Transcript WASC

Evaluator Workshop
Spring Visits 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Please join the audio portion of this training:
866-740-1260, Access Code: 7489001
ReadyTalk Help Desk: 800.843.9166
International Help: 303.209.1600
1
Announcements
This presentation and the accompanying materials are
available for download from:
http://www.wascsenior.org/evaltrainingSpring2010
For assistance with Voice and Web connections please contact:
ReadyTalk Help Desk, 800.843.9166
International Help: 303.209.1600
Please mute your microphone if you are not speaking
If you have Questions- please enter them into the Chat window
2
WASC Evaluator Workshop
Spring Visits 2010
3
Workshop Outcomes
•
•
•
Know how to prepare for and conduct an
effective visit and produce a useful, highquality team report
Be prepared to make sound judgments
about institutions under the Standards
Be familiar with resources that support
your work on a team
4
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
Context for the Visit/Accreditation
Preparing for the Visit
Conducting the Visit
Developing Team Recommendations
Writing the Team Report
5
Context for Accreditation
and Visits
• The Continuing Evolution of the WASC
Process and Standards
• The Accountability Movement
– Retaining Peer Review
• The Impact of the Economy
• Ongoing Efforts to Refine and Improve
6
Recent Changes in the
Institutional Review Process and
Standards
• Implement 2009 changes to Institutional Review Process re:
Student Success, Program Review and EE Sustainability
• Implement 2009 changes to CFRs
• Clarify the scope of the CPR visit to review the “infrastructure”
for assessment of student learning
• Examine Program Review and Program-Level Student
Learning in a systematic way
• Allow teams more time together on visits
Tools: Table A (RB pg. 41); Table B (RB pg. 47)
7
Covering the Impact of the Financial
Recession on Institutions
Questions to ask the institution:
• How has the financial recession affected your
institution?
• How has your institution responded?
• What plans are in place in case the current state
of affairs becomes permanent?
8
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
9
THE THREE-STAGE
REVIEW PROCESS
10
THE THREE-STAGE REVIEW
PROCESS
1. Institutional Proposal
2. Capacity and Preparatory
Review
3. Educational Effectiveness
Review
11
TIMELINE FOR THREESTAGE REVIEW PROCESS
Proposal
Extended
period of
time to
sustain
Initiatives
(7-10 years)
Submitted 2
Years before
CPR review
Capacity And
Preparatory
Review
Educational
Effectiveness
Review
18-24
months to
prepare for
EER
(or less for
Candidacy or
Initial Accreditation)
12
INSTITUTIONAL SELF-REVIEW
• The heart of accreditation
• Built upon an effective internal process of
– Evaluation
– Reflection
– Recommendations
– Plans for Action
13
Stage 1
THE INSTITUTIONAL
PROPOSAL
14
THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL
• Guides the entire accreditation review process
• Connects institution’s context and priorities with
the Standards of Accreditation
• Provides primary basis for both institution selfreview and team evaluation
• Allows alignment of accreditation activities to
institutional strategic plan and key areas chosen
for improvement
• Can be comprehensive or theme-based
15
THE LETTER OF INTENT
• Submitted by institutions seeking
Candidacy or Initial Accreditation, the LOI
serves the same purpose as the proposal
• Includes suggestions from Eligibility
approval letter
• Submitted to assigned WASC Liaison, one
year in advance of CPR
16
Stage 2
THE CAPACITY AND
PREPARATORY REVIEW
17
PURPOSE OF CAPACITY AND
PREPARATORY REVIEW
• Review and verify the information in the
institutional presentation (report and data)
• Evaluate key institutional resources,
structures, processes in light of Standards
• Evaluate institution’s infrastructure to
support student and institutional learning
• Assess institution’s preparedness to
undertake Educational Effectiveness
Review
18
Stage 3
THE EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
19
PURPOSE OF EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
• Assess the effectiveness of the institution
in learning (student and organizational)
• Invite sustained engagement by the
institution on the extent to which it fulfills
its educational objectives
• Enable the Commission to make a
judgment about extent to which institution
fills the Core Commitments
20
THE TWO CORE
COMMITMENTS
21
CORE COMMITMENT 1
“The institution functions with
clear purposes, high levels of
institutional integrity, fiscal
stability, and organizational
structures to fulfill its purposes.”
