Transcript UT Self Study All Criterion Teams Meeting Friday, November 13, 2009 9:00 a.m.

UT Self Study All Criterion
Teams Meeting
Friday, November 13, 2009
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
SU 2582
Welcome
Welcome
Overview
Introductions
Draft Timeline
Peer Reviewer Expectations
Criterion Team Reports
Criterion One Team
Criterion Two Team
Social Break – 15 minutes
Criterion Three Team
Criterion Four Team
Criterion Five Team
Questions & Answers
Information & Resources
What’s Next
Thomas Sharkey
Thomas Sharkey
Thea Sawicki
Thea Sawicki
Bin Ning
Charles Blatz
Bryan Pyles
Connie Shriner
Charlene Czerniak
Mojisola Tiamiyu
Marcia King-Blandford
Penny Poplin Gosetti
2
Overview
Welcome
VISION
The University of Toledo is a transformative force for the world. As such, The
University of Toledo will become a thriving student-centered, communityengaged, comprehensive research university known for its strong liberal arts
core and multiple nationally ranked professional colleges, and distinguished
by exceptional strength in science and technology.
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.
UT Self Study
University of Toledo Self-Study for continued
accreditation by NCA-HLC
3
Introductions
NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership
Co-Chairs:
Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Professor, College of Business (MC)
Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, College of Medicine (HSC)
Steering Committee: Team Leaders
Team 1:
Dr. Charles Blatz, College of A&S
Team 2:
Mr. Bryan Pyles, HSC Provost’s Office
Team 3:
Dr. Constance Shriner, College of Medicine
Team 4:
Dr. Charlene Czerniak, College of Education
Team 5:
Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, College of A&S
Administrative
Support:
Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost’s Office
Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research
Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost’s Office
4
Self Study Timeline
2009
Aug-Sept: Criterion teams populated by subject expertise/knowledge;
teams begin meetings
Oct:
Self Study Kick-off with visit by Dr. John Taylor, HLC
Liaison
Nov:
All Teams first meeting (11/13/09)
Dec:
Teams work to identify evidence needed to respond to
each criterion component
2010
Jan:
Launch self-study website
Feb-Mar: All Teams second meeting; teams continue to work/meet;
Self-Study writing team selected
April:
NCA-HLC Conference in Chicago (steering committee)
All teams third meeting (status reports; NCA-HLC reports)
Oct:
Criterion teams submit first draft of their reports
Nov-Dec: Drafts reviewed/revised; writing team
begins first Self Study draft
5
6
Self Study Timeline
2011
Jan-March:
April-May:
June:
July:
August:
Finalize self-study report by iterative process of
review/rewrite
Prepare Institutional Snapshot (Dr. Ning)
Prepare for 3rd Party comment
President review/comment; campus review/comment
NCA-HLC Conference in Chicago-meet with Liaison
member
President, senior leadership and BOT approval
Final Self-Study revision, printing and 3rd party
comments
Send final Self-Study Report to HLC
Nov 14, 2011 or Feb 27 or Mar 19, 2012
SITE VISIT by peer-reviewers (consultant evaluators)
HLC Site Visit
Format and Expectations
 About HLC
 About PEAQ and AQIP
 About Consultant-Evaluators (aka Peerreviewers)
 Site Visit
7
HLC Site Visit
 Three-day Peer Review Visit
 Sunday - Team arrives
 Monday-Wednesday - Peer review
 Monday - Entrance conference with CEO and others
 Monday-Wednesday
 Interviews and reviews of documents
 Evenings
 Team reflections, discussions, and decision-making
 Wednesday, before noon
 Announcement of Team’s planned recommendations to
the CEO, and an Exit Conference
Source: Dr. John Taylor’s Presentation on Oct 15, 2009
8
Sources of Evidence
 Self-study report
 Interviews and meetings with constituent
groups
 Supporting documents
9
Examples of Evaluative vs. Descriptive Statements
1. The university uses
different methods to
assess general education
outcomes.
1. Testing results using
nationally-recognized
instruments (CAAP & CLA)
demonstrated a 70% growth
in students’ writing and
mathematic skills between
freshmen and senior year.
2. The merger has
significantly improved the
University’s capacity in
obtaining research
funding.
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.
10
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 followup (Progress/Contingency Reports /Focused
visits)
 Criterion not met
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
UT Self Study Process
Questions & Answers
17
Information Retrieval
• Tracking the progress
• Building a resource room
• Sharing information & resources
18
What’s Next
Opportunities for in-depth attention
on issues which are critical to the
pursuit of continuous improvement
and educational excellence.
Handbook of Accreditation, 2006, p 5-3
19