maximizing the process for institutional improvement · maximizing the process for institutional...
Post on 09-Jul-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
You’re Reaccredited, Now What??
Maximizing the Process for Institutional
Improvement
December 7, 2017
Joanne Coté-Bonanno, Montclair State University
Christine Licata, Rochester Institute of Technology
Cheryl Littman, Queens College, CUNY
Presentation Overview
Institutional Experiences
▪ Accreditation and the Seven Standards
▪ Self-Study – What we would do differently
▪ Outcomes – Institutional Assessment Data
▪ Now What? Action Plans for Continuous Improvement
▪ Strategic Planning Priorities
Accreditation and the
Seven Standards
The Standards
Montclair State University
Gathering Information by Standards
Rochester Institute of Technology
Documentation Roadmap (Evidence Inventory)
Queens College, CUNY
The Seven Standards
A Higher Education Institution:
has a mission (Standard I)
and lives it with integrity (Standard II)
to enhance the student learning experience (Standard III)
and support the overall student experience (Standard IV)
and that Institution:
assesses its success in achieving that mission (Standard V)
and engages in planning to strengthen its resources and improve as an institution (Standard VI)
by means of an effective governing process (Standard VII)
Dr. David B. Rehm –MSCHE Commissioner
Gathering information by Standard and Criteria
STANDARD I: Mission and Goals
The institution's mission defines its purpose within the context of higher
education, the students it serves, and what it intends to accomplish. The
institution's stated goals are clearly linked to its mission and specify
how the institution fulfills its mission.
Assemble the following, as appropriate:
▪ Statements regarding institutional mission and goals
▪ Processes and procedures relevant to mission and goal
Standard I Criteria Supporting Documents or Links Related Processes and Procedures People Library
Clearly defined mission and goals that:
a. are developed through appropriate collaborative participation by all who facilitate or are otherwise responsible for institutional development and improvement
1. Taskforce Reports
2. Strategic Plan Wiki
3. President’s website
1. Campus review process for developing
mission and goals
2. Steering Committee processes
3. Taskforce processes
4. P04.0: Core Values
5. A01.0: History, Accreditation and Legacy
6. A02.0: Key Result Areas and Goals
7. E02.2: Principles of Academic Freedom
1. Kit Mayberry
2. Karen Barrows
3. Strategic Plan Steering
Committee
4. Academic Senate Chair
5. Staff Council Chair
6. Student Government President
7. Bob Finnerty
8. Chair of the Board of Trustees
a. address external as well as internal contexts and constituencies
1. RIT’s Strategic Plan 2005-15
2. RIT’s new Strategic Plan: Greatness
Through Difference 2015-25
3. Alumni
a. are approved and supported by the governing body
1. Senate minutes for debate on
adoption of Strategic Plan
2. Board of Trustees’ Presentation on
Strategic Plan
a. guide faculty, administration, staff, and governing structures in making decisions related to planning, resource allocation, program and curricular development, and the definition of institutional and educational outcomes
1. Institutional Priority List for Strategic
Plan and Funding Strategy
• Essential Learning Outcomes
Document
• Academic Blueprint Portfolio
Getting Organized: The Documentation Roadmap
Prior to Self-Study:
▪ Define, operationalize and give examples of Evidence
▪ Not always self-evident, encourage explicit connections between
standard and evidence
▪ Create Documentation Roadmap and Repository/Database
▪ Identify/Brainstorm list of documents, existing and to be created
▪ Curate
▪ Identify specific sections of large documents
▪ Map documents to standard and strategic plan goals
▪ Include document expiration dates
Getting Organized: The Documentation Roadmap
During Self-Study:
▪ Continue to curate documents, add newly created documents
▪ Look for redundancies
▪ Communicate and consult periodically, share documents
across working groups
After Reaffirmation:
▪ Align recommendations/suggestions from with Strategic goals
and initiatives already underway
▪ Plan for document updates as needed
▪ Use the Documentation Roadmap as a Living Document
Self-Study
What would we do differently?
▪ Working Groups
▪ Charge
▪ Structure
▪ Calendar and meetings
Working Groups –
Recommendations
▪ Clear, written charge, and reminders of the charge
▪ Problem solvers, not just problem identifiers
▪ Clarify roles within groups
▪ Meeting/work calendar with clear deadlines for deliverables
▪ Set clear expectations for deliverables
▪ Roadmap
▪ Outline
▪ Early draft
▪ Revised draft
▪ Templates and examples
▪ Establish mechanisms for periodic cross-group communication
▪ Establish mechanisms for feedback on deliverables
▪ Recognize areas of overlap and redundancy
Mid-Progress Report: Overall Standard Status - Example
Standard I Created with: TaskstreamParticipating Area: MSCHE Self-StudyMid-Progress Report: Overall Standard StatusStandard I: Mission and GoalsStatus Date:
1. Identify any specific criteria within the Standard that have been difficult for your group to determine if RIT is meeting the expectations as set forth by Middle States.
