course outcomes, and
development of a common rubric for the final project, with sharing of work samples that
Page 21 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

meet the criteria to allow faculty across sites to compare them. Evidence of Keuka
College’s commitment to high academic standards is that it continues to work with
partner universities to strengthen English language skills in prerequisite courses, is
developing a clearer, more standardized course by course articulation agreement with
each university, and is assessing how exchange students from partner schools perform
when at Keuka College (Appendix 4.41 Business China program 2011-2012 Outcomes
Assessment).
The 2012 assessment report for the Vietnam Program-- which was begun in 2010 and
employs the same direct measures as the traditional and Keuka China Program-- shows
strong results for achievement of student learning outcomes. In Summer 2011, the
capstone course BUS 444 Strategic Management was offered for the first time to the first
two generations of students in their senior year at Vietnam National University (IS-VNU)
in Hanoi (students who joined our program from other international programs upon their
closing). The class average for the comprehensive final exam was 84% for one cohort of
students and 94% for the second cohort of students. Results for the Spring 2012 BUS
444 cohort showed an unexpected decline to a 71% class average, and analysis is
underway to interpret these results and determine a course of action, if necessary. Strong
student performance was also noted for the capstone project, the second direct measure
used in the business program, with average cohort grades of 92%, 96%, and 93%.
The importance of English language proficiency for student success is recognized by our
partners in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Student English language proficiency is
evaluated by English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors employed by our partner
school; in these English classes, students are tested on their verbal and written skills as
well as their reading comprehension. The English preparatory courses delivered at our
partner schools conclude with an exit exam. In the Keuka-taught courses, students’
English language skills are evaluated through class participation, written assignments,
and individual or group presentations. Keuka faculty have been asked to include language
skills as part of their grading metrics for some assignments within each course. As further
illustration of the importance attached to English language proficiency, when the Hanoi
ESL faculty identified in fall 2010 that newly enrolled freshmen students needed
additional support for their English language skills, the Program Coordinator at IS-VNU
engaged a tutor to support the Keuka faculty member and work with the students for
three weeks for the purpose of improving their language skills. The outcome of this
support was evidenced by the over 90% completion rate for students taking courses in fall
2010 and their continued success to date. Indirect measures for measuring the
effectiveness of the Vietnam program have not yet been established and are under
discussion by the Business faculty (Appendix 4.42 Business Vietnam Program 2011-
2012 Outcomes Assessment).
Program Assessment Example: Psychology
Appendix 4.43 Psychology Assessment June 2012 provides another strong illustration of
the assessment plans and reporting that all programs are asked to conduct. Having
revised their program goals and curriculum in 2007-2008 AY to align with the Learning
Goals and Objectives for undergraduate programs suggested by the American
Page 22 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Psychological Association, the Psychology program has focused on enhancing its
research-oriented courses, in particular developing various objectives related to research
capabilities, quantitative literacy, and scientific critical thinking (2009 Psychology
Assessment Report Final). Assessment work since this major curriculum overhaul has
led to significant changes in activities and assessment measures in the program, some of
which follow: new multiple-choice examination questions and the implementation of a
student research journal requirement, both pertaining to scientific methodology within
PSY 101 Introductory Psychology; greater attention to strategies for helping students
continue to develop their statistical knowledge and skills in PSY 332 Experimental
Methodology through course activities that provide additional practice in using the SPSS
statistical analysis software; and sequencing of activities in PSY 360 Junior Research
Seminar to develop a research proposal for their senior capstone research project and the
development of grading checklists and rubrics to guide the development of the research
proposal. As part of the most recent (2012-2013) Psychology Assessment Plan, the My
Virtual Child childrearing simulation was included as a learning tool to meet program
goal 4 (application of psychology) in PSY 249 after the instructor had reviewed an
assessment report from field research which indicated that this simulation reinforced and
enhanced the understanding of several concepts pertaining to parenting and child
development among their developmental psychology students. Utilizing similar
assessment items in Spring 2012, the PSY 249 instructor found similar results, supporting
continued use of the software. Whereas an instructor-written booklet had been
incorporated to supplement the textbook readings about research, the instructor revised
the booklet in Fall 2012 to tie more explicitly the steps in the scientific process to the
program outcome using a mnemonic device that a group of researchers had utilized to
enhance understanding of research concepts. Additionally, the instructor’s plans for
course improvement include restructuring both formative and summative assessment
exercises to strengthen students’ ability to plan and conduct research. Additional analysis
of student success in achieving this program outcome identified that assessment tools in
other courses need to be revisited for their effectiveness in providing useful information
to guide program evaluation.
Program Assessment Example: Nursing
The Nursing programs (B.S., M.S.) are the only ones offered solely in an accelerated
format through ASAP. The Nursing programs are accredited by the Commission on
Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE), and their program learning goals and assessment
are structured, in part, to meet the CCNE regulations. The most recent Nursing
assessment reports (Appendix 4.44 Nursing Assessment June 2012) demonstrate the
integration of CCNE learning goals and the alignment of E-LEAP goals. The Nursing
program has an internal curriculum committee, consisting of two full-time and one parttime
faculty, which regularly evaluates its courses through review of the student
evaluation of instruction forms and an in-house instructor evaluation of courses form.
Eight of the twenty-four courses are reviewed and updated every six months, so the entire
curriculum (B.S. and M.S.) is reviewed every eighteen months to ensure currency of
course outcomes and materials. Each course in the baccalaureate and master’s program is
assigned to a subject matter expert or “keeper of the course” (KOC) who serves as lead
faculty member responsible for the necessary and appropriate updating of the course.
Page 23 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

The lead faculty member reviews assessment data, consults appropriate scientific
literature and accreditation fundamentals, including The Essentials of Baccalaureate
Education for Professional Nurses (AACN, 2008) document or The Essentials of
Master’s Education (2011), facilitates in-depth discussion with adjunct faculty, and
makes course changes accordingly. Indirect evidence of student learning and student
satisfaction are demonstrated in the student-reported dated collected in the 2010 and 2012
Noel Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey (ASPS) reports, with 79% of the
undergraduate (B.S.N.) students responding rated their satisfaction level as somewhat to
very satisfied with their overall program experience, and 77% of master’s students
providing the same rating (Appendix 4.45 Noel Levitz Nursing Assessment Results 2010-
2012).
Program Assessment Example: Education Master of Science in Literacy (B-6; 5-12)
Appendix 4.46 Assessment Report for the Master of Science in Literacy (Birth-6; 5-12)
provides evidence of an organized and sustained assessment process to evaluate and
improve student learning. Since its inception in the 2007-2008 academic year, each
group of Literacy program completers has achieved a 100% pass rate on the New York
State Teacher Exam in Literacy. This graduate program, designed to enhance teachers'
knowledge about contemporary theories and research-based practices in literacy, employs
multiple qualitative and quantitative measures that demonstrate student achievement of
program learning outcomes and provide direction for ways to strengthen the program.
For example, as described in the Assessment Report, students’ self-reflections in the
program compendium led to greater scaffolding of particular assignments by faculty,
whereas results of the one-semester Capstone Seminar led to curricular modifications,
essentially breaking the course into three components spread over three semesters so as to
provide more instructional time on writing the literature review, completing the IRB
process, and organizing the final paper. In response to the education faculty’s assessment
of current practices and trends in the K-12 environment, they explored ways to
incorporate technology into their programs. For the graduate literacy program, this took
the form of piloting the use of mobile learning devices (MLDs) for their candidates in the
2011-2012 academic year. The program faculty purchased enough MLDs (Samsung
Galaxies) for each candidate to have one—along with 3G network access—so the
candidates could access data, applications, and other resources for use during their
practicum experience. Candidates were loaned an MLD for use in the EDU 536
Technology course and during their summer practicum. This first year pilot program
resulted in the candidates using a greater variety of teaching tools (applications) with
their students, and using the MLD to assist in assessing their students. In the second
year, the purchase of an Apple iPad with wireless access (MLD) became a program
requirement for all candidates. The education faculty are incorporating the MLDs into
each of the courses, such that the candidates are using the MLDs as learning tools,
teaching tools, assessment tools, and management tools throughout the program.
These annual assessment reports provide strong evidence that a sustainable culture of
assessment is in place across the academic programs, with data being collected on a
regular basis, analyzed to identify areas needing improvement, and changes implemented
and then assessed to strengthen student learning.
Page 24 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

E-LEAP Assessment
Examination of the E-LEAP definitions and the individual program E-LEAP alignment
reports demonstrates student outcomes are consonant with stated learning goals found
within the previous Keuka College Mission statement (highlighted text below). (Keuka
College recently (Fall 2012) created a new mission statement; however given the
newness of the statement, this analysis looks at the E-LEAP assessment in accordance
with the recently replaced statement.)
Keuka College Mission
Keuka College is a student-centered, liberal arts-based learning community offering a
range of undergraduate and graduate programs delivered in traditional, non-traditional,
and international formats. The learning environment at Keuka is intellectually
challenging, supportive, and fosters personal as well as academic development. We offer
a unique blend of traditional classroom knowledge and innovative experiential learning
that provides students with a solid foundation for a lifetime of learning, service, and
leadership while valuing social responsibility and diversity. Keuka graduates possess the
knowledge and experience to excel in today’s workplace and the ability to adapt to
tomorrow’s challenges. 1
The opportunities for traditional undergraduate students to demonstrate achievement of
the institution’s E-LEAP learning goals lies within the combined areas of course
curriculum, Field Period, and co-curricular activities. The intentional alignment of both
the Program and Gen Ed goals with the E-LEAP goals means that the E-LEAP goals are
assessed both at the Program and Gen Ed levels. This promotes the use of many of the
existing program and Gen Ed assessment measures, making this a more cost-effective
assessment plan and ensuring that it will be systematized and sustained. In short, because
of the alignment, if the students are meeting the Gen Ed and Program goals, then we have
evidence that they are meeting the E-LEAP goals. Because of the close association with
the LEAP goals, some Gen Ed goal groups and programs are now looking into using the
VALUE rubrics (http://www.aacu.org/value/) to assess certain essential learning goals.
E-LEAP assessment relies on specific and clear alignment between (1) Gen Ed Goals and
E-LEAP goals (Appendix 4.47 Gen Ed & E-LEAP Goal Alignment) and (2) Program
goals and E-LEAP goals (Appendix 4.35 E-LEAP and Program Goals Alignment).
Ideally, each course offered at Keuka would articulate the course goals, program goals,
Gen Ed goals and E-LEAP goals in a goal matrix. While this has been completed for
some courses (Appendix 4.48 Assessing Course Program Gen Ed E-LEAP Goals SOC
101 SAMPLE), this is not true of all courses yet. The College’s new Director of
Institutional Assessment and the AVPAP are analyzing the need to require these
documents for all courses.
Similarly, within the traditional program, the use of the Co-Curricular Transcript, aligned
with the E-LEAP Goals, provides another data point for measuring student learning
1 A new Keuka College Mission statement was approved by the Board of Trustees in October 2012. This
section of the Self-Study reflects the Mission statement that was in place until October 2012.
Page 25 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

outcomes. The Center for Experiential Learning at Keuka College defines the cocurricular
transcript thusly:
“The co-curricular transcript (CCT) is official documentation of student involvement in
campus activities at Keuka. This transcript identifies what skills students are acquiring
outside the classroom and how they can be incorporated into résumés, cover letters, and
interviews.”
The Co-Curricular Transcript provides a listing of the activities, the skills learned in
activities, the E-LEAP alignment of the skill learned and applied, and the participation
statistics of Keuka students. Students’ participation is tracked in the following activities:
Academic Research and Scholarship - Sanctioned, extra-curricular research and
scholarship projects
Campus and Community Service - Includes volunteer service on campus or in the
community that is affiliated with Keuka College.
Cultural Awareness/Diversity – Involvement in a club or organization that
addresses culture and diversity related issues.
Honors/Awards/Professional and Honor Societies – Encompasses formal
academic recognition, official acknowledgement of a student’s contributions to
enhancing the quality of student life, community service or leadership awards,
departmental and college-wide honor society memberships, certain scholarships,
and exemplary participation in an intercollegiate sports team.
Health/Wellness/Recreation and Physical Development – Involvement in
intercollegiate and intramurals sports and/or athletic clubs and wellness-related
activities.
Interpersonal/Social/Communication Development - Participation in clubs or
organizations that contribute to one’s ability to effectively communicate and
interact with others.
Leadership/Supervision/Governance - Holding a position as an officer or team
captain, or an on-campus employment position that requires formal leadership
training.
Performing Arts/Fine Arts/Aesthetic Involvement – Involvement in the
production/creation of music, drama, theatre, and/or literature.
This assessment data is reported to the Dean of the Center for Experiential Learning who
provides a yearly report to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (Appendix 4.49 CEL
Annual CCT 2010-2011 Report Aligned with E-LEAP). Others who receive the
assessment data are Student Affairs, Club Advisors, and Division Chairs. Participation in
co-curricular activities by ASAP and graduate students is limited, though these students
are invited into discipline-specific academic honor societies. Additionally, some
programs, such as the Social Work program, value and celebrate strong community
engagement, as in the recent work of a Syracuse cohort in organizing a series of clothing
drives to support the Rescue Mission of Syracuse (Social Work CSWE Self-Study 2012).
Page 26 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Keuka’s signature emphasis on experiential learning, as defined in the E-LEAP student
learning outcome, is achieved through students’ “involvement in multiple forms of
experiential education both inside and outside the classroom (e.g., student affairs, cocurricular
activities, campus employment, and Field Period).” Whereas the Co-Curricular
Transcript provides the opportunity to track student learning outcomes through activities
outside of the classroom, as does campus employment (Appendix 4.50 2011-2012 Work
Study Supervisor Survey Results), both the CCT and campus employment are voluntary.
Field Period, the cornerstone of a Keuka education, is an annual requirement of all
undergraduate students, comprising 10% of a traditional four-year student’s overall
academic credits. To underscore the importance of this student learning outcome, the
freshman level course FYE 101 Experiential Learning provides an introduction to
Keuka’s emphasis on experiential learning and lays the groundwork for the Field Period.
In this foundational course, staffed by both full-time faculty and qualified student and
academic affairs personnel, instructors explain the theoretical foundations of experiential
learning, address the Kolb model as it applies to Keuka’s Field Period, and help students
to develop awareness of the skills involved in successful lifelong learning. Over the fouryear
span, faculty program advisors work with students to develop and complete
increasingly advanced and challenging learning objectives and activities, with final
results captured in students’ summary papers and in their site supervisors’ evaluation
forms, one employing performance-based questions that align with the program and E-
LEAP learning outcomes (Appendix 4.51 FP Supervisor Evaluation Form with E-LEAP).
Support for Assessment of Student Learning
During the last five years, Keuka has focused significant resources and effort in building
an assessment infrastructure, although room for improvement remains. A major aspect of
this infrastructure is the College-wide learning management system, Moodle, which is
used to house the Assessment reports, support and training materials, assessment-related
committee meeting minutes and other assessment-related information. The Assessment
Moodle site is maintained by the Associate Vice President for Academic Programs
(AVPAP) but is accessible by all College faculty and staff. We anticipate moving this
body of information to the new Datatel/Ellucian-based portal sites in the future; it will
remain on Moodle until there is a sufficient level of comfort by all constituents in using
this new system. The Assessment site (Appendix 4.52 Moodle Assessment Page screen
shots) includes the assessment plans, E-LEAP, Gen Ed, Program and course-based
assessment information and reports. The site is accessible at
http://courses.keuka.edu/course/view.php?id=276.
A major boon to our assessment work, both in terms of institutional effectiveness and the
assessment of student learning, is our recent hiring of a new position, Director of
Institutional Assessment (Appendix 4.53 Director of Institutional Assessment Position
Keuka College). This position has been an institutional priority and an active hiring
process for one and a half years. In July 2012, the position was finally filled with a
starting date of September 10th. Adding this dedicated Director of Institutional
Assessment has allowed the College to build a stronger culture of assessment and use
Page 27 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

assessment data for improvement across the institution. Since her arrival, the Director has
met with division chairs and program faculty to discuss the most recent Noel-Levitz and
NSSE surveys, and their implications for program improvement, as well as to develop the
Keuka College Assessment Handbook to support faculty assessment of program-level
student learning outcomes.
The Keuka College Assessment Handbook (Appendix 4.54) describes the updated process
of assessment in detail and serves as a methods and procedures manual for faculty, staff,
and administration. Implementation of these methods and procedures is ongoing and will
come into full fruition by the end of spring 2013. The assessment process starts at the
lowest levels with course or area assessments that are summarized on annual assessment
reports. These reports are then analyzed and grouped with program or division reports
that are then sent to the newly-developed Institutional Effectiveness Committee for
review and analysis. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee is comprised of the
Associate Vice President for Academic Programs, the Director of Institutional
Assessment, three faculty representatives, and two non-academic unit representatives.
Findings from assessment reports are forwarded to appropriate offices for review, or
additional follow-up as seen in The Keuka College Assessment Handbook, (Chart 4.1
Keuka College Assessment Process Diagram on the following page). Annual assessment
reports are required of all academic and non-academic units covering all campuses and
locations, which provide an accounting of assessment activities and the resulting actions,
along with identified additional needs in facilities, resources, faculty, and other areas.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee functions as reviewer of the annual reports
while the division/unit heads serve to ensure their completion. The reports are
summarized by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee in an annual report to the
President’s Cabinet who in-turn shares the results with the Board of Trustees, the Keuka
College community, and the public. The overseeing units at various levels, as shown in
Chart 4.1 The Keuka College Assessment Process Diagram, not only summarize the
findings but respond to significant results through a variety of methods, such as
requesting additional resources, or passing the results to other parties involved for action,
follow-up, or additional research.
In addition to annual assessment activities, programs and divisions undergo a periodic
review that follows a 4-year cycle. The schedule of assessments can be seen in the
Assessment Time Line in the Assessment Handbook (Appendix 4.54 Keuka College
Assessment Handbook). Divisions conduct the review for all locations and campuses
that are included in their division (e.g., Business & Management review includes China
and Vietnam programs). During the review process, which is outlined in the Assessment
Handbook, areas undertake a deeper examination of processes and assessment results
over the past few years, along with analysis of inputs and outputs, to result in a mini-self
study that includes findings, recommendations, and requests for additional resources, as
warranted to improve student learning outcomes. This process was initiated with all
academic programs establishing a base review in 2010-2011.
Page 28 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

The Keuka College Assessment Process
Data Gathering Analysis & Conclusions Outcomes
Institutional Assessments
Accreditation self-studies
Periodic Reviews
(of Academic programs and nonacademic
units)
Gen Ed Assessment
Student Learning Assessment (course &
program)
General
Public
Input/Feedback
Keuka
Community
Institutional Research and
Institutional Assessment
Division staff & faculty, administration,
accrediting agency
Division faculty and staff and
administration
Curriculum Committee, faculty
and staff
Division staff & faculty
Institutional Effectiveness
Committee
Long Range Strategic Planning
President’s Cabinet
(via annual report)
Advisory Councils
(SAC, CAC, Alumni Assoc ,
Student Senate, and Faculty)
Shifts identitfied and discussed thru
(committee) and sent to appropriate area to
address
Accrediting agency sends response and
division determines next steps
Identifies curricular, facility, equipment,
staffing, support needs and initiates changes
Shifts identified and discussed thru
Curriculum Committee - next steps or other
areas to involve are identified
Identify areas for further study or change and
discuss at proper venue (faculty or division
meeting)
Input/Feedback
Board of
Trustees
Page 29 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Beyond assessment that channels up through the divisions, the institution takes on
additional assessment in the areas of general education and institutional goals. The
integration of experiential, Program, General Education, and E-LEAP goals as they have
been accomplished in the past can be seen in Appendix 4.17 Assessment of Student
Learning Plan Diagram. Going forward, this integration will also be tied in with the
annual reviews by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. The general educational
outcomes are maintained and assessed through efforts of the Curriculum Committee.
There are sixteen stated general education goals, and the committee is currently
reviewing four each year in an on-going four-year process and results are analyzed and
acted upon by the committee. The overall institutional goals, the Essential Learning
Goals (E-LEAP), are assessed through alignments with programs and divisions and by
institutional assessments overseen by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and
analyzed by Institutional Research and Institutional Assessment. Institutional assessment
such as NSSE and Noel-Levitz are on opposing two-year cycles, while others are
beginning a periodic assessment cycle. Results are discussed in the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee and next steps for significant results identified.
Annual assessment reports are due either on June 15th or September 15, depending on the
particular program. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee reviews the individual
reports after submission and prepares summary reports for the start of the new academic
year or later, depending upon submission date (see above). For June 15th submissions,
the timing enables areas to work on recommendations over the summer months, and areas
requiring additional resources can be addressed prior to the start of a new academic term.
This timing is paramount to ensuring that assessment results are available and analyzed
as a critical part of the planning process for each area or division for the coming
academic year. Results of institutional assessments, program reviews, and annual
assessment reports will drive the work of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee in the
coming fall and provide essential information to the President’s Cabinet to inform
decision-making, planning, and budgeting.
The newly developing College-wide strategic plan features assessment support and
activities throughout the document. A major inclusion is support for a College eportfolio
system. The Dean for the Center for Experiential Learning and the Director of
Educational Technology have been reviewing multiple companies that provide
assessment-based e-portfolio systems. During the 2011-2012 academic year, a number of
faculty and experiential learning staff have been evaluating Foliotek
(http://www.foliotek.com/). The preliminary results indicate that this will be a beneficial
product moving forward (Appendix 4.55 Pilot Program for Foliotek Eportfolios Spring
2012). This product is particularly attractive because it is based on assessment first. The
faculty have been utilizing more rubrics in their assessments, and there is interest in using
the AAC&U VALUE rubrics to help with Gen Ed and E-LEAP assessments. The
Foliotek system integrates rubrics with the document repository, and will allow faculty to
directly complete rubric-based assessments.
Lastly, assessment of student learning is valued, recognized, and supported through
funding (grants to fund faculty attendance at assessment workshops), awards
Page 30 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

(Community Day Presidential Merit Awards have gone to faculty who have developed
and shared effective assessment tools and practices), course releases (assessment
coordinators for several large and/or complex programs have an annual course release),
and through promotion/tenure decisions wherein program assessment work is recognized
by division chairs, the Professional Standards Committee, and the Vice President for
Academic Affairs as important service to the College. As part of strengthening Keuka’s
overall culture of assessment—both student learning and institutional effectiveness—we
look forward to developing a website to highlight our successes and share best practices
with internal and external audiences.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations reflect an overall charge to enhance the use of datadriven
decision-making:
4.1 Develop a plan for creating more professional development and training
opportunities for faculty and staff to enhance assessment knowledge and
application and to learn how to employ Ellucian more effectively.
4.2 Create an Office of Institutional Effectiveness to provide a centralized model for
monitoring continuous improvement, assessing progress and tracking change, and
communicating outcomes to support decision-making, to increase efficiency, and
to enhance institutional planning and budgeting activities.
4.3 Ensure all Program and Gen Ed goals have measurable learning outcomes and
established performance targets.
4.4 Develop a communication plan for disseminating assessment data to internal and
external audiences that allows Keuka to highlight best practices to improve
programs and services, and assessment “victories”.
4.5 Establish on-going processes to collect assessment results and improve on
assessment methods for measurement of student learning outcomes that provide
longitudinal evidence of continuous improvement directly linked to improved
teaching and learning as a result of ongoing assessment efforts.
Page 31 of 31 Chapter 4: Inst. Effectiveness & Assessment

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention
Chapter 5
Admissions, Retention, and Support
The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent
with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational
goals.
Standard 9: Student Support Services
The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each
student to achieve the institution’s goals for students.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 8 and Standard 9.
Congruent with its mission, Keuka recruits traditional, adult, and international students.
Although the College faces a number of recruitment and enrollment challenges, the College has
been largely successful in attracting students to four distinct formats, known as traditional oncampus
(includes undergraduate, transfer and graduate programs), Accelerated Studies for
Adults (ASAP), on-campus Global Education/International, and Keuka International Programs
(China and Vietnam). As a tuition-dependent institution, Keuka has strategically expanded its
student body beyond the traditional age population as a response to the declining high school
student population in New York State and the Northeast, ensuring that necessary revenue goals
are met. Tuition revenues are also supplemented by the Wertman Office of Distance Education
(WODE), which primarily serves students in the ASAP Program who may need additional
credits to meet prerequisite, liberal arts, or graduation requirements. These non-traditional
formats have gained in significance since their inception, now accounting for one-third of
College tuition revenues, as seen in Chart 5.1 below.
Chart 5.1 Gross Tuition Revenues 2011-2012
$648,823
$653,352
(Gross) Tuition Revenues 2011-2012
$9,558,070
$23,247,444
$2,254,983
Traditional Program
ASAP/WODE
In-China Program
In-Vietnam Program
Global Education/
International Students
Page 1 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

