1. Facult Retreat January 2010 Graham Benton, WASC Coordinator, Accreditation Liaison Officer gbenton@csum.edu

2. WASC Overview 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

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

4. 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 January 6, 2010Faculty Retreat on Establishing a Culture of Evidence January 3, 2011:Educational Effective Review Report submitted March 2,3,4, 2011:Educational Effective Review September, 2011WASC Commission meets to discuss accreditation of Cal Maritime

5. 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.

6. 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.”

7. 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

8. 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

9. Initial Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators DepartmentSLOs on Course Level? SLOs on Program Level? Program SLOs alignedwith Institional SLOs? Do you have an assessment plan that accounts for all PLOs in a systematic and cyclical manner? What is the date of last Program Review? ABS: IBLPartialYes NoNone ABS: GSMAPartialYes NoNone ABS: C/CPartialYesSomewhatNoNone ETYes Being Improved 2007 MEYes No2009 M/SYes No None MTNo None MarOpsNo None *It should be notes that while M/S and MarOps are departments, M/S, MarOps, and C/C are non-degree granting academic programs.

10. 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.

11. Outcomes Assessment Misperceptions Responses to Misperceptions Transformative Guidelines for using assessment to improve teaching and learning Importance of Institutional-Level Planning