SELF STUDY - Computing Services for Faculty & Staffmidstate/documents/SelfStudy...Middle States...

S E L F S T U D YCREATING A USEFUL PROCESS

AND REPORT

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Published by the

Middle States Commission on Higher Education3624 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104

Telephone: 267-284-5000Fax: 215-662-5501

www.msche.org

© 2006, Copyright by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education

All rights reserved.

First edition 2006.

This first edition of Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report supersedes all previous editions of thefollowing handbooks:

Handbook on Institutional Self-Study, first published in 1971.Second edition 1984, Handbook for Institutional Self-Study. Third edition 1989. Fourth edition 1990, Designs for Excellence: Handbook for Institutional Self-Study.Fifth edition 1991. Sixth edition 1998. Seventh edition 2000. Eighth edition 2002. Revised October 2004.

Permission is granted to colleges and universities within the jurisdiction of the Middle States Commission onHigher Education to photocopy this handbook for the purpose of institutional self-study and peer review. The text of this publication also may be downloaded from the Commission’s website. Bound copies may bepurchased through the publications order form, also available on the website.

Printed in the United States of America

ii

Self-Study: Creating a Useful Process and Report

ContentsPage

1 The Self-Study Process: Content and Overview

Peer Review and the Accreditation Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Characteristics of Excellence: The Accreditation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

An Overview of the Decennial Self-Study Process and Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Understanding the Commission’s Expectations for Planning and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

External Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Evaluation Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Orientation: The Self-Study Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Role of Commission Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Commission Publications and Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 Planning and Organizing for Self-Study

Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Self-Study Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 Preparing the Self-Study Design

The Elements of the Self-Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Choosing a Self-Study Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A Continuum of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Submitting the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4 Linking the Design and Self-Study to Commission Standards and Expectations

Developing Effective Self-Study Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Using Existing Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Implementing the Design and Writing the Self-Study Report

Managing the Self-Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Writing the Self-Study Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Submitting the Final Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

The Self-Study Report as a Living Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6 The Accreditation Process after the Self-Study Report

The Evaluation Team Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

After the Team Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Commission Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Follow-up Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

The Periodic Review Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Substantive Change Proposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendices

A: The Standards in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

B: Mission Statement of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

C: Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness: Understanding Middle States Expectations 59

D: Sample Statement of Accreditation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

E: Types of Middle States Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

iii


List of Figures

1 The Self-Study and Peer Review Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 The Self-Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 A Self-Study Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Points of Contact between Institutions and Commission Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Agenda for Staff Self-Study Preparation Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6 One Institution’s Steering Committee Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7 Keys to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

8 Template for a Working Group Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

9 The Comprehensive Report in the Context of the Standards in Characteristics of Excellence . . . . . 22

10 The Comprehensive Report Reordering Standards to Reflect an Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

11 The Comprehensive Report with Emphasis on One or More Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

12 The Comprehensive Report with Emphasis on One or More Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

13 The Selected Topics Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

14 Documentation Roadmap and Self-Study Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

15 Good Practices in Framing Self-Study Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

16 Developing Effective Self-Study Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

17 Potential Pitfalls in the Self-Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

18 Self-Study Report Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

19 Middle States Commission on Higher Education Eligibility Certification Statement . . . . . . . . . 49

20 Peer Review in the Decennial Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

21 Examples of Evaluation Team Commendations, Suggestions, Recommendations, and Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

iv


Chapter 1

The Self-Study Process:Content and Overview

This chapter provides general information aboutregional accreditation and peer review, MiddleStates accreditation standards, and the decennialevaluation process. It discusses the importance ofinstitutional planning and assessment and the roleof the self-study report in meeting externalexpectations. The evaluation timetable, theSelf-Study Institute, and the role of Commissionstaff in the self-study process are also described.

Peer Review and theAccreditation Cycle

Accreditation is intended to strengthen and sustain higher education, making it worthy of publicconfidence and minimizing the scope of externalcontrol. Regional accreditation, a means ofself-regulation adopted by the higher educationcommunity, has evolved to support these goals.

