Upload
jocelin-lester
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Planning and Preparing for the Self-Study
Howard Community Collegeand
Cornell University
Presenters
• Bernadette Sandruck,Howard Community College– Professor and Chair of Mathematics
• Alan Mathios, Cornell University– Rebecca Q. and James C. Morgan
Dean of the College of Human Ecology
Session Outline
• Share our campuses’ experiences during the self-study process
• Describe the challenges of planning for a successful Self Study–Model Selection– Structure and Steering Committee– Organizing the Self Study– Communication, Logistics, Support
• Public, open-enrollment college opened in 1970
• Situated in an urban/suburban area between Baltimore & Washington
• Currently 14,000 credit students and 16,000 continuing education students
• Additional locations at Laurel College Center and Gateway Business Center
Howard Community College
Since the last Self-Study, HCC has grown at a frantic pace:• 49% Growth in credit FTE (2001–2008)• Increase in fulltime faculty & staff• Continuous construction: Four new
buildings and a parking garage• Added study abroad and service learning
opportunities.• Expanded opportunities for honor
students
“Cornell is complex”
• Private, Ivy League… but also a public, land-grant institution
• 7 undergraduate colleges• 3 professional schools (Law, Business, Vet
Med) in Ithaca• Medical college in NYC (225 miles from
main campus) and abroad• Programs in Singapore and
other places
Key questions when starting
• What do you want your institution to gain from the self-study process?
• How can you use the Self Study to strengthen your institution?
• What makes your institution unique?
Selecting the model
Use your goals to select your model
• Are you interested in a broad review
—or —• Do you want to examine critical operations
or areas of your institution in depth?
Three Major Models:
• comprehensive• selected topics• collaborative
Model Selection: Comprehensive
At the time we started our planning (late fall 2008):– Brand new provost– President in only his 3rd year– Beginning of financial crisis
Clear desire to examine the entirety of the institution from top-to-bottom– Also started strategic planning
exercise at the same time!
Comprehensive with special emphasis
“I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any
study.”– Ezra Cornell
“Any Person, Any Study” Within One University
Assess the balance between centralization and independence, efficiency and latitude, and control and creativity…
Model Selected: Comprehensive
with Rapid Growth identified as a major theme
Goals for Self-Study
• Demonstrate that MSCHE standards are met
• Provide an opportunity for new employees to learn about the history, culture, policies, practices and strategic future of the college
• Self reflect to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement
• Suggest new directions for future strategic planning
• Recognize & acknowledge the contributions of all to the overall college mission
Organizing for the work
Timeline and Committees
Development of Timeline
• Began working with a time line before the entire Steering Committee even appointed
• Started with Figure 3, page 9 of red book: “A Self-Study Timetable”
• Fleshed out, edited, revised, revisited…
• At every stage, it was reassuring to find that we had followed the plan
• From November SSI in 2008 to spring visit in 2011 was 2.5 years; essential to keep long term plan in mind
Timeline essentials (3 years)
Spring/Summer 2008 – recruited co-chairs & work group volunteers, selected model and number of work groups, selected work team leaders
Fall 2008 - work teams develop & finalize research questions, self-study design drafted & completed
Spring & Fall 2009 – work teams conduct interviews, start draft reports and list documents needed, new research arranged and conducted
Spring & Fall 2010 – assimilate, edit, review, invite feedback, repeat the process….., submit Self-Study
Winter & early Spring 2011 – prepare for site visit
Committees and Structure
• Purpose• Constituencies Represented • Size• Relationships Between the Steering
Committee and Working Groups
Steering Committee
• Co-chairs– particular helpful given unexpected departure
– Two academic administrators: dean of a college, dean of students
• Strong administrative support– Institutional Research & Planning: director and
another staff member provided key project management
• Involved students (looked for sophomores)
• Six working group chairs all served on Steering Committee
Six Working GroupsSteering Committee
Institutional Stewardship
(Standards: 1, 2, 3 and 7)
Integrity, Governance & Administration
(Standards: 4, 5, and 6)
The Faculty(Standard: 10)
Student Admissions & Supports(Standards: 8 and 9)
Educational Offerings(Standards: 11, 12, 13)
Assessment of Student Learning(Standard: 14)
Mission, Planning, Resource Allocation(Standards: 1, 2, and 3 )
Integrity, Governance, Administration & Faculty
(Standards: 4, 5, 6, and 10)
Student Admissions & Supports(Standards: 8 and 9)
Educational Offerings(Standards: 11, 12, 13)
Assessment(Standards: 7 & 14)
The Design Document
Preparing the Design Document
• Exercise of drafting questions for the working groups ensured that the Steering Committee became well-versed in the meaning of each standard and how it relates to Cornell
• Like a dissertation proposal, the design document should be carefully considered and well thought out… but not a contract that must be executed– Better approaches will develop!