In Fall 2011, the President moved to consolidate enrollment management, bringing admissions
and marketing for the four formats together under one VP for Enrollment Management and
International Relations based on his assessment of the enrollment and marketing functions and
recognition that duplication of efforts could be reduced and recruitment strengthened through
integrated activities. Reporting to the VP for Enrollment Management and International
Relations are the following: a Director of Enrollment Management, a Director of Admissions for
the ASAP program, a Director of Traditional Admissions, and an Assistant Director of
International Enrollment. Together, they seek to uphold the core philosophy, essentially an open
enrollment approach, which governs admissions at Keuka: “Keuka’s admissions policy is
designed to reflect the ideals, and more specifically, the human considerations put forth in the
College’s Mission Statement. Although qualified minimums are not established, the selection
process is designed to admit the student who presents an academic and personal background
indicating potential for success for Keuka College” (Appendix 5.1 Keuka College Faculty
Handbook). The Enrollment Management team engages in considerable outreach activities as
appropriate to the target audience, including information sessions at locations across New York
State, the Northeast, and overseas; connecting prospective students to advisers, registration, and
transcript evaluation; as well as hosting open houses and high school visits and attending college
fairs for the traditional program. Admissions and Financial Aid policies are outlined in the
Keuka College Record (Appendix 5.2 Keuka College Record 2012-13), which is updated
annually.
A comprehensive review of all enrollment management strategies, practices, and policies is
currently underway as of the summer of 2012. The integration of traditional, international, and
ASAP enrollment under one department, as noted above, has presented several opportunities for
reorganization and integration. Given the immediate need to address the traditional student
discount rate, a financial aid consultant, Scannell & Kurz was retained to review historic
financial aid practices. The recommendations of this review were implemented in fall 2012.
Concurrent with the completion of the long range strategic planning process, a new strategic
enrollment management plan, strategic marketing plan, and branding exercise are being
undertaken. The completion of these activities is expected by the fall of 2103 and spring of 2014.
A breakout showing historical enrollment patterns follows:
Chart 5.2 Traditional Undergraduate Program 2002-2012 Enrollment Trends (Headcount)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Freshman
Total UG
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Page 1 of 38 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Chart 5.3 ASAP Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment Trends 2002-2012 (Headcount)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Chart 5.4 In-China Student Enrollment Trends 2002-2012
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
In-China Student Headcount
Graduate
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
UG
Page 3 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Chart 5.5 In-Vietnam Student Enrollment Trends 2010-2012 (Headcount)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Admissions
S 2010 F 2010 S 2011 F 2011 S 2012 F 2012
Hanoi
Ho Chi Minh
Vietnam Total
Traditional On-Campus Undergraduate Admissions (Freshmen/Transfer Students)
The admissions process for the traditional on-campus undergraduate program is highly
individualized at Keuka, emphasizing academic ability but also special interests, talents and
ability, as well as participation in co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. The Admissions
webpage makes clear the importance of these other factors in the selection process, noting that
the College seeks those who are “active outside of class and in the real world”
http://admissions.keuka.edu/freshmen/. The Admissions webpage also points out that
standardized test scores are not required for admissions purposes, but students can opt to have
these included and evaluated for admissions. Accepted students who enroll at Keuka are
required to take math and writing placement testing as part of the New Student Orientation
program during the summer prior to matriculation to ensure that they receive proper placement
and support in these areas and aid in retention. Students applying to Keuka work closely with
admissions counselors who provide information and guidance throughout the process.
The traditional undergraduate admissions office’s work is guided by the policies in the Keuka
College Record and the Comprehensive Enrollment Plan for Traditional Undergraduate Students
(CEPFTUS) (Appendix 5.3 Comprehensive Enrollment Plan for Traditional Undergraduate
Studies). The Comprehensive Enrollment Plan for Traditional Undergraduate Studies
(CEPFTUS) is a five-year benchmark enrollment plan, created in 2008 by the enrollment
management team, under the former Executive VP of College Advancement, Enrollment Mgmt
& Marketing, that outlines the specific enrollment objectives. The CEPFTUS also includes a
cooperative athletics recruitment plan, a transfer recruitment plan, a volunteer/alumni
recruitment plan, a communications flow plan, and marketing plans. Annually the plan was
evaluated at an Enrollment Management and Marketing retreat, which focused on reviewing,
assessing, and improving strategies for the following: diversity, scholarships and scholarship
Page 4 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

events, College branding, transfer enrollment, alumni partnerships, and accepted contacts, as
described in Appendix 5.4 Enrollment Management Retreat Priorities 2009. (Due to the
significant restructuring of the Enrollment Management function in 2011-2012, a more recent
enrollment plan is not yet available.)
In recent years, the admissions team has embraced the use of various Internet marketing
technologies to eliminate incremental costs associated with tertiary market recruitment. College
fairs and high school visits in these regions have become more focused on students most likely to
value the educational experience provided by Keuka College. Out-of-state enrollment for firstyear
students remains a growth opportunity. Most notably with regard to improving enrollment
numbers, in Fall 2012, the College adopted use of the Common Application which has led to a
significant increase in the number of applications for the Fall 2013 academic year, although it is
too early to determine if this will lead to a higher enrollment yield and/or allow for greater
institutional selectivity. Increasing the number of students from underrepresented groups also
remains an important institutional goal, and although the table below shows an upward trend
from 2004-2005, the College needs to improve its efforts to recruit and admit students from
underrepresented groups.
Table 5.1 Traditional program percentage of students classified as minority groups
2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011-2012
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
7.9 9.35 10.45 9.7 10.39 10.48 11.09 Data not available—
data migration issues
Notwithstanding the good work of the Admissions office, recruitment for the traditional program
has faced a number of challenges and enrollment is relatively stagnant, as reflected in Chart 5.2.
In addition to the declining population of high school graduates in its principal recruiting areas
noted above, the College lacks strong brand presence in its region. The most recent marketing
analysis (December 2008), “Academic Program Marketability Assessment Report,” by the
consulting firm STAMATS, pointed out that the college lacks sufficient recognition by
prospective students: “Keuka must embark on a major brand clarification and awareness effort in
its primary recruitment marketplace. It is largely an unknown entity in its primary markets with
high school students” (Appendix 5.5 STAMATS 2008 Report, p. 36). Their recommendation for
a broader brand awareness campaign to improve the promotion of the overall College is one that
has the support of Keuka’s new president; in fact, the executive leadership of the College has
begun to develop the process for a unifying, sustainable brand strategy that will drive all
elements of Keuka College’s marketing program and build on the distinctive qualities of each
division - the traditional campus liberal arts, pre-professional, and graduate programs, the
accelerated studies for adults program, and global education. Completion of a branding and
marketing strategy would provide the College a larger and stronger inquiry and applicant pool,
and improved enrollment/retention would yield needed revenues. Moreover, the executive
leadership recognizes the need for a stronger web presence and enhanced website content and
improved navigation to support recruitment efforts across all its program deliveries and formats.
Keuka also seeks to increase its share of transfer students in the traditional program, for this
could be a significant growth opportunity, given the increase of students attending community
colleges for their first two years. Transfer enrollment over the last five years has had a yield
Page 5 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

percentage of 34-44% of students who are accepted for enrollment, with an average of 67 new
transfer students annually. Prospective students may readily find information regarding Keuka’s
transfer policies and guidelines on the College website which provides current articulation
agreements and credit transfer guidelines http://admissions.keuka.edu/transfers/credit-transferguides/.
As described on the College website, the maximum number of transferable credits is 90
credits from four-year colleges http://admissions.keuka.edu/transfers/requirements/. The College
currently has articulation agreements with six community colleges in New York State: Cayuga,
Corning, Finger Lakes, Genesee, Monroe, and Onondaga Community Colleges. Keuka is also in
the process of establishing articulation agreements with four additional community colleges:
Broome, Jamestown, Jefferson, and Mohawk Valley Community Colleges. Throughout the
admissions and enrollment process, prospective transfer students consult with an admissions
counselor who works with the Registrar’s office for a preliminary transfer credit evaluation.
Upon enrollment, students receive an official transfer credit evaluation and are informed of their
progress toward completion of their degree program. Courses are transferred as consistently as
possible based on parameters determined by the relevant academic departments and the policies
on transfer courses which are described in the credit transfer guides.
Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP)
Students in the undergraduate Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) are regarded as
transfer students, typically bringing in 60 credits or more from an accredited institution.
Prospective students are recruited to study at 20 locations throughout New York State, such as
Batavia, Rochester, Canandaigua, Auburn, Syracuse, Utica, Watertown, Cortland, Binghamton,
and Corning (Appendix 5.6 ASAP Locations Map – ASAP Viewbook). These programs are
designed to meet the access needs of working adults who desire to further their education in an
effort to progress in their chosen professional occupations, or in preparation for new occupations.
Each prospective applicant to ASAP is given individual consideration and works with an
admissions counselor regarding program requirements and application details. Professional
student advisors work closely with prospective students and the admissions counselors to review
coursework take at previous institutions to make sure applicants met the requirements. Student
advisors complete an enrollment interview with prospective students via email or telephone to
discuss program expectations, student readiness, work experience, education/career goals, and to
answer students’ questions. Following the interview, final evaluation of transfer credit is
conducted by the Registrar’s office. ASAP directly supports the College’s mission of
“experiential learning,” by requiring that students bring a foundation of work experience into the
classroom. Admissions counselors Bachelor’s level programs run on a year-round basis, with
new cohorts beginning in August, January, and May each year. Cohort programs begin provided
minimum enrollment has been met – the ideal cohort size being 8 to 15 students. Information on
the undergraduate Accelerated Studies for Adults Program can be found on the College website
at http://academics.keuka.edu/asap/content/undergrad_admissions.
The admissions requirements for ASAP are outlined below:
Completion of 60 or more transferable credits from an accredited institution. Some
applicants may need additional credits to meet prerequisite, liberal arts, or graduation
requirements. Keuka College offers several completion options to earn these credits.
Applicants must demonstrate an appropriate combination of maturity, experience and
motivation.
Page 6 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Cumulative grade point average of 2.0 on a 4.0 scale.
Completion of an enrollment interview with a Student Advisor to ensure academic
preparedness for success.
In the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP), adult learners may complete prerequisite
courses or fulfill liberal arts requirements in online, hybrid, and face-to-face courses offered
through the Wertman Office of Distance Education’s (WODE) Multidisciplinary Studies
Program (MDS). For AY 2011-2012, WODE’s MDS Program delivered 1772 credit hours, or a
total of 551 course registrations. Created in 2008, WODE’s mission “to leverage technology and
innovation for both teacher and student facilitates local and global access to learning at Keuka
College, both in the classroom and from remote locations.” Seventy professionally qualified
instructors, seven dedicated instructional support staff, and eleven Program Directors/Division
Chairs support WODE which currently offers 42 courses. Division chairs and program faculty
oversee and ensure review of curriculum. WODE also supports MOODLE, the course
management system used in the delivery of ASAP courses and instructors’ professional
development. The staff of instructional and technical personnel is also positioned to support the
launch of fully online programs. Currently before the New York State Department of Education
is a proposal for an online M.S. in Management program which will add to the array of online
course options for adult learners.
Graduate Admissions
The College offers four graduate degree programs on the Keuka Park campus: M.S. in
Management: International Business, M.S. in Occupational Therapy, M.S. in Literacy, B-6, and
M.S. in Literacy, 7-12. In addition, the College currently offers year-round three graduate
programs through the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP): M.S. in Management,
M.S. in Criminal Justice Administration, and M.S. in Nursing Education. Keuka is also
preparing to offer a M.S. in Social Work and a M.S. in Nursing Adult/Gerontology Primary Care
Nurse Practitioner program, both through the ASAP format. Employing a research-based
curricula, the master’s programs provide professional preparation for students seeking to expand
or advance their career options.
Information regarding graduate programs and application requirements can be found on the
College’s website http://grad.keuka.edu/. These programs are consistent with the College’s
mission statement to provide “knowledge and experience to excel in today’s workplace and the
ability to adapt to tomorrow’s challenges,” as they encourage direct interaction with students’
career path.
Each academic division is involved in the admissions review process for their graduate program
candidates. The admissions standards include appropriate academic achievement at the
undergraduate level that would predict success at the graduate level, appropriate professional
experience or preparation, and an interview as required.
Keuka China/Vietnam Programs
Keuka has established programs with partners in China and Vietnam. At both, students complete
a minimum of 120 credits to earn a B.S. in Management from Keuka College. Eleven courses,
totaling 30 credits, are taught by Keuka College faculty on site at each of the partner university
Page 7 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

locations. The remaining 90 credits are completed with the partner university and accepted as
transfer credit by Keuka College, in accordance with the institutional policy of accepting a
maximum of 90 transferable credits from four-year colleges. At some partner schools, graduates
of the program receive a bachelor’s degree conferred by Keuka College and also earn a degree
from their home university, thus receiving a dual degree (Vietnam universities, Wenzhou
University, and Jimei University- Overseas Education College do not provide dual degrees).
These dual degrees are recognized by both the United States of America and the home country.
The curriculum, developed by the Keuka College business program faculty, fulfills all the
requirements for a Keuka College B.S. in Management degree, and is reviewed regularly by the
business faculty as part of their annual assessment process.
Keuka’s partnerships in China began in 2002. Keuka College’s partner universities in China
include Yunnan University of Finance & Economics, Tianjin University of Science &
Technology, Jimei University of Fujian Province (Chengyi College and Overseas Education
College), and Wenzhou University in Zhejiang Province. In 2010-11 there were 3500 students
enrolled in the Keuka China program, with 1082 graduating, and in 2011-12, there were 2939
students enrolled, with 657 graduating. Current enrollment is 2711 students, with a Fall 2012
intake of 626 students at 3 universities and 657 students on track for graduation in 2013. From
2003 to 2012, the overall graduation rate for the Keuka China program was 85% and the fouryear
completion rate for 2012 graduating class was 78% (students have two more years in which
to complete degree requirements) (Appendix 5.7 Keuka China Enrollments Graduation Totals
2003-2012). In recent years, enrollment in the Keuka China Program has declined, reflecting a
changing landscape in Chinese higher education, with increased competition for students and
reduced government enrollment quotas for foreign programs. Additionally, the College has
decided to cease enrollment at the Wenzhou University campus for fall 2012, as it has had
difficulty in both meeting its quota for student numbers and its quality of academic preparedness.
The Wenzhou program will close in 2015 after the 167 currently enrolled students have
graduated.
In 2009, Keuka created a similar program for Vietnam. Keuka began enrolling students in
March 2010 with their partner the International School of Vietnam National University (ISVNU)
in Hanoi, Vietnam, and in October 2011, the Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh
University of Science, Ho Chi Minh City, for a B.S. in Management. For Fall 2012, the Hanoi
program has enrolled 333 students, and the Ho Chi Minh City program has enrolled 172
students, for a total of 505 students.
Admissions for the overseas programs are coordinated with the partner universities which
distribute application materials to students. The partner university reviews all application
materials to verify complete and appropriate documentation. Students are admitted based on
university admissions requirements that utilize college entrance exam scores. After verifying that
all student application files are complete and accurate, each student file is sent to the Keuka
College Registrar’s office. The Registrar’s Office at Keuka reviews the contents of the student
files, which includes all completed application material and confirms acceptance with the partner
university. For both the China and Vietnam programs, Keuka administrative staff members visit
the campuses regularly to meet with students and share information about the Keuka B.S. in
Management program (Appendix 5.8 Keuka Vietnam Student Handbook 2011).
The partner schools in China and Vietnam coordinate the intake of students with the Vice
President for Enrollment Management. This ensures that sufficient resources are available with
Page 8 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

oth the partner school and Keuka to properly deliver the program and serve student needs. The
Vice President for Enrollment Management and International Relations takes into account these
international enrollment numbers for purposes of planning and budget.
Global Education/International Program
The Global Education/International program is designed to bring international students
throughout the world to the Keuka campus for undergraduate and graduate study. The Center for
Global Education was created in 2010 to oversee and support the growth in international student
enrollment. For the 2012-2013 academic year, 79 international students have enrolled. In recent
years, we have had international students on campus from the following countries: Malawi,
China, Vietnam, Japan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden,
Lesotho, and Canada. The majority of our international students are from our partner institutions
in China and Vietnam; they come to the College for either their junior or senior year. The longterm
plan is to grow the international student population to 150 students for a diverse country
representation.
The International Student Admission policies are outlined in the Keuka College Record and the
Center for Global Educations Admissions Policy and Procedures (Appendix 5.9 Center for
Global Education Admissions Policy and Procedures). International students needing additional
English language preparation (for example, with less than a 5.0 IELTS or 500 TOEFL paperbased/50
internet-based score) may enroll in the Summer ESL Institute, a non-credit bearing sixweek
program providing twenty hours of language instruction per week. Recruitment of these
international students is accomplished with the help of faculty members and administrators,
working in concert with the Center for Global Education office. The international students are
supported through the enrollment and application process by two enrollment staff members
based at the Keuka Park campus. Students interested in applying initiate contact on our website
with an enrollment advisor. The enrollment advisor works with the student from the point of
inquiry through enrollment. Required application materials, admission requirements and
policies, visa documents and other required documentation are clearly listed on the campus
website at http://international.keuka.edu/undergraduate-admissions/.
The overall goal of the Center for Global Education is to recruit and support international
students, which is consistent with the mission of the College to grow an international and diverse
population of students. Having this exposure to an international student population on campus
allows for interaction in both the classroom and student life arenas for our traditional domestic
students and vice versa.
Given the importance of tuition revenues to the operating budget of the College and to achieving
the College mission, assessment of the recent reorganization and integration of the Admissions
and Marketing functions and their impact on recruitment and enrollment across all areas, with an
emphasis on assessing traditional enrollment success, is a key recommendation of both the Long
Range Strategic Planning Committee and the Middle States Self-Study Committee.
Financial Aid
How to finance a college education is a major consideration in the decision-making process for
students and their families. Keuka provided approximately $8.7M in 2009-10, $10.5M in 2010-
11, and $12M in 2011-2012 in institutional grants for students. This clearly demonstrates the
College’s commitment to recruiting, retaining, and supporting students financially who seek a
Page 9 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

private liberal arts education. In 2010, Keuka College had a cohort default rate of 5.0%, (the
most recent information from the national student loan cohort default rates available from the
federal government). The national cohort default rate in 2010 was 9.1%, with the New York
State 3-year average at 10.3%. Keuka’s 3-year average rate at 6.9% puts the College well below
the state and national average (Appendix 5.10 Cohort Default Rate History).
Financial aid in the form of merit scholarships or other institutional aid given to students is
primarily designed to aid the traditional undergraduate student population. However, the
Financial Aid office works closely with all students across all undergraduate, graduate,
international, and adult programs to assist students with the financial aid application process, and
in answering questions and counseling students on applying for financial aid or student loans.
Specifics on how all student areas are assisted by the Financial Aid office are detailed below:
Traditional Undergraduate Students – The freshman admissions office offers rolling admissions
for its programs, with a scholarship deadline of January 31. Students are strongly encouraged to
apply by this date in order to be considered for freshmen merit scholarships. Students applying
after this date can only receive College aid if funding is available. At the time of acceptance,
students are notified by the admissions office regarding any merit scholarship that the College
may award them. As outlined in the Keuka College Record, students may be awarded
scholarships for academic achievement, volunteer work, community service, experiential
learning, writing skills, and standardized test scores, if submitted.
The merit scholarships that the College offers are the Board of Trustee Scholarship, the George
H. Ball Achievement Scholarship, the Leading the Way First Generation Scholarship, the
Experiential Learner Fellowship Program, and the Keuka Honors Scholarship. Awards range
from $7500 (the Keuka Honors Scholarship) to full tuition (Board of Trustees Scholarship).
Transfer students may be awarded the Transfer Achievement Scholarship or the Phi Theta Kappa
Scholarship. Additional scholarships and financial aid awards granted to students are listed in
the College Record. As stated in the College Record, merit scholarships are renewable for up to
four years of undergraduate study as long as students live on campus and maintain “satisfactory
academic progress.”
The merit scholarships target a diverse population of applicants in order to recruit students with
strong academic credentials and a broad variety of personal characteristics and experiences. For
instance, because 25-30% of Keuka’s incoming freshmen are the first in their family to attend
college, Keuka offers the First Generation Leading the Way Scholarship to recruit these students.
Additionally, the College attempts to recruit students who are a good fit to the College’s mission
of being the global leader in experiential, hands-on learning. As such, the College awards the
George H. Ball Achievement Award, recognizing undergraduate applicants with strong academic
merit and evidence of community service, leadership, co-curricular activities or service, all of
which demonstrate a commitment to experiential learning and strong character.
The Financial Aid Office works closely with the undergraduate Admissions Office throughout
the application review process to evaluate the quality and characteristics of the incoming
applicant pool, and awards scholarships based on the budgeted amount of merit aid and the
quality of the applicant pool for that particular year. Table 5.2 below indicates that these
strategies have yielded mixed results over the last three years, and they are currently under
review by the restructured enrollment management team.
Page 10 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Table 5.2 Scholarship Yield Analysis 2009-2012
Scholarship 2009
Yield Rate
2010
Yield Rate
2011
Yield Rate
Board of Trustees 31.9% 54% 42% 44%
George H. Ball Award 40.3% 49% 45% 43%
First Generation 47.2% 54% 46% 45%
Honors N/A 22% 33% 34%
2012
Yield Rate
ASAP and Graduate Students – The financial aid policies and procedures for the ASAP and
graduate programs are outlined in the Keuka College Record and in the ASAP Undergraduate
and Graduate Handbooks. (Appendix 5.11 ASAP Graduate and Undergraduate Handbooks) and
online at http://online.keuka.edu/file.php/1/UndergradHandbook.pdf and
http://online.keuka.edu/file.php/1/GraduateHandbook.pdf
ASAP students are eligible to apply for federal or state aid, but are not eligible for Keuka
institutional aid since the tuition rate is set lower than the on-campus tuition. On average, the
ASAP tuition is 45% lower than the on-campus tuition rate, thus making Keuka competitive in
the adult education segment. ASAP students are also eligible for outside scholarship and grant
opportunities, which can be applied to their tuition at Keuka College. Another unique aspect of
ASAP tuition is that all fees are included with the cost of tuition, and course materials, including
books, are provided to students at no additional charge.
ASAP students are advised in their Handbook to file the Free Application for Federal Student
Aid (FAFSA) to determine for which financial aid they may be eligible. Students may also have
access to employee tuition assistance programs, and if so, Keuka’s Financial Aid office will
work with students regarding these tuition reimbursement procedures (undergraduate) or tuition
assistance programs (graduate).
Global Education/International Students – International students residing on campus in Keuka
Park, NY, are eligible for International Scholarships, which are listed in the Keuka College
Record. These institutional scholarships may be awarded to international students who are
ineligible to apply for federal student aid. Although the scholarship program varies from country
to country, International Scholarships are generally awarded based on a three-tier rating system
and evaluation of the student’s application for admission, with eligibility amounts of seven, ten,
and thirteen thousand dollars for an academic year. The Global Education Office admissions
staff evaluates a student’s academic record, transcripts, essay, interview, TOEFL or IELTS
score, letters of recommendation, and other applicable application materials (Appendix 5.12
Global Admissions Scholarship Rating System). Based on this assessment, the Global Education
admissions staff identifies the strongest candidates in the applicant pool. These scholarships are
renewable for up to four years of undergraduate study. Recipients must be full time, maintain
satisfactory academic progress as defined in the College Record, and reside in on-campus
housing. Any remaining tuition costs not covered by scholarships, room and board, and fees are
Page 11 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

the responsibility of the student. There are also two full-tuition scholarships available on a firstcome,
first-serve basis to students with exceptional academic records. International students
must provide a Declaration of Finances, as required by the U.S. Government, at the time of
application to the College in order to demonstrate financial ability to pay remaining costs. The
use of scholarships varies based on the College’s recruitment goal in a specific country in order
to achieve a diversity of international students on campus.
Keuka China/Vietnam Programs Students – Students in the China and Vietnam programs do not
participate in Federal or State financial aid or Keuka financial aid and pay tuition directly to their
school as a tuition rate determined by that school. For the Vietnam Program, Keuka College sets
contract rates for the portion of the programs taught by Keuka College faculty, and invoices the
partner schools at the beginning of each semester. The China Program is handled in a similar
fashion, except tuition rates are contracted and billed through our Keuka China Programs (KCP)
partner.
Supporting Student Success
Achieving Keuka’s mission requires more than providing students with challenging and fulfilling
classroom experiences. Keuka must ensure that students are appropriately oriented to their
studies; that their intellectual, social, psychological, and physical needs are met; and that they
receive sound academic advice so as to be effective learners and successful graduates.
Communication of students’ rights and responsibilities is also critical, and these are detailed in
their respective Student Handbooks. In particular, Student Handbooks include College policies,
procedures, and rules governing safety and security, harassment and discrimination, network
policy, academic dishonesty, as well as instructions on how to file a complaint or an appeal. The
Student Handbooks for domestic students are periodically reviewed and updated to ensure that
they comply with all related federal and state statutes, whereas the Student Handbooks for
overseas programs comply with local governing statutes as appropriate. In a similar fashion,
policies and procedures for safeguarding student information are periodically reviewed and
updated to ensure compliance. The Registrar’s Office provides secure maintenance of all student
academic records and complies with the FERPA requirements http://registrar.keuka.edu/policiesprocedures/.
Academic records are secured in the Registrar’s Office, and the Office of Student
Affairs provides secure storage for records involving student judicial proceedings.
Whereas Admissions and the Financial Aid Offices are the first points of contact for prospective
students, many offices collaborate and coordinate their activities to serve students. In particular,
strong communication between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs is crucial for creating an
enriching educational environment that promotes both student retention and academic success.
Keuka supports the success of its students from enrollment to graduation through three primary
mechanisms: orientation, advising, and academic support. Keuka continues to develop and
enhance these three primary student support mechanisms across all of its formats.
Orientation
A key event for new students is orientation. Orientation is also central to retention initiatives.
For the On-Campus Traditional Program, New Student Orientation (NSO) begins with a one-day
summer program required of all accepted/deposited students. NSO provides students with the
opportunity to meet faculty members, interact with student peer mentors and other new students,
Page 12 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

and tour the residence halls. Students also take placement exams in math and writing, and they
complete a study skills inventory. Staff from the Academic Success at Keuka (ASK) Office
discuss strategies for success with students and their parents, and conduct alternative testing for
students with learning disabilities.
NSO for traditional students continues with the Transition Week program, a five-day mandatory
orientation for new freshmen and transfer students prior to the start of fall classes. Built upon
student mentors working with new students to help them acclimate to all areas and services of
the campus, Transition Week provides a comprehensive introduction to the academic and student
life at Keuka College. Recommended by faculty, mentors are juniors and seniors who have gone
through an extensive selection and training process to assist new students with the transition to
college. On many campuses, these students are referred to as orientation leaders; however, at
Keuka, mentors assist students with academic life as well as the social adjustment to college.
Mentors work directly with the students’ academic advisors to help with this transition. Each
new student is placed in a small group and assigned a specific mentor and faculty advisor based
on intended major. Each mentor works with his/her new students during the first 6 weeks of the
semester to alleviate any transition issues, conferring regularly with the students’ academic
advisor. Student Affairs staff also conducts informational sessions and panel discussions for
parents regarding issues pertinent to a new student’s success (Appendix 5.13 Traditional
Program Transition Week Schedule).
To assess Transition Week, the Division of Student Affairs employs the New Student Program
Evaluation (NSPE), a survey provided by the Higher Education Services Corporation. Results
from the survey help to evaluate the effectiveness of the orientation programs and to inform
decisions on changes to programs. Results from the 2012 NSPE survey show that 89.8% of new
students attended most of the orientation activities during Transition Week (Appendix 5.14 New
Student Orientation NSO Evaluation Survey Data 2008-2012). Moreover, results from the NSPE
surveys indicate that these students feel that the orientation services helped them to adjust
successfully to college. For example, positive responses to the item “Make a connection with
your faculty adviser” have increased from 78.1% in Fall 2008 to 89.6% in Fall 2012, reflecting
the adjustment of the NSO schedule to allow for more time with faculty advisers during
Transition Week. Survey results also identified a number of areas for improvements. In response
to this assessment data, several changes have been implemented, as discussed more fully below:
In 2010, during New Student Orientation days, the College added a work study payroll
paperwork session as a way to get the work study paperwork processes started sooner and
students working earlier at the beginning of school. Staff also provided additional parent
information sessions on food service and the bookstore, to address the following topics: book
purchase and rental options, budgeting for books, campus meal plans, and specialty meal
programs (Appendix 5.15 New Student Orientation Flyer Summer 2012).
Also in 2010, a Homesickness support group for students was implemented during the first week
of classes. Student Affairs continued this program in 2011 and plan to keep it as part of the
NSO/Transition/FYE Experience. Although participation is low (avg. of 8), the students who do
attend have been very appreciative and indicate it has helped knowing that others are
experiencing similar issues and feelings. It also has the added benefit of new students becoming
familiar with counseling services early in the semester.
Page 13 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

In 2011, the Office of Student Affairs began requiring mentors to submit their Student of
Concern Sheet (document that identifies students who are struggling socially or academically
and provides details about that issue) on a weekly basis, rather than 2-3 times in the first 6 weeks
of school. The Associate Vice President for Student Development follows up with most critical
needs, and referrals are made to other resources on campus as a result of the information
contained in these reports (via retention alert module, phone calls and emails).
Student Affairs also began involving Residence Directors (RDs) as Retention Counselors/
Success Advocates in NSO testing dates starting in 2011. RDs attend all the NSO events with
parents and students and serve on the “How to Parent” Panel. RDs also make contact with
students via residence hall Facebook pages and follow-up with emails to students with questions
and concerns. In 2012, Student Affairs also began assigning RDs to work with specific student
mentors so that the RD/Success Advocate relationship can start being built sooner and so the
mentors can make referrals to specific RDs as issues arise. RDs also introduced the role of
Success Advocates and how they can assist students as part of the mentor group activities during
the June NSO dates.
For Transition Week 2012, Student Affairs staff have also placed a greater emphasis on campus
recreation/intramural opportunities, by expanding time in the transition week schedule and
providing a “playtime” opportunity for students to actually experience some of the recreational
activities (Rec-Fest 2012). Campus Recreation/Intramurals has grown greatly in the past few
years and this is another way to get students connected early on.
Additional transfer student mentors were added for 2012 as Student Affairs has seen an increase
in comments on NSO/Transition Week surveys concerning transfer student needs. Additional
mentors provide extra support for transfer students and a smaller number of students per mentor.
However, transfer students still want a shorter, more comprehensive transfer-only orientation
based solely on transfer needs and not first-time college-student needs. Ideally Student Affairs
would like to have a separate transfer orientation program, but they presently lack the staff to
support a completely separate transfer orientation program.
International/Global Education students participate in a three-day orientation preceding
Transition Week, with several activities and events designed to meet their specific adjustment
needs, particularly transitioning into U.S. culture. Through the auspices of the Center for Global
Education (CGE), a full time International Student Advisor coordinates with the Office of
Multicultural Affairs, multiple departments, and faculty advisors to ensure their successful
cultural, social, and academic acclimation to living and studying in the United States (Appendix
5.16 International Student Orientation Schedule Fall 2012). Community organizations, such as
the Sheriff’s Department and Stork Insurance, are also invited to speak with students about U.S.
Law and medical insurance. The Center for Global Education also connects international students
to the local community through outreach efforts--transporting students to shopping areas, local
banks, the Post Office, and offering students a tour of the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hospital
and of Penn Yan, NY.
Students in the China and Vietnam Programs participate in Orientation at their home institutions
through a welcome/overview provided by Keuka staff, an improvement implemented in the
2011-2012 academic year based on assessment by the program directors. During this Orientation
session, Keuka China Program students are introduced to Keuka College, to the Keuka China
Program, to the B.S. Management program, and to the concept and practice of Experiential
Page 14 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Learning through participation in an experiential learning activity. The Student Handbook is
introduced, and students are directed to where it is available online at www.keukeachina.com.
In the Keuka Vietnam program, students take the one credit FYE101 First Year Experience
course that introduces the students to the foundations of experiential learning, Keuka College
systems such as their student ID number, Keuka College e-mail account, library resources, and
how to access the online learning resources. The students in FYE101 also learn about the history
of Keuka College, and write a resume, cover letter, career research paper and participate in mock
job interviews. All students receive the Student Handbook.
New students in the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) are oriented to Keuka
College through three components: an on-campus orientation session, an online introduction and
overview, and first night of class activities. At the on-campus orientation session, attended by
about 80% of new students, key administrators, faculty, student advisers, and staff provide an
overview of services, success strategies, and expectations. Staff from the Office of Multicultural
Affairs, Library, Advisement Services, Writing Center, Financial Aid, IT, and Bookstore share
information with students, and students also meet their program directors and instructors for their
first courses (Appendix 5.17 ASAP Orientation Flyer). Prior to the on-campus Orientation
session, professional ASAP Student Advisers assist students with enrollment paperwork, help
coordinate student ID creation and Moodle user name and password assignment, and coordinate
book delivery. Students are also required to participate in an online orientation through Moodle.
This orientation acquaints students to the ASAP curriculum, its policies and procedures, and
offers them a first time exposure to the Moodle Learning Management System (LMS). The
online orientation provides detailed instruction on how to log in to Moodle, create a profile, use a
Wiki, upload assignments, and post to a forum. By participating in the online orientation,
students learn how to navigate Moodle, which is necessary for successful participation in their
classes. On the first night of class, Admissions staff members, functioning as ambassadors,
accompany instructors to welcome students to their first night, make final checks for
preparedness, answer questions, and generally reinforce support. Assessment of ASAP
orientation is ongoing, with a survey administered to attendees at each on-campus orientation.
Student feedback over the past three years led to the creation of the online orientation program
and consequently moving more administrative tasks to online, thereby reserving more face to
face, on-campus time for contact with program directors, student advisors, and faculty.
Academic Advising
Keuka provides effective academic advising to its students as a key support activity. Advisors
are provided to students at all levels from traditional students to graduate level. As the data from
the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey and the National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE) indicates below, advising is an institutional strength. The results of the surveys are
shared with the President’s Cabinet, and key indicators are shared annually with the faculty and
staff at the annual President’s State of the College address. Results from the 2011 Noel-Levitz
survey show that academic advising received relatively high marks (5.81) versus the national
score of (5.42) with a statistical significance of (.39).
Table 5.3 Noel Levitz Survey (2011)Academic Advising Satisfaction
Keuka Satisfaction National Response
Satisfaction
Mean Difference
Academic Advising 5.81 5.42 .39***
Page 15 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

