WASC Orientation and Discussion September 2, 2009 Graham Benton, WASC Coordinator, Accreditation Liaison Officer

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Entry Requirements for U.S. Accreditation Hellenic American Union, Athens, Greece October, 2007 Jean Avnet Morse President Middle States Commission.
Advertisements

Overview of Institutional Accreditation AASCU Conference, Beijing, China 20 October, 2007 Jean Avnet Morse President Middle States Commission on Higher.
Joint ATS-WASC Accreditation Reviews Jerry McCarthy, ATS Teri Cannon, WASC.
Cedarville University Accreditation Self-Study Plan Presented by Dr. Thomas Mach.
How Does Accreditation Help us Run a Successful American School?
PREPARING FOR SACS Neal E. Armstrong Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs July 13, 2004.
Faculty WASC Information Session January 18, 2011.
Accreditation: Evolution and New Challenges 2015 Accreditation Institute Constance M. Carroll, Ph.D. Chancellor San Diego Community College District 1.
An Outcomes-based Assessment Model for General Education Amy Driscoll WASC EDUCATIONAL SEMINAR February 1, 2008.
SEM Planning Model.
1 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations – for all students – for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through the.
WASC Accreditation Process DUE Managers Meeting December 2, 2009 Sharon Salinger and Judy Shoemaker.
1 GETTING STARTED WITH ASSESSMENT Barbara Pennipede Associate Director of Assessment Office of Planning, Assessment and Research Office of Planning, Assessment.
Computer Science Department Program Improvement Plan December 3, 2004.
Why Institutional Assessment is Important for Middle States Adapted (with permission) From Andrea Lex, Who Presented at Stockton September 20, 2010 Facilitated.
The Academic Assessment Process
WASC Educational Effectiveness Review Report First Draft March
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
Program Assessment, WASC and Cal Poly Pomona Bob Hurt Faculty Associate for Program Assessment and Academic Program Review.
WASC Accreditation Standards and Process August 31, 2006.
Academic Assessment Report for the Academic Year Antioch University New England Office of Academic Assessment Tom Julius, Ed.D., Director Submitted.
Purpose Program The purpose of this presentation is to clarify the process for conducting Student Learning Outcomes Assessment at the Program Level. At.
Maureen Noonan Bischof Eden Inoway-Ronnie Office of the Provost Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association Annual Meeting April 22, 2007.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AUDIT
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Assessment & Evaluation Committee A New Road Ahead Presentation Dr. Keith M. McCoy, Vice President Professor Jennifer Jakob, English Associate Director.
Academic Assessment Task Force Report August 15, 2013 Lori Escallier, Co-Chair Keith Sheppard, Co-Chair Chuck Taber, Co-Chair.
Everything you wanted to know about Assessment… Dr. Joanne Coté-Bonanno Barbara Ritola September 2009 but were afraid to ask!
Middle States Accreditation at UB Jason N. Adsit Director, Teaching and Learning Center Michael E. Ryan Director, University Accreditation and Assessment.
Year Seven Self-Evaluation Workshop OR Getting from Here to There Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
ANDREW LAMANQUE, PHD SPRING 2014 Status Report: Foothill Reaffirmation of Accreditation.
GUIDELINES ON CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM ACCREDITATION (AREA 1, 2, 3 AND 8)
Accreditation and Self Study Process A presentation by: Joseph Saimon Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) (Director for Development and Community Relations)
IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING for Institutional Effectiveness THE REASON: Improvement of Student Learning and Institutional Support Services THE OCCASION: Regional.
University-wide Accreditation Academic Leadership Program February 18, 2010.
Reaccreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges How can Counseling Psychology and Pastoral Ministries help? September 16, 2008.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report District Accreditation Bibb County Schools February 5-8, 2012.
SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,
Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other Standards Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., Director.
1 SCU’s WASC Reaccreditation Diane Jonte-Pace, Self Study Steering Committee Chair Don Dodson, Academic Liaison Officer Winter 2007.
ABET 2000 Preparation: the Final Stretch Carnegie Institute of Technology Department Heads Retreat July 29, 1999.
UWF SACS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION PROJECT Presentation to UWF Board of Trustees November 7, 2003.
Cleveland State University Self Study 2010 North Central Association/Higher Learning Commission Accreditation.
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
August 15th 2007 Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes by Kirby Hayes.
WASC “All Hands” Meeting Overview and Update November 12, 2007 D. Jonte-Pace.
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation AUTEC School 4-8 March 2012.
UW-Platteville Vision UW-Platteville will be recognized as the leading student-focused university for its success in achieving excellence, creating opportunities,
STRATEGIC PLANNING & WASC UPDATE Tom Bennett Presentation to Academic Senate February 1, 2006.
1 Learning Outcomes Assessment: An Overview of the Process at Texas State Beth Wuest Director, Academic Development and Assessment Lisa Garza Director,
Gordon State College Office of Institutional Effectiveness Faculty Meeting August 5, 2015.
Campus Response to the Visiting Team Report January 2009 WASC Accreditation.
CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY OPEN SESSION MARCH 25 Higher Learning Commission Re-accreditation.
Accreditation Overview Winter 2016 Mallory Newell, Accreditation Liaison Office.
Accreditation 101 Julie Bruno, Sierra College Glenn Yoshida, Los Angeles Southwest College Roberta Eisel, Citrus College, facilitator Susan Clifford, ACCJC,
Quality Assurance Review Team Oral Exit Report School Accreditation Sugar Grove Elementary September 29, 2010.
30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 1 Student Assessment: A Mandatory Requirement For Accreditation Dr. Salwa El-Magoli Chair-Person National Quality.
A Commitment to Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning Michaela Rome, Ph.D. NYU Assistant Vice Provost for Assessment.
ACS WASC/CDE Visiting Committee Final Presentation Panorama High School March
Facult Retreat January 2010 Graham Benton, WASC Coordinator, Accreditation Liaison Officer
HLC Criterion Four Primer Thursday, Oct. 15, :40 – 11:40 a.m. Event Center.
Campus Response to the Visiting Team Report
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Curriculum and Accreditation
Middle States Update to President’s Cabinet October 8, 2018
Presented by: Skyline College SLOAC Committee Fall 2007
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
CUNY Graduate School and University Center
CSUN Re-Accreditation
Presentation transcript:

