Transcript Slide 1
AQIP vs. PEAQ Contrasts in Review (Opportunities in Perspective) Roberta C. Teahen, Ph.D. Dean, University Center for Extended Learning The “Programs” PEAQ Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality AQIP Academic Quality Improvement Program The Higher Learning Commission Nineteen-state Region 1000± institutions 50% public, 50% private 30% two-year; 3% for profit My Experience with PEAQ and AQIP In PEAQ: Have served as a consultant-evaluator (now called Peer Reviewer) for about 15 years and a team chair for about 8 years. Have completed more than 20 PEAQ visits, having chaired about half. In AQIP: Serve as an AQIP Forum Facilitator, which I have done about 5 times, including being part of initial group to train facilitators and college representatives. Was involved in initial training concerning Vital Focus – a first step schools typically use in identifying action projects Background (continued) For the Commission: Chaired a special task force over two years that advised and evaluated a two-year college in AR that was offering baccalaureate options in a fully competency-based, openentry mode. Participated on the Baccalaureate Task Force Commission (http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/. . . Worked for the HLC as a consultant in 2001 for the creation of the new Criteria for Accreditation, facilitating broad-based study/policy groups on General Education, Finances, Technology, General Education, Governance, and Diversity as well as facilitating forums throughout the 19-state region to gather input for changed criteria and documentation of next stages. Served as a member of the Accreditation Review Committee for a few years Served for several years (until this year) as a member of the Corps Advisory Team and have been a trainer of new and continuing C-Es in each of the past 5 years. Presently serving as a member of the Institutional Actions Council, a 26-member group, that reviews and recommends all actions of the Commission from both processes. February 1-4 will be one of facilitators for schools that are returning for a second Strategy Forum, who have been in AQIP for at least 4 years, utilizing the systems appraisals feedback documents, to assist them in planning their next stages of development. Accreditation Thoughts Accreditation appropriately encourages introspection, reflection, analysis, and action Either process should be approached from how it can advance the mission and goals of Ferris The rapidly and dramatically changing higher education landscape requires more agility and accountability The purpose of accreditation (in the words of the Higher Learning Commission) should “serve the common good through assuring and advancing the quality of higher learning.” Think “commitment,” not “compliance.” More Thoughts. . . . Process and product are both important Criteria for accreditation are the same, regardless of process The two processes are converging. . . Much more emphasis upon process improvement, learning, engagement, and the future in PEAQ. The PEAQ of 2000 is NOT the peak of 2010 So what’s my view? It depends! The decision is entirely context specific, and constantly evolving. Intended Focus of Accreditation To assess the quality of an institution and its effectiveness To assist the institution in making improvements in its operations and effectiveness To provide mission-driven accreditation Purpose of New Criteria Assume change/future mission-driven accreditation Allow for fundamental shifts in the nature of the evaluation and the evaluation process… a process HLC hopes assists organizations in becoming learning-focused, future-oriented, connected, distinctive Preparing for the Future (2) Student Learning & Effective Teaching (3) Connected Future-oriented Mission & Integrity(1) Integrity Learning-focused Acquisition, Discovery, & Application of Knowledge (4) Engagement & Service (5) Basic Understandings STUDENTS… Have Learned What you have collectively defined Are able to do And are becoming And intended for them to Publicly committed to Learn, do, and become. Fundamental Shifts …from inputs and resources to results, outcomes, performance. …from teaching to teaching and learning, intended broadly for students employees …from a look backwards to a & future focus …from autonomy to connection and interdependence …from uniformity/stratification to distinctiveness, flexibility, and differentiation Criterion 1 – Mission and Integrity The organization operates with integrity to ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students. The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves. Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization. The organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission. The organization upholds and protects its integrity. Criterion 2: Preparing for the Future The organization’s allocation of resources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportunities. The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends. The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future. The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement. All levels of planning align with the organization’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission. Criterion 3: Student Learning and Effective Teaching The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission. The organization’s goals for student learning outcomes are clearly stated for each educational program and make effective assessment possible. The organization values and supports effective teaching. The organization creates effective learning environments. The organization’s learning resources support student learning and effective teaching. Criterion 4: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission. The organization demonstrates, through the actions of its board, administrators, students, faculty, and staff, that it values a life of learning. The organization demonstrates that acquisition of a breadth of knowledge and skills and the exercise of intellectual inquiry are integral to its educational programs. The organization assesses the usefulness of its curricula to students who will live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society. The organization provides support to ensure that faculty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly. Criterion 5: Engagement and Service As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value. The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations. The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities. The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service. Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides. Unifying themes. . . Crossing all criteria – Learning-focused Future-oriented Connected Distinctive Some additional AQIP Criteria Related AQIP Criteria 1 - Helping Students Learn 2 - Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives 3 - Understanding Students' and Other Stakeholders’ Needs 4 - Valuing Faculty 5 - Leading and Communicating 6 - Supporting Institutional Operations 7 - Measuring Effectiveness 8 - Planning Continuous Improvement 9 - Building Collaborative Relationships Q1. Does one process or the other offer more flexibility in meeting the demands of maintaining accreditation? Response: Not necessarily, because the criteria remain the same regardless; the difference is the “process” used to document that Ferris meets accreditation standards as well as the process used to advance the campus initiatives. Q2: Does one process or the other give Ferris more autonomy in making choices about its future? Response: Not necessarily. Ferris is responsible for establishing and achieving its mission, broadly defined as public statements that may include mission, vision, values, goals, strategies, objectives, etc. More autonomy may exist with PEAQ. Q3: Does one process or the other require/lend itself to more (sustained) work Response: Although the intent with PEAQ is that the process of improvement is continuing, practically speaking, the interim reporting requirements of AQIP make it more likely to be sustained. Q4: Does one process or the other require/lend itself to greater continuity of effort on campus toward institutional goals? Response: Not necessarily; it is dependent upon the context and culture of the organization. Colleges/universities with well developed planning and implementation strategies demonstrate the same level of sustained effort. The periodic reporting of AQIP is more helpful to those who may be disciplined in this area or who benefit from this external stimulus. Q5: Which process would require/lend itself to more involvement of campus constituencies and stakeholders? Response: It depends. Here’s a “for instance”: Ferris in traditional process could have planning task forces that engage 50-100 people per year, with differing groups, under PEAQ. Ferris in AQIP could have three main projects that involve only 20 stakeholders each year or over a 3-year period. Q6: Which process is more suited to Ferris’ institutional culture? Response: This is your first answer! Its current culture – perhaps PEAQ (a heavy compliance orientation, even bureaucratic) Its desired and proclaimed culture (national leader, innovation, technology, professional – all elements of our mission) – definitely AQIP Q7: Which process is more suited to Ferris’ procedures of goal-setting and planning? Response: Both are equally well suited. However, Ferris goal-setting and planning processes may not be as well understood as implied by this question. For example: Ferris processes change with changing leadership – at the university, division, and college levels Planning processes are not easily described by those outside the current systems Q 8: Is one process or the other more convenient for Ferris? Convenient defined: Convenient for whom? To what end? Suited to one’s comfort, needs, or purpose (the pantry) Easy to reach, accessible (nearby shopping mall) Synonyms: appropriate, fit, good, suitable, useful Some people will be engaged every year with AQIP. More people will be engaged in a two-year period in the old way of approaching PEAQ Therefore, PEAQ may be more convenient – Easier to reach Comfortable Q9: From which process would Ferris gain more knowledge about itself ? Response: Ferris can learn equal amounts from either process. Need to distinguish between can and will (can means capable; will signifies commitment) To learn, we must broadly practice individual and organizational learning Acquire knowledge (in part this includes use of data) Share knowledge Utilize knowledge, in a continuous cycle Q10: Which process would offer Ferris the most potential for positive improvement? Response: Perhaps AQIP, because despite turnover in leadership at varied levels (colleges, vice presidents, department heads, etc.), processes should be ongoing . . . .Quality principles and processes should become institutionalized – systematized. AQIP Requires a Systems Perspective “In the new systems worldview, we move from the primacy of pieces to the primacy of the whole, from absolute truths to coherent interpretations, from self to community, from problem solving to creating . . . It encompasses commitment to changes needed in the larger world and to seeing our organizations as vehicles for bringing about such changes" (Kofman, 1993, p. 6-7). Benefits of Each Process AQIP Expert consultation throughout Engaged in a community of learners Assistance with building internal capability to use data and plan Utilizes processes similar to industry Creates focus on key strategies: action projects PEAQ Frees institution to concentrate on primary goals for 7 of 10 years Requires a comprehensive look at conformance with criteria. Specifies expectations in all aspects of the IHE What you should have asked: Is Ferris ready? Response: There’s work to be done! Learning outcomes are inadequately specified. Data is unavailable and/or inconsistently used. Collaboration is limited Primary focus does not always appear to be on improving students’ and staff ’s learning Systems are inconsistent, and AQIP requires a systems perspective Many colleges and universities have already been through a state quality process Could Ferris be Ready? Need to specify learning outcomes (both in the curriculum and the co-curriculum) Need to break down silos – view Ferris as a system, a whole, not a series of colleges Need to share assessment outcomes and engage in meaningful conversations about those results and strategize on how to improve them Need to do Vital Focus or similar survey. Need to embrace the pillars of learning-centered, engaged, and working together. Need to be open to and learn from constructive criticism and avoid defensiveness. EVERYTHING can be improved.