The NSSE survey is conducted every two years; the results of the 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012
surveys with regard to academic advising show that Keuka continuously ranks above the 3, or
“good” category, in response to the question, “Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of
academic advising you have received at your institution?” Moreover, the data below from the
traditional program shows in general an upward trend from 2006 to 2010 in the overall rating of
academic advising at the freshman and senior year, although with a slight decline for the most
recent survey administration. The NSSE Senior ASAP mean response for 2008, 2010, and 2012
for Academic Advising is 3.13, 3.13, and 3.07 respectively.
Table 5.4 Academic Advising NSSE Survey Question 2006-2012
NSSE 2012
NSSE 2010
NSSE 2008
NSSE 2006
Keuka College Selected Peers Carnegie Class NSSE National
FY 3.12 3.20 3.12 3.11
SR 3.07 3.13 3.10 3.00
FY 3.16 3.17 3.10 3.07
SR 3.19 3.19 3.06 2.94
FY 3.10 3.05 3.11 3.0
SR 3.15 3.04 3.03 2.85
FY 3.09 3.04 2.96 2.94
SR 3.11 3.03 2.97 2.82
Keuka’s strength in academic advising reflects the attention it receives as one of the four
“pillars” for faculty evaluation. The category Non-classroom instruction of the Faculty
Responsibility Agreement (FRA) requires faculty and faculty evaluators to address performance
in the following areas:
Proper advisement procedures
Assist students in investigating options and making appropriate decisions regarding
academic concerns
Provide assistance in planning schedules to meet college and major requirements
Assist in directing students to college services as needed
Provide effective assistance in planning and evaluating Field Periods
Probationary faculty report regularly on their success (or challenges) as academic advisors in
their annual self-evaluation, and advising as a whole is monitored closely by the division chairs.
New faculty are first introduced to the importance of academic advising during the New Faculty
Orientation program, and they typically work with a more seasoned faculty member during their
first year to learn more about institutional policies and procedures relevant to advising issues.
Page 16 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Faculty members usually employ a combination of group advising meetings and individual
advising appointments. The recent implementation of Colleague, an online advising tool, has
facilitated student access to their academic records and to track more easily their progress toward
degree completion. For the traditional program, graduation requirement sheets and sample fouryear
course sequences are available online through the Registrar’s webpage.
All incoming campus and ASAP students are assigned an academic advisor or research mentor
who helps students make an effective transition to college. Advisors help students to become
independent, responsible learners who understand self; are familiar with institutional policies and
cultural norms; possess problem-solving skills; and know how to access a variety of academic,
career planning, and personal support services. They also help students develop an educational
plan consistent with their aptitudes, interest, and life goals.
For campus students, Keuka assigns students to an advisor from their intended major.
Exploratory students are initially assigned to special assignment faculty or professional staff
advisors, typically within the office of Academic Success at Keuka (ASK). First year advising
cohorts are kept small to ensure that first year students receive strong support and guidance
during a significant transitional period. Transfer students are also assigned to a faculty member
in their chosen major. Academic advisors play a significant role in the success and retention of
students; therefore, academic advisors and student affairs staff are in regular contact about
students who need extra attention. Recent retention initiatives have focused on providing more
data to academic advisors about the abilities (strengths and concerns) of their first-year advisees,
hosting retention presentations (fall 2010, fall 2011) for faculty advisors which emphasize the
importance of the role of the advisor to connecting students to the institution through stronger
communication and improved access, and improving faculty intervention when students
experience academic difficulty.
In the ASAP Admissions/Advising Model, adult students are assigned during the admissions
process a professional Student Advisor who works with the students prior to enrollment to
develop a complete graduation plan. This may include helping students to address any liberal
arts credit deficiencies and enroll students in multi-disciplinary courses if needed. Once an
ASAP student is enrolled, the Student Advisor remains a first point of contact for ASAP students
and stays with the student until degree completion, providing a user-friendly model for busy
adult students who conduct most of their College business via email and telephone. Student
Advisors provide assistance with scheduling, instructor issues, or non-academic issues as they
arise. Student Advisors are available by telephone M-F standard business hours, and in the
evenings M-Th until 7 p.m. to address student needs. In the 2012-2013 academic year, based on
assessment of advisor/student load, the College increased support capacity for the ASAP Student
Advisement unit by hiring another full-time advisor and a clerical staff member. ASAP student
advisors serve on various committees, plan orientation, attend ASAP Student Advisory Board
meetings, review exception to policy requests prior to submission to the academic division chair,
and conduct outreach at the various off-campus locations.
ASAP students also work closely with a faculty advisor or research mentor in their academic
program who provides guidance on meeting program requirements and support as students
design and complete their capstone project, namely the Action Research Project (within the
ASAP Organizational Management and Criminal Justice Administration programs) or complete
a practicum/field work placement (within the ASAP Social Work and Nursing Programs).
Page 17 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Additionally, each ASAP cohort has a student Cohort Representative that is a member of the
Student Advisory Board (SAB). The Cohort Representative serves as a liaison between the
cohort and the ASAP Administration to identify and resolve both individual and group issues
related to academic and administrative areas.
In the China and Vietnam Programs, students are in a lockstep program, taking all the same
courses in the same sequence. Students requiring advisement work directly with the partner
school Program Coordinators, or contact the Keuka College Program Director for assistance.
Academic Support
In support of the College’s mission, Keuka provides a coherent and organized academic support
structure to students through the auspices of the Academic Success at Keuka Program (ASK)
which oversees services available to the campus and ASAP students, through the services and
resources of Lighter Library, and through the services and resources of the Center for
Experiential Learning (CEL).
--Academic Success at Keuka (ASK) Program
Through its various functions, as detailed below, the ASK Office plays a primary role in
institutional persistence-to-graduation efforts. The mission statement of the Academic Success
at Keuka Program is “to help students to: Acquire self-advocacy skills needed to receive
appropriate accommodations when warranted, and to gain access to a full academic experience;
Acquire awareness of College policies, procedures and resources; Learn to be critical readers and
thinkers; Develop a positive attitude about learning; Learn how to learn; Understand personal
learning styles and what study strategies, skills and habits will be most useful personally to
accomplish challenging academic tasks; Gain confidence in their abilities and a positive selfconcept
as learners; and Understand how to achieve personal, social and career success.”
Information about the services provided by the ASK Office is available in the ASK office and on
its Web page.
ASK provides individualized assistance, serving both on-campus students and off-campus ASAP
students. On campus, the ASK Office is open 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
with evening hours on Sundays and Mondays, and peer tutoring available 24/7. The Director of
the ASK Office has a master’s degree in English, and supervises 5 professional staff, one
administrative assistant, and 51 trained student tutors recommended by faculty for writing skills
and/or disciplinary content expertise. The ASK Office offers academic counseling, peer tutoring
in all classes, instruction in MLA and APA documentation style, accommodations for students
with disabilities, workshops for test anxiety, time management, and note taking, and professional
one-on-one tutoring in writing and math. Three of the ASK professionals (including the director)
are instructors of first-year writing which enables them to connect more completely with at-risk
members of this population.
Table 5.5 below provides a snapshot of the level of activity in the campus ASK Office.
Assessment of ASK services identified increased demands for academic support, particularly for
more evening and weekend hours. Consequently in 2011-2012, a full-time writing specialist was
hired for the campus program to provide additional coverage and to take on a caseload of “at
risk” students as part of retention initiatives.
Page 18 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Table 5.5 Campus ASK Appointments 2008-2012
Campus ASK
Appointments
Fall 2008 1654
Spring 2009 1397
Fall 2009 1576
Spring 2010 1297
Fall 2010 1661
Spring 2011 1463
Fall 2011 1753
Spring 2012 1739
Total number of
appointments kept by
ASK professionals
Similarly, in response to ASAP students’ request for writing support, the ASAP Writing Support
Center was begun in July 2010 to provide writing assistance to both undergraduate and graduate
students. In its first year, the Center provided individual writing coaching to 479 students, in
July 2011 an additional writing specialist was hired, and in 2011-2012, the number of students
receiving individual writing coaching increased to 638 students. As part of their retention
outreach, both of these ASAP professional writing specialists regularly teach COM 320 Business
and Professional Writing, required as an entry course in the ASAP curricula for Social Work,
Organizational Management, and Criminal Justice, thereby connecting students early in their
program to ongoing writing support. Whenever possible, ASAP Writing Center staff members
meet new students in person and encourage them to take advantage of the Center's services. A
staff member typically attends and gives a brief presentation at ASAP's new student orientations
on the Keuka campus in the fall, spring, and summer; likewise, a staff member routinely travels
to and presents at orientations for Nursing cohorts, which do not typically attend the general
orientation sessions due to work schedules. For those occasions when a staff member is unable
to meet a new group of students in person, the Center, in conjunction with WODE, created
an eight-minute video that introduces the center's staff, services, and procedures. The Center
also created, and now encourages students to use, a departmental listserv,
ASAPWritingHelp@keuka.edu, so that students could be sure their papers reached a writing
counselor regardless of staffing changes; the Center maintains a Facebook page with the same
handle (ASAPWritingHelp). ASAP students are encouraged to use a dropbox service whereby
they may submit writing drafts for feedback. Turnaround time for this service is forty-eight
hours. In addition, Center staff is exploring the implementation of a student survey which it
would distribute by email and use to collect student opinions, reactions, and suggestions to
improve services to students.
Part of the College’s retention arsenal is the implementation of the Academic Warning Policy.
To increase the likelihood of successful course completion, early warning forms are employed in
Traditional, ASAP, Graduate and China/Vietnam programs. Faculty members complete a
warning form that alerts the student, his/her academic advisor, the ASK office, and if applicable,
their athletic coach, of any academic concern over the student’s performance in a course. In the
traditional program, any student receiving an academic warning for Writing and/or Math is sent
another letter during the last 5 weeks of the semester (before final papers and exams are due) to
remind the student to come in for academic assistance.
Page 19 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Table 5.6 below shows the value of the academic intervention provided by the ASK Office. Of
the 268 students given an academic warning in Fall 2011, the majority of those students who
used the ASK Office services (60%) went on to receive a passing grade, whereas only 51% of
those students on warning who did not use ASK Office services received a passing grade.
Overall, students on warning who worked with the ASK Office were more successful in
completing their courses than students on warning not working with the ASK Office; whereas 18
percent of ASK students on warning did not receive a passing grade, 27 percent of the non-ASK
students on warning did not receive a passing grade.
Table 5.6: Fall 2011 Academic Warnings and ASK Office Intervention
Students
receiving
academic
warnings (268)
Students who
worked with ASK
staff (120
students)
Students who did
not work with
ASK staff (148
students)
Received passing
grade of C-
Withdrew from
or failed course
Total percentage
not receiving
passing grade
72 students (60%) 48 students (40%) 18% (48
students/268
receiving
warnings)
76 students (51%) 72 students (49%) 27% (72
students/268
receiving
warnings)
Also identified in Table 5.7 is the fluctuating percentage of students who seek ASK services after
receiving a warning, going as low as 36% in Spring 2010 and as high as 53% in Fall 2010. To
address this discrepancy, the ASK professionals are now going into FYE 101 classes as well as
other first year classes, to emphasize the positives of seeking ASK services (higher grades,
improved time management and study skills) while dispelling any myths that ASK is the
equivalent of a high school resource room offered only to students with disabilities.
Table 5.7: Academic Warnings and Utilization of ASK Services 2008-2012
Traditional
Program ASK
Office Data
Number of
academic
warnings
issued
Number of
students who
received warnings
Number of
those students
receiving
warnings who
used ASK
services
Number of those
students who go on to
receive C- or better in
course work for
which they received a
warning
Fall 2008 469 252 103 or 40% 92 or 89%
Spring 2009 327 162 82 or 50% 47 or 57%
Fall 2009 265 165 65 or 39% 30 or 46%
Spring 2010 216 142 52 or 36% 27 or 51%
Page 20 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Fall 2010 259 156 83 or 53% 40 or 48%
Spring 2011 333 200 91 or 45% 60 or 65%
Fall 2011 494 268 122 or 45% 74 or 60%
Spring 2012 388 233 97 or 42% 60 or 61%
Within the ASAP model, in addition to academic warnings, a system of tracking student
withdrawals serves to immediately notify academic and non-academic staff of student issues.
The advising and academic staff members use a variety of tools to communicate with each other
regarding students at risk. ASAP student advisors speak with each student wishing to withdraw
from a course or the College. This conversation allows for team members to assist the students
in making the best informed decision and help guide the students through the withdrawal
process. When possible, the student advisors encourage students to remain in the program and
offer alternative options or support services to help the student succeed. If withdrawal is
required, the student advisors work with students individually to re-enroll them in a course of
study when the time is right for them to return. The ASAP Director of Program Administration
and Student Services (DPASS) serves to collect data and coordinate efforts at ASAP for student
retention. The ASAP retention team, led by the DPASS, meets monthly and is comprised of
staff members, administration and faculty from ASAP.
Keuka China/Vietnam Program Student Services - Academic support services in these
International programs are provided at the partner universities. In addition to the faculty
instructor, each class has a “class teacher” who oversees the cohort, and a student “class
monitor” who monitors attendance, arranges for copies of Power Point slides or handouts, and
other administrative details. The on-site Program Coordinators work closely with students to
apprise them of their progress and to provide them resources as necessary. In the past, the partner
schools have provided tutors, teaching assistants, and interpreting services to support student
success. Keuka College faculty teaching in the Vietnam program regularly schedule additional
class sessions, study groups and office hours to provide support to students. In 2011-12, the
Keuka China and Keuka Vietnam Programs requested that all faculty issue academic warnings to
students during the course. The partner universities responded well, meeting with students to
plan ways to improve student success, through extra English study, tutors or study groups, and
meetings with instructors.
The effectiveness of these services is assessed through ongoing monitoring of academic concerns
and course requirements by the Keuka College Program Directors who are in regular
communication with the deans and staffs at partner universities. This assessment led to the
introduction of academic warnings, as noted above. An assessment of English language
proficiency of Keuka-China students at Wenzhou University indicated that students did not have
sufficient command of the English language and could not complete the course requirements,
which led Keuka to discontinue freshmen enrollment intake for the 2008-09 academic year.
Wenzhou University then implemented additional English instruction and the program was
resumed in 2009-10. However, English language proficiency remains problematic at Wenzhou,
and accordingly, no new Wenzhou students will be admitted to the Keuka China program
beginning in Fall 2012.
On Campus International Student Services – The ASK office provides academic support for
international students, but additional support comes from the Center for Global Education office.
Page 21 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

As a result of the growth in the international student population, an ESL instructor was hired in
the summer of 2010, with another staff member assigned academic advising responsibilities,
bringing the total advisement staff to three in the Center For Global Education. Extra writing
tutoring/editing services are available to all international students. Student Affairs also supports
the efforts of the Global Education Office by providing special housing services, student events,
and transportation services. A second ESL instructor was added in July 2011 to provide
additional language support.
In the summer of 2011, the College committed resources to support international students whose
scores fell short of admissions standards. A non-credit bearing English as a Second Language
(ESL) program was piloted for students whose scores did not meet the undergraduate program
requirements (5.0 IELTS or 500 TOEFL paper-based/50 internet-based score) or the admissions
standards for the Master of Science in Management: International Business program (5.5 IELTS
or 525 TOEFL paper-based/69 internet-based score). For these undergraduate students who
tested in the 4.5 IELTS band and graduate students who tested in the 5.0 IELTS band, the
Summer ESL Institute was designed to provide pre-admission instruction in English language
and culture, to ease the transition to a new country and education system, to acquaint the
participants with American culture, and to establish relationships with other international
students before the semester begins http://international.keuka.edu/english-as-a-second-languageesl/.
The 6-week program provides intensive instruction in academic listening, speaking,
reading, vocabulary development, and writing. For its initial offering in summer 2011, 23
international students participated, all of whom completed the program and enrolled in the fall
2011 semester. Undergraduate students in the ESL Summer Institute program performed quite
favorably in their overall GPA for Fall 2011 coursework as did the graduate students who
participated in the ESL Summer Institute.
Table 5.8 Average International Undergraduate 2011-2012 GPA for Fall 2011 Matriculants
(excludes international students who matriculated before Fall 2011)
Fall 2011
Summer ESL
Fall 2011 Non-
Summer ESL
Spring 2012
Summer ESL
329 3.43 2.80 3.41
Spring 2012 Non-
Summer ESL
Table 5.9 Average International MS Management: International Business 2011-2012 GPA*
Fall 2011
Summer ESL
Fall 2011
Non-Summer
ESL
Spring 2012
Summer ESL
Spring 2012
Non-Summer
ESL
Final
Cumulative
GPA
Summer ESL
3.31 3.49 3.59 3.64 3.47 3.57
Final
Cumulative
GPA Non-
Summer ESL
* The Non-Summer ESL average includes data from some international students who completed undergraduate
coursework at Keuka prior to starting the MSMIB program and does not include data from traditional students.
Further support is provided to international students through ENG 201 American Academic
Culture, a credit-bearing course aimed at providing non-native English speaking international
Page 22 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

students with the skills and strategies needed to meet the academic demands of their courses in a
U.S. institution of higher education. Offered in both the fall and spring semesters, ENG 201
focuses on success strategies, research skills, and appropriate documentation, and extensive
reading/writing activities.
--Library Services
Lightner Library is an integral and dynamic part of Keuka College academic support services.
Its mission is to promote life-long learning for students by providing the resources and services
that meet their information needs. As the intellectual center of the College, the Lightner Library
strives to create the optimal environment for study, research, and scholarship. The Library’s
Mission Statement notes that the Library seeks to “Provide services and innovative technologies
that will empower students in the 21 st century.” Today’s students expect 24/7 access to library
services and resources. Lightner provides access to resources in a variety of formats that support
academic programs both on and off campus. They include:
Books, both print and electronic
A variety of multi-disciplinary and subject-specific online databases that contain literally
thousands of articles, many of which are full text
A collection of print and electronic journals
CDs, DVDs, , and videos
A collection of streaming videos
LibGuides, http://libguides.keuka.edu/index.php, portals to high quality research
information
Access to library services is also important, and many are just a click away:
In person at the reference desk (56 hours of coverage Monday through Friday)
Via telephone
Through email at the Ask a Librarian link on the library’s home page or using the
refhelp email address, refhelp@keuka.edu
Library instruction for both ASAP cohorts and traditional classes can be scheduled by faculty
working with librarians to arrange library instruction sessions, and bibliographic instruction is
routinely provided to all traditional students in their ENG 110 and ENG 112 courses.
In 2007, a librarian was hired to be dedicated to the needs of ASAP students. The ASAP
librarian travels to the off-campus locations and provides instruction to cohorts in Social Work,
Criminal Justice, Nursing, and Management on improving research skills, using on-line
information resources available through the Lightner Library, avoiding plagiarism, and
employing APA style.
The Library conducts ongoing assessment of their services and uses the information to improve
library services and library instruction. (Appendix 5.18 Lightner Library Annual Report 2010-
2011).
Ongoing assessment of the adequacy of library hours: Through student surveys and
continued monitoring of library usage patterns, Lightner now remains open until 12 am
three nights a week and remains open for extended hours for the two weeks prior to finals
Page 23 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

in the fall and spring. We review library usage annually and modify hours to optimize
the use of our limited resources.
New Library Web Page: We used a student focus group to obtain feedback on our
newly-designed web page to make sure it met student needs. A year later, we asked
students to complete a survey on the adequacy of web page.
Assessment of the collection: Ongoing review of areas of the collection to eliminate
obsolete materials and to replace significant titles that are in poor condition. The goal is
to create a rich and dynamic collection that will support student learning across the
curriculum. In 2010-2011, the Library completed a review of the juvenile collection used
by the Education division, and in 2011-2012, it centralized and assessed its atlas
collection.
Information Literacy assessment has led to a number of changes in the way information
literacy is approached in the ENG 110 and ENG 112 courses, discussed more fully in
Chapter 6.
In response to the recommendation of the 2008 PRR reviewers to expand library resources to
meet programmatic needs, the College added staffing in the library to ensure sufficient library
personnel in support of academic services. A .75 FT reference librarian was hired in 2007 to
support ASAP, and a half-time librarian position was expanded to full-time in 2010. In sum, the
Library staff has increased by .95 FT since 2004-2005, and now stands at 6.85 FT.
Additional non-comp resources have also been budgeted to the library to support student
learning. In particular, full-text databases and E-books have been added to support Nursing,
Social Work, Criminal Justice, Occupational Therapy, Business, Sociology, general education
courses English 110 and English 112, History, Psychology, as well as general research needs
(Appendix 5.19 Library Resources Added 2008-2012). As Table 5.10 Library Expenditures
below indicates, budget allocations have largely supported increases in electronic resources, with
fewer dollars going to print resources. Online resources are available 24/7 as long as the student
has internet access, and students, whether traditional or non-traditional, prefer to access their
materials online rather than in print, so having a variety of electronic resources is critical for any
college library.
Table 5.10 Library Expenditures (Actuals)
Expenditures
Personnel, Salary
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Budget
2012-2013
& Benefits
Journals: Print &
$415,676 $425,797 $447,451 $443,475
Electronic
$65,953
$61,648
$61,402
$57,977
Databases $69,654 $75,303 $76,499 $80,270
LibGuides Title III grant Title III grant $1098* $2808*
E-books $1,757 $943 $4,456 $13,961
Books
Total Non-Comp
$48,646 $41,728 $47,307 $34,210
Budget
(including Misc.)
$193,202 $191,610 $206,821 $227,912
$242,427
Page 24 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

*The Library pays for the add-ons and ASAP pays for the annual subscription cost of $899.
It remains a challenge to keep apace of the increasing costs of access to electronic databases, but
wise stewarding of scarce resources by the library staff has enabled the College to meet student
needs effectively. As an example, the library staff identified considerable duplication of journal
titles which were available both electronically and in-print; working closely with program
faculty, the library staff did not renew subscriptions to select print journals where duplication
existed.
--Center for Experiential Learning
In support of the mission emphasis on experiential learning, the Center for Experiential Learning
(CEL) was established in Fall 2005 to coordinate all things experiential at Keuka College,
including the Field Period program, TeamWorks! Challenge Experience (Ropes Course), Co-
Curricular Transcripts, Community Service Resource Center, Student Employment, and Career
Services.
The Center for Experiential Learning serves the Keuka College Community by promoting the
development of life-long learning and career skills students use to transform experience into
knowledge. The goal of the Center for Experiential Learning is to facilitate the development of
graduates who are life-long learners able to apply theory, learning and skills in a continually
changing world for personal and career satisfaction and for a better community.
Staff members in the Center for Experiential Learning participate in New Student Orientation
(NSO) for the traditional program, meeting with students and parents to provide an overview of
the CEL office, resume workshops, and the Teamworks! experience. Additionally, staff members
work closely with on-campus and ASAP students to ensure successful Field Period experiences,
by helping students to complete and submit accurate Field Period paperwork. Staff members
follow up with site supervisors, and conduct assessment of student learning outcomes as
identified in the supervisor’s evaluations.
--Career Services
Career Services assists students and alumni with career development by providing support and
guidance to help promote personal and professional success. Available services are as follows:
interest/value/skill assessments, resume and cover letter critiques, mock interviews, job search
assistance, graduate school application assistance, and general career counseling. The Center for
Experiential Learning maintains an up-to-date career library that contains job search guides,
occupational information, employer/school district directories, corporate literature, and
graduate/professional school information. The Career Services Office provides additional selfhelp
materials to guide students as they navigate post-graduate options at its webpage
http://experiential.keuka.edu/career-services.
Career Services is linked in various ways to all of our programs. Career development is built into
the curriculum for both our China and Vietnam programs through a Career Management class
and Introduction to Experiential Learning. Keuka students from day one of the program begin to
understand the importance of connecting theory and practice. ASAP offers a one credit lifeskills
course, and Career Services staff also attend ASAP orientation sessions for new students so
Page 25 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

they are aware of Career Services. Career Services staff also submit articles for the ASAP
newsletters and are available for individual appointments for all ASAP students.
The main priority of Career Services is to support students in developing their career paths,
ultimately preparing them to enter the next phase of their lives. Specifically the goal is for
students to graduate from Keuka with an understanding of, and ability to present their knowledge
and skills gained through Field Periods and/or practicums, co-curricular activities, community
service, employment, TeamWorks! and coursework to potential employers and graduate schools.
Traditional students gain experience in resume-writing via the Student Employment program and
work with Career Services in developing a professional quality resume. Students review and
update their resumes on an annual basis, refining it as they prepare for post-graduation
employment. As Table 5.11 indicates, assistance with writing resumes and cover letters is a key
activity for Career Services which also provides workshops and presentations. Because Keuka is
in a rural location, the College works with regional consortia to provide greater opportunities for
its students. One example is Rochester Area Career Development Association (RACDA) which
is part of the Rochester area colleges group. RACDA provides regional Career Fairs, Graduate
and Law School nights, along with Teacher Recruitment Days for all students in the region.
Additionally, Career Services works with local employers to bring them to campus and
collaborates with Alumni and Family Relations to sponsor “Backpack to Briefcase,” a bi-annual
event where Keuka alumni return to campus to network with Keuka students and discuss career
possibilities (http://news.keuka.edu/around-the-tower/backpack-to-briefcase-slated-for-march-
7#more-235).
Chart 5.6 Career Services Student Advising 2008-2012
Page 26 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Retention and Graduation Rates
The tables below provide retention and graduation rates across the College’s four formats. A
more complete analysis of ASAP graduation rates by academic program, both undergraduate and
graduate can be found in Appendix 5.20 ASAP Programs Cohort Graduation Rates Analysis
2002-2003 to 2010-2011.
Table 5.11 Retention for Traditional Campus Program
Benchmark
Freshmen
fall to fall
Overall fall
to fall
Diversity
Retention
fall to fall
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
2009-
2010
2010-
2011
2011-
2012
2012-
2013
72.9% 69.8% 64.0% 68.9% 62.9% 68.1% 70.9% 73.9%
86.0% 82.9% 82.4% 82.0% 81.7% 83.0% 83.5% 85%
46.2% 48.6% 57.6% 50.0% 62.1% 60.1% 60.0% 60.0%
Table 5.12 Retention for ASAP Undergraduate and Graduate Program Years 2002-2011
Program
End
Year
Original
#
of
Students
Withdrew Cohort
Retention
Net of
Withdrwls
2002-03 65 14 78.5%
2003-04 86 19 77.9%
+0 year
after
end of
program
+1 year
after end
of
program
+2 year
after
end of
progrm
+3 year
after
end of
progrm
+4 year
after
end of
progrm
+5 year
after
end of
progrm
2004-05 180 30 83.3% 77.8%
2005-06 207 27 87.0% 80.7% 84.1%
2006-07 255 46 82.0% 78.0% 78.4%
2007-08 340 72 78.8% 74.4% 74.7%
2008-09 358 45 87.4% 75.7% 78.8%
2009-10 381 76 80.1% 60.9% 74.0%
2010-11 464 106 77.2% 62.3%
Page 27 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Table 5.13 Keuka China Program Enrollment & Graduation Totals 2003-2011
Expected Graduation Dropped
Original
Enrollment Withdraw
Degree
Candidates Incomplete 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2003 0 29 0 29 0 29 100%
2004 0 120 1 119 5 0 104 10 95%
2005 0 72 0 72 1 0 0 66 3 2 99%
2006 1 285 3 282 22 0 0 0 258 1 1 91%
2007 23 813 18 795 65 0 0 0 0 699 27 3 0 1 90%
2008 32 865 42 823 82 0 0 0 0 0 720 15 6 86%
2009 82 1156 97 1059 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 948 15 2 83%
2010 28 1313 104 1209 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1116 4 85%
2011 40 1306 98 1208 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1077 82%
Dropped
Original
Enrollment Withdraw
Degree
Candidates Incomplete 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Grand Totals 206 5959 363 5596 489 29 104 76 261 702 748 966 1137 1084 86%
As these Tables indicate, although graduation rates for the adult and international programs are
strong, the College has faced challenges with retention and graduation rates for the traditional
program. The principal reasons cited by students for leaving Keuka include insufficient financial
support, inadequate academic preparation for college-level work (confirmed by faculty in
academic warnings), decision to enroll in a major not offered at Keuka, homesickness, failure to
connect with their classmates or the College, and lack of motivation/focus. Efforts to address
these challenges are comprehensive, as described below, and the remainder of this chapter will
focus on retention initiatives and student support services for the traditional program.
With the decrease in traditional on-campus retention numbers from 2005-06 to 2009-10,
improving student retention became an obvious strategic goal, as outlined in the Keuka College
Strategic Plan 2009-2012. Several recent and ongoing retention improvement initiatives that
address preparedness and connection are as follows:
Achieving a College Education (ACE) Program – One of the resources available to students who
are considered “at-risk” for attrition or poor academic performance is our Keuka Connections:
Achieving a College Education (ACE) Program. The Academic Success at Keuka (ASK)
Program, in cooperation with Student Affairs and Admissions, coordinates the program which is
aimed at connecting at-risk, first year students to the Keuka College community. Students are
considered “at-risk” for a variety of reasons: low high school GPA, low standardized testing
scores, and first-year generation college student. These “at-risk” students become part of a small
(two or three first year students) group who share one upper classman Student Coach who
provides guidance and information on developing study skills, getting to know the campus and
its services, and connecting the first-year student(s) to the ASK Office. Students’ progress is
monitored by the Academic Success at Keuka (ASK) Program. Over the past six years (Fall
2006-Fall 2011), Admissions counselors have identified 257 eligible participants for the ACE
program. Of those students eligible for the voluntary program, 115 participated and have
averaged a first semester GPA of 2.554 and had a 66.95% retention rate. The other 142 students
that chose not to participate averaged a first semester GPA of 1.714 and had a 42.95% retention
rate. These numbers indicate that the ACE program is effective in helping students to be
successful academically and to stay enrolled. Given the success of this program, it is
recommended that the ASK Office increase the participation rate in the ACE program.
Page 28 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