22
CORE COMMITMENT 2
“The institution evidences clear and
appropriate educational objectives and
design at the institutional and program
level. The institution employs processes
of review, including the collection and use
of data, that ensure delivery of program
and learner accomplishments at a level of
performance appropriate for the degree or
certificate awarded.”
23
THE FOUR STANDARDS
Tool: Standards at a Glance, RB p. 37
24
STANDARD 1:
Defining Institutional Purposes and
Ensuring Educational Objectives
• Institutional Purposes
• Integrity
25
STANDARD 2:
Achieving Educational Objectives
Through Core Functions
• Teaching and Learning
• Scholarship and Creativity
• Support for Student Learning
26
STANDARD 3:
Developing and Applying Resources
and Organizational Structures to
Ensure Sustainability
• Faculty and Staff
• Fiscal, Physical, Information
Resources
• Organizational Structures & Decision
Making Processes
27
STANDARD 4:
Creating an Organization Committed to
Learning and Improvement
• Strategic Thinking and Planning
• Commitment to Learning and
Improvement
28
Expectations for Two Reviews
Capacity and Preparatory
Educational Effectiveness
• Preparatory = readiness for • Demonstrating student
learning
the Educational
Effectiveness Review
• Demonstrating institutional
• Capacity = purposes,
learning
integrity, stability,
• Demonstrating evidenceresources, structures,
based decision-making
policies, processes
Tool: Expectations for Two Reviews (RB pg. 20)
29
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
30
Preparing for the Visit
(Visit Guide, Part II, pp. 29-52)
31
Roles and Responsibilities of
Team Members and Staff
• Role of Team Chair (RB pg. 193)
• Role of Team Assistant Chair (RB pg. 195)
• Role of assigned WASC staff liaison (VG
pg. 7)
• Team assignments
Tool: Section 9 (Tips, Roles and Advice, RB p 185
32
Timeline For CPR/EER Reviews
12 weeks
Institution
mails report
to team and
WASC
Team holds
conference
call
2 months
Site visit held
and team report
written
Institution
responds to
errors of fact in
team report
Institution
responds to
final team
report
Commission
acts at
February or
June meeting
Tool: CPR or EER Timeline (VG, pg. 29)
33
Pre-visit Preparation
• Read all the documents from WASC
– Standards, CFRs, policies, visit guide, rubrics
– Background documents re: institution and purpose of
the visit, including Proposal and/or last action
letter/team report
• Read the institutional report
• Review the data portfolio and exhibits
– What to look for and highlight?
34
Reviewing the Exhibits
• Enrollment data
– Headcounts and FTE
•
•
•
•
•
Graduation data
Faculty data
Key financial indicators
Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key
Performance Indicators
Tool: How to Review WASC Data Exhibits (RB pg. 61)
35
Reading the Report
• Has the institution done what it said it would
do in its Proposal?
• Has it collected and analyzed data effectively?
• Are its conclusions supported by evidence?
• Are there serious problems or potential areas
of noncompliance?
• Does the report contain recommendations for
further institutional action?
• Has the institution addressed previous
concerns?
36
Worksheet for Team Conference Call
• Organizes team’s evaluation of institutional
materials
• Helps team make preliminary evaluation under
the Standards
• Provides basis for team to work toward
consensus
• Submitted in advance of call
Tool: CPR Worksheet (VG pg. 42)
EER Worksheet (VG pg. 47)
SV Worksheet (SVG pr. 70)
37
Team Conference Call
• Evaluates quality of institutional report and
alignment with Proposal and previous action
letter(s)
• Identifies areas of good practice, improvement,
and further inquiry
• Identifies issues, strategies, evidence needed
• Identifies persons and entities to be interviewed
• Makes or refines team assignments
• Plans visit logistics
38
Off-Campus Sites and
Distance Education Programs
(special requirement for some visits)
Prior to Visit: Sites will be identified and assignments made
• Review substantive change action letters to determine if issues have
been identified
• Develop plan for the review of the programs and/or sites
During Visit
•
•
•
•
•
Interview faculty, administrators and students
Evaluate facilities OR online infrastructure
Observe classes
Document visit and findings in appendix
Discuss important findings with team for inclusion in report, as
appropriate
Tools: Protocols (RB pg. 157, RB pg. 162)
Forms (RB pg. 55, RB pg. 58)
39
Compliance Audit
(special requirement for some visits)
• Required for:
– Institutions seeking Candidacy and Initial
Accreditation
– Some institutions under sanction
• Additional report submitted by institution in
advance of the visit—with links to documents
Tool: Compliance Audit Checklist (RB, pg. 51)
40
Determining Strategy for CPR Visit
• What evidence is provided to show capacity and
readiness for EE?
