1 / 31

Faculty Retreat - 2005

Faculty Retreat - 2005. Accreditation – The Confluence of Civility and Adjustment in the Academic Year….. . Or slaying Goliath…. Introduction – Why Accreditation? . Evaluation process: self examination Public accountability Demonstrate and affirm quality

dore
Download Presentation

Faculty Retreat - 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Faculty Retreat - 2005

  2. Accreditation – The Confluence of Civility and Adjustment in the Academic Year…..

  3. Or slaying Goliath….

  4. Introduction – Why Accreditation? • Evaluation process: self examination • Public accountability • Demonstrate and affirm quality • Opportunity to showcase our strengths and identify our weaknesses • Accreditation is a GOOD thing!

  5. Overview • Many Parts to the Puzzle • Everyone is a stakeholder in the process, therefore all areas are represented Academics Mission Vision Business Strategic Planning Student Life Institution is the sum of its parts. Plant Service Assessment

  6. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:Accreditation Steering Committee: Carolyn Tennant, Chair Charlie McElveen Glen Menzies JoAnn Smith Leslie Crabtree Dan Nelson David Watson Paul Freitag Student Alumnus/a.

  7. Criterion One Committee: (Mission Statement)Glen Menzies, ChairClint Watt, Larry Bach, Cheryl Book, Phil Mayo, Jim Allen, Kellie Blanchard, Nate Ruch, Bill Barnes,Gary Dop (new English prof), Greg Hayton, Sara Biskey (new HR person), student, alumnus/a.

  8. Criterion Two Committee: (Preparing for the Future)Paul Freitag, ChairDan Rector, Wendy Wirtz, Dave Collins, Dan Nelson, Jake Smith, Steve Krahn, Betty Smith, Vern Kissner, Paul Freitag, Caroline Knight, Donna Jager, student, alumnus/a.new admissions director

  9. Criterion Three Committee:(Student Learning and Teaching)JoAnn Smith, ChairFarella Shaka, Sharon Connor,Nan Muhovich, Mark Chaplin, Kari Nelson, Jerilyn Bach, Joy Jewett, Mike Capelli, Mike Nosser, Herb Johnson, Joanne Kersten, Tim Myers, student, alumnus/a.

  10. Criterion Four Committee:(Acquisition, Discovery, Application Knowledge)Leslie Crabtree, ChairBuzz Brookman, Barbara Garrett, Ron Jewett, Tracy Paino, Tom Burkman, John Davenport, Amy Anderson, Kris Blanchard, Paul Hurckman, Lenell Allen, student, alumnus/a.

  11. Criterion Five Committee: (Engagement and Service)David Watson, ChairBob Brenneman, Rebecca Norberg, Reuben David, Dave Pedde, Todd Monger, Sue Detlefson, Margo Lloyd, Jolene Cassellius, Richard Shaka, Charlie McElveen, Candace Hurckman, Doris Feltham, student, alumnus/a, another pastor.

  12. Self-study Timeline: 2005-2006 April, ‘05 1. Appoint Self-Study Committee and Criteria CommitteeAug., ‘05 2. Presentation during Faculty Retreat- Tom BurkmanAug. 25, (Thursday) 1:00-4:00p.m. 3. Half-day in-service for the Steering Committee and any other interested people. This will include: Core components and what is to be covered in each. Writing evidentiary statement.

  13. Sept. 4. Staff in-service Sept. 5. Committees convene and decide approach and evidence to be collected. Divide up duties. Carolyn attends an early meeting of each committee.October 1 6. Committees turn in plan including areas to be covered, research to be accomplished, data to becollected, etc.

  14. November 7. Faculty in-service Sept – Dec. 8. Committees gather evidenceJanuary ‘06 9. Faculty in-service January-Feb 10. Committees write first draft February 11. First draft due February-March 12. Steering Committee and President’s Cabinet study first draft and determine where there are holes, overlap.

  15. March 13. Faculty in-serviceApril 14. Meeting with committees to determine work for next year. For both the committees and for the institution.Carolyn Tennant will meet at least monthly with the steering committee; work individually with the criterion committee chairs and meet with those committees. She will determine additional data collection that needs to occurthrough surveys, etc.