2. What concerns, if any, do you have about the data/evidence available to yourWorking Group to demonstrate that RIT is meeting the criteria for your Standard?
3. Please list any additional information or resources the Working Group would like to add to the Documentation Roadmap.
4. Describe any recommendations your Working Group is considering at this point in the process.
Mid-Progress Report: Overall Standard Status - Continued
5. Describe any collaborations that your Working Group has been engaged
in or are planning for in the future with other Working Groups.
6. Detail progress to date on responding to the following Research Questions:
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: How effective is RIT, as a "student-centric"
university, at preparing graduates for successful careers in a global society?
(Linked to Strategic Plan 2015 Mission and Dimension One: Career Education and
Student Success- Difference Maker I.2)
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: To what extent do opportunities exist to enhance
collaborative and interdisciplinary academic programs, research, and
partnerships across the University?
(Linked to Strategic Plan 2015 and Mission and Dimension Two:
The Student-Centered Research University - Difference Maker II.1)
Template for a Working Group Report
▪ An overview of the group’s charge and the questions it addressed
▪ An analytical discussion of the inquiry undertaken and the outcomes of
that inquiry, including strengths and challenges
▪ An explanation of how the group’s findings and conclusions relate to the
Commission’s standards
▪ Discussion of the connection of the group’s topic with those of other
groups, and of any collaboration between groups that took place
▪ Recommendations for improvement
MSCHE Standard Number: Reviewer Name:
Review/Element Met
Meaningful analysis, clear and
concise supporting evidence,
reflective, included conclusions,
linkages where relevant, and
recommendations.
Needs Improvement
On one or more of the following
areas: Overly descriptive, focused
on describing what the institution
does without analysis of
information, made unsupported
assertions, used confusing or
conflicting data, not clear on
conclusions, or recommendations
Missing
(Unable to determine or missing
core element of report – identify)
An overview of the group’s charge,
defining the scope of its tasks and
responsibilities in relation to its assigned
Standard for Accreditation
Analytical discussion of the inquiry
undertaken and data (evidence)
reviewed
Conclusions regarding strengths
Conclusions regarding challenges
Explanation of how the group’s
conclusions relate to the assigned
Standard for Accreditation
Recommendations for ongoing
institutional improvement
Comments:
Working Group Template
▪ Standard #: Standard Title (limit to 10 pages) - The Standard statement
▪
▪ Satisfactorily met the standard and criteria - Brief Statement
▪ Introduction – Restatement of the standard that is specific to MSU
▪ Analysis of key issues related to meeting the standard and criteria
▪ Identify and discuss any noted areas of innovation in relation to this
standard.
▪ Summary Statement
Outcomes – Institutional Assessment Data
▪ Data infrastructure
▪ Enhancing data accessibility
▪ Data distribution
▪ Academic Affairs and Institutional Research
Collaboration
▪ Documentation Roadmap ( Evidence Inventory )
Outcomes - Institutional
Assessment Data
▪ Involve Institutional Research/Effectiveness early and often
▪ Mapping data resources and metrics to standards
▪ Identify needs/gaps up front
▪ Trend data may be more useful than snapshots
▪ Incorporate benchmark data if possible
▪ Align with assessment of strategic plan goals
▪ Build data and report infrastructure with
assessment in mind
▪ Accessible
▪ Updateable
▪ Interactive, “self-service”
Outcomes - Institutional
Assessment Data
▪ Provide professional development for data consumers
▪ Conduct meta assessment
▪ Organize processes and data for institutional improvement
post-accreditation
▪ Not just the IR office (leadership, faculty)
▪ Strategic planning implementation efforts
▪ Presentations at regular meetings –
including at meetings with faculty
What is the Assessment of Student Learning?
1. Developing clearly articulated learning
outcomes for successful completion of:
▪ Courses
▪ Academic Programs
▪ Co-curricular Programs
▪ General Education requirements19
Assessment of Student Learning
2. Offering courses, programs and experiences that
provide purposeful opportunities of student to achieve
those learning outcomes.
3. Assessing student achievement for those learning
outcomes
4. Using the results to improve teaching and learning and
inform planning and resource allocation decisions.
20
What is the Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness?