Colleges and universities become members of theMiddle States Association upon accreditation bythe Middle States Commission on HigherEducation. Membership in the Associationincludes a commitment to continuousself-assessment. Based upon the results of aninstitutional review by peers and colleaguesassigned by the Commission, accreditation atteststo the judgment of the Commission on HigherEducation that an institution:

V has a mission appropriate to highereducation;

V is guided by well-defined and appropriategoals, including goals for student learning;

V has established conditions and proceduresunder which its mission and goals can berealized;

V assesses both institutional effectiveness and student learning outcomes, and uses theresults for improvement;

V is accomplishing its mission and goalssubstantially;

V is organized, staffed, and supported so that it can be expected to continue to accomplish its mission and goals; and

V meets the eligibility requirements andstandards of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

Evaluations of Middle States institutions take place within the following standard cycle:

Decennial Evaluation. The decennial evaluationinvolves a significant institutional self-study and a visit by a team of external peer evaluators. It occurs immediately before an institution isgranted initial accreditation, five years after initialaccreditation, and every 10 years thereafter.

Periodic Review Report (PRR). At the five-yearpoint between decennial reviews, the institutionprovides to peer reviewers a report on the currentstate of the institution. The PRR includes a reviewof the institution’s responses to any outstandingrecommendations from its decennial self-studyand evaluation, a description of major challengesand current opportunities, financial projections,and documentation of institutional planning andassessment.

Institutional Profile. In addition, each spring theinstitution submits to the Commission current data on its key contacts, enrollment, faculty, finances,and other activities, as well as information aboutany significant changes.

See Chapter 6 of this handbook on “TheAccreditation Process after the Self-Study Report”for more information on the reporting and

1

evaluation events that follow the decennialevaluation.

Characteristics of Excellence:The Accreditation Standards

The essential point of reference for self-study andpeer review is Characteristics of Excellence inHigher Education, which sets forth theCommission’s eligibility requirements andstandards for accreditation.

An institution seeking reaffirmation ofaccreditation, initial accreditation, or candidacyfor accreditation status must demonstrate that itmeets or continues to meet all of theCommission’s eligibility requirements. Theinstitution completes a Certification Statementconcerning compliance with the eligibilityrequirements and Federal Title IV requirements,which is signed by the Chief Executive Officer and the Chair of the institution’s governing board andattached to the executive summary of theself-study report. The evaluation team report andthe team Chair’s confidential brief to theCommission are required to affirm that, based ona review of the self-study, interviews, theCertification Statement that the institution hasprovided and/or other institutional documents, the institution meets or continues to meet theeligibility requirements. (The CertificationStatement appears as Figure 19 in Chapter 5 ofthis handbook.)

The Commission’s accreditation standards weredeveloped by consensus among memberinstitutions in the Middle States region. They identify an institution’s mission, goals, andobjectives as guideposts for all aspects of theaccreditation protocol. The institution’s missionprovides a lens through which the institution andthe Commission’s evaluation team view thestandards and apply them to that institution. This enables regional accreditation to addressdiverse institutional types and diverse educationaldelivery systems.

The 14 individual standards, organized intosections entitled Institutional Context andEducational Effectiveness, should be viewed as aninterrelated whole. Accompanying each standardin Characteristics of Excellence is narrative text onits context and values that provides guidance anddefinition. Fundamental Elements specify theparticular characteristics or qualities that together

constitute the standard. Institutions and evaluators use these elements, within the context ofinstitutional mission, to demonstrate or determinecompliance with the standard.

The Fundamental Elements should not be seen asa simple checklist. The totality created by theseelements and any other relevant institutionalinformation or analysis must be considered.Where an institution does not evidence aparticular Fundamental Element, the institutionmay demonstrate through alternative informationand analysis that it meets the standard.

Characteristics of Excellence also identifies for each standard Optional Analysis and Optional Evidence that an institution might provide.