WASC Orientation and Discussion September 2, 2009 Graham Benton, WASC Coordinator, Accreditation Liaison Officer

Agenda WASC Overview and Accreditation Timeline Cal Maritime’s Status in the timeline WASC Recommendations The “Culture of Evidence” Stages of Assessment Institution-wide Student Learning Outcomes Institution-wide Assessment this year Rubrics for Assessment Resources for Assessment

WASC Overview The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) is recognized as one of six regional associations that accredit public and private schools, colleges, and universities in the United States. The accreditation process is intended to: Assure the educational community, the general public, and other organizations and agencies that an accredited institution meets the Commission’s Core Commitments to Institutional Capacity and Educational Effectiveness and has been reviewed under Commission Standards; Promote institutional engagement on issues of educational effectiveness and student learning Develop and apply standards to review and improve educational quality and institutional performance, and validate and revise these standards through ongoing research and feedback; Promote within institutions a culture of evidence, through which indicators of performance are regularly developed and data are collected to inform institutional decision making, planning, and improvement; Develop systems of institutional review and evaluation that adapt to institutional context and purposes, build on institutional evidence, support rigorous reviews, reduce the burden of accreditation, and add value to the institution

The Institutional Re-Accreditation Process 1)The Institutional Proposal 2)The Capacity and Preparatory Review 3)The Educational Effectiveness Review

The Capacity and Preparatory Review An examination of Institutional Capacity enables the institution to consider resource issues from a holistic perspective Looking at itself through a “lens” of institutional capacity enables the institution to examine what it is in terms of its capacity to fulfill its aspirations An important dimension of institutional capacity is the institution’s readiness to define and sustain educational effectives, as reflected in the name assigned to this review: the Capacity and Preparatory Review

The Educational Effectiveness Review 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, which ensure delivery of programs and learner accomplishments at a level of performance appropriate for the degree or certificate awarded. The institution assesses whether its systems, such as course and program design, faculty support, and program review, are effectively linked to evidence of student learning and are consistent with the educational goals and academic standards of the institution.

WASC Timeline January, 2009: Capacity and Preparatory Review Report Submitted Spring, 2009:Capacity and Preparatory Review and Visit Summer, 2009: WASC Commission Report on CPR Review July, 2010:Educational Effective Review Report submitted October, 2010:Educational Effective Review June, 2010WASC Commission meets to discuss accreditation of Cal Maritime

The Ten Actions the WASC Commission can take: Once the Commission has made a decision regarding the candidacy or accreditation of an institution, it will notify the institution in writing as promptly as possible. The forms of possible Commission action with regard to institutions are: »Grant Candidacy or Initial Accreditation »Deny Candidacy or Initial Accreditation »Defer Action »Continue Accreditation between the Capacity and Preparatory Review and the Educational Effectiveness Review »Reaffirm Accreditation »Issue a Formal Notice of Concern »Issue a Warning »Impose Probation »Issue an Order to Show Cause »Terminate Accreditation

From the Report of the WASC CPR Visiting Team: Eighteen specific recommendations in the following areas: –Diversity –Student Life –Shared Governance and Internal Communications –Leadership –Globalism –Assessment –External Communications –Planning –Educational Effectiveness

Two recommendations of high importance for ALL faculty: “Cal Maritime must create a culture of evidence through the effective assessment of data and to facilitate institutional decision-making.” “The Cal Maritime Educational Effectiveness Self-Study must include text describing in detail how the plans and actions comply with the WASC Standards and CFRs, as well as a thorough review of Cal Maritime’s overall institutional and academic assessment strategy.”