▪ Defining clearly articulated institutional and unit-level
goals
▪ Implementing strategies to achieve those goals
▪ Implementing strategies to achieve those goals
▪ Using the results of those assessments to
▪ improve programs and services
▪ inform planning and resource allocation
21
Now What? Action Plans for
Continuous Improvement
▪ Strategic Planning Priorities
▪ Institutional Stakeholders
▪ New and Ongoing Challenges
22
Research Questions Aligned to Strategic PrioritiesResearch
Questions
Aligned to 15
Strategic Plan
Priorities &
MSCHE
Standards
Standard I
Mission and Goals
Standard II
Ethics and
Integrity
Standard III
Deign and
Delivery of the
Student Learning
Experience
Standard IV
Support for the
Student
Experience
Standard V
Educational
Effectiveness
Assessment
Standard VI
Planning,
Resources, and
Institutional
Improvement
Standard VII
Governance,
Leadership, and
Administration
RESEARCH
QUESTION 2
To what extent do
opportunities exist
to enhance
collaborative and
interdisciplinary
academic
programs,
research, and
partnerships
across the
University?
To what degree
is RIT positioned
to satisfy the
“Affordability
goal?”
Where do
opportunities
exist to expand
and strengthen
experiential
learning
experiences for
all students?
To what extent
are the
University’s
recruitment and
retention efforts,
and planned
efforts meeting
institutional
enrollment
goals?
To what extent
does RIT use
assessment
results for the
improvement of
educational
effectiveness
consistent with
the mission?
To what extent
does RIT
leverage
educational
technology to
improve access,
maintain
academic quality
and achieve
desired learning
outcomes while
balancing costs?
Is RIT’s system
of shared
governance
working
effectively to
benefit
constituencies
that it serves?
STRATEGIC
PLAN
PRIORITIES
Dimension One: Career Education and Student Success
Difference Maker I.2“Interdisciplinarity”Dimension Two: The Student-centered University
Difference Maker II.1“Signature Research Areas”II.4 “Sponsored Research”
Dimension
Four:
Affordability and
Return on
Investment
Difference
Maker IV.1 Best
Placement Rate”
Difference
Maker IV.3
“Financial Needs”
Dimension One:
Education and
Student Success
Difference
Maker I.4
“Graduate
Education”
Difference
Maker I.5
“Experiential
Learning”
Dimension Two:
The Student-
Centered
University
Difference
Maker I.4
“”Graduate
Education”
Difference
Maker I.7
“on-Time
Graduation”
Difference Make
III.5
“Largest
Dimension One:
Education and
Student Success
Difference
Maker I.4
“Outcomes-
based
Assessment
Model”
Dimension
Four:
Affordability
Difference
Maker IV.1
“Best Placement
Rate”
Difference
Maker IV.2
“Improve Access
and Balance
Costs” 23
Charge
This university-level committee supports the review and monitoring of its accreditation through the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). The committee will ensure the Commission's standards and policies are
incorporated into the ongoing planning and evaluation processes of the institution. They will provide oversight for
Implementing RIT's Self Study Report Recommendations and MSCHE report recommendations and the tracking and
reporting of annual progress on those recommendations. Members on this committee serve as liaisons to their
respective divisions and constituency groups.
ACCREDITATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (AOC)
Purpose
1. Ensure accountability through the requirement of documented annual progress reports from those
responsible for carrying out campus initiatives and responses to accreditation recommendations.
2. Review and discuss ongoing requirements for RIT's regional accreditor, MSCHE, to facilitate keeping in
compliance with the Requirements of Affiliation, standards, and Commission policies.
3. Review alignment of university processes and policies with Accreditation Standards and federal
requirements.
4. Review the MSCHE Annual Institutional Report.
• Assistant Vice President for Compliance & Ethics and Deputy General Counsel
• Chief Communications Officer
• Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Policy Studies
• Interim Vice President & Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion
• Senior Vice President for Student Affairs
• Assistant Vice President for Budget & Financial Planning Services
• Senior Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
• Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management
• Associate Provost International Programs and Global Education
• Assistant Vice President for Operations, Academic Affairs
• Assistant Provost for Assessment and Accreditation, RIT's Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) and Convener
• Chair of Academic Senate
Members
ACCREDITATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (AOC)
Strategic Planning Priorities
Standard I - example
▪ Summary - 3 key findings
▪ Clearly defined Mission and Goals
▪ New Initiatives as an outgrowth of Strategic Plan
▪ Initiatives are supported by institutional resources
▪ Next Steps for Strategic Planning
▪ Reassessing Mission
▪ Committee on University Effectiveness (CUE) – distribute,
discuss and evaluate yearly reports
▪ Carefully weigh the doctoral designation in identifying new
Institutional Benchmarks26
Where are we now?
