Key Elements of the Self Study Process NEASC Key Elements of the Self Study Process

The basics of accreditation: How does it work? WHAT YOU’LL HEAR AT THIS SESSION The basics of accreditation: How does it work? Changes to Process and Current Issues Areas of Emphasis from our Last Review Review of the schedule Q&A Time to meet with your standards members Goal – by May ID information needs

HOW DOES IT WORK? WHAT ARE THE BASICS OF ACCREDITATION?

ACCREDITATION = STANDARDS + MISSION Standards of higher education community Mission of the institution + evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence

DIMENSIONS OF SELF-REGULATION Institutions agree to: be held accountable to a set of standards determined by the group abide by the standards “even when no one is looking” be reviewed by peers to demonstrate accountability

WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITATION? An articulation by the higher education community of what a college or university must do in order to deserve the public trust Quality assurance Quality improvement A framework for institutional development and self-evaluation candor candor candor candor candor candor candor candor

DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S. Input Are there enough books in the library? ……………………………………. Are the faculty well qualified? Is the curriculum appropriate? ………………………………………..

DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S. Input Process Are there enough books in the library? Are students using the books? ……………………………………. Is there good instructional practice? Do students get practice and feedback? Are the faculty well qualified? Is the curriculum appropriate? ………………………………………..

DEVELOPMENT OF ACCREDITATION IN THE U.S. Input Process Outcome Are students gaining skills of information literacy? Are there enough books in the library? Are students using the books? ……………………………………. Is there good instructional practice? Do students get practice and feedback? Are the faculty well qualified? Is the curriculum appropriate? Are students achieving the learning outcomes of the program and institution? ………………………………………..

MISSION-DRIVEN STANDARDS Mission and Purposes Planning and Evaluation Organization and Governance The Academic Program Students Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship Institutional Resources Educational Effectiveness Integrity, Transparency, and Public Disclosure

AREN’T THE STANDARDS VAGUE? A Sample of Public, Independent, and For-Profit Institutions Harvard University Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute College of the Atlantic Berklee College of Music Hartford Seminary University of New Hampshire Bay State College Community College of Vermont Wellesley College Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Boston Architectural College Bates College U.S. Naval War College Hult International Business School Maine Maritime Academy Rhode Island College Johnson & Wales University American University in Bulgaria Goodwin College Conway School of Landscape Design New England College of Business and Finance Vermont College of Fine Arts

INSTITUTIONAL SELF-STUDY Product: The Self-Study Report: 100 pages plus forms Process: Studying the institution against the standards How do we meet the standards? How well do we meet the standards? What are our plans for improvement? Strengthen the culture of inquiry Using evidence Community reflecting together

3-PART FORMAT DESCRIPTION: what do we do? Succinct! APPRAISAL: how well do we do it? Analysis of strengths, concerns PROJECTION: what do we commit to do? Specific plans to address challenges

WHAT STORY DOES THE DATA TELL? ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE WHAT STORY DOES THE DATA TELL? Not just numbers, but how you interpret them Not just what you did, but what you learned from what you did How you used findings to improve (CLOSING THE LOOP) Process – what we DID Ex: administered survey Findings – what we LEARNED Ex: faculty and student concerns about advising Results – what we CHANGED Ex: new student orientation, recognition for advisors

EVIDENCE & ANALYSIS Evidence Analysis “There are 754,700 volumes in the library.” “This is a 20% increase in 5 years and puts us at the median of our peers.” “It was not clear that students are expected to use increasingly sophisticated sources of information.” “A syllabus study shows that students in 65% of their classes have assignments that require them to use information resources.”

