Slide 1
Context and Starting Point
We start with the institutional goal, then ask: “What would we observe in our division if that goal is being realized for first-year students?”
Haverford Institutional Goal 2 — Student Outcomes & Excellence / FORD Life
Foster student success through the FORD Life framework, cultivating resilience, belonging, ethical leadership, and adaptability so graduates are prepared for purposeful lives beyond Haverford.
Why start with outcomes: It prevents the division DAP from turning into a list of activities and helps keep objectives and metrics tied to real-world change.
Step 1
Framework: Outcome and “Notices”
We describe outcomes as lived reality, then list “notices” as observable signals that would tell us the outcome is starting to happen.
Outcome vs Notices
- Outcome (what becomes true): a change in student experience or behavior, stated without ownership and without tactics.
- Notices (what we’d see early): observable signals (patterns, behaviors, friction points disappearing) that suggest the outcome is beginning.
Practical tip: “Notices” often become the raw material for good objectives and leading indicators.
Step 1
Outcomes and Notices for First-Year Students
If Institutional Goal 2 is being realized for first-year students, this is what Student Success & Advising would observe.
Possible outcomes (what becomes true)
- First-year students feel connected and supported early in the semester.Belonging is present as a lived experience.
- Students maintain academic continuity through early transition points.Momentum persists through weeks where stress spikes.
- Students seek help earlier rather than waiting until a crisis.Support-seeking becomes “normal” behavior.
Notices (what we’d see early)
- Fewer “silent” students go uncontacted in the first 4–6 weeks.Gaps in engagement shrink.
- More students show up to a first-touchpoint quickly (advising, check-in, or structured contact).Early connection happens by default, not by luck.
- Earlier help-seeking and clearer referral pathways.Students get routed to the right support faster.
- Reduced confusion about where to go and what to do when struggling.Support structures feel visible and usable.
Step 2
Influence Boundary: What This Division Can Shape
We separate the institutional outcome from what the division can consistently influence.
Student Success & Advising — Influence Levers
- Early engagement conditionsHow quickly students are contacted and welcomed into support.
- Support structure design and visibilityHow clear, easy, and frictionless it is to access help.
- Coverage and timeliness of first-touchpointsEnsuring students do not “fall through the cracks.”
- Referral and follow-up protocolsHow consistently risk signals trigger support action.
- Staff capability and consistencyTraining, protocols, and shared practices across advisors/support roles.
Boundary reminder: The division can influence persistence, but does not fully control it.
Influence language prevents goal inflation.
Step 3
Division Goal (Commitment)
Now we write the goal as a directional commitment, anchored to outcomes and bounded by influence.
Division Goal — Student Success & Advising
Strengthen first-year students’ sense of belonging and academic continuity through improved early engagement and support structures.
Why this is a good “commitment” goal: It names the change (belonging, continuity) and the levers (early engagement, support structures) without prescribing a single tactic.
Step 4
Framework: Goal Tests (Alignment + Quality Criteria)
We test alignment to the institutional goal and verify the goal meets the Module 2 quality criteria.
Goal Tests
- Alignment test: Is it clearly contributing to Institutional Goal 2, without duplicating it?
- Outcome-oriented: describes the change we want to influence, not what we plan to do.
- Within influence: bounded to levers the division touches consistently.
- Directional: intent and learning, not prediction or guarantee.
- Observable: progress would show up in lived reality, not only internal effort.
- Aligned: supports the institutional goal without duplicating it.
- Metric-free: no numbers yet (metrics arrive with objectives).
Step 4
Goal Tests Applied to the Example
Here is what the tests look like when applied to the division goal.
Alignment
- Aligns to Goal 2: focuses on belonging and continuity, which sit inside FORD Life outcomes.
- Not a duplicate: it does not restate the full institutional goal, it states a specific division contribution.
Pass condition: You can explain the contribution in one sentence.
Quality criteria
- Outcome-oriented: belonging + continuity (student change)
- Within influence: early engagement + support structures (division levers)
- Directional: “strengthen” signals intent, not guarantee
- Observable: would show up in engagement patterns and student experience
- Aligned: supports Goal 2 without restating it
- Metric-free: no targets yet
Pass condition: You could still pursue the goal if tactics change mid-year.
Step 5
Framework: The Systemic Objective Model
Strong DAP objectives shape the system, not just the outcome.
Conditions → Behaviors → Results
- Results: What changes for students?
- Behaviors: What must students or staff do differently?
- Conditions: What structures make those behaviors reliable?
System check: If you only write an outcome objective, you are hoping.
If you also write behavior and condition objectives, you are designing.
Step 5
Objectives for the Division Goal
These objectives reflect Results, Behaviors, and Conditions without numbers.
Result Objective
By Spring 2027, first-year students demonstrate a stronger sense of belonging and academic continuity by the end of their first semester.
Why: This names the student-level change.
No numbers yet, just the change and timeframe.
Behavior Objective
By Fall 2026, first-year students consistently complete an early structured engagement touchpoint within the first six weeks.
Why: This describes the behavior that increases belonging.
Condition Objective
By Spring 2026, advisors and support staff consistently apply shared early-engagement and risk-identification protocols.
Why: This builds the structural reliability that produces the behavior.
Step 6
Objective Stress Test
Before adding metrics, verify structural integrity.
- Clear change: Does this describe a change, not an activity?
- Within influence: Can this division shape it consistently?
- Observable: Would progress show up in lived experience?
- Directional: Is it intent-based, not a guarantee?
- Metric-ready: Can we attach a measurable indicator?
Objectives should pass this test before numbers are introduced.
Step 7
Now We Add Metrics
Objectives state the intended change. Metrics quantify progress.
Rule: Numbers live in the metrics not the objectives.
Result Objective Metrics
- Belonging survey index (Agree/Strongly Agree %)
- Baseline → Target change
- Data source: Student experience survey
- Cadence: End of first semester
Behavior Objective Metrics
- Touchpoint completion rate within six weeks
- Average days to first engagement
- Data source: Advising/CRM system
- Cadence: Weekly during first six weeks
Condition Objective Metrics
- Training completion rate
- Protocol adherence audit score
- Post-training competency assessment
- Data source: LMS + audit sampling
Full Alignment
Institution → Outcome → Influence → Goal → Objectives → Metrics
- Institutional Goal 2: Student Outcomes & Excellence
- Division Goal: Strengthen belonging and continuity through early engagement structures
- Objectives: Result + Behavior + Condition
- Metrics: Indicators with baseline, target, cadence, source
This is a structurally complete DAP.
It links student experience to system design.