Transcript UT Self Study Senior Leadership Retreat December 3, 2009 MISSION STATEMENT The mission of The University of Toledo is to improve the human condition; to.

UT Self Study
Senior Leadership Retreat
December 3, 2009
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of The University of Toledo is to improve the
human condition; to advance knowledge through excellence in
learning, discovery and engagement; and to serve as a diverse,
student-centered public metropolitan research university.
NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership
Co-Chairs:
Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Professor, College of Business
Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, College of Medicine
Steering Committee: Team Leaders
Team 1:
Dr. Charles Blatz, College of Arts & Sciences
Team 2:
Bryan Pyles, HSC Provost Office
Team 3:
Dr. Constance Shriner, College of Medicine
Team 4:
Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Judith Herb College of Education
Team 5:
Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, College of Arts & Sciences
Administrative
Support:
Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost Office
Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research
Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost Office
2
Accreditation History
The University of Toledo
Medical College of Ohio
1922 – Accreditation granted
1972 - Approval by OBOR
1977 – Accreditation continued
1980- Accreditation granted
1983 – Accreditation continued
1986 – Accreditation continued
1992 – Accreditation continued
1991 – Accreditation continued
2002 – Accreditation continued
2001- Accreditation continued
2011-2012 – UT Site Visit
3
An Effective Self-Study
• Evaluates the whole university - all undergraduate and
graduate programs
• Engages all constituencies
• Builds on processes in place or identifies processes to add
• Shows effective leadership and communication
• Presents Evidence of Fulfilling the Accreditation Criteria
The findings of the self-study inform decision-making
and future institutional development
From J. Taylor 10/09
4
Examples of Descriptive vs. Evaluative Statements
1. The university uses different
methods to assess general
education outcomes.
2. The merger has significantly
improved the University’s
capacity in obtaining
research funding.
1. Testing results using nationallyrecognized instruments (CAAP
& CLA) demonstrated a 70%
growth in students’ writing and
mathematic skills between
freshmen and senior year.
2. As a result of the merger, the
amount of Federal-sponsored
research funding has increased
from $12 million before the
merger to $45 million in 2009.
5
UT Self Study Goals
• Confirm that UT’s practices and actions are consistent
with its mission statement and strategic direction.
• Provide proof of evidence of UT’s strengths, identify areas
for improvement, and recommend improvement.
• Foster the strong sense of community through
communication, collaboration, and connectedness
between and among all UT constituencies.
• Position UT’s future as a leading academic institution in
the region, the state and the nation.
• Achieve continued accreditation from Higher Learning
Commission.
6
Previously Identified Challenges
The University of Toledo
2002 Site Visit
Medical College of Ohio
2001 Site Visit
• No institution-wide, HLC
approved Plan for the
Assessment of Student
Academic Achievement.
– Also noted in 1992.
– Noted in Focus visit 2004
• Institutional planning process
does not clearly articulate and
connect the University’s
evolving mission, resource
allocation, and measures of
institutional effectiveness.
• Strategic planning does not
drive decision making or have
measurable goals.
• Scholarships are limited to the
School of Medicine.
• Campus lacks a cohesive
institution-wide student
recruitment plan.
7
Criterion One Mission and Integrity
The organization operates with integrity to
insure the fulfillment of its mission through
structures and processes that involve the board,
administration, faculty, staff, and students.
Dr. Charles Blatz, Criterion One Team Leader
Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, Liaison
8
Criterion One:
Mission and Integrity
a) Clear articulation of the Mission
b) Recognition of diversity:
among learners and other constituencies
c) University members understand the Mission
d) Mission is supported throughout organization
e) University protects the Mission
9
Criterion One Progress Update
• Criterion I addresses the university, its activities and its
programs considered as an integral whole deliberately
organized by its mission, vision, values and strategic
planning.
• How and to what degree do we function in ways that
forward the goals and objectives of our mission, and other
core guidance?
10
Criterion One Progress Update
Our Examination will ask:
•
Do our public documents clearly express our aims and commitments?
•
Do our core documents recognize the diversity of our learners and the variety
of our constituencies, and do they do so with the depth and inclusiveness
needed to further our mission?
•
Do the university’s governance and administration further our mission by
promoting needed leadership and collaboration?
•
Do all segments of the university perform in ways showing the grasp and
endorsement of UT’s mission needed for our advancement?
