Writing the Assurance Argument Pat Credit April 14, 2016 Rinne, H. University of Arkansas Fort Smith Wendler, D. Martin Luther College Ahuja, S. HLC VP for Accreditation Relations

How does an Assurance Argument differ from the oldSelf- Study? Self studies serve many purposes and address multiple audiences. The Assurance Argument serves one purpose! Limit of 35,000 words for entire assurance argument Font and size locked down Only one photo Write directly to each core component Subcomponents provide the outline and prompts for evidence From narrative/descriptive style to expository style No resource room (yay!) Steve

Requires more attention to evidence More Differences Make an argument why the institution meets core component/criteria, citing evidence Requires more attention to evidence Weave strengths (argument) with areas for improvement Use evidence to comment on areas to improve Eliminate redundancy [e.g. qualifications of staff – 5a(4) or 3c or repeating the CC] Steve

Think: Criterion – Core Component – Subcomponents Gathering Evidence Think: Criterion – Core Component – Subcomponents What Evidence? Subcomponents are prompts for the types of evidence to collect – What do we have that demonstrates that? What is quality evidence? Collect multiple pieces of evidence, then choose Steve “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams

Let’s Take a Look… Criterion Three. Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered. 3.C. The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services. 2. All instructors are appropriately qualified, including those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs. 4. The institution has processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development. Steve What evidence do you think peer reviewers would look for to determine that Regis meets this core component?

Gathering Evidence What evidence do you think peer reviewers would look for to determine that Regis meet Criterion 3, core component 3.C.? Average class size data AUR and assessment plan requirements RUAC charter & roster Faculty qualifications policy (count on a spot audit) Faculty review/promotion sections of faculty handbooks (RC, Library, other colleges) Faculty development funds by college CETL budget, slate of events, and services Office hour requirements from faculty handbooks (RC, Library, other colleges) HR guidelines re: minimum qualifications, SAC development provided, HR development provided, Leadership Institute, etc. Remember: evidence versus examples! Steve

More on Gathering Evidence Place multiple pieces of evidence in folders or in the assurance system, then choose Link to a specific piece of evidence (e.g. tenure and promotion policy in the Faculty Handbook, not to the Faculty Handbook) Steve How much evidence is enough? Depends (e.g. Board Minutes vs Mission Statement document)

Thoughts of a Peer Reviewer Argument – how do we meet the core component? Use the subcomponents as an outline Precise, to the point, not wordy Include areas for improvement Do not recite the Criterion or CC in your argument. Focus on writing to your audience (Peer Reviewers, staff liaison, IAC) Steve

Thoughts of a Peer Reviewer Write text or use a link, not both # links per core component – 8-12 Avoid a link in every sentence Use links for hard evidence, for elaboration, for examples Links should always support your argument Write one or two sentences about a piece of evidence Steve

Thoughts of a Peer Reviewer Strive for fluency: weave evidence, links, strengths, and areas for improvement together Benchmarked evidence is the best kind (example: NSSE) Use precise language; reduce redundancy Use editor(s) – one voice, style Steve