THE STANDARDS AT A GLANCE

The standards, outlined in Appendix A, include:

Institutional Context

Standard 1: Mission and Goals

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal

Standard 3: Institutional Resources

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

Standard 5: Administration

Standard 6: Integrity

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

Educational Effectiveness

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention

Standard 9: Student Support Services

Standard 10: Faculty

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

Standard 12: General Education

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning

2


An Overview of the Decennial Self-Study Process and Result

The decennial evaluation consists of an extensiveinstitutional self-study process that produces awritten self-study report. This report and theCommission’s accreditation standards serve as thebasis for on-site evaluation by a team of peerevaluators. (See Figure 1.)

During self-study, the institution carefullyconsiders its educational programs and services,with particular attention to student learning andachievement, and it determines how well theseprograms and services accomplish the institution’sgoals, fulfill its mission, and meet theCommission’s standards.

Under the leadership of a steering committeeappointed by the institution, working groups orsubcommittees examine existing data andevaluative reports, gather new information, andprepare analytical reports on their assigned topics. (The term "working groups" is used in thishandbook to avoid confusion with references tothe steering committee.) The steering committeeedits the reports of the various working groups,produces a draft for discussion, and disseminatesthe final self-study report. (See Figure 2.)

A broad cross-section of the campus community is expected to participate in the self-study process at each stage: in the steering committee, the working groups, and the campus-wide discussions.

The self-study report has two sets of audiencesand two major purposes. The primary audience isthe institution’s own community, and thesecondary audience includes external (or public)constituencies.

The primary purpose of the self-study report is to advance institutional self-understanding andself-improvement. The self-study report, therefore, is most useful when it is analytical andforward-looking rather than descriptive ordefensive, when it is used both to identifyproblems and to develop solutions to them, andwhen it identifies opportunities for growth anddevelopment. Because the decennial self-study isa major element in the life of an institution, itshould be a useful activity, planned and executedcarefully, and not simply a formal exercise. It willbe most helpful if the institution implements andadapts self-assessment as a continuous processthat supports its regular planning cycle.

The second purpose of the self-study is todemonstrate to external audiences, such as theMiddle States Commission on Higher Education,government regulatory agencies, and the public,that the institution meets the Commission’sstandards for accreditation. Both the self-studyreport and the evaluation team report should beshared by the institution with its community. The Commission's accreditation decision, whichfollows the team visit, is available to the public as

3


Figure 1Overview of the Self-Studyand Peer-Review Process

Design for Self-Study

The institution prepares the designfor its self-study process.

ò

Approval and Visit

Commission staff liaison approvesthe institution’s design and

visits the institution.

ò

The Self-Study

The institution examines its ownprograms and services.

ò

Peer Review

Volunteer peer educators(visiting teams and the

Commission) evaluate theinstitution in the context of

its self-study and thestandards for accreditation.

ò

Possible Follow-up

The Commission may requirethe institution to complete

follow-up activities.

part of the “Statement of Accreditation Status”that the Commission issues for each of itsmembers.

The self-study process and report must bemeaningful and useful to the members of theinstitution and must produce evidence ofcompliance with accreditation standards. Balancing these two goals is the challenge of aneffective self-study.

The institution is assisted throughout the processby a Commission staff member who is appointedas the liaison between the institution and theCommission.

Understanding theCommission’s Expectations for Planning and Assessment

In order to move accreditation processes awayfrom assertion and description towarddemonstration, analysis, and improvement,Middle States accreditation standards focus ontwo fundamental questions:

V Are we, as an institutional community,achieving what we want to achieve?

V What should we do to improve oureffectiveness in achieving our fundamentalaims?

These questions cannot be answered without aclear sense of what the institution wants toaccomplish and how effectively it is accomplishing those ends. Planning (determining what theinstitution wants to accomplish) and assessment(determining how well those accomplishmentshave been achieved) are, therefore, thefoundations of Middle States’ 14 accreditationstandards. The establishment of appropriate goalsand plans is the essence of Standard 2 (Planning,Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal).The assessment of effectiveness and theachievement of goals are the essence of Standards 7 (Institutional Assessment) and 14 (Student Learning), and these principles areincluded as Fundamental Elements of virtuallyevery other standard.