First Year Experience program— In September 2008, a task force began work on improving the
first year experience (FYE) by better integrating and articulating expectations for the first year
experience. Throughout the 2008-09 academic year, the FYE task force analyzed the first year
courses that were common to all students, changed course designations to better indicate that
they were part of the first year experience, designed a First Year Experience website linked to
the College website, worked with Academic and Student Affairs to redesign and strengthen the
New Student Orientation process, and created a common read for all Freshmen. The FYE
website is found at http://fye.keuka.edu/ and a detailed report of the work of this task force can
be found in (Appendix 5.21 FYE Task Force Final Report).
Diversity Task Force – Formed in Spring 2008, a committee of over 30 campus members,
representing students, staff, administration, and faculty, was charged with identifying issues and
developing recommendations for a comprehensive diversity plan. This effort strove to create an
inclusive college and community environment. It focused on the College’s climate (perceptions
of the institution); access and retention of students of color and other under-represented groups;
and recruiting and retaining faculty and staff of color, as well as from other under-represented
groups. The Task Force developed a campus definition of diversity which was officially adopted
in December of 2008, and over the next three years recommended many actions for improving
diversity efforts for the traditional, non-traditional, commuter and residential students. One of
the recommendations resulted in the campus crafting and implementing an Affirmative Action
Plan in 2011-12. The Task Force was formally dissolved in the spring of 2011, and a smaller,
permanent committee structure was formed to keep working on the diversity initiatives of the
campus. A detailed report of the work of this task force can be found in (Appendix 5.22
Diversity Task Force Final Report), as well as an update on action items (Appendix 5.23
Diversity Report Card January 2013).
The Office of Multicultural Affairs (MCA) — MCA is charged with serving the interests and
needs of students of color and under-represented groups. Its programs and services support,
respect, and promote diverse perspectives, while enhancing Keuka’s efforts in recruiting and
retaining students from historically under-represented groups. As student success (retention and
graduation) is important to the mission of the office, the director works closely with faculty
advisors, Academic Affairs, Academic Success at Keuka (ASK), The Center for Experiential
Learning, and the division of Student Affairs (Health and Counseling, etc.) to constantly assess
students’ academic and social needs. The director meets weekly with students about social as
well as academic performance, and refers students to the appropriate office for follow-up. As
part of its outreach, each semester the office of MCA coordinates events, workshops, and
cultural excursions designed to enrich students’ college experience. Multicultural Affairs works
in conjunction with some of the campus’ largest student clubs and organizations including the
Multicultural Students Association (MSA), KC Step Team, PRIDE (gay/straight alliance), and
the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Allies (LGBTA) Resource Center to help bring to
campus events like the annual fashion show, the Step Team Annual Extravaganza, and the Night
of Noise Drag Show (Appendix 5.24 Multicultural Affairs Events Attendance 2008-2012). MCA
also collaborates with other departments, offices and organizations to sponsor events such as
International Education Week, Get Out the Vote!, Professional Clothing Drives, Holocaust
Remembrance Day, Veteran’s Day, and the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Day of Service.
The Office also sponsors holiday and heritage month celebrations that are designed to create
awareness of specific group traditions and cultures amongst staff, students, alumni and
community members. An annual assessment of the office's programs, events, and support
services helps to determine what programs and services are in need of improvement or retention.
Page 29 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

A need identified by this annual assessment and in collaboration with the Diversity Task Force
was for stronger and clearer sanction guidelines for bias-related incidents at Keuka College. In
2010, the College adopted the Bias Incident Response Protocol and Bias Incident Response
Team to support and assist the campus response to bias incidents or hate crimes. The BIRP Team
works to prevent hate crimes and bias incidents, and to educate and inform the community by
creating awareness in order to fight ignorance and intolerance. The committee membership
consists of the Dean of Students, Associate Vice President for Student Development, Director of
Multicultural Affairs, College Chaplain, Director of TeamWorks!, a faculty representative,
Director of Campus Safety and 2 Student Senate Representatives.
Redesign of English 100/ Fundamentals of College Writing—The learning outcomes of this noncredit
course were substantially redesigned in 2007 so as to provide students with multiple
writing opportunities to practice the skills they would need to be successful in later required
writing courses. The focus shifted from grammar drills to effective reading and critical thinking
strategies, general study skills, and the writing process itself. English 100 students also have
mandatory weekly meetings with ASK professionals. Students are placed in this course based on
performance scores on the writing placement exam administered before the beginning of the
semester. Whereas retention rate of this group of writers prior to the course redesign was less
than 10%, most students now go on to be successful in subsequent writing courses and a
significant percentage ultimately graduate.
Table 5.14 English 100 Fundamentals of College Writing
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012
Enrolled in English
100
58 66 55 58 53 55
Received passing
grade
92% 91% 94% 91% 90% 87%
Passed English 110 92% 85% 90% n/a 90% n/a
(50/54) (33/39) (47/52)
(38/42)
Passed English 112 88% 90% 80% 89% 87% n/a
(30/34) (30/33) (38/47) (33/37) 26/30
Ave. GPA in English
112
2.4 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 n/a
Percentage graduated 47% 53% In In In In
progress progress progress progress
Predictive retention modeling— In response to the drop of seven percentage points for the 2008
Fall-to-Fall Retention Rate of First Year Students, the College administration made the decision
to invest in PowerALERT®, a predictive model for student retention from PERFORMA Higher
Education( (now named Credo). This predictor model helped the College to do the following:
1) identify the risk factors specific to our campus that have the most impact on retaining
students, such as high school GPA, socioeconomic status, first-generation status, documented
disabilities, rigor of high school program, and match to the institution; 2) identify individual
students who are most at-risk of not persisting to the sophomore year based on an objective
Page 30 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

analysis of historical persistence trends; and 3) decide strategies to implement. Most significant
were the strategic decisions to provide additional human resources to students through the ASK
Office (addition of 1 FTE and expanded hours) so as to target at-risk students and through
expanded professional Residence Life staff trained to work closely with new students during
summer and fall orientation dates as well as throughout the first year (an expansion of 6 halftime
Residence Directors, or RDs, also now called Success Advocates, to full time). Students
perceived to be most at risk for not persisting, as per the predictive modeling, now receive
targeted outreach efforts from retention counselors, academic advisors, and ASK professional
staff to ensure social and academic integration. The goal is to provide students with improved
access to professional staff members and faculty who can extend support and outreach to new
students experiencing issues and concerns, such as the adjustment to college, academic
questions, and relationship issues. Each Residence Director (RD) is assigned a group of at-risk
students, and the RD serves as a point person for intervention. On the academic side, academic
advisors are provided with information that identifies students who are most at-risk for attrition
and tasked with more closely monitoring the progress of these students, particularly with regard
to connecting them with academic support services. Since the adoption of the predictor model
and implementation of these strategies, Fall to Fall retention rates for first-year students have
increased from 68.1% in the fall of 2010 to 73.9% in the fall of 2012, as shown in Table 5.11.
Therefore, it initially appears as if these retention efforts are making a positive impact.
Targeted Outreach to Academically At- Risk Students—As shown in Table 5.15 below, the ASK
Office takes a caseload approach to working with students receiving letters of concern, probation
status, or academic contract status from the Academic Review Board. Each of the professional
staff members meets weekly with this group of students, reviewing course assignments,
addressing study skills, and providing feedback on work. The recent increase in staffing in the
ASK Office means that the students with letters of concern (LOC) in particular can be more
adequately supported.
Table 5.15 ASK Visits by Academic Review Board Students
Number of
Students with
Letters of
Concern (LOC)
who use ASK
Number of
Students on
Probation who
use ASK
Number of
Students on
Academic
Contract who use
ASK
Fall 2008 25 3 4 32
Spring 2009 38 22 0 60
Fall 2009 13 11 5 29
Spring 2010 37 12 5 54
Fall 2010 9 8 8 25
Spring 2011 27 6 18 51
Fall 2011 10 14 1 25
Spring 2012 32 32 2 66
Total Number of
students assigned as
caseload to ASK
Staff
Page 31 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Mid-Semester Progress Reports – To enhance early intervention efforts, in Fall 2009 the ASK
Office, with the approval of the faculty Instruction Committee, piloted a mid-semester academic
progress report for all first year students. Based on attendance and assignments completed by
mid-term, instructors rate student performance as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and the
ASK Office contacts each student who receives a “U” to encourage them to work with ASK
professionals. The faculty voted to continue the Mid-Semester Progress Reports, for as the data
shows in Table 5.16 below, the majority of first-year students who receive a report of
Unsatisfactory and then employ ASK Offices services go on to be successful in the course. The
migration of data from Jenzabar to Colleague made the Report unfeasible for the 2011-2012
academic year, but the College anticipates resuming its use in the 2012-2013 academic year.
Greater participation from the faculty, however, is needed to make this retention effort more
successful, since in 2010-2011, fewer than half of the faculty had implemented this practice in all
their freshman courses.
Table 5.16 Mid-Semester Progress Reports
# of students with U % of students receiving
U who work with ASK
Fall 2009 84 (38%) 35 (41%) 19 (54%)
Spring 2010 72 (27%) 27 (37%) 15 (55%)
Fall 2010 104 (38%) 50 (50%) 31 (60%)
Spring 2011 72 (28%) 34 (47%) 22 (65%)
% of ASK “U”
students passing the
course
Fall 2011 Data migration Data migration Data migration
Spring 2012 Data migration Data migration Data migration
Assistance to Students with Disabilities—Services provided to on-campus and ASAP students
with disabilities are arranged through the ASK Office and include individual and group tutoring,
readers, scribes, alternative testing, and counseling. Data on ASK utilization by this population
is shown in Table 5.17 (next page), and indicates the success rate of those who employ the
services and accommodations provided to them through ASK. The challenge is to encourage
more students to use these resources.
Page 32 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Table 5.17 Utilization of ASK Services by Campus Students with Disabilities
Incoming
Year
Used
Services
Average Fall GPA Fall - Fall retention
Graduation Rate
-- Still Enrolled
Fall 2006 17 2.769 16 - 94% 15 - 88%
Fall 2007 21 2.98 21 - 100% 18 - 86%
Fall 2008 31 2.75 20 - 65% 16 - 52%
Fall 2009 19 2.742 14 - 74% 14 - 74%
Fall 2010 16 2.87 13 - 81% 9 - 56%
Fall 2011 18 2.987 18 - 100% 18 - 100%
Incoming
Year
DID NOT Use
services
Average Fall GPA Fall - Fall retention
Fall 2006 8 2 4 - 50% 0
Fall 2007 22 1.7 9 - 55% 3 - 14%
Fall 2008 13 1.9 7 - 54% 4 - 31%
Fall 2009 19 2.1 10 - 53% 7 - 37%
Fall 2010 12 1.78 7 - 58% 3 - 25%
Fall 2011 15 1.84 9 - 60% 9 - 60%
Graduation Rate
-- Still Enrolled
As part of ongoing assessment, the ASK Office surveys those students who use their services at
the end of each semester. These surveys inform decisions such as the rescheduling of meeting
times to better fit into student schedules, on-line tutoring to better meet off-campus student
needs, and the addition of a writing coordinator for the ASAP students. ASK staff also use
information from the Noel-Levitz Survey and the NSSE survey to assess their effectiveness. The
surveys all support the positive impact that the ASK department has on Keuka students. The
Noel-Levitz data demonstrated an increasing positive perception of the availability of tutoring
services between 2006 and 2010 with services matching the expectations of students. The NSSE
data asks students if the institution provided support needed to help them succeed academically.
ASK scored above 3 (on a consistent basis) each year, comparing favorably to both peer and
Carnegie classification institutions. The fall 2011 in-house survey indicated that 98% of students
who came in to use ASK services were more confident in their academic ability, and 99%
believed that they would achieve better grades.
Retention Alert Module of the Colleague ERP System— The module is part of the College’s
new ERP system and was put on-line during the spring of 2012. The system will help manage
retention efforts, with academic affairs and student affairs professionals working together to
Page 33 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

create and work individual student retention cases. It provides the ability to create longitudinal
retention data, as well as to run a variety of retention reports, such as types of retention cases,
numbers of at-risk students, and numbers of open and closed retention cases. It will be utilized
by the Early Alert Retention Committee: a committee represented by Academic Affairs, Student
Affairs, Financial Aid, Students Accounts, Registrar, and the ASK Office. Training for the
module commenced in the Spring of 2012, allowing for it to be fully operational in the Fall of
2012. A recommendation is to assess the amount of use and efficacy of the Retention Alert
Module across both the traditional and ASAP programs once the system has completed a cycle.
Recent retention initiatives have also focused on the physical plant, in particular, enhanced living
quarters, recreational spaces, and dining services, as noted below.
Enhancement of Recreational Opportunities, Intramurals and Club Sports—In response to
significantly increased participation in the intramural and recreation program—an increase of
134% between 2009 and 2011—and student satisfaction surveys, a new auxiliary gym was built
in the Weed Physical Arts Center in 2011 to provide additional space for club sport practices
(Dance, Cheer, Step, etc.), intramurals, and campus programming.
Improving and Upgrading the Living and Learning Spaces in the Residence Halls— This was
done through residence hall upgrades and acquisition of new residential properties. In 2004, the
College upgraded the residence hall lounge/lobby areas of all residence halls (with the exception
of Harrington Hall which had recently been renovated). Ball Hall, the main administration
building for the campus, as well as a major student residence hall, underwent a major renovation
in 2006 and 2007. The renovation was part of a $10 million dollar capital campaign to restore
the building to its original grandeur and to make Ball Hall a one-stop service location for
students with regard to admissions, registration, financial aid, student accounts, and other
campus offices (http://www.keuka.edu/newcampaign/). In spring 2011, a Campus Recreation
Room was created in Blyley Hall, one of the campus residence halls, providing an alternate place
for students to gather or play ping-pong, billiards, and air hockey. The College has also taken
advantage of Rural Development Authority (RDA) funding to undertake renovations to the
residence hall bathrooms. Renovations to Davis Hall, an all freshmen residence hall,
commenced during summer of 2012, to provide needed updates to that facility. In October 2010,
the College purchased two apartment buildings located adjacent to the campus. These apartment
complexes added much needed space and more variety to our student housing options. One of
the apartment complexes opened for our residential students in the fall of 2011, and the other
opened in the fall of 2012. The addition of these two apartment buildings has increased the
College’s housing capacity by over 110 beds, and provides a much needed alternative to the
College’s other residence halls.
Campus Dining – The Campus Dining Committee, comprised of students and Student Affairs
staff, has worked to improve the quality and number of options for the campus meal plans, food
service facilities and dining options. The College put its food service contract out to bid in the
spring of 2011 and chose to end its relationship with Sodexho and contract with AVI Fresh, as its
new food service vendor. Food service and quality are an important aspect of student life on a
residential campus, and the College hopes to improve student satisfaction with this change of
vendors.
Page 34 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Campus Life
Beyond the classroom, the Office of Student Affairs provides students with a vast array of
support services to promote the comprehensive development of students and to strengthen
learning outcomes. The Office of Student Affairs oversees the Athletics program (intercollegiate
athletics, intramurals, and recreation), the New Student Orientation (NSO) process which
includes Transition week, Health and Counseling Services, Student Senate, Housing and
Residence Life, Multicultural Affairs, Campus Ministry, Campus Safety, Student Organizations
and Activities, and the Student Mentor program. Descriptions of all of these can be found in the
Keuka College Record. These programs and offices require a great coordination of effort
between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, because they affect the living, learning, physical,
emotional, recreational, and spiritual needs of students. Many cross-functional ad hoc
committees and task forces meet regularly to add their respective expertise to manage and
improve these offices and programs.
Student Activities – The Office of Student Activities offers a variety of programs and services
for students. The office hosts 40-50 events per semester, with a focus on evening and weekend
programming. Programs consist of educational awareness events, multicultural awareness
events, leadership development, game shows, a movie series, a coffeehouse series, a comedy
series, novelty/variety events, a late night program series, community service programs, off
campus trips and in-house events. To promote student wellness and safety, special programs and
events are regularly scheduled, such as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. The office also assists
with many of the major traditions on campus including Family Weekend, the Snow Ball,
Celebrate Seniors Weekend, Spring Weekend, May Day Weekend, and Commencement.
A list of the campus clubs and organizations is posted on the Keuka website at
http://life.keuka.edu/office-of-student-activities/clubs-organizations/. Events are advertised in
numerous ways, including a weekly calendar of events e-mailed to the campus community, on
the campus calendar published on the Keuka website, via social networking outlets such as
Facebook, and via fliers posted across campus. Activities that occur on campus are announced at
weekly Student Senate meetings and at Campus Activities Board meetings. Events relating to
special weekends on campus are also published in schedules for those weekends. Information
regarding how events are publicized is also noted in the Student Handbook (Appendix 5.25
Keuka College Student Handbook).
The Office of Student Activities and the Student Senate give advice on policies and procedures
and serve as an additional support system to officers and advisors of clubs or organizations. They
also provide leadership training to club officers at the start of each semester, which gives them
basic assistance with delegation, time management, and agenda development. The Student
Affairs Office also provides information about transferable skills and the benefits of cocurricular
involvement during the students’ orientation and within their FYE 101 classes.
Leadership positions and club participation are documented for students on a Co-Curricular
Transcript created for each student. The Co-Curricular Transcript is an official College
document which complements a student’s academic transcript and resume by validating out-ofclassroom
activities, including: active memberships in student clubs, organizations and teams,
participation in a leadership program, documented service learning activities, service as a mentor
or resident assistant, honors, awards, honor society memberships, participation in cultural
organization, and select work-study positions.
Page 35 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

To assess the effectiveness of campus events, the Student Activities Office tracks attendance
through sign-in sheets, and conducts opinion surveys following events. An assessment matrix is
also created that is based on the College’s student development goals. One of the areas noted in
the results are that students would like more weekend events.
Counseling and Health Support – Counseling Services offers individual, confidential counseling
services to all students. The mission is to enhance the emotional and interpersonal growth of
Keuka students through a process of personal discovery. Counselors typically address the
following concerns with students: relationship issues; depression; human sexuality; anxiety; drug
and alcohol abuse; eating disorders; survivors of rape, incest, and sexual assault; family issues;
and self-esteem issues. Normally, information shared in counseling will not be revealed outside
the center without written permission from the student. Exceptions to this rule include cases of
child abuse or neglect, elder abuse or neglect, and danger of imminent bodily harm to the student
or another person. Information may also be released in response to a court subpoena.
Counseling utilizes what is known in the mental health arena as the Global Assessment of
Functioning (GAF) to measure student progress in counseling. The GAF is a tool published in
the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”
and is widely accepted as the tool for measuring the overall functioning of individuals. For the
2010-11 academic year, there was a significant increase in student use of counseling services
(Appendix 5.26 Counseling Services Stats Document). To meet this increase in demand, Keuka
has expanded the hours of the part-time counselor, and added 2 graduate interns. Counseling
Center staff have developed a more collaborative and cooperative working relationship with
Finger Lakes Health, which has expedited referrals for the most serious mental health crises.
The Health Services department has a full-time Director/Nurse Practitioner, a part-time
Registered Nurse, a part-time Physician and a full-time Office Manager. The office provides
assessment, diagnosis, treatment and referrals for acute health concerns, physical exams,
clearance for sports, and health related counseling. In the summer of 2011, the College
contracted with Finger Lakes Health to provide the management of the Health Center. This
collaboration has improved the quality of services and has strengthened the referral process with
local health providers. Information regarding health services is published in the Health Services
Brochure (Appendix 5.27 Health Services Brochure) and in the Student Handbook.
Athletics – Keuka College student-athletes represent the institution in 16 varsity sports.
Students develop physical, social, and emotional benefits through their interaction/participation
in athletics.
As a member of the North Eastern Athletic Conference and a NCAA Division III school, Keuka
College student athletes must comply with all NCAA academic eligibility requirements as well
as all policies and procedures applicable to any other student attending the institution. In
addition to all the support services that are available to other students, many of the athletic teams
have mandatory study periods. Like the rest of the student body, the student athletes are
responsible for making up all missed assignments and exams. As noted in the Student Handbook,
the Class Attendance policy states, “It is the prerogative of each individual instructor, discipline
faculty, or division to determine the importance of class attendance. It is the student’s
responsibility to consult with the instructor in advance to ascertain whether the absence will be
allowed, to submit all written work on time, and to arrange for reasonable make-up times and
methods. Although instructors may wish to facilitate student participation in these activities, the
Page 36 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

nature of courses, laboratories, and practicum experiences may require that the student attend
class in order to ensure successful completion of the course. The instructor has the final authority
in these matters.”
The department of Athletics has direct oversight of Intercollegiate Athletics, campus recreation
and intramurals. Students have the opportunity to participate in over 30 intramural sports
leagues and events, swimming and boating, first aid and CPR-AED training, and fitness
facilities.
Table 5.18 Number of Keuka College Students who participate in the Athletic Program
Athlete Data as of Fall 2012: Total #: 226
Class Year Male Female
127 99
FR 54 34
SO 33 38
JR 23 19
SR 17 8
As indicated in Table 5.18 above, 261 Keuka students are involved in varsity sports, with the
highest representation coming from the freshman class, with decreasing participation thereafter,
as the commitment level of some athletes to their sports wanes and the demands of the academic
programs increase. Intercollegiate athletics plays a vital role in the admissions recruiting process
for freshmen. Annually the intercollegiate athletics staff contributions to the recruitment of an
average of 80 – 100 students. Additionally, the retention of student-athletes remains steady at
approximately 87% each academic year. The overall grade point average for student-athletes is
at 3.07, which indicates that Keuka’s athletes are successful in the classroom.
The interaction between team coaches, academic advisors, and academic support staff has been
integral to the academic success of student-athletes. The following examples demonstrate this
interaction: 1.) Some coaches utilize organized study halls or individualized study sessions.
Generally, these study halls or individualized study sessions are mandatory for first-year athletes
during their first semester. If a predetermined GPA expectation is met, the student is excused
during the second semester. At the conclusion of the first year, the requirement to attend these
sessions may or may not be imposed upon the student. 2.) Coaches require that students of
academic concern complete a “semester calendar” based on the information supplied on their
class syllabi. With that information, the coaches are able to inquire with the student as to what
assignments have been completed, when tests are scheduled, and what is expected throughout the
semester. 3.) Student-Athletes give a copy of their season schedule to all of their course
instructors, and faculty members are encouraged to contact coaches when a potential conflict
may arise between student attendance in class and practice schedules. 4.) The Faculty Athletic
Representative (FAR), who serves as a liaison between the faculty and the Athletic department,
assists in the coordination of efforts needed to ensure student and program success.
The Department of Athletics, Recreation, and Intramurals provides opportunities for sports
participation and fitness to all campus community members. Programming through recreation
and intramurals is adjusted annually to better represent the interests of the overall campus.
Page 37 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Programming through intercollegiate athletics maintains the mission of NCAA Division III
intercollegiate athletics. Open try-outs are held for all students that meet the eligibility
requirements set forth by both Keuka College and the NCAA.
Student feedback is obtained from the intramural advisory board, the health and fitness club, the
lifeguard staff and the club sport coaches to help generate new ideas and inform decisions for
improvement. Surveys are also used to gauge student satisfaction (Appendix 5.28 Intramural
Student Survey Supporting Doc and Student Interest Survey Doc). The surveys for intramurals
are conducted yearly, and the results are used to develop and update the campus recreation
strategic plan (Appendix 5.29 Campus Recreation Strategic Plan).
Campus Safety – Campus Safety provides 24-hour security guard coverage for the College.
Keuka College Security Officers are New York State certified and receive annual in-service
training. They routinely patrol the campus and are responsible for securing buildings and
conducting fire safety checks in residence halls and College buildings. In collaboration with the
Student Affairs staff, the officers enforce the Student Conduct Code in addition to all NY State
and Federal Laws.
During the 2010-11 academic year, a Student Safety Advisory Board (SSAB) was instituted in
order to help Campus Safety identify areas of concern among students regarding safety issues,
and develop plans to address those concerns. The SSAB is comprised of the Director of Campus
Safety, the Dean of Students, a student representative from the Student Senate, and other
students. The College annually reports campus crime statistics to the Federal government
through the Clergy Report. Information about campus safety can be found on the College’s
website at http://life.keuka.edu/safety/.
Spiritual Life – The Center for Spiritual Life (CSL) provides worship opportunities, service
opportunities, counseling/support group opportunities, leadership opportunities, and spiritual
interest groups and clubs. CSL activities are often ecumenical in nature, and the Chaplain
provides programming for a broad spectrum of spiritual and religious interests. Information
regarding spiritual life can be found on the College’s website at http://life.keuka.edu/campusministries/
.
The effectiveness of the CSL activities is measured through tracking attendance, through student
response and using a self-created tool that assesses use of: Student Affairs Mission Statement
Values, “Challenges” designed to move students to action, “Teaching” areas designed to
stimulate critical thinking, Programming Categories of the Center for Spiritual Life office and
HERI (Higher Education Research Institute) measures of spirituality. Some programs are
planned to meet as many “values” as possible. Other programs are planned to achieve depth in a
couple of values. Programs with stable and/or increased attendance and measurable
effectiveness are worth continuing to resource. Student participation data for the last three
academic years can be found in Appendix 5.30 Center for Spiritual Life Usage.
Page 38 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Recommendations:
5.1 Assess the recent reorganization and integration of the Admissions and Marketing
function and track the coordination of all of the various admissions and retention efforts.
5.2 Refine website content and navigation to support admissions and academic program
strategies.
5.3 Assess the implementation of the Retention Alert Module in the College’s new Ellucian
Colleague ERP system, implemented in February of 2012.
Page 39 of 39 Chapter 5: Admissions, Retention & Support

