Transcript Strategic Plan Working Groups

Reaccreditation 2014
HLC Reaccreditation 2014
• Accreditation provides for:
– Public certification of institutional quality
– Opportunity for evaluation and improvement
– Ability to receive federal student aid for students
HLC Reaccreditation 2014
• Accreditation process
– Institutional self study (underway)
– Site visit October 27-29, 2014
– Based on a set of Guiding Values that form a
backdrop for the Five Criteria for Accreditation
Guiding Values
• Focus on student learning
• Education as a public
purpose
• Education for a diverse,
technological, globally
connected world
• A culture of continuous
improvement
• Evidence-based institutional
learning and selfpresentation
• Integrity, transparency, and
ethical behavior or practice
• Governance for the wellbeing of the institution
• Planning and management
of resources to ensure
institutional sustainability
• Mission-centered
evaluation
• Accreditation through peer
review
The FIVE Criteria
1. Mission
The institution’s mission is clear and articulated
publicly; it guides the institution’s operations
Chair: Dr. Bob Carrothers
The FIVE Criteria
2. Ethical and Responsible Conduct
The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is
ethical and responsible
Chair: Dr. Sherry Young
The FIVE Criteria
3. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources,
and Support
The institution provides high quality education,
wherever and however its offerings are delivered
Chair: Dr. Tena Roepke
The FIVE Criteria
4. Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and
Improvement
The institution demonstrates responsibility for the
quality of its educational programs, learning
environments, and support services, and it evaluates
their effectiveness for student learning through
processes designed to promote continuous
improvement
Chair: Dr. Pat Croskery
The FIVE Criteria
5. Resources, Planning, and Institutional
Effectiveness
The institution’s resources, structures, and processes
are sufficient to fulfill its mission, improve the quality
of its educational offerings, and respond to future
challenges and opportunities. The institution plans
for the future.
Chair: Dr. Jill Christopher
What’s been done
• Formed 5 committees consisting of faculty and
staff
– Each of the FIVE Criteria
– Examined the Criteria and what documentation is
needed to support it
What’s been done
• Formed 5 committees consisting of faculty and
staff
– Each of the FIVE Criteria
– Examined the Criteria and what documentation is
needed to support it
• AA & IR attended HLC conference in April
What’s been done
• Formed 5 committees consisting of faculty and
staff
– Each of the FIVE Criteria
– Examined the Criteria and what documentation is
needed to support it
• AA & IR attended HLC conference in April
• IR gathered requested documentation over
summer
What’s coming
• Committees will begin using documentation
to assemble self study
What’s coming
• Committees will begin using documentation
to assemble self study
• Continue to communicate with University
constituencies regarding accreditation
– Understanding the importance of accreditation
– Knowing the FIVE Criteria
– Taking part in the process
Remember the FIVE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mission
Ethics
Teaching/Learning Quality
Teaching/Learning Assessment
Resources and Planning
Mission Statement
• A brief description of the department (or major’s)
fundamental purpose. It answers the question “Why
does this exist?”
• Please have your mission statement posted on the
department (or program) website by October 2013.
Program-Level Assessment
of Student Learning
• The Annual Assessment Report form was first
implemented in 2004-05 to document the programlevel assessment loop
• In 2008, ONU responded to HLC’s request to further
demonstrate the evaluation process of these forms
• It will be a main review item by HLC in 2014-15
Assessment Report Form
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Learning Objectives
Measurements & Description of Measures
Results
Adjustments
Changes
All faculty should have received a copy of their
evaluation results of 2011-12 Assessment Reports via
email.
1. Learning Objectives
• Expected or intended student outcomes aligned with
the program’s mission and goals
• 3M Approach: Specific statements that are
meaningful, measureable, and manageable
• Use appropriate verbs to reflect the level and nature
of learning expected
Bloom’s Taxonomy:
Remember - Understand - Apply- Analyze - Evaluate - Create
2. Measurements
• Direct Measures: licensure or professional exams,
standardized tests, capstones, portfolios, exhibitions
or performances in the arts
• Indirect Measures: surveys (alumni, employer, and
student), exit interviews, job placement data,
retention & graduation studies
 Make sure every learning outcome has multiple
measures with a mix of direct and indirect measures