The result of effective planning and assessment isinstitutional renewal: advancing the institutionand, if appropriate, leading it in new directions.The Commission expects a thorough review ofassessment information to lead to either

4


Figure 2The Evolving Self-Study Report

Group#1

Group#2

Group#3

Group#4

Groupetc.

Working groups study the programs and services included in the self-study

design, existing or new data, andevaluative reports.

ò ò ò ò ò

Steering Committee developsdraft report from reports by

working groups

ò

Steering Committee preparesthe final self-study report

ò

Campus-widediscussion by

variousconstituencies

ò

Institutiondisseminates

the final report

Institution’s Steering Committeeorganizes the self-study process

ò

confirmation of current activities or appropriatemodifications of programs and services to meetthe changing needs of the institution and itscommunity.

The Commission expects planning and assessment to be major areas of focus and continuous themesin any self-study, regardless of its format ororganization. It expects all institutions to haveinstitutional plans and a documented, organized,and sustained assessment process in place that are reviewed as essential documentation within theself-study process. Each chapter of the self-studyshould include a discussion of relevantinstitutional goals and evidence of achievement of those goals. The Context section of Standard 7(Institutional Assessment) notes that Standard 7“builds upon all other accreditation standards.”Therefore, the self-study should address thisstandard by also including summative analyses ofthe institution’s overall effectiveness in achievingits mission and goals, including those for studentlearning. (See Standard 14.)

The Commission further expects that planning and assessment are not once-and-done activities,undertaken solely to ensure accreditation, butongoing, systematic efforts that continually informinstitutional decisions regarding programs,services, initiatives, and resource allocation.Planning and assessment documents, and theanalysis of them within the self-study, shouldtherefore give the evaluation team and theCommission confidence that planning andassessment are continual activities that are part ofthe fabric of life at the institution.

Standards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal), 7 (Institutional Assessment), and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning) all makereference to “plans” of various types. However,the standards do not prescribe a particular format, structure, or process for such plans; institutionshave maximum flexibility in designing andassembling planning and assessmentdocumentation that fits best with the institution’smission, organization, and needs. A single, formal, polished document is not required and, for manyinstitutions, may not be the most suitable format,because it may discourage the continualmodifications that are made in effective planning and assessment processes. The existenceof effective planning and assessment processes,clearly described to the community and to the Commission, is more important than a formal plan.

The Commission’s Expectations forInstitutional Plans

One of the Fundamental Elements of Standard 7(Institutional Assessment) requires an institutional(strategic) plan. While the standard does notprescribe a particular format, structure, or processfor the plan, it should be based upon institutionalmission and goals that, as noted in theFundamental Elements of Standard 1 (Mission and Goals) “guide faculty, administration, staff andgoverning bodies in making decisions related toplanning, resource allocation, program andcurriculum development, and definition ofprogram outcomes” and “focus on studentlearning, other outcomes, and institutionalimprovement.”

An institutional plan typically includes the missionstatement, institutional goals and, as described inthe Context of Standard 2, “intentionally designed objectives or strategies—programs, services, andinitiatives—to achieve the mission and goals.While goals represent the institution’s intendeddestination, objectives or strategies articulate thepath to that destination; they are the steps oractivities that lead to the achievement ofinstitutional goals.”

The Context of Standard 2 further notes that“Institutions often have a variety of plans,including not only an institutional (strategic) planbut also an academic plan, financial plan,enrollment plan, capital facilities master plan, andtechnology plan. At many institutions, effectiveinstitutional planning begins with the academicplan, which informs the other plans, along withunit-level (campus, division, department, program, etc.) plans.” An institutional “plan” thus mightconsist of a collection of interrelated documents,including institutional goals, unit-level plans, anacademic plan, a capital facilities master plan, and so on. If these documents are voluminous, asummary of them may be included in orappended to the self-study, and the documentsthemselves may be made available to theevaluation team’s visit in a resource room, online,or both.