TEAM VISIT Who are they? What do they do? What are their roles? What do they produce? 6-10 trained faculty and administrators Peer and aspirant institutions No conflict of interest 3-day campus visit, meetings Review evidence on-site Visit a sample of off-campus locations Open meetings Validate self-study “Eyes and ears” of Commission Exit report of principal findings Team report Confidential recommendation

OUR WORK BEGINS www.ccsu.edu/neasc

RESULTS FROM TEN-YEAR SELF-STUDY AND VISIT, 2008 Self-study accepted Accreditation continued Submit interim report in 2011, address highlighted concerns Submit fifth-year interim report in 2013, address highlighted concerns

CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY Assessment of student learning Fully implement systematic and broad-based process/schedule Use results to inform CCSU/public about how students learn Demonstrate that CCSU is improving learning experiences for students CCSU has developed a strong policy on assessment, implemented mechanisms to collect information However, current information is uneven and incomplete

CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY Implement a systematic and regular review cycle for all academic programs Include input from external reviewers Include programs not externally accredited Part-time faculty Document the qualifications and preparation of faculty Document teaching effectiveness Evaluate all courses, including those taught by PT faculty Regularly review PT faculty qualifications

CONCERNS RAISED IN 2008 SELF-STUDY Academic advising Quality is inconsistent Resources have been reduced Develop comprehensive strategy to insure effective advising Meet students’ needs for information and advice Suggestion: Improve communication and collaboration between IT and Academic Affairs

REQUIRED INTERIM REPORT, 2011 Address 5 Areas of Emphasis: Implement a systematic , broad-based program of student learning assessment using the results for improvement Strengthen the University's capacity to collect, analyze and use data in decision-making Review all academic programs on a regular cycle Assure the effectiveness of academic advising Assure that part-time faculty are appropriately qualified and implement effective procedures for their evaluation

REQUIRED INTERIM FIFTH-YEAR REPORT, 2013 Address 5 Areas of Emphasis, again: Implement a systematic , broad-based program of student learning assessment using the results for improvement Strengthen the University's capacity to collect, analyze and use data in decision-making Review all academic programs on a regular cycle Assure the effectiveness of academic advising Assure that part-time faculty are appropriately qualified and implement effective procedures for their evaluation

RESULTS FROM FIFTH-YEAR INTERIM REPORT Self-study accepted 4 of 5 Areas of Emphasis satisfied Submit ten-year report in 2018 Include one Area of Emphasis

RESULTS FROM FIFTH-YEAR REPORT Required Area of Emphasis: Give emphasis to the institution's success in implementing its new general education/core curriculum, including an approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes in the core Particular emphasis to 2016 Standards 4.15 4.16

STANDARD 4.15 By the time of graduation, UG students successfully demonstrate competence in: Written and oral communication in English Scientific and quantitative reasoning Critical analysis and logical thinking Capability for continuing learning & information literacy Knowledge & understanding of scientific, historical, and social phenomena Knowledge & appreciation of the aesthetic and ethical dimensions of humankind

STANDARD 4.16 General Education requirement is coherent, substantive Embodies the institution’s definition of an educated person Prepares students for the world in which they live GenEd requirement informs the Design of GenEd courses Provides criteria for evaluation Assessment of what students learn

HANDOUTS… Feedback from NEASC Reviewers Concern & Standard to Address in: (reference is to NEASC standard, version 2011) 2011 Standard 10-Year Self-study Letter December 23, 2008 Comments from NEASC Reviewers Page 2011 2013 2018 1 - Mission and Purpose Increased emphasis on scholarship and creativity in context of high teaching loads – CCSU runs the risk of mission creep 4   2 - Planning and Evaluation Not clear that resource allocation supports planning priorities efficiently and effectively 5 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 2.4 Data collection relative to student achievement of educational outcomes – the record is mixed, particularly in A&S Facilities, Finance, and Institutional Advancement have no review processes in place other than the strategic plan 6 CCSU monitors effectiveness of its planning and evaluation via the accountability report to DHE

APPROACHING THE STANDARD 6.3  The preparation and qualifications of all faculty and academic staff are appropriate to the nature of their assignments.  Qualifications are measured by advanced degrees held, evidence of scholarship, advanced study, creative activities, and teaching abilities, as well as relevant professional experience, training, and credentials.

TIME FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.