Chapter 6
The Faculty, Educational Offerings, and General Education of Keuka College
Standard 10: Faculty
The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs, are devised, monitored,
and supported by qualified professionals.
Standard 11: Educational Offerings
The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence
that are appropriate to its higher education mission. The institution identifies student
learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills, for its educational
offerings. The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs, are devised,
monitored, and supported by qualified professionals.
Standard 12: General Education
The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate
college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral
and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and
reasoning, and technological competency.
Standard 13: Related Educational Activities
The institution’s programs or activities that are characterized by particular content,
focus, location, mode of delivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.
This chapter provides evidence of Keuka College’s compliance with Standard 10, Standard 11,
Standard 12, and Standard 13.
Faculty
Student learning is central in the mission and vision of Keuka College. This chapter details the
faculty and curriculum (both programs and general education) at Keuka College.
Staffing
Faculty both develop and deliver the curriculum at Keuka College. Accordingly, the faculty
need to be well-qualified, supported by the institution, and actively engaged in student learning
and success. Keuka is fortunate to have faculty who are both passionate and dedicated, able to
deliver effectively a challenging curriculum that prepares them for success in their chosen
occupations as well as for a life of continued growth, responsibility, and fulfillment (Appendix
6.1 Faculty Credentials Service List). Keuka’s overall tenured/tenure-track faculty numbers
have increased by 44% since 2007, largely due to hiring to accommodate the expansion of the
adult degree completion programs offered through the Center for Professional Studies.
Page 1 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Table 6.1 Keuka College Faculty Lines 2007-2012*
2012-
2013
2007-
2008
# of Full Time
Faculty
Reg Part Time
Tenured/
Tenure Track
Non Tenure
Track (inc.
VAI and IN)
Professor
82 7 79 10 22
(1
PT)
61 4 55 10 23
(2
PT)
Associate
20
(1
PT)
19
(1
PT)
Assistant
42
(5
PT)
18
(1
PT)
*Includes librarians; excludes tenured full-time administrators
Visiting AI
Instructor IN
Doctorally
prepared
Master’s
terminal
Masters, but
not terminal
1 4 54 11 24
4 1 36 11 18
Although the increase in tenure-track lines is most striking in the ASAP program, the number of
tenure lines in the traditional program has increased by 27%, with new lines created to support
occupational therapy, education, business, biology, ASL and ASL-English Interpreting,
sociology, and art. These recent hires have also led to a slight increase in the percentage of fulltime
tenure track lines held by doctorally prepared faculty in the traditional program, from 69%
in 2007 to 73% as of fall 2012. Eight faculty members in tenure-track lines (3 in the traditional
program, 5 in the ASAP program) anticipate completion of their doctoral degree within two
years.
Table 6.2 Traditional Program Faculty Lines 2007-2012*
Traditional
Program
2012-
2013
2007-
2008
# of Full Time
Faculty
Faculty
Reg Part Time
Tenured/
Tenure Track
Non Tenure
Track (inc.
VAI and IN)
Professor
63 4 62 5 22
(1
PT)
53 3 49 7 23
(2
PT)
Associate
17
(1
PT)
14
(1
PT)
*Includes librarians; excludes tenured full-time administrators
Assistant
Visiting AI
Instructor IN
Doctorally
prepared
Master’s
terminal
Masters, but
not terminal
25
(2
PT)
0 3 45 8 14
14 4 1 34 9 12
As Table 6.2 (Traditional Program lines) shows, Keuka is strongly committed to tenure. Within
the traditional residential program, nearly all of the current full-time faculty are in a tenure-track
line. Although the percentage of overall credit hours taught by adjuncts in Keuka’s traditional
program has increased by 4% over the last four years, the traditional program has maintained a
relatively low percentage of instruction delivered by adjuncts, as shown in the table below.
Page 2 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Table 6.3 Instruction by Adjuncts and Overloads, Traditional Program 2008-2011
All Courses
Fall 2011 Fall 2010 Fall 2009 Fall 2008
Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent
Credit Hours 14,742 14,977 14,172 14,079
Overload 744 5.0% 807 5.4% 617 4.3% 1036 7.4%
Adjunct 2991 20.3% 2486 16.6% 2100 14.8% 2289 16.3%
Combined 3735 25.3% 3283 22.0% 2717 19.1% 3325 23.7%
The greatest pressure has been felt in the delivery of the general education curriculum (see Table
6.4 below). Although upper level courses in the degree programs continue to be staffed largely
by full-time faculty, the introductory level social sciences and humanities offerings have been
most impacted with regard to staffing by adjuncts. This reflects, in part, some planned reductions
in the number of students per class (from 30 to 25) in key introductory social science courses to
accommodate a more interactive pedagogical approach, fewer overload teaching assignments, as
well as course releases for some faculty to coordinate assessment efforts. Discussion of staffing
in the general education curriculum is ongoing, but there are no immediate plans to substantially
increase staffing in these areas.
Table 6.4 Gen Ed Instruction by Adjuncts and Overloads, Traditional Program 2008-11
Fall 2011 Fall 2010 Fall 2009 Fall 2008
Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent Hours Percent
Credit Hours 6,459 6,279 5,564 5,853
Overload 204 3.1% 301 4.8% 211 3.8% 373 6.4%
Adjunct 1239 19.2% 1143 18.2% 888 15.9% 576 9.8%
Combined 1443 22.3% 1444 23.0% 1099 17.7% 949 16.2%
Beginning with the 2010-2011 academic year, the College invested considerable resources in
support of the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) by hiring tenure-track faculty,
moving away from a model that relied nearly entirely on adjunct and visiting faculty
appointments. In particular, the College has aggressively sought to hire doctorally-prepared or
ABD faculty to teach in ASAP, as evident in Table 6.5 below.
Page 3 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

ASAP
Table 6.5 ASAP Faculty Lines 2007-2012*
2012-
2013
2007-
2008
# of Full Time
Faculty
Reg Part- Time
Tenured/ Tenure
Track
Non –Tenure T
(inc . VAI and
IN)
Professor
Associate
Assistant
19 3 17 5 0 3 17
(3
PT)
8 1 6 3 0 5 4
(1
PT)
*Includes librarians; excludes tenured full-time administrators
Visiting AI
Instructor IN
Doctorally
prepared
Masters, terminal
Masters, but not
terminal
1 1 9 3 10 (5
enrolled
in
doctoral
programs)
0 0 2 2 5
Enrollment growth in the Social Work and Management programs has led to recent staffing
challenges, and Criminal Justice has experienced some staff turnover, leading to a heavy reliance
on adjuncts at the undergraduate level. Searches are underway to fill vacant and new full-time
positions across these program areas, with the goal to fill each of these with faculty prepared at
the doctoral level.
In keeping with ASAP’s practitioner-based model which emphasizes professionals in the field
who bring their expertise to the class, ASAP continues to employ a large number of adjuncts to
facilitate instruction at its sites across New York State. The College employs adjuncts whose
credentials and experience are consistent with the criteria established by the Council on Social
Work Education, the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, the International Assembly
for Collegiate Business Education, and those established by the full-time faculty teaching in the
Criminal Justice program. All adjunct faculty must have a minimum of a master’s degree, with
33% of ASAP adjuncts holding a terminal degree (Appendix 6.2 ASAP Adjunct Faculty
Credentials). The administration also seeks to augment the percentage of doctorally prepared
adjuncts, currently at 16% of the pool of 238 adjuncts. Program directors in these areas work
closely with the division chairs to identify anticipated staffing needs, to develop job descriptions,
and to review applicant files. The applicant review and hiring process, as identified in Appendix
6.3 ASAP New Adjunct Hire Process, ensures that appropriate oversight takes place at the unit
and divisional level. Table 6.6 below provides an overview by program for the 2011-2012
academic year.
Page 4 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Table 6.6 Percentage of Courses Delivered by Adjunct and Full-Time Faculty in ASAP
(September 2012)
% taught by Adjuncts % taught by Full-
Time
Not yet scheduled
Social Work
Undergraduate
Criminal Justice
62% 21% 17%
Undergraduate 89% 5% 6%
Graduate
Organizational
Management
84% 16% 0%
Undergraduate 76% 5% 18%
Graduate (Mgmt) 79% 9% 9%
Graduate (Internat)
Nursing
66% 33%
Undergraduate 58% 46%*
Graduate 22% 75%*
*The Nursing, Social Work, and OM programs pair new faculty with senior faculty to team-teach on occasion.
The overseas programs are currently staffed by adjunct faculty, full-time faculty on one-year
contracts, and full-time program administrators with faculty rank. Both the Dean of the Keuka-
China programs and the Program Director for the Keuka-Vietnam programs review curriculum
vitae, conduct interviews with faculty candidates, and make hiring recommendations,
accompanied by CVs and cover letters, to the Chair of the Business and Management Division
and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. To address the recommendation of the PRR
reviewers that more than one Keuka faculty member teach in the overseas programs, the
Division of Business and Management recently hired three new faculty members who will
participate in a faculty rotation plan, now in the development stage, by teaching a 7-week block
at one of our partner universities. The objective is to strengthen the relationship between the
overseas and home campuses, enhance the teaching skills of faculty to work more effectively
with diverse students, and to maximize the educational benefits for both our international and
domestic students.
Whereas the College remains committed to tenure, dynamic enrollments in the traditional,
ASAP, and international programs have led the faculty leadership to explore creating new kinds
of faculty appointments that would maintain adequate and qualified staffing. The Professional
Standards Committee (PSC) devoted much of the 2011-2012 academic year to developing a
proposal for two kinds of non-tenure track faculty appointments to provide stability to academic
programs and yet allow for flexibility. The PSC brought this proposal for a faculty vote at the
December 2012 faculty meeting where it was approved. Approved was a 3-year fixed-term
appointment, designed to fill a specific need – for example, the creation of a new program. The
position may be renewed for three years, after which time it becomes a tenure track position, or it
is eliminated and cannot be offered again for three years. The second kind of faculty appointment
that was approved is a renewable lecturer faculty line that will allow the programs to benefit
from the expertise of qualified practitioners who may lack a doctorate and who would be
responsible primarily for teaching. Faculty serving in either of the two new kinds of
Page 5 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

appointments will participate in an annual review process. In response to the concern that tenure
would be eroded over time, a maximum cap on the percentage of fixed-term lecturer
appointments was set at no more than 10% across the institution. The College will need to
continue exercising sound judgment and monitor carefully its overall faculty lines so as to
balance the need for flexibility with the goal of fairness and equity.
Successful academic programs depend on sound recruiting and hiring processes. Faculty
searches are conducted under the direction of the Vice President for Academic Affairs with the
divisional chair leading the process. Tenure-track faculty are hired through a national search,
ensuring that their credentials and expertise are appropriate for Keuka’s programs. Keuka
College approaches hiring faculty in a manner that is spelled out clearly in the Faculty Handbook
(pages D. 15-18), distinguishing between adjunct, probationary/tenure-track, and special
appointment faculty (see above for discussion of recently approved new kinds of appointments).
With the exception of adjunct and some special appointment faculty, the process involves several
layers of review including vetting and interviews by the program-specific faculty search
committees, the Professional Standards Committee, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
The academic divisions are mindful of the need to achieve and maintain diversity in its faculty,
both at the tenure-track and adjunct level. To add in these efforts, former President Joseph
Burke enlisted a faculty member to develop a handbook, Guidelines for Recruiting
Underrepresented Faculty at Keuka College (Appendix 6.4 Guidelines for Recruiting
Underrepresented Faculty at Keuka College) to be used by search committees. In response to
this work, the College has increased its job postings in diversity-related publications, posts
positions on list serves within the discipline and within specialized disciplinary groups, and on
the Keuka website, so as to achieve broader coverage. A number of recent workshops for faculty
and staff have also focused on this topic. The College continues to have limited success,
however, in increasing the number of diverse faculty. Factors that play a role are Keuka’s rural
location and relatively modest salaries. To underscore diversity as a key institutional value and to
cultivate a more inclusive climate for students, staff, and faculty, as well as the broader
community of which Keuka College is an integral part, we recommend that the College dedicate
increased effort and resources to recruit diverse faculty more successfully.
Faculty Orientation and Support
The search process is designed to find faculty who not only meet the academic/professional
requirements of the position, but also to find faculty who will fit with the community ethos of
Keuka College. The community ethos of Keuka College is underscored in the commitment to
student-centeredness and experiential learning. The formal introduction to Keuka’s community
ethos begins with Community Day, held a week prior to the beginning of the fall and spring
semesters. Over the course of the morning, faculty, staff, and administration share updates on
items of community interest and welcome personnel new to their divisions. Table Talk sessions
offer opportunities for the community to learn more about college initiatives, ranging from
diversity recruiting, assessment work, to strategic planning. Community Day closes with awards
to faculty and staff for years of service and meritorious accomplishments.
Administered by the Faculty Development Committee, New Faculty Orientation (NFO) for fulltime
faculty, both traditional and ASAP, officially begins following Community Day, with the
first day’s agenda devoted to an overview of key points of the Faculty Handbook (institutional
Page 6 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

student learning outcomes, syllabus guidelines, Student Evaluations of Instruction, academic
policies), as well as other areas of faculty responsibility and interest, including Keuka’s shared
governance structure, academic advising, educational technology, experiential learning and
employee benefits. Over the course of the fall semester, the Faculty Development Committee
provides further support to new full-time faculty through presentations on Academic Support, the
Field Period process, assessment of student learning (see Appendix 6.5 NFO Assessment of
Student Learning), and the reappointment process. Additionally, new faculty are supported at
the division level through a variety of means: pairing with a more experienced division member,
especially with regard to academic advising and the field period process, shadowing experienced
faculty by attending some of their classes, the sharing of course syllabi and assignments, and
mentoring by the division chair and/or his designee. At present, adjunct faculty teaching in the
traditional program participate minimally in formal orientation or professional development.
This is an area of concern that should be addressed. In part, this reflects the fact that many
traditional program adjuncts serve the College in another capacity (e.g., academic skills
counselor, student affairs staff, director of distance education), and so they are very
knowledgeable about the College. Also, many traditional program adjuncts have been teaching
for Keuka for more than 3 years, with only a third teaching for fewer than 3 years (Table 6.7
below). Nonetheless, we recommend that the College seek to provide a more comprehensive
orientation and ongoing professional development for traditional program adjuncts.
Table 6.7 Traditional Program Adjuncts Fall 2012
Total Fall 2012
traditional
program adjuncts
Staff Adjuncts Non-staff adjuncts
with 3 years or
more teaching
service
29 10 10 9
Non-staff
adjuncts with 2
years or less
teaching service
New adjunct faculty in the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) are required to
complete an online orientation training session and to attend a new instructor orientation as well
as two instructor workshops each year. The new instructor online orientation provides
instruction on how to use Moodle (the course management system employed in all ASAP
courses), a link to the Instructor Reference document providing additional information on ASAP
procedures, an overview of college level writing and resources available to students and faculty,
an overview of Lightner Library resources, an overview of the Student Evaluation of Instruction
process, and an overview of faculty expectations and best teaching practices for non-traditional
students. ASAP offers professional development workshops to adjunct and full-time ASAP
faculty at least three times a year, with adjuncts required to attend a minimum of two each year.
At these workshops, faculty and staff provide institutional updates; presentations and discussions
of issues pertinent to their teaching, such as academic dishonesty, fair use policies, the
institutional review board process, and andragogy, to name some of the more recent topics; and
program-specific breakout sessions wherein faculty discuss points of interest and network with
other instructors in their programs.
For faculty teaching in the overseas programs, orientation is a responsibility shared by Keuka
and our partner universities. Keuka provides faculty with a Faculty and Student Handbook,
Page 7 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

online video orientation materials through Moodle, textbooks, and regular email/Skype
correspondence, whereas overseas staff assist faculty with administrative support,
accommodations, classroom operations, and acclimating to local customs. Both the Keuka-
China Dean and the Keuka-Vietnam Director make regular trips to our overseas campuses to
meet with faculty, students, staff, and administrators. In October 2012, both provided on-site
presentations on assessment of student learning to Keuka faculty, with attendance by the
Vietnamese partner faculty at Hanoi. Additionally, they teach two to five courses each academic
year.
Each year, beginning in February 2011, small groups of Keuka China faculty members come to
Keuka College campus for a faculty development workshop. There are two purposes for this:
a) to introduce them to the home campus, the Business Division faculty and other campus staff,
and b) to undertake a program development activity. In 2011, the focus was on developing
materials to improve the orientation to teaching in China. These video and print materials were
added to the new Moodle program page in March 2011, and faculty were introduced to the
Moodle site at that time. In 2012, the focus was on 1.) refining syllabus templates to link Student
Learning Outcomes (SLOs) more specifically to assignments, and 2.) identifying the Bloom’s
taxonomy levels of major classroom activities and assignments. These revised syllabi templates
were implemented in February 2012. The College anticipates implementing a similar annual
faculty development process for Keuka-Vietnam faculty in the next year, following the end of
Spring 2013 courses.
Distance education is a relatively new area of operations for Keuka College. In 2008, the
Wertman Office of Distance Education (WODE) was created as an administrative structure to
support the College’s offering of general education courses for ASAP students who had credit
deficiencies, lacked general education courses, or needed liberal arts pre-requisites for their
program coursework. In preparation for entry into the distance education environment, Keuka
initially contracted in 2005 with the Online Consortium of Independent Universities (OCICU) to
provide courses. The College gradually reduced its reliance on OCICU’s menu of courses as it
began to develop its own portfolio of online courses, under the category of Multi-disciplinary
Studies (MDS), administered and supported through WODE. In 2009, campus faculty designed
and developed the majority of the current roster of distance education courses, working with the
WODE instructional designers to convert existing 15-week courses into online and accelerated
courses. They received a stipend for course development with the obligation to teach the first
offerings of the courses, allowing faculty to revise and adjust course materials as needed. Syllabi
are reviewed and approved by division chairs to ensure consistency with established course
learning objectives and in keeping with institutional governance structures.
Adjunct and full-time faculty members who teach online for Keuka participate in Online
Instructor Orientation (OIO) and complete three mandatory online annual trainings, each lasting
about 3 hours, to maintain eligibility for online teaching and demonstrate compliance with
established student verification procedures. WODE also provides access to Instructor Workshop
Moodle Archives, where instructors may view videos from previous trainings, and biannual faceto-face
Technology Workshops for instructors requesting technology training. MDS/WODE staff
provide ongoing written and video Online Instructor Training (OIT) to facilitate online
pedagogy, disseminate best instructional practices to faculty and adjunct Instructors, and
Page 8 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

showcase specific, unique, and effective best instructional practices in campus-wide Faculty
Development Committee Forums.
In Summer 2011, with the initial offering of online courses to students in the traditional program,
a mentoring system was piloted for traditional faculty new to online teaching who were seeking
the advice and feedback of more seasoned online instructors, with a stipend to support the work
of the faculty mentor. New online faculty provide guest instructor access to the faculty mentor
for ongoing review of coursework and online discussion activity, and they participate in an
online teaching forum with each other and the faculty mentor. At the end of the online course
following students’ completion of the SEIs (student evaluation of instruction form), the new
online faculty member writes a self-evaluation (Appendix 6.6 Instructor Self Review Online
Course), whereas the faculty mentor provides summative feedback to the online faculty and an
opportunity for dialogue on course improvement and teaching strategies (Appendix 6.7 Online
Instructor Mentor Evaluation Sample). In a similar fashion, adjunct and full-time faculty
teaching online for the ASAP program work closely with the Coordinator for the
Multidisciplinary Studies who sets up conference calls with instructors at the conclusion of their
online classes, on an as-needed basis. Instructors complete a self-assessment which informs their
discussion as they discuss SEIs and possible improvement plans or strategies to help students
achieve course learning goals.
Spring 2011 Assessment of New Faculty Orientation (NFO) identified areas for improvement:
more information on experiential learning in the classroom, greater guidance of how to advise
students in the field period process, and more discussion of how to prepare the self-evaluation for
the reappointment process. In Fall 2011, the Chair of the Professional Standards Committee
provided additional materials on the reappointment process to new faculty and in Fall 2012
discussed how to improve faculty evaluations with the Division Chairs at an Academic Council
meeting. Additionally, the Division Chairs participated in a webinar “Keys to Effective and Fair
Faculty Evaluation,” sponsored by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Discussion of how
to improve New Faculty Orientation for new full-time faculty continues at the division level and
with the Faculty Development Committee.
Keuka values and supports effective teaching and faculty scholarship in a number of ways. Five
College awards provide public recognition of the linkages among teaching, scholarship, and
student learning, three that are the purview of the Faculty Development Committee: Excellence
in Teaching Award, Excellence in Academic Achievement, and Excellence in Experiential
Learning Award. The College also recognizes annually the excellent teaching of adjunct faculty
at the December Commencement ceremony (begun in 2010) and awards the Professor of the
Year award at the May Commencement ceremony, according to the criteria in the Faculty
Handbook. Recognition of faculty activities and accomplishments occurs annually through the
VPAA Report to the Board of Trustees, included as part of the President’s Report.
A primary means of faculty support is through faculty development funds which are distributed
through the work of the Faculty Development Committee (FDC). The FDC, through a
competitive review process, reviews requests for funds which faculty use to attend conferences
in support of improved teaching, to strengthen assessment practices, to be informed of changes
by their accrediting agencies, to enhance disciplinary knowledge, and to present research. A
Spring 2011 faculty survey found that conference attendance was the most common use of
monies from the FDC, with presenting at conferences the second most common use of monies.
Page 9 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Faculty members seeking to attend a conference are limited to $500, whereas presenters may
receive $750. The FDC budget has not grown apace with faculty growth and has seen minimal
increase over the last five years. In fact, FDC funds have periodically been reduced due to budget
cuts (Appendix 6.8 Faculty Development Funds 2008-2012). The amount allocated to the
Faculty Development Committee budget increased 55% from 2008 to 2012, but in that same
time period, the number of faculty seeking funds increased 156%. Limited additional funds may
be available at the division level, or through the Vice President for Academic Affairs, although
these budgets have also not been increased to accommodate faculty growth. These figures
underscore that there is an ongoing strain between the financial realities of a tuition-driven
institution and the need to find more monies for faculty development. We recommend that the
College increase faculty development funds, proportionate to the number of full-time faculty, to
support faculty teaching and scholarship.
Another way Keuka supports professional development, despite stagnant funding, is through the
Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), created in Fall 2010. The Center, headed by a tenured
faculty member with a course release each semester, facilitates discussion of pedagogy and other
topics of interest through arranging brown-bag lunches, initiating online discussions of teaching
challenges and strategies, hosting the occasional speaker, and serving as a resource to new
faculty. Since its inception, the Center has provided opportunities for faculty to discuss a range
of topics – Using Rubrics, Enhancing Student Participation in Discussions, Working with
International Students, and Using Social Media in the Classroom. The Director of the Center for
Teaching and Learning is currently developing a faculty peer mentoring/coaching program for
implementation during the 2013-2014 academic year (Appendix 6.9 Center for Teaching and
Learning Fall 2012 brochure).
A number of workshops are offered on an annual basis to support effective teaching and to
encourage faculty to incorporate the best pedagogical practices into their teaching, across all
delivery formats. The Director of Educational Technology facilitates a day-long series of
presentations and hands-on workshops each year prior to the fall semester, and the Office of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs sponsors workshops on retention, assessment of student
learning, and teaching practices, some of these through webinars. As part of the ongoing
strategic planning work, the faculty has identified the need for more resources to support
effective teaching.
A Doctoral Education Support Program was begun in 2007 to support and enhance academic
excellence in those disciplines (e.g., nursing, occupational therapy, education) where the doctoral
degree is required for continued accreditation by special accreditation agencies. Annually,
$12,000 is allocated to support faculty engagement in doctoral work. As of July 2012, three
faculty members have completed doctoral programs through utilizing this professional
development benefit, and they continue to teach at the College.
Finally, faculty members with the rank of instructor or higher are eligible every seven years for a
sabbatical, which may be arranged as one semester at full pay or two semesters at half pay. As
noted in the Faculty Handbook, “A sabbatical leave is granted to further the professional growth
and effectiveness of a faculty member and thus increase the value of their subsequent service to
the College.” The Faculty Development Committee reviews proposals and makes a
recommendation to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President. Upon return from
sabbatical, faculty members are required to submit a report in which they explain their sabbatical
Page 10 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

activities and accomplishments. From 2007 to 2012, the College granted five sabbaticals (two
were denied for insufficient proposal development); two in the Division of Natural Sciences,
Mathematics, and Physical Education; two in the Division of Humanities and Fine Arts; and one
in the Division of Business and Management.
The College clearly supports faculty professional development within its limited resources.
Faculty utilize these resources to the fullest, and more support would evidently be encouraged.
Evaluation
Keuka subscribes to the AAUP principles of faculty evaluation, providing detailed policies and
procedures in the Faculty Handbook which is reviewed annually. To ensure fair and equitable
treatment, the Faculty Handbook outlines the criteria for renewal and tenure, and the
Professional Standards Committee provides timely notice to probationary faculty with regard to
decisions and opportunity to respond to an unfavorable evaluation. The evaluation process is
appropriately rigorous and serves both a formative and summative function; tenure-track faculty
submit a self-evaluation in which they address each of the “four pillars” of the Faculty
Responsibility Agreement (FRA): teaching, non-classroom instruction, professional
development, and institutional/community service. At the beginning of each academic year, the
probationary faculty member meets with his/her Chair to review the FRA. The FRA sets the
stage for Chair-Faculty discussions about expectations and performance and serves two
purposes. The first is to provide the non-tenured faculty member with a detailed description of
the specific expectations for faculty at Keuka College. The second purpose is to aid the Chair in
supporting each faculty member during his/her quest for tenure. The Chair has the opportunity
to provide the faculty member with direct feedback on how well the faculty member is fulfilling
his/her duties and to provide greater guidance in areas of concern and accolades in areas of
strength. The FRA also serves as a template for a faculty member when s/he completes his/her
self-evaluation for the reappointment, promotion and tenure phases.
New tenure-track faculty typically have a seven-year probationary period, unless they have
received credit toward tenure. Full-time probationary tenure-track faculty are reviewed by the
Division Chair, the Professional Standards Committee, and the Vice President for Academic
Affairs according to the following schedule: at the end of the first, third, fourth and fifth
semesters, and annually thereafter.
The review for tenure and promotion takes place in the sixth year. Faculty seeking promotion
and tenure submit a dossier in which they must include letters of recommendations from Keuka
or those external to the College familiar with their work, and the dossier may include syllabi,
assignments, exams, and grade distribution data. In their narrative, they must address their
teaching performance through reference to SEIs and applicable classroom observations, their
advising effectiveness, their participation in curriculum and assessment activities, their
professional development, and service participation. The criteria used to evaluate faculty parallel
the four “pillars” of the Faculty Responsibility Agreement. To be tenured, a faculty member
must have a rating of excellent for classroom teaching, a rating of excellent in one other major
category, and receive a rating of at least effective in the two other categories.
To determine the strength of faculty support for the FRA, a recent survey asked tenure-track
faculty and their division chairs to assess its usefulness. Respondents provided their ratings on a
Page 11 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Likert Scale, from “strongly disagree (-5) to “strongly agree (+5). With regard to the utility of
the FRA, the Chairs provided a mean response of .71, and the faculty provided a mean of 1.40.
With regard to how well the FRA provided clarification of faculty responsibilities, the Chairs
provided a mean response of 1.57, and the faculty provided a mean of 1.3. With regard to
whether the FRA should be restructured, there was moderate support from both the Chairs and
tenure-track faculty. Overall, the survey revealed that there is not widespread endorsement of
the FRA in its current form. We recommend a more in-depth survey of the faculty to include
tenured faculty and possibly revising the document to make it clearer and more useful.
The responsibility for oversight and review of adjunct faculty resides in the academic division. In
the 2010-2011 academic year, the Professional Standards Committee examined this
responsibility and strengthened the evaluation process, requiring classroom observations by
divisional faculty and the completion of a self-evaluation document by adjunct faculty. Also
approved by the faculty was the establishment of a two-year cycle for the evaluation process.
Implementation is in progress, with both the traditional and ASAP programs’ working to create
an evaluation schedule that includes both long-term adjuncts and newer adjuncts. For adjunct
faculty and full time one-year faculty teaching in the overseas programs, direct responsibility
rests with the program director who reviews SEIs, reviews faculty self-assessments (Appendix
6.10 Keuka China faculty self evaluation and program feedback form), observes classes, and
discusses continuing appointments with the home campus Chair of the Business Division.
When not in China or Vietnam, the overseas program directors attend all general faculty and
business division meetings, participate in ongoing assessment of business program outcomes,
and serve on divisional search committees.
Tenured faculty are expected to participate in the Post-tenure Review Process on a five-year
cycle. As described in the Faculty Handbook, Keuka’s Post-Tenure Review process provides
faculty “…the opportunity for periodic structured reflection and professional development… The
goal of this process is the opportunity for personal review and reflection on faculty members’
skills and craft, their personal goals and their goals for students’ development.” A faculty
member may choose from four options, three of which involve reflection on the aforementioned
pillars that comprise the Faculty Responsibility Agreement. A fourth option provides the faculty
member the opportunity to develop a unique means of self-analysis or growth provided that it
meets the goals of post-tenure review, as noted above. Upon completion of the process, the
faculty member submits a copy of the final report to the division chair, the Vice President for
Academic Affairs, and the Professional Standards Committee which provides feedback
“designed to acknowledge the work the faculty member has done and to assist the faculty
member in the achievement of his/her goals for future growth” (Faculty Handbook, D 26).
Faculty and administration anticipate that the next several years will see an extensive dialogue on
the relative weighting of the criteria for faculty advancement. Whereas excellence in teaching is
the most important criterion for tenure and promotion, the College has just begun a conversation
about recalibrating its expectations for professional development, the category that historically
has played the least important role in the tenure and promotion process. In part, this emerging
conversation reflects the different strengths of its newer faculty members who bring expertise in
clinical and professional areas. Although all tenure-track faculty are evaluated for professional
development, and a number of faculty members have long been productively engaged in
traditional research and scholarship, there has been little momentum to re-conceive faculty
Page 12 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