 Describe how the measure aligns with the objectives
3. Results
• State benchmarks or standards for performance
• Present a summary of the data from the
measurements, aligned with each objective
• Identify gaps between the standards and the actual
results
4. Adjustments
• Clearly state adjustments to address the gaps in
student learning:
– Changes in curriculum
– Instructional strategies
– Course content
– Personnel
– Facilities
– Equipment
– Resource allocation
5. Changes
• Discuss questions raised about the effectiveness of
the overall assessment plan
• Suggest changes if needed in objectives, measures,
or analysis
Review Process
• Evaluation results of 2011-12 reports were returned in
Spring 2013.
• 2012-13 reports are due in October 15, 2013.
• Expect the evaluation results of 2012-13 reports back
in Spring 2014.
• A four-point rubric scale is utilized to quantify the
evaluation:
1=Undeveloped, 2=Developed, 3= Established, 4=Exemplary
2011-12 Evaluation Results
Mean Rubric Scores (University-wide)
Undeveloped
Developed
Established
Exemplary
2013-14 Focus
1. Culture of Assessment
– Everyone cares about student learning
– Caring should be evident by your participation in
the formal assessment process
2. Rubrics Are Your Friend
– Allows you to gather and analyze data on the
things that matter but are hard to quantify
– There will still be qualitative judgments, and you
need inter-rater reliability
2013-14 Focus
3. One Size Does Not Fit All. You get to decide what
matters to your program.
4. Use HLC as an opportunity to do things we want to
do anyway. Identify what we want to change, start
changing it, and document it!
5. We Have Much to Share.
– Another program may have already solved the
challenge!
– Brown bag gatherings (avoid lectures!)
General Education: What many think.
What we strive to achieve . . .
Univ. General Education
• Univ. General Education has seven
outcomes
• Students must take courses that are
approved to meet an outcome (Tagged)
• Process: Take tagged classes, submit an
artifact to the electronic portfolio, and thus
earn a tag
• 20 tags across the 7 outcomes meet the
univ. gen ed requirement
Required Courses
1.
2.
3.
4.
Freshman Transition Course
Writing Seminar
Extradisciplinary Seminar
Capstone Course
Gen Ed Outcomes
1. Effective Communication – 4 tags
a. Writing – 2 tags, met by required writing
seminar and capstone courses
b. Non-writing – 2 tags
2. Critical, Creative Thinking – 4 tags
- 3 met by required transitions, extradisciplinary, and capstone courses
Gen Ed: Need 2 tags each
3. Scientific Literacy
4. Diversity, Human Interaction
5. Integration of Disciplines
6. Informed, Ethical Responses
7. Aesthetics
Plus two more tags from any outcome!
Integration Across Disciplines
Teaching a tagged course?
• Grade the student’s course assignment that
is being used for a Gen Ed artifact
• Meanwhile, students upload the assignment
as it was turned in to you within the
portfolio software
• Instructions to access the portfolio are
available online on the Gen Ed webpage on
the A to Z index
Tagging Your Courses
1. Review the ‘Faculty Guide to Gen Ed’ or the
‘Faculty Quick Guide’ (see “Gen Ed” webpage
under A-Z index of onu.edu)
2. Identify the outcomes that most naturally fit
your course. Don’t force tags. We have
plenty to go around!
3. Identify the artifact students will complete to
demonstrate the achievement of that
outcome
Tagging Your Courses
4. Review the rubric for that outcome to identify
which rows work best for your artifact
5. Submit the electronic form indicating all this to
the Gen Ed committee (see “Gen Ed” webpage
on the A-Z index)
6. When outlining the assignment, explaining how
the assignment meets each row of the rubric
will help the committee understand the
assignment and helps the course be approved
more quickly
Gen Ed Tagged Courses
• Go to the p-drive folder:
P:\General Education Tagging Folder
• Three folders contain course submission
forms in various approval stages
• Advising info is also stored in this folder
Gen Ed News and Tips
1. Revised Rubrics: seeking feedback in
September
2. Assessment: Two this fall and two in spring
3. To help pass through and for assessment, when
you describe the assignment to be tagged, discuss
HOW each row is being assessed with the
assignment.
Gen Ed News and Tips
4. Remember that this is GENERAL education. Do
NOT force tags. The students will be able to
achieve the guidelines naturally with the courses
they have to take
For example:
a. Ceramics—integration across disciplines
and aesthetics
b. All Lit classes tagged
5. Only HALF of all tags can come from a major—
again, no need to force
General Education Committee Members

Lisa Robeson (A&S)

Rob Waters (A&S)

Chris North (A&S)

Terry Maris (Business)

Karen Kier (Pharmacy)

Ken Reid (Engineering)

Aaron Sullivan (student)

Julie Hurtig (Academic Affairs)