UT Self Study All Criterion Teams Meeting Friday, November 13, :00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. SU 2582

Welcome Welcome Thomas Sharkey Overview Thomas Sharkey IntroductionsThea Sawicki Draft Timeline Thea Sawicki Peer Reviewer Expectations Bin Ning Criterion Team Reports Criterion One TeamCharles Blatz Criterion Two TeamBryan Pyles Social Break – 15 minutes Criterion Three TeamConnie Shriner Criterion Four TeamCharlene Czerniak Criterion Five TeamMojisola Tiamiyu Questions & Answers Information & ResourcesMarcia King-Blandford What’s Next Penny Poplin Gosetti 2

Welcome Overview VISION The University of Toledo is a transformative force for the world. As such, The University of Toledo will become a thriving student-centered, community- engaged, 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

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 AdministrativeDr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost’s Office Support:Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost’s Office Introductions NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership 4

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 Self Study Timeline

2011 Jan-March: Finalize self-study report by iterative process of review/rewrite Prepare Institutional Snapshot (Dr. Ning) Prepare for 3 rd Party comment April-May: President review/comment; campus review/comment NCA-HLC Conference in Chicago-meet with Liaison member June: President, senior leadership and BOT approval July: Final Self-Study revision, printing and 3 rd party comments August: Send final Self-Study Report to HLC Nov 14, 2011 or Feb 27 or Mar 19, 2012 SITE VISIT by peer-reviewers (consultant evaluators) 6

HLC Site Visit Format and Expectations  About HLC  About PEAQ and AQIP  About Consultant-Evaluators (aka Peer- reviewers)  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,

Sources of Evidence  Self-study report  Interviews and meetings with constituent groups  Supporting documents 9

Examples of Evaluative vs. Descriptive Statements 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.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 The university uses different methods to assess general education outcomes. 2.The merger has significantly improved the University’s capacity in obtaining research funding. 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 follow- up (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 13 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

Criterion Three 14 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

Criterion Four 15 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

Criterion Five 16 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

UT Self Study Process Questions & Answers 17

Information Retrieval Tracking the progress Building a resource room Sharing information & resources 18

What’s Next 19 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