▪ Aligned self-study recommendations and MSCHE suggestions with strategic plan goals
▪ Conducted a strategic plan retreat
▪ Assess progress toward 2020 targets
▪ Identify priorities for the coming year
▪ Consulted and communicated with stakeholders
▪ Students
▪ Faculty/Chairs/P&B
▪ College leadership
▪ Administrators
▪ Staff
▪ System Office
▪ Identified strategic plan priorities for the year
▪ Aligning with System (CUNY-wide) priorities
▪ Forming 2017-18 working groups to advance, monitor and report on strategic goals27
Examples and Templates
▪ Template for aligning MSCHE suggestions with strategic
goals
▪ Self-study recommendations – implementation plan
(completed template)
▪ Annual Calendar for strategic plan assessment
28
New and Ongoing Challenges
▪ Keeping stakeholders engaged in the process
▪ Leaders
▪ Faculty
▪ Students
▪ Administrative staff
▪ Professional development
▪ Identifying and investing resources for assessment and data/reporting
infrastructure
▪ Conducting Meta assessment – developing new pathways for providing
feedback to those conducting assessment and working on strategic
priorities
▪ Sustainability
▪ New University-wide Strategic Framework and an institutional review
process undergoing change
29
Meeting Preparation
In preparation for the visit, we have developed a Meeting Schedule for each team member. You are receiving this
information because a meeting is scheduled for you to meet with one or more of the team members. Please
remember that the accreditation process is intended to foster institutional improvement. Therefore, conversations
during the visit may be both self-critical and self-congratulatory, as appropriate and deserved.
In order to prepare for your meeting:
• Please read the Self-Study Report with a particular focus on the Standards of Accreditation which relate to your meeting topic with
the team member(s).
• Please review RIT’s Recommendations and Suggestions (themed in the Executive Summary and also in the addendum at the end of
the Self-Study Report)
• Please review the Greatness Through Difference Crosswalk of RIT’s 15 (early implementation) strategic priorities integrated within
the Self-Study Report.
• Be prepared to cite evidence to support the information presented in the Self-Study Report and/or to support your responses to
questions posed by team members.
• Be prepared to discuss your role in meeting the Standard(s) and your involvement, if any, in the preparation of the Self-Study
Report.
If you would like more information, please visit RIT’s MSCHE Accreditation Website.
RIT’s Campus Briefing Memo
MSCHE Reaccreditation Decennial Evaluation: Team Visit April 2-5, 2017
Guidance by Area: Roles and Responsibilities
Evaluation teams typically meet with specific individuals who are closely connected to the specific Standards and
associated criteria. The following guidance was designed to help those in specific areas or roles prepare for their
meetings.
General Information: The Evaluation Visit is a comprehensive overview of the entire university. Expect to be
questioned about the section(s) of the Self-Study Report relevant to your area and larger issues as well.
Possible Questions:
• Is the Self-Study Report truthful?
• Does it represent the situation at RIT accurately?
• What did the campus learn from this inquiry? What themes emerged?
• Are RIT’s 14 Recommendations and 13 Suggestions beneficial to the campus?
• Are there any Recommendations or Suggestions that you think are missing?
• How does the Self-Study Report support RIT’s Strategic Plan?
• What are RIT’s strengths? What are RIT’s weaknesses?
• Did you have any input into the Self-Study Report?
• Are RIT's plans for the future reasonable and attainable?
• How do you (or your unit) help fulfill the mission of the university?
RIT’s Campus Briefing Memo
MSCHE Reaccreditation Decennial Evaluation: Team Visit April 2-5, 2017
Guidance by Area: Roles and Responsibilities Examples
Academic Deans: In addition to reading the Self-Study Report, please be ready to talk generally about your college, especially current
and future plans for assessment, program strengths, and plans for your unit which supports RIT’s Strategic Plan. Review the themes
(Executive Summary) and associated recommendations and suggestions. Standards of Note: Standards III: Design of the Student Learning
Experience IV: Support of the Student Learning Experience, V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment, and VI: Planning, Resources, and
Institutional Improvement.
Academic Senate: In addition to reading the Self-Study Report, Standard III: Design of the Student Learning Experience focuses on student
learning and faculty. Please review Standard VIII Governance. Be prepared to answer questions about faculty life at RIT. Review the
themes (Executive Summary) and associated recommendations and suggestions.