priorities. In keeping with Keuka’s student-centered mission, the faculty reward system has
strongly supported teaching but has not supported research or scholarship in equal measure
although scholarship is recognized and valued both in initial hiring and in tenure decisions. With
the expansion of its graduate programs, Keuka finds itself looking toward implementing higher
expectations for professional and scholarly work. The Vice President for Academic Affairs has
requested that the appropriate faculty committees address the following areas:
Adoption of a college-wide definition of scholarship; under consideration is Ernest
Boyer’s seminal work, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate
Revision of the current reappointment, promotion, and tenure policies to reflect enhanced
scholarship expectations
Preliminary analysis of the impact of enhanced scholarship expectations on advising,
service, and participation in institutional governance
Adoption of a policy outlining scholarship expectations for faculty holding graduate
status
Review of comparable institutions to identify evidence-based working models for
determination of faculty load to support graduate programs
Preliminary budget analysis to determine the fiscal implications of reductions of faculty
load for graduate teaching
Preliminary analysis of the impact of course reductions in terms of the need for new
faculty positions to offset load reductions
Preliminary analysis of the resources needed to support increased faculty and student
research activities, including library resources
Preliminary analysis of the adequacy of professional development funds (travel,
participation in professional associations)
Any modifications to the promotion and tenure process will require the involvement of the entire
academic community as well as the support of institutional leadership in order for the college to
implement multiple pathways to tenure.
As indicated above, faculty workload and compensation will be important components of this
change process. Whereas the faculty benefitted from a 35% increase in faculty salaries over a
five-year parity plan which was concluded in 2008 with an additional 2% in 2010-2011, 3.5% in
2011-2012, and budgeted for 3.5% in 2012-2013, a new compensation plan has yet to be
developed; the College leadership anticipates this new compensation plan will be within the
context of the long-range strategic planning process. Two new elements of this dialogue are the
Carnegie reclassification of Keuka as a Master’s College (Smaller Programs) and the
development of a new peer list by the collaborative efforts of the administration, faculty, and
staff which was finalized in February 2012. Additionally, we have identified the need for
determining a process or mechanism for ensuring greater equity in workloads, taking into
account the service role of division chairs, committee chairs, assessment coordinators, and the
differences between the traditional and ASAP models. For instance, points of difference between
faculty teaching in the ASAP model and faculty teaching in the traditional program are number
of contact hours, average number of students per calendar year, number of courses assigned,
average number of advisees, travel expectations, 12-month versus 10-month contracts, and
expectations for service. With regard to the latter, as was noted in a Professional Standards
Page 13 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Committee review of faculty files, many of the ASAP faculty are expected to and maintain a
professional practice in their field, which it makes it difficult for them to participate in shared
governance. As Keuka is a service-heavy institution, this difficulty raises concerns as the ASAP
faculty move through the tenure and promotion process.
Additional challenges regarding faculty compensation at Keuka are the need to attract faculty in
high-demand or specialized areas, and salary compression. The faculty leadership observes that
certain programs face a shortage of qualified faculty in the academic marketplace, leading to
aggressive recruiting and higher starting salaries, with the consequence that market-driven salary
inequities exist between academic programs. Moreover, across programs, inequities exist
between newly recruited persons and existing faculty. Although the College has been largely
successful in retaining its faculty, with most faculty departures due to retirement or non-renewal
of contract (see Table 6.8), faculty leadership has voiced concerns about a possible “brain drain”
should salaries stagnate and faculty seek more lucrative employment elsewhere.
Table 6.8 Reasons for Faculty Leave-Taking 2006-2012
# of Full-time Faculty who Contract not Retired Left for other Died while in
left KC 2006-2012
renewed
college active service
36 11 (31%) 15 (42%) 9 (24 %) 1 (3 %)
Accordingly, we recommend that the administration and faculty leadership conduct a
comprehensive faculty workload analysis and compensation study that will address both equity
and market issues.
Curriculum Development and Assessment
At Keuka College, the faculty Curriculum Committee and Graduate Program Committee
establish and maintain standards, policies, and procedures that ensure that all college programs
and curricula, i.e., on-campus, off-campus, and online, comply with the stated mission and goals
of the College. The Curriculum Committee and Graduate Program Committee also review,
evaluate, and recommend all new courses, programs, and degrees and proposed changes in
existing courses, programs, and degrees to ensure congruence with Keuka’s context for learning.
The Professional Standards Committee ensures that qualified professionals design, develop,
deliver, monitor, and support instruction, research, and service programs. Given the College’s
small size and mission, the full-time faculty teach a wide range of courses within their field at
both introductory and advanced levels. Accordingly, they are heavily invested in designing,
maintaining, and updating the curriculum. Faculty define expected student learning outcomes
and create the strategies to determine whether those outcomes are achieved.
Assessment of student learning outcomes is supported in numerous ways. One is in setting
faculty expectations: academic programs must submit annual reports that include intended
student outcomes, discussion of the activities to achieve these outcomes, the results and
conclusions drawn from assessment activities, and discussion of how results will be used to
improve student learning. As described in the Assessment Handbook (Appendix 6.11 Assessment
Handbook), academic programs also participate in a cyclical program review, a review which
includes discussion of student achievement of program learning outcomes. Additional College
Page 14 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

support for assessment is available through the Faculty Development Committee which provides
grants to allow faculty to attend off-campus assessment workshops. The College also hosts
assessment speakers and webinars, provides course releases as appropriate to support assessment
work, provides enhanced access to assessment literature through library databases and print
resources, and recognizes assessment work in the promotion and tenure process. In recent years,
faculty innovators in assessment practices have been publicly recognized through presidential
merit awards at the bi-annual Community Day. The recent hiring of a Director of Institutional
Assessment, following a year-long search process, also speaks to the College’s commitment to
support assessment of student learning.
Within the traditional program where multiple sections of the same course are relatively few and
adjuncts are used less frequently, faculty have considerable freedom to develop their own
courses and to create the strategies that will enable students to meet agreed-upon program
outcomes. Within the ASAP model, full-time faculty design and collaboratively oversee the
curriculum through creating syllabi that are used by all faculty—both full-time and adjunct—
teaching within the program. Although this standardization reduces instructor prerogative, such
standardization helps to ensure that student learning outcomes are achieved regardless of location
or instructor. Instructors are free to use their unique skills and experiences while teaching
common course content and student learning objectives, and they may add supplemental
materials, readings, and activities, “but the basic syllabus provided must be followed” (ASAP
Instructor Reference 2011-2012, 36). Depending on the program, experienced ASAP adjuncts
are regularly enlisted to participate with full-time faculty in course design and revision processes.
All faculty use the same syllabus template (Appendix 4.20 Course Syllabus Checklist).
Keuka’s full-time faculty has also played a necessary and important role in the redesign and
delivery of online courses, as noted above. Many of Keuka’s first online courses were developed
and taught by traditional program faculty, some of whom continue to teach regularly in the
Multidisciplinary Studies program. The early development of Keuka’s online courses also
involved the use of faculty Subject Matter Experts (SME’s) from New York State colleges and
universities with established online programs. When no full-time faculty was available, Keuka
contracted with these doctorally-qualified, professionally-qualified, and/or universityexperienced
educators to “migrate” courses to online delivery. These faculty redesigned Keuka’s
on-campus courses in consultation with Keuka’s full-time faculty and instructional designers.
Many SME’s continue to teach these courses as adjunct online faculty and several have
subsequently joined the Keuka College faculty.
The development process for new programs has recently been changed (implemented in Fall
2011), now requiring stronger collaboration between faculty, admissions and marketing, and the
budget director, in addition to the articulation of how student learning objectives will be assessed
(Appendix 2.7 Form III Directions for Proposing a New Academic Major Feb 2011). The
development/approval process was changed to ensure greater attention to budgeting and planning
at both the institutional and divisional level. At the course level, new course proposals continue
to be reviewed first by the faculty who teach within the major, then the division, then the
Curriculum (or Graduate Program) Committee before they are brought to the faculty floor for a
vote.
Page 15 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Educational Offerings
The Mission of Keuka College articulates the centrality of the liberal arts foundation. The
College provides a general education curriculum that includes significant offerings in the
humanities (English, drama, languages, music, art, philosophy, religion), mathematics, the
natural sciences, and social sciences (sociology, history, psychology, political science, and
economics). Building on this liberal arts foundation, the College offers a diverse range of
undergraduate and graduate programs that are delivered in both traditional and non-traditional
formats. The school has nine academic divisions, including the Library, and offers 33
undergraduate majors and seven masters’ programs. Included in the general education
requirements for all undergraduate students are learning goals “which will help students to
develop their intellectual, social, cultural, and creative potential as preparation for a life of
continued growth, responsibility, and fulfillment” (Keuka College Record). These specific goals
help to ensure Keuka College students learn from a broad spectrum of disciplines and develop an
understanding of the various ways of knowing. In addition, all Keuka College students
participate in substantive field experiences that focus on the real-world application of
knowledge.
An examination of the academic programs at Keuka College with regard to “sufficient content,
rigor, and depth to be characterized as collegiate or graduate level learning” (MSCHE
Characteristics of Excellence) was conducted in 2011 by the Keuka College Middle States selfstudy
working group on Faculty, Programs and General Education. The models used for the
examination were the Rigor Rubric of Matusevich, Katherine, and Hargett’s (Appendix 6.12
Rigor Rubric), the Rigor/Relevance Framework, which linked the rigor dimension of the
framework to the cognitive domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Appendix 6.13 Rigor Relevance
Framework), and Cognitive Rigor Matrix (Appendix 6.14 Hess, Carlock, Jones & Walkup
Cognitive Rigor Matrix). The Rigor Rubric identified three areas in which educators should be
held accountable: curriculum, instruction, and assessment. At the highest levels of rigor, the
curriculum should “consistently engage [students] in multiple, complex, thought-provoking, and
ambiguous texts/materials that challenge their thinking and feelings”; the instruction should
provide opportunities for discussion, dialogue, and student reflection on complex levels of
generalization and deeper meaning; and “multiple types of assessment” must be used to “monitor
students’ growing understanding” (p. 48). To determine the degree to which the College’s
educational offering provide sufficient rigor, a working group conducted an analysis of 120
undergraduate syllabi, including samples from the traditional and ASAP programs, in the
following manner:
1. Key words and phrases were extracted from the models referenced above.
2. Key word relationships were established based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. A level of
rigor was established relative to each of the key words and the types of learning. The
types of learning related to analysis, synthesis and evaluation/creating can be identified
with higher levels of complex thinking, as one would find in higher education.
3. A word search was conducted on the objectives and student assessment sections of
each syllabus using the key words list, and levels of rigor were determined for each
course.
Page 16 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

The results of this analysis follow:
1. Of the 120 syllabi, 116 had explicit course objectives (97% compared to a 72% result
found for the self study conducted in 2002).
2. The majority of the course syllabi had between 4 and 8 course objectives.
3. Of the 120 syllabi, 93 courses (78%) explicitly listed course objectives that would
constitute adequate rigor for higher education.
4. Of the 120 syllabi, 104 courses (87%) identified specific student assessment measures
which could be aligned with the rigor required of higher education.
5. Of the 120 syllabi, only 4 courses (0.83%) did not indicate the rigor required of higher
education based on the combination of course objectives and student assessment. This
does not necessarily mean that these courses did not exhibit a higher level of rigor – it
was just not evident in the course syllabus.
The following two tables indicate the frequency of each level of rigor (as indicated by Bloom’s
Taxonomy), addressed in either course objectives or student assessment, as determined by key
words:
Table 6.9 Frequency of Levels of Rigor and their Occurrence with Course Objectives
Level of Learning Count % of Population
Remembering/Knowledge 105 87.5%
Understanding/Comprehension 97 80.8%
Applying/Application 89 74.2%
Analyzing/Analysis 63 52.5%
Evaluating/Synthesis 28 23.3%
Creating/Evaluation 34 28.3%
While a high level of rigor is evident throughout the course syllabi, the levels of rigor do indicate
a lower frequency of use of terms related to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (synthesis,
evaluating/evaluation, and creating). Similarly, assessment methods as identified in course
syllabi indicate rigor, but perhaps a lower level than might be expected.
Table 6.10 Frequency of Assessment Type Occurring in the Syllabus Sample
Type of Assessment Count % of Population
Testing/Quizzes 60 50.0%
Writing/Papers 83 69.2%
Homework 57 47.5%
Page 17 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Presentation 47 39.2%
Case Study 17 14.2%
Term Project 68 56.7%
Group Work 23 19.2%
Other 54 45.0%
Note: “Other” types of assessment included sketchbook, community event attendance, learning journal, critiques,
forum discussion, book analysis, experiential component, milestones, peer review, lab exams, tri-wall creation, band
performances, literacy instruction, use of software apps.
The review of syllabi revealed an important trend, namely that the faculty have made their
syllabi more learning-centered by routinely including course goals and objectives, a significant
change from the time of the last syllabi review in 2002. This improvement has been driven, in
part, by the inclusion of Syllabus Guidelines in the Faculty Handbook which specifies the need
for course objectives, and reinforced more recently (beginning with the Spring 2010 Semester)
by the Vice President for Academic Affairs who requests that faculty submit each semester a
Course Syllabus Checklist to accompany all syllabi maintained in the Office of Academic
Affairs. For the ASAP Program, 99% of the syllabi provide course outcome goals, and 31% have
program outcome goals. For the Traditional Fall 2010 Program, 96% of the syllabi identified
course outcome goals, and only 10% listed program outcome goals. For the Traditional Spring
2011 Program, however, 91% of the syllabi listed course outcome goals, and 61% listed program
outcome goals. In addition to delineating the need for course objectives to be aligned with
student learning goals and program outcomes, the Course Syllabus Checklist also provides
faculty with best practice information for syllabi development (e.g., utilizing our Learning
Management System, Moodle).
A review of course syllabi for accelerated courses in the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program
(ASAP) showed that they also provide instructional equivalences to comply with the credit hour
requirements.
Student learning goals are available to prospective students via the Keuka website and various
handbooks (e.g., Student Handbook, ASAP Graduate Handbook, ASAP Undergraduate
Handbook). Those programs requiring specialized outside accreditation usually contain a more
thorough description of program outcomes (e.g., Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Social Work).
Whereas the syllabi review provides direct evidence of rigorous student learning goals, student
survey information provides indirect evidence of rigor. As a means of acquiring student
opinions of their education experience, the following most recent surveys were examined: 2012
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and the 2009 Recent Graduate Survey. The
Recent Graduate Survey results indicated that 86% of the graduates believed that the College’s
experiential Field Period requirement was helpful for their career development. In addition, only
2% of the students surveyed indicated that they were not prepared for the job search process.
This result suggests that the students have mastered the higher levels of learning (analysis,
Page 18 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

synthesis, evaluation, and application) required to be successful in the job interview setting. A
review of the last six years of NSSE data shows that there has been a general increasing trend in
the students’ self-reported measures of these higher-level learning activities (Chart 6.1 below)
for freshmen and seniors, including the seniors from both the traditional and ASAP programs.
Chart 6.1 NSSE data from 2006 to 2012 on academic rigor for both traditional freshmen
and senior students at Keuka College.
Moreover, Keuka continues to do well as measured against its peers with regard to the level of
academic challenge it provides to its students, as measured in the NSSE data:
Chart 6.2 NSSE Benchmark Data Level of Academic Challenge Senior Response 2006-2012
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
57.8
60.8
57.6
Level of Academic Challenge SR
62.9
63.6 64.7 64.8
56.3 56.9 57.7 59.4
55.8 56.5 57.5 58.4
57.0 58.8 58.3 59.6
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Carnegie Peers Nat'l Group Selected Peers Keuka
The following items which address higher levels of learning further substantiate these positive
results regarding academic rigor:
1. “Coursework emphasized: analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience or
theory” (85%);
Page 19 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

2. “Coursework emphasized: synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or
experiences into new more complex interpretations and relationships (83.5%);
3.“Coursework emphasized: making judgments about the value of information,
arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and
assessing the soundness of conclusions” (83%);
4. “Coursework emphasized: applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in
new situations” (85%).
These responses suggest that students believed their education at Keuka College focused mainly
on the higher levels of learning that indicate course rigor.
To ensure adequate content and rigor, the Keuka College Essential Learning Outcomes
definitions (Appendix 4.16 ELEAP definitions) provide an overall foundation for supporting this
purpose. Not only is there evidence of a broad approach to student education, but the appearance
of such terms as “creativity,” “synthesis,” “designing,” and “evaluating” help to reinforce the
higher levels of learning as outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy. Two active mechanisms are used to
ensure the principles outlined in the Essential Learning Outcomes document: the Curriculum
Committee and Annual Assessment Reports by Divisional Chairs and Program Coordinators.
Through review of all proposals for new and substantially modified courses and programs, the
Curriculum Committee “serve[s]s as the Academic Faculty’s agent in reconciling this primary
responsibility [the curriculum purpose, design, and operation] with the mission of the College”
(Appendix 1.1 Faculty Handbook 2012-2013).
While the Curriculum Committee helps to ensure that proposed and existing courses are aligned
with the College’s mission and provide sufficient rigor, the implementation and annual review of
student assessment falls to the Division Chairs. In one-on-one meetings and email
correspondence, the Division Chairs described a number of different methods they use to ensure
rigor, breadth, and depth in the curriculum:
1. Employing a goal-driven strategic plan for the Division;
2. Engaging in professional or educational accreditation from bodies external to the
College (e.g., the Management Division’s adherence to IACBE standards or the Nursing
Division to the standards of the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE)) ;
3. Tying faculty professional development to curricular development
4. Reviewing current resources (e.g., subject matter text books) that reflect current
educational standards in the field of study and updating syllabi;
5. Assigning courses to faculty members who are both educationally and experientially
qualified
6. Monitoring student course evaluation (SEIs)
7. Participating in current peer-related research in the field of study
While all Divisions of the College have some process to evaluate the rigor of their curricula, at
present, there is little uniformity of these processes among the Divisions. The development of a
standardized process to assess rigor would benefit faculty review of the quality of their
programs.
The College works diligently to ensure the learning environments, whether face-to-face, hybrid,
or online, are optimal for student success. Accordingly, technology plays a significant role in
teaching and learning at the College. In 2005 the College received a $1.8 million (over 5 years)
Department of Education Title III grant to enhance educational technology. All classrooms on
Page 20 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

the traditional campus were outfitted with computers, internet access, LCD projectors, and many
equipped with SMART technology. The entire campus was updated with a robust wireless
network in August 2010. An initiative to update all computers to the Windows 7 OS and
Microsoft Office 2007 across campus was completed in Spring 2012. The Keuka Park campus
has four computer labs, each with printing capabilities. The IT office provides help desk support
until 10 p.m. Monday through Friday for students with technology issues on campus
(http://itservices.keuka.edu/), whereas the Wertman Office of Distance Education provides helpdesk
Moodle support for ASAP students daily from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
In addition, the College created a new department, Educational Technology (Ed Tech), and hired
a Director of Educational Technology to pair educational-related technical expertise with the
new equipment. The Director of Educational Technology, who reports to Academic Affairs, is
charged with improving teaching and learning with technology in and out of the classroom and
works closely with Information Technology (IT) staff, who report to Finance and Administration
and deal primarily with the hardware, software, and networking of the entire College. The
Director of Ed Tech department is responsible for researching the most effective trends in
educational technology and working with and training the faculty to utilize educational
technology products and pedagogical methods. One current Ed Tech pilot project implemented
an e-portfolio system for students, allowing them to design web pages populated with course
work artifacts and to create an online portfolio to submit to prospective employees after
graduation. To meet assessment purposes, faculty required students to submit assignments to the
e-portfolio, graded the assignments using an online rubric, and collected assessment data. This
project was launched in Spring 2012 with the sociology, organizational communication, and
education programs. The preliminary results, although limited, have been positive (Appendix
4.55 Pilot Program for Eportfolios Spring 2012), and the inclusion of college-wide e-portfolios is
being considered in the new strategic plan under development. In addition to pedagogical
support provided to the faculty through Educational Technology, the Wertman Office of
Distance Education (WODE) provides instructional design support for the College and logistical
support for the College’s distance education program. WODE has also created and implemented
an online development program to train faculty to be effective online instructors.
As a precursor to the campus-wide propagation of Foliotek, WODE worked with two ASAP
programs to install the e-Portfolio module Exabis E-Portfolio (located in the College’s learning
management system, Moodle) for assessment purposes. The undergraduate nursing program uses
Exabis ePortfolio to assess its students’ progress in completing journal reflections in the seven
areas of student learning outcomes for undergraduate nursing students. The Exabis E-Portfolio
allows students to selectively share and collaborate with their advisers on the material in their
portfolios. Additionally, the Master of Science in Management program uses the Moodle
ePortfolio tool for students to gather research and collaborate with their research mentor on their
final capstone project. Students and faculty are trained in using the ePortfolio via videos and
printed material, made available to each undergraduate nursing and graduate Master's of Science
in Management cohort via a separate course page.
Page 21 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