See Standards 2 and 7 in Characteristics ofExcellence for complete information onexpectations for institutional plans.

5


The Commission’s Expectations forAssessing Institutional Effectiveness and Student Learning

The Commission’s expectations for assessment,conveyed in Standard 7 (Institutional Assessment)and Standard 14 (Assessment of StudentLearning), are explained further in Appendix C,“Assessing Student Learning and InstitutionalEffectiveness: Understanding Middle StatesExpectations.”

External Expectations

In addition to ensuring that the self-study processaddresses the standards, policies, and proceduresof the Middle States Commission on HigherEducation, the institution should integrate andaddress appropriately within its self-study therequirements imposed by federal and stateregulatory agencies, as well as by other accrediting organizations to which the institution belongs. This coordination is especially important if theinstitution has requested a joint visit with a stateagency or a collaborative review visit with one ormore of the specialized programmatic accreditorsor another institutional accreditor.

Federal Requirements

Amendments to the Higher Education Act imposerequirements on accrediting agencies and oninstitutions that participate in Title IV studentfinancial assistance programs. Some of theserequirements are effected through federallymandated accreditation standards and regulations. In addition to those federal requirements whichare already a part of the Commission’s standardsfor accreditation, institutions should demonstratethat they meet the additional criteria describedbelow, as well as any other criteria that may bemandated in the future. The self-study designshould assure that the institution’s self-studyprocess addresses these criteria.

Institutions should monitor the cohort default rateand ensure that it is within federal limits. If theinstitution has triggered a review or other actionby the U.S. Department of Education (USED), the self-study should include a description of theissues and the institution’s plans to address them.

Any reference to Middle States accreditation mustinclude the address and phone number of theMiddle States Commission on Higher Education.The Commission also requires that at least thecatalog, the institution’s World Wide Web site,and its primary recruiting materials include thisinformation. The self-study should includereferences to these listings.

Federal regulations require the Commission to consider the actions of state licensing bodiesand other accrediting agencies when makingaccreditation decisions. Institutions holdingaccreditation from agencies other than the Middle States Commission on Higher Education shouldinclude an overview of the institution’s orprogram’s current status with each agency,including the date of the most recent agencyreview, formal action taken by that agency, andthe date of the next review.

The federal government requires that theoutcomes assessment plan include a review of theinstitution’s success with respect to studentachievement in relation to mission. Institutionsshould include in the self-study a review of course completion, graduation rates, state licensure exam pass rates, and other data as appropriate to themission of the institution and the programs itoffers. (This may be included in, or cross-referenced to, related accreditation standards such as Standards 7 and 14.)

If the institution charges program-specific tuition,the self-study should address whether the tuitionand fees are appropriate for the subject mattertaught and the objectives of the degree orcredential being offered.

For institutions holding degree-granting authorityfrom one of the states in the Middle States regionbut located abroad, Middle States accreditation isnot viewed by the USED as extending Title IVeligibility to those institutions. In their reference to accredited status, foreign institutions—whether ornot chartered or licensed within the Middle Statesregion—may not make reference to USEDrecognition or imply that the Secretary’srecognition of the Commission extends to foreigninstitutions. These institutions should contactUSED regarding other federal programs that maybe available to them or their students.

6


Institutions should consult with staff and monitorthe Commission’s publications to identify any laws or regulations that may affect what accreditingorganizations may require of institutions after thepublication of this handbook.

State Requirements

Because particular state requirements vary withinthe Middle States region, the Commission suggests strongly that the institution contact its stateregulatory or coordinating body regarding currentrequirements. Institutions located abroad that arechartered in one of the states in the Middle Statesregion and are recognized by the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education must contactthe state agency which granted their license anddegree-granting authority to identify any specialrequirements that may apply to the institution. In some instances, institutions that are a part ofstate or local systems of higher education may face other requirements.