• Why was it chosen?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?
• What other evidence do you want to review to
evaluate capacity and preparation for EE?
• Do any issues arise with regard to the
Standards?
• Meetings: format/methodologies
41
Determining Strategy for EER Visit
• What evidence is provided to show EE?
• Why was it chosen?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence?
• What other evidence do you want to see to
evaluate effectiveness?
• Do any issues arise with regard to the
Standards?
• Meetings: format/methodologies
42
Drafting in Advance of the Visit
• Assistant Chairs draft outline of team report and
Section I
• Team members draft outline or text for which
they are responsible, using institution’s report
and data portfolio, with space for additional
evidence, analysis and conclusions
Tool: Team Reports (VG pg. 54)
43
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
44
Conducting the Visit
45
Team Executive Session
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discuss preliminary findings
Identify major issues for exploration
Refine lines of inquiry
Confirm team assignments
Discuss use of tools and rubrics
Review draft team report
Discuss options for confidential team recommendation
Review schedule
46
Visit Schedule
• Executive sessions and debriefings with team
only
• Meetings and interviews with key individuals and
groups
• Open meetings with students, faculty and staff
• Document review
• Time for drafting report sections
• Final exit meeting
Tool: CPR/EER Sample Visit Schedule (VG, pg. 40;
SV, pg. 68)
47
Confidential Email Account
• Set up by WASC as extension of open meetings
• Checked by Assistant Chair during visit
• Important emails shared with team and
investigated
• Comments included in team report only if the
institution has a chance to address them
Tool: Sample Notification re: Confidential Email Account (RB, pg. 151)
48
Approaches Used on Visits
• Document review
• Interviews and meetings
– Mini-questionnaires
– Techniques for small and large meetings
– Fishbowl exercises
• Audits
Plan visit methodologies in advance
as part of schedule.
49
Tips for Good Interviews
• Decide on a protocol for interview
• Prepare questions and lines of inquiry in
advance
• Ask questions that elicit information, stimulate
discussion, or require judgment
• Avoid interrogation, leading questions, or
loaded language
• Avoid consultation, giving solutions, or talking
about your institution
• Let them do the talking
50
Alternative Forms of Interview
•
•
•
•
•
Fishbowl
Brainstorm/free discussion on a salient topic
Go-round
Bundling
Audit
51
Evaluating Program Review
and Student Learning
on EER Visits
Tool:
Suggested Approaches for Evaluating Program Review (RB, pg. 156)
EER Toolkit
52
Rubrics: Assessment of Student Learning
1. Academic Program Learning Outcomes
2. Use of Portfolios in Assessing Program
Outcomes
3. Use of Capstones in Assessing Program
Outcomes
4. Integration of Student Learning
Assessment into Program Review
5. General Education Assessment Process
Tool: Program Learning Outcomes Rubrics (VG, pp. 77-88)
53
Educational Effectiveness
Framework
• Use with team to evaluate institution’s “place”
• Use language of rubric to describe the institution
in the report
• Ask the institution to evaluate itself and discuss
• Confer with team toward end of visit to mark a
copy of the EEF
• Submit the marked EEF confidentially to WASC
Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework (RB, pp. 160-161)
54
The Exit Meeting
• Team chair communicates commendations and
key recommendations that will be included in
report
• Chair may ask team members to participate
• The meeting is not a dialog, discussion or
debate
55
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
56
Developing Team
Recommendations
57
Two Kinds of Recommendations
• Team recommendations at the end of
team report, delivered at the exit meeting
• Confidential Team Recommendation to
the Commission for action
Tools: Commission Decisions on Institutions
(Visit Guide pg. 89; SV Guide pg. Append. F)
Commission and Team Decision Matrix (RB pg. 177)
58
Team Report Recommendations
Should be:
• Overarching and important
• Supported by evidence
• Linked clearly to Standards and CFRs
• Supported by text in the report
- Distinguish recommendations from suggestions and