To support student learning at each instructional site used in the ASAP program, the College
establishes formal agreements, or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) which specify,
among other things, the physical facilities and educational technology support to be provided by
the off-campus facility. Several ASAP instructors were contacted regarding their experiences at
several of the off-campus facilities, including Onondaga Community College, Cayuga
Community College, Mohawk Valley Community College, Monroe Community College Damon,
and the Finger Lakes Community College at Victor campus. In general, the facilities and support
met the expectations specified in the agreements. However, there have been instances when offcampus
facilities do not meet expectations, and then faculty are instructed to follow a process to
bring facility-related issues to the attention of ASAP management. Once identified, the
individual issue is promptly addressed and corrected. On occasion, instructors have sought to
remedy the problem on their own, such as bringing their own supplies to class or moving to a
larger classroom, but the College encourages instructors to work through the appropriate formal
channels. Recognizing this need to improve communication and assistance to faculty teaching in
the ASAP program through a stronger service model approach, the College implemented the
Center for Professional Studies Instructor Services Division in September 2012 to support
instructor recruitment, orientation, scheduling, evaluation, and resource needs.
Various agreements established with our international campuses ensure students access to
supportive learning environments. In China, the administrative details (physical facility
availability and educational technology support) are handled by our China office, Keuka China
Program International (KCPI). Minimum technology requirements are established for each
classroom (i.e., lectern, projector, computer, etc.). Internet access and connectivity to the Keuka
Library resources are also available (although some occasional internet access restrictions exist
via the Chinese government). In Vietnam, the classroom and furnishings are handled by the
partner schools, International School Vietnam National University at Hanoi (ISVNU) and Ho
Chi Minh University of Science. Each classroom is equipped with white boards, wireless internet
access, ceiling-mounted LCD projectors, projector screens, sound systems, and computers.
Feedback from instructors who have taught in these facilities indicates, in general, the
international facilities are equal to or better than the smart classrooms in the domestic facilities.
Access to the College’s online resources for all of Keuka’s programs is essential since all the
disciplines require information literacy skills. Keuka identifies information literacy as a
foundational skill component of its general education program. The General Education Learning
Outcome for Information Literacy details the specific skills expected of all Keuka graduates: 1)
defining the research/information problem, 2) accessing information sources, 3) evaluating
information sources, and 4) documenting information sources. For the traditional program,
ENG 110 and ENG 112 serve as foundational courses in the fulfillment of General Education
writing requirements and address informational literacy issues by requiring students to
“demonstrate the ability…to locate, access, evaluate and document a variety of sources of
information and ideas consistent with ” the General Education Learning Outcome for
Information Literacy. These courses, offered every semester, introduce and develop student
skills in college-level written and oral communication, and information literacy, with ENG 112
focusing on “advanced argument and research techniques.”
Page 22 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Assessment of information literacy within English 112 relies in part on a required information
literacy test. Instructor and librarian dissatisfaction with the test, perceived to be outdated with
regard to library resources available as well as with the skills students need to know, led to a
complete redesign of the exam with new questions geared toward each of Keuka’s four
information literacy outcomes. The new exam was piloted in Spring 2011 in 3 sections of
English 112 (n=82 students) and has yielded useful information about areas of weakness which
has helped librarians design library instruction that focuses on those areas where students need
the most help (Appendix 6.15 Information Literacy Exam Spring 2011).
In alignment with Standard 3.1 of the new Association of College and Research Libraries
Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, adopted in October 2011 – “Library personnel
collaborate with faculty to embed information literacy outcomes into curricula, courses, and
assignments”—Keuka’s librarians have spearheaded the following initiatives:
Working with several of the English 110 and 112 faculty to integrate more intentionally
into the students’ research experiences by coming into the classrooms while students do
their research and being able to answer students’ questions in real time
Working with two regularly employed adjunct composition faculty to meet with each
English 112 student in a mandatory conference to discuss possible topics and resources
for their research paper
Fall 2012 feedback from participating composition faculty has been very positive, noting that
fewer students have changed their topics at the last minute because they were unable to locate
sufficient resources, students were more excited about their topics, and students reported being
more comfortable seeking assistance from the reference librarians. Participating composition
faculty indicated they will continue with the actions noted above.
Within the academic majors, the development of research skills is explicitly identified as a
program outcome (e.g., program goals for political science/history, social work, English) or
explicitly through capstone expectations, such as the completion of a research project (e.g., ASL
and ASL-English interpreting, business, psychology, nursing, criminal justice, biology,
biochemistry). A number of program faculty collaborate with librarians who design library
instruction that focuses on the subject-specific information literacy needs of the major and also
directly relates to the assignment students are or will be working on. Librarians have also
provided information literacy instruction for upper-level courses in sociology, occupational
therapy, biology, humanities, and business. Librarians have also prepared both discipline-specific
as well as course-specific LibGuides (http://libguides.keuka.edu/index.php) which provide
instruction on how to access library resources and use information resources for assignments.
As underscored in the Lightner Library Mission and Vision Statements (Appendix 6.16 Lightner
Library Mission and Vision Statements), the library will “play a pivotal role in information
literacy instruction for traditional and nontraditional students.” As illustration, a dedicated ASAP
librarian travels to meet with cohorts across New York State to provide instruction and an
overview of using resources appropriately. At ASAP Instructor Workshops, librarians discuss
copyright, fair use, and plagiarism issues and direct faculty to resources to use with their
students. ASAP professional writing specialists regularly teach COM 320 Business and
Professional Writing, required as an entry course in the ASAP curricula for Social Work,
Page 23 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Organizational Management, and Criminal Justice, which highlights the development and
application of research skills. ASAP program faculty develop further students’ ability to interpret
and evaluate information resources needed for their capstone project, the Action Research
Project, through direct instruction and one-on-one feedback as they complete their project.
Students in the China and Vietnam programs receive initial instruction on information literacy
through the FYE 101 course and have access to Keuka’s electronic library resources, including
the “ask a librarian” link, in addition to the library resources available at their home campuses.
Information literacy is part of the Keuka College curriculum in other ways as well. Keene,
Colvin, and Sissons (2010) indicated that information literacy activities can be mapped against
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Appendix 6.17 Mapping Student Information Literacy to Bloom’s). Using
this model and the data generated from the analysis of course syllabi, the curriculum supports the
seven skills related to a student’s competency in information literacy. Of the 120 courses
analyzed, only three courses did not address basic information literacy skills, and those were
advanced math and chemistry courses aimed at a high level of cognitive learning. In addition,
74% of the courses addressed information literacy skills equal to the first four levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy. This indicates a high degree of student activity involving the information literacy
skills identified in the Middle States publication, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher
Education (p. 42). A comparison of results from the 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 NSSE surveys
of Keuka College seniors shows a steady increase in how often they worked on a paper or project
that required integrating ideas or information from various sources (Chart 6.3). This metric
aligns with the Information Location and Evaluation stage described in the Keene, Colvin, and
Sissons’s model, as well as with Keuka’s information literacy graduate outcome statement which
identifies “accessing information sources” and “evaluating information sources” as key skills.
Chart 6.3 NSSE Item- Paper or Project Requiring Integration
2012
2012
2008
2006
Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or
information from various sources: NSSE data
Seniors
3.61
3.50 3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 3.75
3.63
3.65
3.69
Page 24 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Transfer Policies
In addition to working with its partner sites to ensure suitable learning environments, Keuka
works with its partner sites to develop and implement transfer policies that will facilitate the
entry of transfer students into its programs. As noted in Chapter 5, transfer students join the
traditional program, ASAP and overseas programs (all ASAP undergraduate and overseas
students are transfer students). For students seeking to transfer into the traditional program from
a regional community college, they may find up-to-date articulation agreements and credit
transfer guidelines on the College website http://admissions.keuka.edu/transfers/credit-transferguides/.
Transfer credits from regionally accredited post-secondary U.S. institutions, proprietary
colleges, and other institutions are evaluated and accepted on a case-by-case basis. The complete
transfer admissions process, including transcript evaluation procedures, is detailed in Appendix
6.18 Keuka College Transfer Admissions Process, and a transfer admissions counselor assists
students throughout the process. After the transcript evaluation is complete, the registrar then
sends the student a transcript evaluation showing the credits that will be accepted (Appendix
6.19 Transfer Evaluation examples ASAP & Traditional). The transcript evaluation also informs
students of the Keuka College course equivalencies for the classes they have taken and the
estimated credit hours they will have to complete in order to obtain a degree.
Students who have obtained an associate’s degree, seeking admissions into the traditional or
ASAP program, are not required to complete the general education curriculum at Keuka.
However, all transfers must complete the general education course INS 301 Integrative Studies
and a field period (or its equivalent in the ASAP program). Additionally, depending on their
major program, students may need to complete prerequisites which are identified in the transcript
evaluation. Credits taken at an institution over 5 years ago are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Students who have earned 25 or more credits, but do not have an associate’s degree, are not
required to complete the entire general education curriculum as a freshman entering the
institution would. In order for these students to have their general education requirements
waived, they must demonstrate achievement of a similar breadth of knowledge and experience in
the arts and sciences in three Breadth of Knowledge categories. Students transferring 25 or more
credits can also submit a waiver for the required freshman English and wellness courses (Keuka
College Record 2012-2013). Prospective ASAP students find information regarding Keuka’s
transfer policies at http://asap.keuka.edu/become/ which also identifies the locations across New
York State where they can complete their undergraduate degree or provides information
regarding graduate level programs.
Students studying in the graduate adult learning program can transfer a maximum of 9 credit
hours of graduate courses. In order for credits to transfer, students must have earned a grade of B
or higher at an accredited institution, and the credits must have been obtained in the last five
years. Credits are transferred at the discretion of the Program Director. If students wish to take
courses at another institution to complete their program requirements while at Keuka, they must
obtain the permission of the Program Director and the Associate Vice President for Professional
Studies (Accelerated Studies for Adults Program Graduate Handbook 2011-12, Academic
Policies Section).
Page 25 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Keuka enrolls international students in the traditional, on-campus programs in both undergraduate
and graduate degree programs. In addition to the requirements listed above for
traditional admissions or graduate admissions, international students are required to submit an
official transcript from an official credential evaluation agency. Transfer credits earned at
foreign institutions are evaluated and accepted on an individual basis (Keuka College Record
2012-2013). For international students entering the traditional program at Keuka College as
first-year students, a high school transcript (or equivalent) is required. For international exchange
students, who come to Keuka after studying for a period of time at one of our partner
universities, transcripts from the partner school are required. Each partner school in China
originally had a different format for transcripts; however, the Dean of the China Program worked
with all the schools to create a common format in 2010. Transcripts are received in June or July
by the Center for Global Education and are reviewed by the Registrar. Transcript evaluation is
completed before transfer students arrive on campus, and faculty advisors work with students to
enroll them in their campus coursework.
Students in Keuka’s overseas programs, both China and Vietnam, complete an undergraduate
business management program of 120 credit hours, with 90 credits provided by their home
institution and transferred to Keuka, and the remaining 30 credits provided by Keuka. Students
in these overseas programs take the same courses, both general education and business courses;
the Registrar conducts a transfer credit evaluation of all courses taken at the home institution,
making sure that students have passed the required courses and ensuring that they have
completed all degree requirements (Interview with Linda Fleischman, Registrar, May 4, 2011).
Documents listing transcript review policies and transfer credit are updated each year. The
Registrar works closely with Admissions and Division Chairs to address courses that are not
included in accreditation agreements or for which there is not an obvious match so as to make
appropriate decisions, whether to deny credit or to award credit for equivalent courses. In
addition, the College is in the process of setting up a committee to review the articulation
agreements set up with each school to make sure the correct courses are still matched and to
ensure that new courses are being accounted for.
General Education
A Keuka College education is based on the liberal arts as delivered primarily through our general
education (Gen Ed) program. As noted in Chapter 4, “the general education program is the
common educational experience of all traditional Keuka College students [and equivalent
transfer classes for ASAP and overseas programs], providing them with breadth of knowledge,
intellectual skills, and personal dispositions of an educated person.” The General Education
requirements are based on a set of student learning goals which are organized in three categories:
Foundational Skills, Breadth of Knowledge, and Dispositions (Appendix 4.22 General Education
Learning Goals). Each Gen Ed course addresses one or more of these student learning goals.
A substantial revamping of the General Education curriculum is at the forefront of the ongoing
Long Range Strategic Planning initiatives, namely to create “a nationally recognized and
distinctive General Education Program” (“Long Range Strategic Plan version 1.7 December
2012”). At its December 2012 Faculty Meeting, the faculty approved the formation of a working
Page 26 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

group to develop a new general education program, as a result of the work done by the Taskforce
on Revitalizing the Curriculum. As outlined in Appendix 6.20 Motion for New General
Education Program Development Dec. 2102, the working group will explore transforming
Keuka’s general education program to include a series of interdisciplinary core seminars that will
address computational thinking skills, sustainability, service learning, leadership, civic
engagement, cross-cultural, and inclusion experiences. Additionally, the working group will
explore transforming the general education program to create learning communities; to
strengthen experiential learning outcomes; and to bridge academic and student development
cultures to create a single, more cohesive experience for students. Key concerns are how to work
within the existing Breadth of Knowledge, Dispositions, and Foundational Skills frameworks,
how to keep the required general education credits to a manageable number, and how to extend a
transformed Gen Ed program across the entire institution. The “Motion for New General
Education Program Development” also emphasizes the administrative responsibility to ensure
resources to support development and training of faculty to teach in the new Gen Ed program as
well as the necessity for an academic division and administrator to oversee and monitor the new
General Education. This initiative to redesign the General Education program will be underway
in March 2013, with the goal to implement a new general education program by fall 2018.
In its current form, Keuka’s General Education program makes up 41-42 credits (depending
upon class choice) comprising roughly one third of the minimum total 120 credits required for
graduation. The General Education program generally begins with the First Year Experience and
Experiential Learning course, FYE 101, and culminates with an interdisciplinary general
education capstone course, INS 301, Integrative Studies. Middle States expectations for a
general education program (i.e., written communication, oral communication, scientific
reasoning, quantitative reasoning, technological competence, critical analysis and reasoning, and
information literacy) are well covered in the 16 Gen Ed goals. Every general education course
addresses one or more of these student learning goals, and the articulated learning goals allow for
direct and indirect measures of assessment of student learning. The Gen Ed curriculum is
composed of classes taken primarily, but not exclusively, in the freshman and sophomore years.
The Foundational Skills components of the Gen Ed curriculum focus on written and oral
communication, quantitative reasoning, wellness, and experiential learning. These skills are
introduced and assessed in specific Gen Ed courses, but are also strengthened in the major
program and other courses. Program-specific graduation audit sheets demonstrate how Gen Ed
courses are aligned with program-specific courses (Appendix 4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course
Alignment Examples). Most majors (cf. Mathematics) require significant writing assignments
and oral presentations throughout the major courses. The faculty developed a College-wide
writing rubric (Appendix 6.21 Keuka College Writing Rubric) that is introduced and used in the
FYE 101 freshman first year experience course, and is utilized by several programs in writing
assignments. For example, in BIO 390, Junior Seminar, the rubric is used to structure and assess
science writing in this writing-intensive course. This allows students to see and use a common
expectation of writing effectiveness within and outside of the Gen Ed. It also allows students to
see how to advance their own writing skills along a College-defined set of expectations. The
experiential learning goal, based on the Kolb Model of reflection, is introduced and practiced in
FYE 101 via a set of five reflection papers (Appendix 6.22 Kolb Model Reflection Paper
Page 27 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Rubric). The learning goal is practiced and advanced throughout the student’s program in each
of the reflection essays completed after each of the four required Field Periods.
The Gen Ed program was developed in accordance with and is consistent with the College
mission. The College mission describes a Keuka education as, “liberal arts-based,” one which
“fosters personal as well as academic development,” and “valu[es] social responsibility and
diversity.” All Gen Ed courses (41-42 credits) are liberal arts courses. As the BS degree requires
at least 60 liberal arts courses, and the BA degree requires at least 90 liberal arts courses, the Gen
Ed provides the bulk (between 45 and 67%) of the needed liberal arts courses. Both FYE 101
(Experiential Learning) and FYE 140 (Wellness), two of the five Foundational Skills courses,
emphasize personal development in their content, while all of the courses stress academic
development. Values, ethics and diversity are integral areas within the Gen Ed curriculum.
While the Dispositions of the Gen Ed (“Experiential Learning, Diversity, Values and Ethics,
Independence and Interdependence, Social and Personal Responsibility, Intellectual Initiative,
Global Perspectives”) explicitly cover values, ethics and diversity, the explicit learning goals in
the Breadth of Knowledge area stress these as well (see learning goals for Ethical Inquiry, Self
and Individual, and Cultural Contexts, Our Cultures and Cross Cultures in Appendix 4.22
General Education Learning Goals). NSSE data (see Chart 6.4) demonstrates that students show
high scores for areas of personal growth (especially in terms of diversity, values and ethics)
related to Keuka education, and these findings have been stable over the 6-year reporting period.
Chart 6.4 NSSE data from 2006 to 2012 on personal growth for both traditional freshmen
and senior students at Keuka College.
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
.00
Keuka College Freshman Personal Growth
as self-reported from NSSE
Voting Understanding self Diversity real-world
problems
2006 2008 2010 2012
values and ethics
Page 28 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
.00
Gen Ed learning goals and philosophy are articulated to students by faculty teaching Gen Ed
courses and faculty academic advisors. The learning goals are housed in numerous locations for
both student and faculty review, including the Gen Ed webpage (Appendix 6.23 Keuka Gen Ed
webpage), Keuka College Record, Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, faculty advisors
Moodle page (Appendix 6.24 Faculty Advising Resources on Moodle), and the Assessment
Moodle page (Appendix 6.25 Assessment on Moodle). Gen Ed courses are detailed in these
sections (above) as well as the audit check sheets (Appendix 4.23 Program & Gen Ed Course
Alignment Examples) housed on the Registrar website, and the Program Evaluation tool
available to students in the MyKeuka online portal.
The Curriculum Committee is charged to oversee the General Education program and its
assessment. Following the revision of the Gen Ed program to an outcomes-based program, the
Curriculum Committee developed a multi-year assessment plan that identifies when each Gen Ed
outcome will be assessed. The assessment plan includes collecting data for discussion by
relevant faculty and the use of findings for improvement. Although some rubrics for assessing
the evidence for outcomes have been developed, more work needs to be done with regard to the
development of agreed-upon criteria across all the General Education outcomes, including
whether the AAC&U Value rubrics should be implemented across the institution.
Related Educational Activities
Keuka College Seniors Personal Growth
as self-reported from NSSE
Voting Understanding self Diversity real-world
problems
2006 2008 2010 2012
values and ethics
At Keuka College the academic curricula is augmented by numerous academic support services
and programs available to students in all locations (i.e., Keuka Park campus, ASAP sites across
New York State, and the overseas programs in China and Vietnam).
Underprepared traditional students enrolled at the College are identified through pre-term testing
conducted during new student orientation days. All students take the Accuplacer reading
comprehension and writing exam and a math placement exam developed by Keuka’s math
faculty. The results of both exams are used to place incoming students into the appropriate
English and math courses. Low scoring students are placed into ENG 100, Fundamentals of
Page 29 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

College Writing, and/or MAT 095, Developmental Mathematics. Both courses are non-credit
bearing and are designed to bring the student to college-level skills after successful completion.
Additionally, students enrolled in these courses are required to have weekly meetings with
academic support professionals during the semester they are taking the course(s), and the
instructors for the ENG 100 course are also writing professionals working in ASK (Academic
Success at Keuka).
The ENG 100 course has been successful at developing student skills to progress to college-level
English courses (ENG 110 and ENG 112) as well as promoting overall retention. For example,
before ENG 100 was created, a general skills course, GED 022 was in place. Of the 40 students
who enrolled in GED 022 in 2000, none graduated from Keuka. Likewise, in the fall of 2001 (at
this point the class was called ENG 090), 26 students were enrolled in this remedial class. None
of these students graduated. Given these poor statistics, significant changes were made in the
structure and philosophy of the ENG 100 course. The revised course now closely mirrors the
structure of the ENG 110 course in terms of the text used, the assignments given and the
emphasis on college-level instruction. In contrast, the old form of the course was thought of as
an extension of high-school English instruction, and the buy- in from students was minimal. The
revised ENG 100 has shown increases in student performance and institutional retention.
Students are better prepared for later writing courses, and class participation and attendance
increased. Of the 66 students enrolled in English 100 in the 2008-2009 academic year (by which
time the new form had been implemented), 53% graduated from Keuka.
The Developmental Math course (MAT 095) has also been successful in improving student
retention and student performance in later, college-level math courses. Students successfully
completing MAT 095 are much more likely to be retained, perform well in the next-level math
course, and ultimately graduate. Of the 204 students that took MAT 095 between 2007 and
2009, 77% of the students passed (grade of S, or satisfactory). Of those passing students, the
average grade (based on a 4.0 scale) of the next college-level math class was 2.1 (just over a “C”
average). Additionally, of the students that passed MAT 095, only 38% have withdrawn,
whereas 83% of the students who failed MAT 095 have withdrawn (the students in the study are
still enrolled so graduation rates cannot be calculated at this time) (Appendix 6.26 ASK Office
Developmental Courses Outcomes).
Contractual Relationships and Affiliated Providers
In keeping with its vision to be the global leader in experiential learning, Keuka offers a B.S. in
Management at six international universities through contractual relationships with educational
partners. In 2002, Keuka College successfully partnered with several major Chinese universities
in launching the Sino-American Academic Collaboration Program. Keuka College’s Chinese
partner universities include Yunnan University of Finance & Economics (YUFE), Tianjin
University of Science & Technology TUST), Jimei University (two colleges—Chengyi and
Overseas College), and Wenzhou University. A graduate of the Keuka-China Program (KCP) at
the Tianjin site, Jimei-Chengyi site, and YUFE site receives a bachelor’s degree conferred by
Keuka College and another conferred by the Chinese partner university. Graduates of the
Wenzhou site and Jimei University-Overseas College site earn only a Keuka College degree.
These degrees are recognized by both the People’s Republic of China and the United States of
Page 30 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

America. The Keuka-China international relationship has the official approval of the Office of
Academic Degrees Committee for the State Council in the People’s Republic of China.
--Keuka China Program: The Keuka-China program follows the same general education and
major curriculum as the traditional domestic program, following a decision in 2010 by the Chair
of the Business Division to ensure consistency of program goals. Keuka’s Chinese students take
90 credits delivered by the home institution, taught in their native language, and 30 credits
delivered by Keuka instructors taught in English. Appropriately credentialed instructors with
experience in teaching overseas maintain high standards and make clear their expectations for
student learning. Faculty use standardized rubrics, designed collaboratively by the campus Dean
for China Program and business faculty, for grading student work in particular upper-level
courses. Leadership continues to be in the hands of the President of Keuka College in the U.S.
and Dr. Michael Hwang, the Administrative Chancellor for Keuka China Programs, China
Campuses, at the Keuka China Programs International (KCPI) office in China.
Keuka College provides direct oversight of the Keuka China Programs in all academic areas,
including: faculty hiring and evaluation; curriculum development; ensuring of academic rigor;
and assessment of student learning. The VPAA and President conduct graduations at each
campus each spring, and visit on other occasions as needed. They regularly address and report to
the Board of Trustees on China Programs policy, budget and strategy matters. The
Administrative Chancellor for Keuka China Programs, China Campuses, Dr. Michael Hwang
provides continuous administrative support and program leadership at the KCPI office in
Xiamen, China as he has done since the program’s inception, and has developed a successful and
extensive Field Period and Career Management program for all Keuka China Program (KCP)
students. The Dean for China Programs, reporting to the Chair of the Business and Management
Division and Vice President for Academic Affairs, identifies faculty, oversees academic program
implementation, with biannual visits to develop and maintain professional relationships with all
partners, in addition to teaching on behalf of the Keuka China program
In China, the Dean for China Programs conducts monitoring and support visits to each Chinese
partner university (CPU) once per semester for the following purposes:
• Quality control and improvement through meetings with Chinese partner universities
(CPU) and KCPI administrators and leaders and attendance at annual Deans’ Staff
Meeting for all Chinese partner universities, KCPI, and Keuka College.
• Academic support and monitoring through faculty meetings, classroom teaching
observations, and individual meetings with faculty members.
• Teaching of FYE 101 introductory course or FP 401 capstone Field Period course at
selected sites.
• Student support and engagement through presentations to students and student feedback
sessions. The overall purpose of these meetings is to establish and maintain a connection
between Keuka College and students in China; with current sessions covering the
following topics, though future topics may differ as needs change:
o Spring semester Orientation for Year 1 students,
o Fall semester Library and Study Skills for Year 2 students,
o Fall and Spring information session on Study Abroad at Keuka College for
Year 3 & 4 students. Interviews also conducted with applicants.
Page 31 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

• The Dean provides ongoing support for KCP faculty in academic matters and
collaborates with the KCP office on hiring, scheduling and dealing with academic issues
and student matters takes place on a daily basis.
The Dean works with the campus Business Division to continuously review and update the KCP
courses, assessments and program outcomes to match changes on campus, while taking
advantage of the differences across sites that can be used for student learning. For example,
KCP students compare Chinese business practices to those in the U.S, particularly in areas such
as Leadership, Marketing, and Organizational Behavior. The Dean works with the Center for
Experiential Education on assessment and monitoring of the extensive KCP Field Period
program, and with the Center for Global Education on exchange programs for KCP students
coming to Keuka College campus and for KC students going to China (for a complete report, see
(see Appendix 6.27 Keuka China Programs Narrative).
In addition, the Keuka College Registrar and Dean for Keuka China Programs work with KCPI
to closely track the following information to ensure it is complete and accurate:
• The annual teaching schedule. This is developed by the KCPI office, in consultation with
Keuka College.
• All faculty contracts and supporting personnel files. Faculty are appointed by the VPAA, and
contracts are issued by KCPI, with credentials on file at both locations.
• Student grades. These are submitted directly by the faculty members to the Keuka College
registrar; grade reports are released to KCPI, students, and partner universities. Beginning in
Fall 2012, faculty submit grades online and students can access them online.
• Student records. Registrar provides duplicates to the KCPI office. All official records of
academic credit earned in the China program, transcripts and diplomas, are issued by Keuka
College.
Keuka China students are recruited through the Chinese university enrollment system that begins
with the national university entrance examination, or gaokao. Each university recruits students
directly into the Keuka China Program at the specific campus. Students have selected a range of
schools and programs based on the recruiting information provided by each university (see 2011
recruiting materials for each partner university on Keuka China Program’s Moodle page at
http://online.keuka.edu) and are admitted to only one program based on exam scores. All
admissions to the KCP program are conditional until the English language proficiency
requirement is met.
KCP enrolled 3441 students in Fall 2010, slightly less than 3000 in Fall 2011, and 2711 in Fall
2012. Enrollment has declined over the last few years, in part because China has reduced its
national quota for management majors and in part because KCP reduced enrollment at Wenzhou
University while intensifying the English-language entry requirements, finally halting new
admissions for Fall 2012. For 2012-13, China programs enrollment totals 626 new students.
--Vietnam Partner Universities: In March 2009 Keuka College entered into a contractual
arrangement with International School Vietnam National University, Hanoi. (Keuka sought and
received approval through formal Substantive Change requests process from MSCHE in 2009.)
The 2009 contract made provisions for taking over the existing undergraduate degree program in
business and management at International School Vietnam National University, Hanoi. In 2011,
Page 32 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Keuka was offered the opportunity to partner with the Ho Chi Minh University of Science in Ho
Chi Minh City in 2011, and received approval to begin a program there through a formal
Substantive Change request.
Akin to the practice in China, Keuka collaborates with Vietnamese partner universities to offer a
Bachelor of Science in Management (BSM, 121 credits). In order to maintain academic
excellence and program integrity, the curricula for the international programs were developed
and assessed by Keuka College faculty and Division of Business and Management Chair and
approved by the faculty for teaching at the Vietnam site. The program learning outcomes are
identical to the on-campus traditional program learning outcomes that are designed by the faculty
of the division of Business & Management and reviewed semi annually. For the undergraduate
BSM degree, students complete 30 credit hours taught by Keuka College faculty and 91 credits
of course work taught by faculty at the partner university in Vietnam. The 91 credits delivered
by the partner university are prescribed by Keuka College and include General Education
requirements, as well as additional courses in the major and College-wide requirements. The 91
credits delivered by the partner university are recorded as transfer credit on each student’s
official Keuka College record. The 11 Keuka College courses are delivered in the cohort model
(similar to the ASAP programs). FYE101, First Year Experience is a one credit course, FP401
Field Period is a two credit course, and the other nine Keuka-taught courses are all three credit
courses (see Appendix 6.28 Keuka Vietnam Programs Narrative).
At both of our Vietnam locations, Keuka administration work directly with partner school
administration to properly maintain the integrity of the academic standards, promote program
development, and ensure students are adequately supported for success (for a full report of
support services provided, see Appendix 6.29 Vietnam Academic and Student Support Services
ISVNU).
Keuka College is committed to securing instructors for international assignments with
qualifications equal to those of the campus full-time faculty. The Program Director for the
Keuka Vietnam Programs regularly screens applicants for teaching assignments using the
following criteria: possession of an advanced degree in a business/management discipline from a
regional or internationally accredited institution, native speaker of English, and undergraduate
level teaching experience, preferably some experience in an international setting where English
is a second language. Preference is given to candidates with a terminal degree. In Fall 2012, the
Program Director provided a presentation/workshop on “Course Assessment and Student
Learning Outcomes,” attended by Keuka Vietnam faculty on site as well as interested faculty
from our partner sites (Appendix 6.30 Vietnam Outcomes Assessment Presentation October
2012).
All faculty members who teach in the program are evaluated on their classroom effectiveness by
the Program Director during visits to the partner universities. In addition, students complete a
Student Evaluation of Instruction form at the conclusion of each course. The results of these
evaluations are tabulated and sent for review to the Program Director, the Business Division
Chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs at the New York campus. Prior to beginning
a teaching assignment, international faculty are given a Faculty Handbook containing academic
Page 33 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

policies and procedures, a copy of the Vietnam Student Handbook, and general orientation
information about teaching in Vietnam and about the campus to which they are assigned.
In Spring 2013, following the conclusion of the semester, Keuka will host its Keuka China and
Keuka Vietnam instructors at a campus professional development workshop.
Experiential Learning
Experiential learning, the hallmark of a Keuka College education, is integrated with every
program through the required Field Periods (traditional and overseas programs), or Action
Research Projects (ASAP programs). Experiential Education at Keuka College is a teaching
pedagogy that is part of our culture since 1942 when the Field Period program was created.
Some examples of experiential activities in curriculum happen through service projects, activities
in class to allow students to connect theory and practice, and capstone projects that integrate all
of the coursework together.
In recognition of the importance of experiential learning at Keuka, the College presents annually
the Experiential Learner of the Year award to both a first-year student and senior student who
exemplify Keuka’s vision of the transformative nature of experiential learning. The criteria
require nominees to submit a portfolio documenting their experiential learning (Appendix 6.31
Criteria: Experiential Learner of the Year). The winning students are chosen for their
outstanding Field Period experiences, strong co-curricular involvement, service learning, and
demonstrated understanding and application of learning through experiential-based activities.
Recent award winners have worked with probation officers, created a museum tour
(http://news.keuka.edu/academics/experiential-learners-of-the-year-named-2), completed a 4,000
mile roundtrip bike journey of the East Coast which became an elementary school instructional
unit, interned with the New York State Police (http://news.keuka.edu/academics/experientiallearners-of-the-year-named),
and worked in a domestic violence shelter, to name just a few
(http://news.keuka.edu/from-the-field/field-period-solidifies-career-choice-offers-huge-learningcurve).
As these students’ stories make clear, Field Periods are significant learning experiences. As such,
Field Period is tied to our institutional-level learning goals. Analysis of evaluation data from
Field Period supervisors (i.e., employers et al. that host, direct and evaluate Field Period
students) supports that these experiences contribute to E-LEAP goal proficiencies (Appendix
6.32 Field Period Graduate Outcomes Trend Analysis (2009-2012). This direct evidence shows
that students’ demonstration of verbal communication, experiential learning, and social and
personal responsibility consistently rank high (~80%) among supervisors for all Field Period
Experiences (2009 – 2012), while quantitative and information literacy are lowest.
Field Period credit is awarded based on demonstrated learning, not solely on experience. Faculty
are trained in guiding students through the Field Period process as well as the Kolb Model of
experiential learning. New faculty meet with staff from the Center for Experiential Learning
during the New Faculty Orientation process, both before and during their first semester at the
College. In addition, new faculty work with their Division and program-specific colleagues on
developing experiential learning pedagogy and Field Period logistics. Prior to participating in a
Field Period, students work with their academic advisors to develop a learning contract, namely
Page 34 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