The Middle States Commission on HigherEducation shares with each of the state regulatoryor coordinating agencies the schedule ofevaluation visits planned for accredited institutions within that state. The state regulatory agenciesmay elect to send a representative to work withand serve as a resource to the team during theevaluation visit. Such cooperative efforts areintended to minimize unnecessary duplicationand to ease the reporting and evaluative burdenplaced on the institution.

The Evaluation Timetable

The self-study timetable is key to a coherent andeffective self-study report. The timetable shouldbe created early and must be included in theinstitution’s self-study design. It must be realistic,taking into account elements of the academiccalendar and other events that might interrupt theself-study process. The timetable should recognize specific demands determined by the model ofself-study employed, and it also should provideadequate allowances to develop researchquestions, to locate or generate relevantinformation, to analyze results, to write reportdrafts, and to review and respond to the drafts.

An institution begins planning for the evaluationtwo-and-a-half to three years before accreditationor reaccreditation by the Commission is scheduled to occur. The Commission initiates the process by

reminding the institution of the upcomingevaluation and inviting it to send representativesto The Self-Study Institute in the fall, two yearsbefore the academic year in which theCommission is scheduled to act on the institution.This lengthy lead time is intended to provide each institution with adequate time to organize,prepare, and review a self-study, using an openand participative process.

The institution can begin preparing its self-studydesign as soon as it is reminded of theapproaching evaluation. The institution hosts theself-study preparation visit of its Commission staffliaison and completes its self-study designdocument in the spring or fall, after attending The Self-Study Institute. The research andreporting that are at the center of the self-studyprocess usually occupy the self-study workinggroups for eight months to a year. The steeringcommittee uses the working group reports to draft the final self-study report, which should be readyfor review approximately six months before theteam of external peer evaluators is scheduled to visit the institution.

The Chair of the evaluation team visits theinstitution at least four months before the teamvisit. Team visits occur either in the fall or thespring. The evaluation visit itself usually begins ona Sunday afternoon and ends on the followingWednesday afternoon. All arrangements must beexplicit and should be checked to avoid conflictswith holidays or special institutional events. The visit should occur while classes are in session.

At the end of the visit, the institution receives anoral summary of the team’s findings. The teamChair then provides a written report to theinstitution and to the Commission, and theinstitution writes a formal response to the report.

The dates for the team visit may be influenced bythe institution’s interest in receiving itsaccreditation decision by a certain time.Ordinarily, accreditation decisions are made atthe November meeting of the Commission forinstitutions visited between April 16 andSeptember 1 of a given year, at the February or March meeting for those visited betweenSeptember 2 and December 15, and at the June meeting for visits between December 16 and April 15.

7


Developing a Timetable

To develop a timetable for the self-study process,institutions may use the following approach,allowing sufficient time for vacations, holidays,special campus events, and inevitable “downtime.” (See Figure 3.) Until the actual dates forthe team visit and the Chair’s preliminary visit areestablished once the Chair is appointed in thewinter of the second academic year of theself-study period, many of the steps in thetimetable will be approximate dates or ranges of dates.

V Begin by selecting an approximate timeperiod for the scheduled evaluation teamvisit. These visits occur either in the fall orspring, but generally before mid-November (fall) and mid-April (spring) to ensure timely review by the Committee on EvaluationReports and subsequent action by theCommission. The institution establishes the final dates for site visits in collaborationwith the team Chair. After the team makesits report, the institution is entitled torespond, and the response must bereceived before the Commission willreview the team report.

V From the date selected for the evaluationvisit, count backwards six weeks to allowfor distribution of the finished self-studyand its review by members of theevaluation team and the Commission staffliaison. (Until the actual date of the teamvisit is set with the team Chair, this will bean approximate date.)

V Count backwards again, allowing thenumber of weeks needed to produce afinal version that has been reviewed by the campus community. The team Chairshould receive a penultimate versionbefore the Chair’s preliminary visit at leastfour months before the team visit.

V Still counting backwards, assign time forthe steering committee to develop one ormore drafts of the self-study report, basedupon the reports by the working groups.Allow sufficient time for these workinggroups to complete their reviews and toproduce their reports. Each working groupmay require a different amount of time,according to the scope of its task. Thesteering committee also may receive theirdrafts on a staggered reporting schedule.