  16. Part II – NCA Accreditation Student Learning What’s important? Assessment

  17. Student Learning, Assessment, and Accreditation * • Five fundamental questions serve as prompts for Peer Reviewers in assessing the role of assessment in affirming and improving student learning: • How are your stated student learning outcomes appropriate to your mission, programs, and degrees? • What evidence do you have that students achieve your stated learning outcomes?

  18. Student Learning, Assessment, and Accreditation (continued) 3. In what ways do you analyze and use evidence of student learning? 4. How do you ensure shared responsibility for assessment of student learning? 5. How do you evaluate and improve the effectiveness of your efforts to assess and improve student learning? * taken from: The Higher Learning Commission/ Annual Meeting Resource Book, 2005

  19. Mission-Goals-Objectives-Assessment Level 1. Institutional Mission - Outcomes

  20. Institutional Mission - Outcomes • What should NCU graduates look like?

  21. Mission-Goals-Objectives-Assessment Institutional Mission - Outcomes Level 1. Level 2. Department Mission - Outcomes

  22. Mission-goals-Objectives-Assessment • Level 2: • Each Academic Department must have a Mission/Purpose Statement from which to draw contemporary majors • From the department Mission/Purpose Statement, create End-sought Statements for each major that depicts the knowledge, character, skills, and attitudes of each student graduating in the individual major • End-sought Statements must align with the over-all institutional goals and outcomes

  23. Mission-goals-Objectives-Assessment Institutional Mission-Outcomes Level 1. Level 2. Level 3. Department Mission-Outcomes Majors - Outcomes

  24. Assessment and End-sought Statements • Level 3: • Does each course in the major contribute to the accomplishment of the End-sought Statements? Relationship of course outcomes (objectives) to the Major’s end-sought statements Major: End-sought Statement Course Objectives 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4.

  25. Mission-goals-Objectives-Assessment Institutional Mission-Outcomes Level 1. Level 2. Level 3. Level 4. Department Mission - Outcomes Majors - Outcomes Course - Objectives

  26. Assessment and End-sought Statements • Level 4: • Assessment for course outcomes (objectives) - Evidence in the Syllabus: projects, research papers, quizzes, exams; ie.- Grades Major-ESS Individual Course Outcomes Assessment of Course Outcomes • 1. 1.

  27. Summary of Levels: Who and what are we? What do we do now? Why? What do we want to become & do in the future? Why? Level 1 and 2: Level 3: What skills, knowledge, values, and character do we want in our graduates? Level 4: How and what does this course offer to meet level 3 objectives? How do we get there?

  28. Student LearningandAssessment = • Direct Measures: Outcomes or End- sought Statements(ESS) • It’s how we know whether we are accomplishing our goals. 2. Indirect Measures: Student Satisfaction Surveys, exit interviews, Alumni Surveys, other interviews, standardized assessments, etc.

  29. Other examples of Direct Measures of Student Learning: • Comprehensive exams for seniors • Performance-based mastery test • Capstone experience assessment • Portfolio system to assess formative and summative outcomes (capstone project, theses, etc.) • Longitudinal assessments of student performance • Performance on licensure, certification and professional exams • Oral exams, Juried reviews, Internships

  30. After Assessment…? “Closing the Loop” Step 1. Assessment & Gathering Evidence Step 2. Determine where changes and/or improvements are needed Step 5. Execute the action plan for change. Step 3. Prepare action plans to make changes and/or improvements Step 4. Identify what outcomes will be realized

  31. Final preparatory thoughts…. • “…peer reviewers will evaluate an organization’s efforts to assess and improve student learning within the context of the mission, values, and distinct learning goals of that organization….nevertheless, the Commission expects that each organization has developed assessment processes that are workable, has implemented a reasonable schedule for collecting and using assessment results, and can demonstrate as sustained effort to affirm and improve student learning, educational quality, and organizational effectiveness.” • From: Student Learning, Assessment, and Accreditation The Higher Learning Commission/ Annual Meeting Resource Book, 2005.

More Related