WASC Criteria for Review, 2008 Consult the handout: CFR 1.2: The institution develops indicators for the achievement of its purposes and educational objectives at the institutional, program, and course levels. CFR 2.3: The institution’s student learning outcomes and expectations for student attainment are clearly stated at the course, program, and, as appropriate, institutional level CFR 2.7: All programs offered by the institution are subject to systematic program review. CFR 2.10: The institution collects and analyzes student data disaggregated by demographic categories and areas of study. CFR 2.11: Consistent with its purposes, the institution develops and assesses its co-curricular programs

Cal Maritime’s Proposal for the Educational Effective Review (What was told to WASC in the conclusion of the CPR). CMA will: –Ensure all programs conduct program review –Establish Institution-wide student learning outcomes –Expand student research opportunities –Ensure CSU general education requirements in all programs –Expand global awareness events on campus

Assessment Steps 1.Develop Learning Outcomes 2.Check for alignment between the curriculum and the outcomes 3.Develop an assessment plan 4.Collect assessment data 5.Use results to improve the program 6.Routinely examine the assessment process

Assessment Step 1: Develop Learning Outcomes The first step in any assessment plan is to develop Student Learning Outcomes –On the Level of Course –On the Level of Program –On the Level of Institution

Assessment Step 1: Develop Learning Outcomes Assumptions when addressing Student Learning Outcomes: Student learning outcomes need to be addressed within the context of this nation’s decentralized, mission-based system of higher education What counts as evidence of success with respect to student learning outcomes is properly the province of each institution or program Accreditors set standards, but, in general, should not prescribe the nature of the evidence to be provided

Assessment Step 1: Develop Learning Outcomes Accrediting organizations are responsible for establishing clear expectations that institutions and programs will routinely define, collect, interpret and use evidence of student learning outcomes Accrediting organizations are responsible for using evidence of student learning outcomes in making judgments about academic quality and accredited status Institutions and programs share responsibility with accrediting organizations for providing clear and credible information to constituents about what students learn

Assessment Step 2: Check for alignment between the curriculum and the outcomes Occurs at multiple levels More specialized learning outcomes at the course level It’s not “what you teach”; it’s “what the students’ learn.” Course Outcomes Program Outcomes Institution-Wide Student Learning Outcomes

Assessment Step 2: Check for alignment between the curriculum and the outcomes Does every course you teach this semester have student learning outcomes? Are these learning outcomes clearly stated in the syllabus? Have these course outcomes been aligned with program outcomes? Can you align these program outcomes with our new Institutional Student Learning Outcomes?

Institution-wide Student Learning Outcomes Were developed in the spring semester of 2009 by a subcommittee of the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee, with the intent of developing a set of broad attributes to be attained by all graduates of the Academy. These outcomes are based upon the AACU’s Liberal Education Outcomes and Learning Outcomes of Cal Poly Pomona, but contain significant modifications and additions tailored to Cal Maritime’s unique mission. Within this document, each of Cal Maritime’s Student Learning Outcomes are defined and organized philosophically within four broad categories which speak to the complete development of all Cal Maritime graduates: 1) Knowledge of human development and the physical and natural world; 2) Intellectual and Practical Skills; 3) Personal Skills and Civic Responsibilities; 4) Life-Long Learning Skills.

Assessment Stage 3: Develop an Assessment Plan Each Program develops its own assessment plan, incorporating data collected from individual course assessement. The assessment plan itself is then incoporated into the Program Review There is, in addition, an assessment plan for the Institution-wide student learning outcomes Course Assessment Program Assessment Institution Assessment

Assessment Stage 3: Develop an Assessment Plan In the summer of 2009, the Department Chairs, the Academic Dean, and the Accreditation Liaison Officer met to outline an institution-wide assessment plan It was decided to start with assessing three areas: –1.B.1: The ability to demonstrate an understanding of fundamental concepts in the physical world and to apply these concepts to modern life –1.B.2: The ability to demonstrate an understanding of fundamental concepts in life sciences and to apply these concepts to modern life –2.F.2: The ability to coherently and persuasively share information with others via written communication The other institution-wide student learning outcomes will be assessed in a cyclical time-frame

Institution-wide writing assessment Identify how many courses being taught in the Fall semester require writing Assess the general quality of student writing through a rubric The Writing Program faculty will collect the data, and analyze it along with assessment data collected from within the Program itself

Physical and Natural World Assessment Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Technology Program Student Learning Outcomes have been aligned with Institution- wide Student Learning Outcomes, and data will be collected from these respective Assessment Plans The Math and Science Department will collect assessment information from their Science courses to submit

Conclusion What faculty development assistance (human, intellectual, and/or financial resources) would help up with assessment? What challenges do you see that may impede the implementation of the assessment plan or the WASC Report? Other questions?