V Before the subcommittees begin theirwork, the steering committee should benamed, and the Commission staff liaisonwill visit the institution to discuss theself-study process. Prior to the staff visit,the institution selects its self-study modeland its approach to that model, andprepares a draft design, including chargesto the working groups. The final design issubmitted to the Commission for approvalsubsequent to the staff visit.

Orientation:The Self-Study Institute

The Commission provides each institutionpreparing to engage in self-study the opportunityto send representatives to The Self-Study Institute,an annual orientation and training workshop.

The agenda includes speakers who haveparticipated in self-studies and team visits.Commission staff assigned to work with institutions entering self-study are also available at theInstitute to answer questions and to provideadditional assistance.

The Role of Commission Staff

Each candidate and member institution has anassigned Middle States staff liaison. This person isthe primary link between the Commission and the institution. The staff liaison is responsible for theCommission’s formal acceptance and approval ofthe self-study design and for reviewing theself-study report and team report. The liaison hasdirect contact with the institution’s representatives at several points before the evaluation team visit,including informal feedback to the institution onthe design of the self-study. (See Figure 4.)

The self-study preparation visit by the staff liaisonusually occurs 18 to 24 months prior to theevaluation team visit. The Commission staffmember meets with the chief executive officer,other staff officers, trustees, the self-study steeringcommittee, those responsible for assessment,representative faculty, and student representatives. (See Figure 5.)

8


9


Figure 3

A Self-Study Timetable

Approximate and Flexible Dates for a Spring Visit (Total: 2 ½ years)

Summer before Academic Year 1

ã MSCHE reminds institution of the pendingevaluation and invites it to The Self-StudyInstitute.

Fall, Academic Year 1

ã Self-Study Institute held to orient institutionsbeginning self-study

ã Steering Committee Chair(s) and memberschosen

ã MSCHE staff liaison schedules self-studypreparation visit to the institution

Spring, Academic Year 1

ã Institution chooses its self-study model

ã Institution determines types of working groupsthat will be needed

ã Draft self-study Design finalized, includingcharge questions for working groups

Spring, Academic Year 1 – Fall, Academic Year 2

ã MSCHE staff liaison conducts self-studypreparation visit

ã Staff liaison approves institution’s self-studydesign

Fall–Spring, Academic Year 2

ã Steering Committee oversees research andreporting by working groups

ã Working groups involve the community

ã Working groups submit reports

Winter, Academic Year 2

ã MSCHE selects the evaluation team Chair, andthe institution approves the selection

ã Chair and institution select dates for team visitand for the Chair’s preliminary visit

ã Institution sends a copy of the self-study designto the team Chair

Spring-Summer Academic Year 2

ã MSCHE selects evaluation team members, andthe institution approves the selection

ã Steering Committee receives drafts text fromworking groups and develops a draft self-studyreport

Fall, Academic Year 3

ã Campus community reviews draft self-studyreport

ã Evaluation team Chair reviews draft self-studyreport

ã Institution’s governing board reviews draftself-study report

ã Institution sends draft self-study report toevaluation team Chair, prior to Chair’spreliminary visit

ã Team Chair makes preliminary visit at least fourmonths prior to team visit

ã Institutions with a selected-topics self-study thatelect to have a document review prior to theteam visit: Conduct an early document review

ã Institution prepares final version of the self-studyreport

Winter or Spring, Academic Year 3

ã Institution sends final report to evaluation teamand to MSCHE at least six weeks prior to teamvisit

Spring, Academic Year 3

ã Team visit

ã Institutions with a selected-topics self-study thatelect to have a document review during theteam visit: Conduct a concurrent documentreview

ã Team report

ã Institutional response

Summer or Fall after Academic Year 3

ã Committee on Evaluation Reports meets

ã Commission action

The Commission’s staff liaison is not anevaluator; staff advice does not bind the visiting team or Commissioners when theyadopt actions. The team’s evaluation and theCommission’s actions are founded on theself-study report, the content of which is theresponsibility of the institution, and on thestandards in Characteristics of Excellence.