identifying their anticipated learning objectives, a potential site and site supervisor, and how they
will assess achievement of their objectives. The academic advisor (faculty) typically signs on as
the evaluator of the Field Period experience and reviews students’ journals, reflection-based
summary papers, and unique documentation before assigning a grade of satisfactory or
unsatisfactory (Appendix 6.33 FP Contract explanation and examples). The Field Period process
is communicated and taught to all first year students through the FYE 101 course (Experiential
Learning), their academic advisors, and the Field Period Resources Moodle site
(http://courses.keuka.edu/course/view.php?id=289 and Appendix 6.34 Field Period Resources on
Moodle). Transfer students in the traditional program do not take FYE 101. Instead, staff from
the Center for Experiential Learning conduct a class/workshop, FP 201, Field Period
Orientation, mandatory for transfer students, in fall and spring to familiarize them with the
process and goals of experiential learning.
Students in the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program (ASAP) meet the College’s requirements
for experiential learning in a number of ways. Whereas the Nursing program requires its students
to complete a 3-credit field period of 140 hours, typically employing a service-learning approach
(2012-2013 ASAP Undergraduate Handbook, 71), the Organizational Management and Criminal
Justice programs require students to complete an action-research project preferably at their
places of employment, providing them “a platform for application of knowledge and skills
acquired within an organization’s changing environment” (ASAP Undergraduate Handbook, 53).
Students in the Social Work program participate in a senior-level 15-credit learning experience
which spans a period of nine months, for a minimum of 416 hours of practicum experience at the
practicum site. Academic advisors serve as mentors to students throughout the experiential
learning experience, and grades are awarded upon the successful completion of the experience or
action research project.
Experiential learning is important in our overseas programs as well. In the China programs, Field
Period is conducted and spread out in four years of the Keuka China Programs. As described in
the Keuka China Program Student Handbook, Field Period “provides opportunities for
awareness of social responsibility, cultural literacy, personal growth, and career possibilities.
Each student initiates and designs her or his learning experience in consultation with a faculty
advisor at the partner university. The faculty advisor helps the student prepare for and reflect on
the experience and evaluates the learning accomplished.” A 2010 review of 88 randomly chosen
FP supervisors’ evaluations provides evidence of the value of Field Period to Keuka’s Chinese
students and potential employers, with students scoring highly across the measure of personal
responsibility and ability to “grasp new situations readily” (Appendix 6.35 China Field Period
Survey 2010). In Vietnam, the students are required to complete the FP401, a course designed to
provide students in the Vietnam program supervised applied learning experiences. Students plan,
implement, manage and evaluate four major events during this intensive experiential learning
course. This course is designed to have an instructor who provides oversight, guidance and
evaluation of student performance and participation. This course addresses the concerns of how
Keuka College can track experiential learning in an international setting. The FP401 course has
been successfully delivered in Hanoi twice (Summer of 2011 and Summer of 2012). Students in
Ho Chi Minh City are still within their freshmen or sophomore years, and therefore have not yet
taken this senior level course.
Page 35 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Credit for Prior Learning
Keuka College awards academic credit for prior learning in a variety of ways. Transfer students
may submit college transcripts for evaluation of transfer credit to their academic advisor or
transfer counselor (College Record, pg. 48, ASAP Undergraduate Handbook, pg. 10, Keuka
College Faculty Handbook, pg. H2). In addition to evaluation of transfer credit, formalized
articulation agreements exist between Keuka College and several community colleges within
New York State; a listing of these schools can be found on p. 48 of the Keuka College Record.
Credit by examination is also awarded to students at Keuka College (Keuka College Record, pg.
12, 48, ASAP Undergraduate Handbook, pg. 10, Keuka College Faculty Handbook, pg. H2).
College credit can be awarded to students who successfully complete College Level Examination
Program (CLEP) exams, Advanced Placement (AP) Program courses of the College Entrance
Examination Board, New York State Regents College Examinations (RCE), International
Baccalaureate Examinations (IB), programs sponsored by the non-collegiate organizations and
the Armed Forces, such as American Council on Education’s Office on Educational Credit
(ACE), and DANTES Subject Standardized Tests offered by Service Members Opportunity
Colleges (SMOC). Official transcripts are required for evaluation of credit by examination. The
transcripts are reviewed by the Registrar and appropriate credit is awarded.
College credit may also be awarded to students who have successfully completed programs
recognized by the National Program for Non-Collegiate Sponsored Instruction (PONSI) or
National College Credit Recommendation Service (NCCRS).
Keuka College does not have a formalized Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) program at this
time. At the request of the College’s Instruction Committee, an ad-hoc PLA working group
(comprised of three full time faculty members, the Dean of the Center for Experiential Learning,
the Executive Director of Administration, Curriculum and Assessment at the Center for
Professional Studies and the Associate Director for the Center for Experiential Learning) was
formed in 2009 to review and make recommendations for a formalized Prior Learning
Assessment process at Keuka College. The PLA working group provided recommendations to
the Instruction Committee in 2010, but the proposal did not gain sufficient support by the
Instruction Committee to be forwarded to the faculty for consideration
Keuka does, however, provide to its students the opportunity to be granted Field Period Credit
for Prior Experience. Information is available to students in the Keuka College Record (p. 61).
As more fully detailed in the Faculty Handbook (section I, pp. 10-13), to be eligible, a student
“must be out of high school for four or more years or have four or more years’ interruption in
post-secondary education”; the experience for which the student seeks credit must be one “in
which [the] student is in direct contact with the subject being studied;” and the student must
assemble a portfolio to be evaluated by the Prior Experiential Learning (PEL) Committee. The
portfolio “documents a process by which prior experiences are translated into skills, knowledge,
competencies and insights. The portfolio is a compilation of information about a past experience
and a critical assessment of the learning that took place as a result of it” (I, 11). The PEL process
described in the Faculty Handbook also identifies how a student can document a prior learning
experience, explains what must be included in the required analytical essay, and notes that the
student must present orally his or her work to the PEL Committee. Detailed published
Page 36 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

procedures for applying for a PEL are available to students and faculty in the Student Field
Period Handbook, on the Moodle Field Period Resources page and additionally on the College
website at http://experiential.keuka.edu/field-periods-internships/resources. Students are assisted in
completing the process for a PEL by their academic advisor and the Assistant Director of Field
Periods and Internships from the Center for Experiential Learning.
Distance Education
Consistent with its mission to meet the needs of its adult learners, most with full-time
employment responsibilities, Keuka established the Wertman Office of Distance Education
(WODE) in 2008 within the Center for Professional Studies to develop fully asynchronous
online instruction as well as to support the Multidisciplinary Studies Program, MDS Instructors,
and MDS adult learners in using the online learning platform MOODLE. Keuka’s
Multidisciplinary Studies Program of online, hybrid, and face-to-face courses serves as a degree
completion gateway for adult learners. The Multidisciplinary Studies Program provides an
online alternative by which ASAP students who need to take program pre-requisites or general
education courses can fulfill requirements in order to graduate. These online courses enable our
students to earn required credits concurrently while working on their program studies.
Through its priorities, goals, strategic plans, policies, procedures, faculty recognition, and
infrastructure, the College has demonstrated that it values distance learning. Keuka College’s
MDS planning process included: 1) needs identification, 2) assessment of College capacity, 3)
availability of capital, human, and technical resources, and, 4) congruence with the Keuka’s
organizational mission. In response to data-driven student and instructor feedback,
demographics, program requests, enrollment growth, and support staff recommendations, Keuka
has allocated substantial staff and fiscal resources. In recent years, Keuka College has made
additional budget allocations for network bandwidth, videoconferencing equipment, faculty
development stipends, electronic library materials, and online course-management software. In
addition, Educational Technology and WODE program staff include instructional technology,
computing and media support, campus networking, and administrative computing to support
online programs and courses, e.g., support technicians, academic technology specialists,
instructional designers, a Director of Instructional Design and Multidisciplinary Studies, and a
Program Coordinator for Multidisciplinary Studies.
Online courses are designed to promote student success. For example, all MDS WODE distance
education syllabi, course rubrics, student handbooks, student orientation packets, and registration
packets clearly state learner responsibilities and expectations for student participation. To further
support student success, these learner responsibilities and expectations are reinforced by
numerous supplemental student resources personnel, online, and printed materials available to
our Keuka’s MDS students. These include academic support (ASK), WODE Helpline (available
daily in-person, by telephone, or e-mail), an ASAP-dedicated reference librarian, ITS support,
student publications, Instructor Welcome Letters, and Student Advisement Welcome Letters.
All online courses have been created from existing face-to-face courses, and each one utilizes the
same course description, content and learning outcomes. Specifically, online curricula, syllabi,
and rubrics convey to students the knowledge, competencies, skills, and abilities that their
scholarship is designed to achieve. The degree of proficiency and/or mastery of these learning
Page 37 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

outcomes are evaluated throughout the online course through quizzes, essays, discussion forums,
case studies, journals, and group projects. Students complete Student Evaluation of Instruction
(SEI) forms at the conclusion of the course to provide feedback to both the institution and the
instructor on the quality of instruction.
Faculty development, training and support for these online courses happen in both online and
face-to-face environments. WODE staff developed an interactive online program to train firsttime
online instructors (Appendix 6.36 KC MDS New Development Program for Online
Instructors). This program has been and continues to be used for instructors in both ASAP and
traditional online programs. This self-paced program covers the following topics: the virtual
classroom as a delivery platform, designing course work for the virtual classroom, teaching in
and managing the virtual classroom, and learning outcomes and assessment. As noted earlier in
this chapter, instructor support and post-course instructor assessment has also been built into the
system. The summer online program included a faculty mentor to help faculty with one-on-one
advice before and during the course. At the conclusion of the course, each instructor completed
a self-evaluation (Appendix 6.6 Instructor Self Review Online Courses) and a faculty mentordriven
assessment (Appendix 6.7 Online Instructor Mentor Evaluation Sample).
To date, approximately 42 different liberal arts and introductory professional-based courses have
been developed by, or with supervision and approval of campus faculty subject matter experts
and Division Chairs or Program Directors. More recently, online Gen Ed courses were
developed for traditional students to take during the summer months. The Office of Academic
Affairs, in conjunction with the Wertman Office of Distance Education (WODE), developed the
online summer program in the fall of 2010; four eight-week online courses have now been
offered in each of the summers of 2011 and 2012 to students in the traditional program.
Keuka has heavily invested in building its online education capacity, including a cloud-based
dedicated server for its online course management platform, and has launched online services to
support all of its academic programs. All Educational Technology, WODE personnel and select
ITS personnel are trained as administrators of our Moodle course management system to assist
home campus and MDS instructors and their students with Moodle-related questions. The
College assures the integrity of its online offerings through password-protected access to
Moodle, to ensure the identity of its students who participate in online learning opportunities.
All Keuka College students must sign a Keuka College Network Policy Agreement (Appendix
6.37 KC Network Policy) before being assigned a username and initial password for access to
Keuka College technology, databases and software. Subsequent to that, students must establish a
Moodle account using their Keuka username and password. Moodle utilizes the College’s POP3
authentication server for authentication of the user entry. After establishing the Moodle account,
the student can then log-in to the Moodle platform using his or her assigned username and
password. On a go-forward basis, user authentications are performed when they login to the
Keuka College network, and second, when they login to Moodle. This authentication process is
in compliance with the Higher Education Act guidelines for advising that institutions will not use
or rely on any technology that interferes with the privacy of a student and expect the student’s
privacy will be protected with whichever method the institutions choose to utilize.
Page 38 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

Recommendations:
6.1 Develop a comprehensive orientation program for all faculty, to include adjuncts, across
all delivery modalities.
6.2 Develop a comprehensive plan for ongoing professional development of faculty,
including identification of resources needed to meet faculty growth, to support faculty
teaching and research, and aligned with a master’s granting institution.
6.3 Establish standards and metrics for faculty workload that support excellence in teaching,
scholarship, professional practice, and shared governance, especially to reflect enhanced
expectations for scholarship.
6.4 Engage General Education faculty in the development of criteria and rubrics for all
general education courses.
6.5 Adopt a common e-portfolio system to track student performance, assist in course,
program, Gen Ed and E-LEAP assessment, and house and display Field Period evaluation
and assessment of experiential learning.
Page 39 of 39 Chapter 6: Faculty, Ed Offerings & GenEd

GLOSSARY January 2013 Middle States Self-Study
Acronym/Abbreviation Meaning Brief Description
ACOTE
APR
Accreditation Council for
Occupational Therapy Education
Admission, Progression &
Retention
ARB Academic Review Board
ASAP
Accelerated Studies for Adults
Program
ASK Academic Success at Keuka
ASL Alpha Sigma Lambda
ASL American Sign Language
The Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education
(ACOTE) is committed to the establishment, promotion, and evaluation
of standards of excellence in occupational therapy education
Committee at Center for Professsional Studies that evaluates student's
progress in various programs.
The Academic Review Board serves to review the academic standing of
Keuka's students as well to adjudicate cases of academic dishonesty.
Members of the Instruction Committee, the Associate Vice President for
Academic Programs, and the Director of the ASK Office serve as the
ARB.
The Keuka College Accelerated Studies for Adults (ASAP) program
offers degree completion and master’s programs for adult learners.
Bachelor’s degrees can be earned in organizational management, criminal
justice systems, nursing for RNs, and social work. Master’s degrees are
offered in criminal justice administration, nursing, and management. The
Keuka ASAP program is designed to meet the needs of working adults –
classes are held one evening a week at satellite locations throughout
Central and Western New York. The ASAP programs are administered
through the Center for Professional Studies and International Programs.
The ASK Program provides academic suport services to all domestic
students: study skills, time managements skills,and peer and professional
tutoring in writing and other content-area subjects. A primary function of
the ASK Office is is to provide services to students with disabilities.
Alpha Sigma Lambda is the oldest and the largest, chapter-based honor
society for full- and part-time students. The Chi Alpha Lamdba Chapter
was Chartered at Keuka College in 2002 and hold inductions annually.
An undergraduate major offered at Keuka College.
AVI American Vending Incorporated AVI Foodsystems is the foodservice company that Keuka College uses.
AVPAP
Associate Vice President for
Academic Programs
B&G Building & Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees.
BASS
Basic and Applied Social Sciences
Division
The Associate Vice President for Academic Programs reports directly to
the VPAA and is responsible for the following academic areas: ensure
Academic Quality; administer Academic Policies & Regulations;
administer Academic Support Services; serve in an advisory capacity in
Curriculum and Program Development; provide administrative support
for Faculty Development. The Associate Vice President advises the
VPAA on a variety of academic issues, serves as Academic Affairs
representative on a variety of campus-wide committees, completes special
tasks as assigned by the VPAA or president.
Basic and Applied Social Sciences is an interdisciplinary division
consisting of criminology, criminal justice, history, political science,
psychology, sociology, and social studies 7-12.
BOT Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees -- governing body of Keuka College.
BSN
BUS Business
Bachelor of Science with a major in
Nursing
The accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree offered through
ASAP. Keuka's program is technically a RN to BSN program, as its
students must already possess a valid nursing license.
The Business and Management Division offers undergraduate majors in
accounting, marketing, and management at the home campus.
Additionally, it oversees the ASAP undergraduate degree in
organizational management, the ASAP master's degree in Management,
the campus-based MS Management: International Business, and the
overseas programs in China and Vietnam.
Page 1 of 6 Glossary

CAB Campus Activities Board
CAC College Advisory Council
CAP
Committee on Alternative
Programs
CC Curriculum Committee
CCNE
Commision on Collegiate Nursing
Education
CEL Center for Experiential Learning
CFI Composite Financial Index
CGE Center for Global Education
CORE Survey CORE Alcohol & Drug Survey
CPS Center for Professional Studies See: CPSIP
CPSIP
Center for Professional Studies and
International Program
CRS Church Related Schools
CSL Center for Spiritual Life
CSVB
College Spiritual Values and
Beliefs
CSWE Council on Social Work Education
CTL Center for Teaching and Learning
CURR
Taskforce on Revitalizing the
Curriculum
Student-run organization that plans and runs a wide range of student
activities on campus. Funded by the Student Activity Fee and supervised
by the Director of Campus Activities.
Representative College Council formed in Fall 2012, comprised of
officers from Staff Advisory Group, officers of the Student Senate,
academic division chairs, three at-large faculty representatives, President
and cabinet, Alumni Council representatives.
Board of Trustees Committee, formed in 2009, reviews matters affecting
academic programs offered in alternative formats and/or locations from
the traditional programs of the College. They also consider proposals,
make recommendations, and report on such matters to the full Board of
Trustees.
The Curriculum Committee of the Faculty has the responsibility for
establishing and processing curricular modifications.
Officially recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as a national
accreditation agency, the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education
(CCNE) is an autonomous accrediting agency, contributing to the
improvement The Center for of Experiential the public's Learning health. Keuka's assists Nursing faculty and programs students are in the
promotion and integration of each student's intellectual, social, personal,
physical and spiritual development. The Center also oversees Career
Services, Field Period and Internships, Community Service, and
TeamWorks.
The CFI is an indicator of the relative health of an institution based on
several key financial measures.
A division of the College that is responsible for recruiting international
students to campus as well as securing new locations abroad to deliver
Keuka programs. The CGE supports international students through
orientation, academic support, and advising.
A national survey developed by the Core Institute at Southern Illinois
University which assesses the alcohol and drug use of college students.
Keuka administers the survey in the spring of even-numbered years.
The Center for Professional Studies and International Programs is home
to the Accelerated Studies for Adults Program and the overseas programs
in China and Vietnam. The Associate Vice President for the Center
reports to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
Former peer group category for faculty salaries--Church-related Schools
IIB (from AAUP Academe Salary Survey)
The office of the College Chaplain and all the programs and services
related to spirituality and moral development
Survey of student information regarding spirituality, religious beliefs and
moral practices.
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) is a nonprofit national
association representing more than 3,000 individual members, as well as
graduate and undergraduate programs of professional social work
education. The CSWE accredits Keuka's undergraduate social work
program.
Center for Teaching and Learning which seeks "to re-energize teaching at
Keuka by stimulating and supporting all forms of professional
development."
A Taskforce reporting to the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee,
charged with making recommendations on revising the General Education
curriculum.
Page 2 of 6 Glossary

DRIVE
Diversity, Responsibility,
Inclusion, Vision and Experiential
Learning
DTF Diversity Taskforce
EBP/ARP
Evidence-Based Practice/Action
Research Project
The D.R.I.V.E. (diversity, responsibility, inclusion, vision, and
experiential learning) program is an integrated educational and residential
experience for college-age students with developmental disabilities. The
non-credit bearing program is offered by Keuka College in partnership
with Penn Yan Central School District and Yates County ARC, serving
approximately 30 students.
Group of faculty staff and students who have been charged by the
President to examine campus climate and make recommendations about
diversity issues.
Major academic project of Master's of Science in Nursing program.
Ed Tech Educational Technology
Department at Keuka College which supports faculty teaching practices
and skill by creating, using and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources. Ed Tech Director reports to the Assoc. Vice
President for Academic Programs.
EFP Eldredge, Fox & Poretti Auditing Firm
E LEAP
ENV
Liberal Education and America's
Promise
Taskforce on Updating External
Environmental Analysis
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
Essential learning graduate outcomes identified by the Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), as part of its LEAP
(Liberal Education and America's Promise) initiatiave.
Taskforce of the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee (LRSP)
charged with conducting a SWOT analysis of the College.
An integrated computer-based system used to manage internal and
external resources, including tangible assets, financial resources,
materials, and human resources.
FAC Financial Affairs Committee Committee of the Board of Trustees.
The faculty athletics representative is a member of the faculty designated
FAR Faculty Athletic Representative
by the chief executive officer to represent the institution and its faculty in
the institutions relationships with the NCAA and its conference.
FDC Faculty Development Committee
FLC Faculty Liaison Committee
This faculty committee supports excellence in instruction and
professional development through New Faculty Orientation and
determining faculty funding to attend conferences.
This faculty committee is concerned with recommending policies and
procedures necessary and beneficial to the welfare of the Academic
Faculty, with providing a liaison between the Academic Faculty and the
other components of the College, and with handling grievances within its
ranks.
FRA Faculty Responsibility Agreement
The Faculty Responsibility Agreement is a document written in
consultation anually with the division chair which clearly describes the
expectations of a faculty member's duties for that year.
The First Year Experience (FYE) is a comprehensive program of
FY or FYE First Year Experience
academic and co-curricular activities promoting the successful transition
of entering students to college life
GDA George Dehne and Associates Enrollment Management consultants and creative group.
GO Task Force / GO
Team
Graduate Outcomes Task Force
Ad hoc faculty committee to research, approve, and integrate new E-
LEAP learning goals into curriculum and institution.
The Graduate Committee serves a policy development and oversight
GPC Graduate Program Committee function, as well as a curriculum oversight function for graduate
programs
Division which houses the following academic programs: English,
HFA Humanities and Fine Arts Division Spanish, ASL, ASL-English Interpreting, organizational communication,
philosophy and religion.
IACBE
International Assembly of
Collegiate Business Education
The International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE)
is a professional accrediting organization for business programs in
student-centered colleges and universities throughout the world. The
IACBE exists to promote, develop, and recognize excellence in business
education. Keuka's business programs are accredited through the IACBE.
Page 3 of 6 Glossary

IC Instruction Committee
The Instruction Committee serves to ensure the faculty responsibility for
all matters related to classroom instruction at the College
IEP Individualized Education Program
An Individualized Education Program, commonly referred to as an IEP, is
mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
IIA Master's level schools
IRB Institutional Review Board
ISVNU
International School-Vietnam
National University
IT Information Technology
Institutions characterized by diverse postbaccalaureate programs
(including first professional) but not engaged in significant doctoral-level
education. Institutions in this category grant a minimum of fifty
postbaccalaureate degrees annually, from at least three distinct programs.
An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics
committee (IEC) or ethical review board (ERB), is a committee that has
been formally designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and
behavioral research involving humans with the aim to protect the rights
and welfare of the research subjects.
Vietnam partner university in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Information Technology (IT) is the organization in an enterprise or
business that is held responsible and accountable for the technology used
for planning, design, construction, testing, distribution, support and
operations of software, computers and computer related systems that exist
for the purpose of Data, Information and Knowledge management and/or
processing
ITS Information Technology Services The computing and technology department of an organization
KCPI
Keuka China Programs
International, Inc.
Corporation which provides adminstrative services and support, and
serves as liaison between Keuka and partner Chinese universities
KCS Keuka College Scholarship General merit-based scholarship
LRSP
Long Range Strategic Planning
Committee
Committee formed by President Diaz-Herrera in Fall 2012 to develop the
next Strategic Plan. Comprised of faculty, staff, trustees, alumni, and
students.
Many Voices - One
College
Multicultural Roundtable Discussion (monthly)
MCA Multicultural Affairs
Student Affairs office that deals with diversity issues and works to
improve inclusion on campus.
The Multip-Disciplinary Studies Program at CPSIP offers online courses
MD or MDS Multi-Disciplinary Studies to ASAP students needing pre-requisite coursework and/or additional
credit to complete their college degrees at Keuka.
MIS Management Information System
A management information system (MIS) is a system or process that
provides information needed to manage organizations effectively
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document
describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties.
MSM Master of Science in Management
The accelerated Master of Science in Management degree offered through
ASAP.
MSM IB
Master of Science in Management
International Business
The accelerated Master of Science in Management degree offered through
ASAP that has an international business concentration.
MVVT
Taskforce on Revisiting Mission,
Vision, and Values
A Taskforce reporting to the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee,
charged with making recommendations on revising the College Mission,
Vision, and Values statements.
MSN Master of Science in Nursing
The accelerated Master of Science in Nursing degree offered through
ASAP.
NBCOT
The National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy, Inc.
National Board for Certification of
(NBCOT) is a not-for-profit credentialing agency that provides
Occupational Therapy
certification for the occupational therapy profession.
The North Eastern Athletic Conference is an intercollegiate athletic
NEAC North Eastern Athletic Conference
conference affiliated with the NCAA's Division III. Member institutions
are located in the northeastern United States. Keuka College is a charter
member
NFO New Faculty Orientation
New Faculty Orientation sessions directed by the Faculty Development
Committee.
Page 4 of 6 Glossary

NS,M&PE
Natural Sciences, Mathematics and
Physical Education
NSO New Student Orientation
OIT Online Instructor Training
OM Organizational Management
PD Program Director
POY Professor of the Year
PSC Professional Standards Committee
R & R
Alumni Association's Records and
Recognition Committee
RA Resident Assistant
RAC
RATE
Rochester Area Colleges
Consortium
Regents Accreditation of Teacher
Education
RD Resident Director
RDA Rural Development Authority
RN-BS
Registered Nurse to Bachelor of
Science
SAAC
Student Athlete Advisory
Committee
SAC Staff Advisory Council
SEI Student Evaluation of Instruction
SID Sports Information Director
The Division of Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Physical Education
includes the disciplines of biology, chemistry, environmental science,
mathematics, medical technology, physical education and physics. The
division offers majors leading to the bachelor of arts degree in
biochemistry, biology, adolescent biology education, environmental
science, mathematics and adolescent mathematics education.
Provides essential information and bonds to the institution through mail
correspondence, an "open house" in the spring, placement testing in the
summer and a transition session immediately before classes begin.
Program developed by Wertman Office of Distance Education (WODE)
to train and support online teaching.
The accelerated Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management
degree offered through ASAP.
The faculty member in ASAP that has administrative responsibilities and
oversight over the ASAP academic program in which they have expertise.
Annual award honoring a faculty member who exemplifies excellent
performance in the classroom and excellent performance in other faculty
activities.
The Professional Standards Committee is charged with the responsibility
of staffing the faculty with the most qualified personnel available,
maintaining a high level of teaching by means of recognition of
professional accomplishments and the maintenance of academic
standards.
Keuka's Alumni Association uses this committee to help select Alumni
Association Award winners. Usually between four or five awards are
given in a year.
Student para-professionals who help manage the Housing/Residence Life
program
Cooperative program providing an opportunity for students to register in
a member institution for one or two courses not offered on the home
campus
RATE program requires colleges to achieve accreditation of their
registered programs that prepare candidates for initial or professional
New York State certification as classroom teachers to ensure that
education programs seeking this accreditation prepare all their program
graduates to be effective teachers. Keuka's EDU program is currently
accredited through RATE, although it is seeking accreditation through
TEAC for 2013.
Live-in professionals who supervise the RAs, and help manage the
Residence Life program.
The accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree offered through
ASAP.
College committee of student athletes that advises the college
administration on issues affecting students in athletics, intramurals and
recreation.
Staff council formed in Spring 2012 to support communication between
administration and staff.
A survey distributed to students at the end of each course they take to
provide feedback on the instructor, the course and the textbooks.
Compiled survey results are housed in each faculty member's file in
academic affairs.The contents of this rating form, including any written
comments will be available to the instructor, the division chair, VPAA,
President and Professional Standards committee in their official
deliberations.
Staff person responsible for compiling sports statistics and promoting the
intercollegiate athletics program.
Page 5 of 6 Glossary

SIFE Students in Free Enterprise
SIM Student Initiated Major
SIMR Student Initiated Minor
SJP Student Judicial Panel
SLAB Spiritual Life Advisory Board
SSAB Student Safety Advisory Board
SUPP
TAPP
TASR
TC3
TEAC
VPAA
VPEMIR
WODE
Taskforce to Review Academic
Support Services
Task Force on Academic Program
Prioritization
Task Force on Administrative
Services Review
Tompkins Cortland Community
College
Teacher Education Accreditation
Council
Vice President for Academic
Affairs
Vice President for Enrollment
Management and International
Relations
Wertman Office of Distance
Education
Students In Free Enterprise is an international network of students,
academics and business leaders working in partnership with business and
higher education to use the knowledge gained in the classroom to address
real world business and economic issues in their communities. The
organization changed its name to ENACTUS in Fall 2012.
Student Initiated Majors are interdisciplinary majors designed by the
student in conjunction with his/her faculty committee that reflect his/her
own educational objectives and/or career interest.
Student Initiated Minors (SIMR) are disciplinary or interdisciplinary
minors, which are not directly related to a given major.
Student peer board that adjudicates first-level campus policy violations of
the Student Code of Conduct.
Group of faculty, staff, students, alumni, local clergy and friends of the
College who examine moral and spiritual development issues and make
recommendations for programming by the CSL
instituted 2010-2011 in order to help Campus Safety identify areas of
concern among students regarding safety issues, and develop plans to
address those concerns
Taskforce of the Long Range Strategic Planning Committee (LRSP)
charged with cataloging and evaluating existing services and determining
their efficacy, researching emerging technologies and best practices, and
making recommendations.
Sub-committee/taskforce of the Long Range Strategic Planning
Committee (LRSP) charged with conducting a costs/benefits analysis of
academic majors and making recommendations to the LRSP.
Taskforce of the Long Range Strategic Planning group (LRSP) charged
with reviewing the College's administrative structures and services to
examine efficiency and efficacy.
Regional community college
The Teacher Education Accreditation Council is dedicated to helping
educator preparation programs improve and be accountable for quality
performance.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs reports to the President of the
college and serves on the executive team. As the Chief Academic Officer,
the position is responsible for all academic degree programs, faculty, and
academic support areas that include the Library, Registrar’s Office, Office
of Academic Support, the Center for Experiential Learning and the Office
of Institutional Research, the Wertman Office of Distance Education. The
Associate Vice President for the Center for Professional Studies and
International Programs reports to the VPAA.
The Wertman Office of Distance Education promotes and supports online
learning at Keuka College, while maintaining the Moodle Course pages
for the Center for Professional Studies and International Programs. The
WODE staff is also responsible for online orientation, training, and the
coordination of syllabi across CPSIP prorgams.
Page 6 of 6 Glossary