observations embedded in the report
Tool: Educational Effectiveness Framework
(RB pg. 160)
59
Producing Effective
Team Reports
60
Report Preparation Logistics
• Follow report template
• Start writing before the visit
• Complete your sections on site and give to
Assistant Chair for editing together
Tool: Team Report Templates (VG, pg. 55; SV Guide, Appen. K)
61
Using Evidence in Team Reports
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use qualitative and quantitative evidence
Select evidence carefully and purposefully
Connect evidence to an assertion or question
Analyze information; do not just set forth data
Let evidence suggest improvements
Use evidence that speaks to the institution’s
themes and the team's questions
62
Citing Standards and CFRs
• Team judgments must be linked to specific
Standards and CFRs
• CFRs must be cited in reports
• Standards and CFRs form the basis for
Commission decisions
• Standards and CFRs provide a context for
continuous quality improvement
63
What is an effective team report?
 Reflects a thorough assessment of the
institution’s capacity, preparation, and/or
effectiveness
 Is evidence based
 Cites the Standards and CFRs
 Provides the basis for a sound and supportable
Commission decision
 Identifies important areas for institution to
address
64
New requirements in the
Institutional Review Process
• Institutions will cover the following in their
reports:
– Student Success (at CPR and EER)
– Program Review (at EER)
– Sustainability of EE (at EER)
• Teams should address in the team report
Tool: Table B (RB pg. 47)
65
Tips for Writing Team Reports
• Consider multiple audiences: institution,
Commission, and next team
• Know your areas of responsibility, including length
and depth of your section
• Start writing before you arrive on campus
• Address priorities and goals set by the institution
• Address Commission’s concerns (last action letter)
• Make commendations, but don’t overdo it
• Use praise that doesn’t send wrong or mixed signal
66
More Tips on Team Reports….
• Be sure to check facts
• Support findings and recommendations with
evidence --and tie them to CFRs
• Ensure evidence is sound and valid
• Distinguish recommendations from suggestions
or observations
• Use formal language and tone (e.g., not
“we/they”)
• Don’t mention personnel by name
• Don’t prescribe solutions
67
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
68
After the Visit
69
What happens next?
• Assistant Chair prepares draft for Chair, team
and staff review; changes as needed
• Chair sends to institution for corrections
of fact
• Chair finalizes draft and submits to WASC
• Chair sends Confidential Team
Recommendation and completed EEF
to WASC
• WASC sends report to institution
70
Then…
• Staff prepares draft action letter, which is reviewed
by team Chair
• Commission Panel reads report and
documentation including institution’s written
response, meets with institutional representatives
at Commission meeting
• Panel makes recommendation to Commission,
and Commission acts
• Staff finalizes draft action letter on behalf of
Commission
71
Also after the visit….
• Team members send reimbursement forms to WASC
within 30 days
– Hotel arranged and paid directly by institution
– Travel / food reimbursed
– Rental car must be approved in advance by
WASC staff
– Spouse or assistant costs not covered
– See policy for more details
• Team members should not have any contact with the
institution
– About the visit OR
– Consult with the institution for one year
72
The Team’s Impact
• Peer review is the foundation of accreditation.
• The team report forms the basis for the
Commission action and its letter.
• The team report and action letter inform the
work of the institution for years to come.
• Why were you chosen for a team?
73
Resources for Teams
• Appendices of Visit Guide
• Team Materials and Institutional Report mailed
10-12 weeks in advance of visit
• WASC Website: www.wascsenior.org
• WASC Email Advisory (sent prior to visit)
• WASC Staff
74
Q&A
• Please feel free to type in your questions
using the chat window or just chime in.
75
Thank you
for your service to the
region
76
Announcements
The materials presented during this webinar and a
recording of this session will be posted at:
http://www.wascsenior.org/evatrainingSpring2010
77