Preparing the Design Document
• Using the standards, the Core Team drafted a preliminary set of questions
• Work Teams reviewed, refined and added to the sets of questions
• Entire group discussed and suggested edits to the entire set of questions
• Steering Team decided on logistics
• Editor drafted the design document
• Steering Team reviewed and suggested edits
Communication, Logistics and Support
First year planning is critical
• Create realistic timelinesConsider the cycle of the academic year
• Create a repository for documents and data at the beginning
• Communication is critical• Keep all constituencies involved in the
process• Provided updates at college-wide meetings
in August, January and May• Used President’s weekly e-letter
Assessment
Building, nurturing a culture of assessment
Assessment: Measuring Attainment of Goals
• Standard 7: Institutional Assessment “The institution evaluates its overall effectiveness in
achieving its mission and goals”
• Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes “Assessment of student learning demonstrates that
students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals”
• Other standards also have assessment component
A Call to the [new] Provost
We ask you to consider the following:
1. An assessment initiative should come from the provost
2. The deans and the faculty need to be informed and educated about assessment
3. The Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education—in concert with the college associate deans for academic programs—should be charged to develop processes to establish learning goals for all academic programs and to develop plans to assess student learning
4. A new position should be established immediately to support the assessment of student learning throughout the university
Institutionalizing assessment
• Core Assessment Committee formed in Fall 2009– Laura Brown, VPUE, Chair
– Associate Deans from undergraduate colleges and the Graduate School
– Representation from Institutional Research
– Representation from Center for Teaching Excellence
• Appointment of “Assessment Project Manager” (50% time)
Assessment is a cultural standard at HCC
Our message – don’t be complacent.
• We have completed institutional self-assessments such as Baldrige
• Faculty complete a teaching improvement project each year
• A Learning Outcomes Assessment Office was established 10 years ago
• All areas of the college have core work benchmarks
Assessment: Measuring Attainment of Goals
The challenges:
• How do we organize all of the information we have?
• What additional information do we need and how do we gather it?
• Are we closing the loop?
OFI:
Measuring the attainment of gen. ed. goals and establishment of academic program goals.
Writing
Preliminary planning and arriving at a coherent document
Working group reports
• We provided a rough outline to working groups, but we did not insist on a rigid structure
• Result: working group reports were quite different
• Subset of Steering Committee worked with rough drafts, one at a time, to align structure and voice
• As this process unfolded, chapters still in the queue migrated towards emerging norm
Final draft
• In the final stage, we hired a writer to ensure consistent, even-handed treatment across chapters
• Bringing in a writer at the end meant “fresh eyes”
• With a document two years in the preparation, lots of updating (numbers, web links, etc.) needs to go into final draft
Work Group reports
• HCC had learned from our process 10 years ago that pulling together divergent styles is painful. We recruited an editor at the beginning.
• The guidelines for structure and style were developed during the first year while the interviews were being conducted by the work groups.
• The Core Team provided edits based on content concerns and the editor worked on style and voice.
Preparing the Report
• Gather the information to tell your story
• And the “body of evidence”
• Link the standards to the data
• Balancing process and product– Include the editor early in the process
– Create a system for tracking and reporting exhibits
The Visiting Team
Finding the right group and supporting them
Selection of the team
• Take seriously the opportunity to guide selection of evaluation team
• We sought a team that had some experience with:– Major research universities– Large and complex institutions with
multiple, diverse colleges– The land grant mission– Both public and private universities – Medical colleges– Residential living-learning
environments
Selection of the team
• Take seriously the opportunity to guide selection of evaluation team
• We sought a team that had some experience with:–Mid-size community colleges –With similar demographics
Preliminary visit
• Chair visits campus alone a few months before final Self Study is due
• In our case, chair provided very helpful written comments at that visit
• Seize the opportunity to respond to those early comments– If you can, develop timeline so chair
of evaluation team has sufficient time to respond to a first draft
Supporting the visiting team
• Creation of virtual “document room”:– allowed the team early, secure access to documentation
– allowed us to provide additions as needed
• Buddy System – Each member of the evaluation team was assigned a
Cornell “buddy”—someone with a similar rank and area of expertise—for the visit
– Buddies took responsibility for introductions at the welcoming dinner
– Buddy touched base with team member 2-3 times a day
– Buddy managed questions as they came up
– Buddies met at the end of each day of the visit to debrief about any issues
The End of the Journey:
Be sure to celebrate your great accomplishment!
Contact information
• Bernadette Sandruck,Howard Community College– [email protected]
• Alan Mathios, Cornell University– [email protected]