•
Do all segments of the university conduct their work conscientiously so as to
sustain the further advancement of its mission?
11
Criterion Two
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.
Bryan Pyles, Criterion Two Team Leader
Dr. Bin Ning, Liaison
12
Criterion Two
Preparing for the Future
a) Preparation for a future shaped by societal and
economic trends
b) Resource support for maintaining and strengthening
education programs
c) Evaluation and assessment processes show effectiveness
and continuous improvement
d) Planning levels align with the mission and the capacity to
fulfill the Mission.
13
Criterion Two Progress Update
• Established process to capture information needs
• Began reviewing Core Component 1
– Identified initial data needs
• Conversations regarding the context of a newly-merged
institution and the socioeconomic surroundings
• Discussed the close interaction with the UT current
planning process
14
Criterion Three Student Learning and
Effective Teaching
The organization provides evidence of student learning
and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling
its education mission.
Dr. Constance Shriner, Criterion Three Team Leader
Marcia King-Blandford, Liaison
15
Criterion Three Student Learning and
Effective Teaching
a) Has clear statements of student learning outcomes that make
effective assessment possible.
b) Values and supports effective teaching
c) Creates effective learning environments
d) Has resources supporting student learning and effective
teaching.
16
Criterion Three Progress Update
• Outcomes based education
• Core curriculum
• Supportive environment
• Alignment of resources with educational mission
17
Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and
Application of Knowledge
The organization promotes a life of learning for the
faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering
and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social
responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.
Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Criterion Four Team Leader
Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Liaison
18
Criterion Four Acquisition, Discovery and
Application of Knowledge
a) Demonstrates it values a “Life of Learning”
b) Demonstrates the integral nature of knowledge and skill
acquisition and intellectual inquiry
c) Assesses the usefulness of curricula to students living and
working in a global, diverse, and technological society
d) Supports responsible acquisition, discovery and
application of knowledge
19
Criterion Four Progress Updates
In-depth review of Core Components 4a-4d; Identified activities &
procedures in place that address each and initial data needs
Discussed data collection and resource sharing
Key elements:
– Activities supporting “life of learning” and financial commitments
to them
– Status of education program reviews
– Frequency/quality of ethics and responsible conduct training
– Research, technology Transfer, grants, Spin off companies, etc
– General education program:
Extent of core curriculum and assess how it demonstrates
students have a breath of knowledge/skills
20
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service
As called for by its mission, the organization identifies
its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, Criterion Five Team Leader
Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Liaison
21
Criterion Five:
Engagement and Service
a) Learns from constituencies and analyzes its capacity to
serve them
b) Has the capacity and commitment to engage with
identified constituencies and communities
c) Demonstrates responsiveness to constituencies that
depend on it
d) Services are of value to internal and external
constituencies
22
Criterion Five Progress Update
• Establishment of common definitions and understanding
of key elements such as constituencies,” “community,”
and “engagement.”
• Begin review of internal and external stakeholders
– Internal: Faculty, students, staff, administrators
– External: Alumni, community, state
– Hybrids: UT Medical Center
• Begin to list sources of evidence
– Accreditation reports from colleges, departments, etc.
– Reports from UT centers, institutes, and offices
23
Federal Compliance
1. Credits, Program Length, and Tuition
2. Student Complaints
3. Transfer Policies
4. Verification of Student Identity [Online Correspondence]
5. Title IV Program and Related Responsibilities
6. Institutional Disclosures [Advertising and Recruiting
Materials]
7. Relationship with Other Agencies
8. Public Notification of Evaluation Visit and Third Party
Comment
24
Institutional Snapshot
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student Demography Headcounts
Student Recruitment and Admissions
Financial Assistance for Students
Student Retention and Program Productivity
Faculty Demography
Availability of Instructional Resources, Information
Technology
• Financial Data
Retrieved from the Higher Learning Commission web site at http://www.ncahlc.org
25
Outcomes of Site Visit
 Evidence criterion is met
 Evidence criterion met but needs institutional attention
 Evidence that criterion is met but requires institutional
attention and commission follow-up (Progress/Contingency
Reports /Focused visits)
 Criterion not met (even 1 of the 21 components)
26
What’s Next




Appointment of student representatives
Decision regarding Special Emphasis within UT Self Study
Progress report update to senior leadership in late spring
Draft of findings and evidence by late fall 2010
27