Students: In addition to reading the Self-Study Report, be ready to answer questions about your experience here, your satisfaction or
dissatisfaction. Standards of Note: III: Design of the Student Learning Experience and IV: Support of the Student Learning Experience.
Review the themes (Executive Summary) and associated recommendations and suggestions.
Trustees: In addition to reading and being familiar with the Self-Study Report, please be ready to discuss your satisfaction with
trusteeship, views on progress of RIT toward its mission and goals. Be prepared to discuss the Strategic Plan and its implementation.
Review the themes (Executive Summary) and associated recommendations and suggestions. Standards of Note: I: Mission and Goals, VI:
Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement, and VII: Governance, Leadership, and Administration.
RIT’s Campus Briefing Memo
MSCHE Reaccreditation Decennial Evaluation: Team Visit April 2-5, 2017
Talking to a Middle States Evaluator
• Vocabulary and Acronyms – Glossary – RIT and MSU
• Process and Content
• Next Steps for Strategic Planning
• Recommendations/Suggestions
34
35
Dr. Morales
Team Chair
Dr. Sanyal
Standards I and II
Col. Kobylski Standards I,
V, VI and VII
Mr. Sheehan
StandrdsII and VI
Dr. Hodes Standards III and
IV
Dr. Turner Standards III and
IV
Dr. Chandler Standards
V and VII
7:45 AM
8:30 AM
Director OIR 514 Vice President SDCL 550 Vice President SDCL 550 Director OIR 514
9:00 AM President Cole
Provost
Working Group I 510 Working Group VII 570 CFO / Internal Auditor
Grad Lounge
Dean’s Councii 290 Dean's Council 290 Working Group VII 570
9:35 AM
10:00 AM President, Provost and Executive
Council President's Conference
Room
President, Provost and
Executive Council President's
Conference Room
President, Provost and
Executive Council
President's Conference
Room
Department Chairs140 Associate Provost for
Undergraduate Education,
Academic Affairs, Associate Vice
President for Student Academic
Services, Student Development
and Campus Life 510
Assistant Director of
Assessment, Academic
Affairs,
Assistant Director of
Institutional Effectiveness,
Research Analysis,
Institutional Research,
Assessment Database
Administrator, Institutional
Research51410:35 AM
11:00 AM Director of Undergraduate
Admissions,
Dean of the Graduate
SchoolAssociate Director, the
Graduate School 510
Senate Executive Board290 VP Human Resources
Director of Equal
Opportunity, Affirmative
Action and Diversity
514
Representatives of the Faculty -
Research 11:00 am and
Teaching Grad
Lounge11:30 am 570
Director of Undergraduate
Admissions,
Executive Director for the
Graduate School and Graduate
Operations, Graduate School,
510
Senate Executive Board 290
11:35 AM Representatives of the
Student Government
Association (SGA) 290
Representatives of the
Student Government
Association (SGA) 290
12:00 PM
Pick up at hotel to transport to Campus
Campus Tour
Monday 4.3.17Team Schedule
Links ▪ Accreditation and the Seven Standards
▪ Gathering Information by Standard/Criteria
▪ RIT Documentation Road Map
▪ RIT Glossary
▪ RIT Self Study Mid Progress Report
▪ RIT Working Group Report Review
▪ Self Study – What We Would Do Differently
▪ Outcomes – Institutional Assessment Data
▪ Now What? Action Plans for Continuous Improvement
▪ Strategic Planning Priorities
▪ RIT Research Questions Aligned to Strategic Plan Priorities and MSCHE Standards
▪ RIT Research Questions
▪ Institutional Stakeholders
▪ RIT Accreditation Oversight Committee
▪ RIT Campus Debrief (following Team Visit)
▪ New and Ongoing Challenges
▪ The Team Visit
▪ General Information Provided to RIT Campus
▪ Information Provided to Groups on Team Schedule
▪ Sample Invitations to Students and Faculty36
Links ▪ Accreditation and the Seven Standards
▪ Gathering Information by Standard/Criteria
▪ Guidelines for Completing the Documentation Roadmap
▪ Self Study – What We Would Do Differently
▪ Working Group Template
▪ Self-Study Rubric
▪ Writing an Evidentiary Statement
▪ Outcomes – Institutional Assessment Data
▪ Examples of Assessment Plan
▪ Table of Program Assessment
▪ Use of Assessment Results
▪ Now What? Action Plans for Continuous Improvement
▪ Strategic Planning Priorities
▪ Institutional Stakeholders
▪ Self-Study Stakeholders
▪ New and Ongoing Challenges
▪ The Team Visit
▪ What does accreditation mean to MSU
▪ Middle States Team is Coming
▪ Glossary37
top related