The preliminary staff visit for self-study preparation is intended to reinforce the partnership betweenthe institution and the Commission. It is anopportunity for staff to learn more about thecurrent status of the institution, to assist theinstitution in identifying relevant issues and finding the most appropriate means of addressing them,to provide expertise on the Commission’sprocedures, to assist in the institution’spreparations for self-study and peer review, and to discuss self-study with various groups that willhave crucial roles throughout the process.

After the self-study preparation visit, the staffliaison is available to answer all questions,concerns, or requests for assistance relating to theself-study, the evaluation team, the team’s visit,the Commission’s action, and other matters. The liaison reads the self-study report and theteam’s report and participates in the Commission’s review of these reports. (See Figure 4.)

Commission PublicationsAnd Policies

Commission publications are designed to guideinstitutions and evaluators through the variousaccreditation activities. Commission policies,guidelines, and procedures are either elaborations of the standards for accreditation presented inCharacteristics of Excellence, proceduralrequirements for institutions and for theCommission, or guidelines based on best practices that provide advice to members implementing the accreditation standards.

Appendix E of this handbook lists the types ofCommission publications that are currentlyavailable. Appendix F lists Commission policies. A current list of Commission publications isavailable on the Commission’s web site atwww.msche.org. Copies of some publications arealso available in full text and may be downloaded.

10


Figure 4

Points of Contact betweenInstitutions and Commission Staff

ã The Self-Study Institute

ã Self-Study Preparation Visit

ã Review and Approval of the Self-StudyDesign

ã Consultation and Informal Feedback

ã Nomination of the Team Chair

ã Consultation and Informal Feedback

ã Appointment of the Evaluation Team

Figure 5

Agenda for Staff Self-Study Preparation Visit

A typical agenda for the day should include at least meetings with the followingindividuals and groups:

ã The president

ã The self-study steering committee andcampus assessment committee

ã The Board of Trustees

ã Representative faculty, staff, and students

http://www.msche.org/publications_view.asp?idPublicationType=1&txtPublicationType=Eligibility%20Requirements%20and%20Standards%20of%20Accreditation

Chapter 2

Planning and OrganizingFor Self-Study

When preparing for self-study, institutions shouldconsider relying on existing resources andidentifying the topics that will be most useful toexamine. The self-study process should notrequire an institution to set aside its needs andpriorities in order to undergo peer review forre-accreditation.

The prerequisites for the effective design andimplementation of an institutional self-studyprocess include:

Evidence. The Commission expects an institutionto provide verifiable evidence showing how itmeets accreditation standards described inCharacteristics of Excellence in Higher Educationwithin the context of its own mission and goals.This process is intended to support and enhancethe quality and integrity of the institution, to serve institutional ends, and to offer publicassurance that Middle States expectations havebeen met.

Resources. An effective self-study is a majorproject requiring a significant investment of time,energy, and institutional resources. Someinstitutions demonstrate their support of theself-study by adjusting the responsibilities ofadministrators and the teaching loads of facultywho have leading roles in the self-study process.Institutions must ensure that self-study groupshave the work space, technology, and otherresources they need for gathering data andpreparing their reports.

Communication and Commitment. A climate ofmutual respect and broad communication isessential. Successful self-study planning requires a widely held understanding of institutionalactivities and priorities as well as a commitment to attaining measurable objectives.

Planning and Assessment. Planning, research,and outcomes assessment are fundamental to theself-study process. The Commission’s standardsemphasize the importance of ongoing planning,the establishment of measurable objectives, andthe evaluation of institutional and educationaloutcomes. The intention is to move accreditationprocesses away from assertion and description and toward demonstration, analysis, and subsequentaction.

Getting Started

Self-study done well is an educational buttime-intensive process. An institution beginsplanning for the evaluation two-and-a-half tothree years before accreditation or reaccreditation by the Commission is scheduled to occur.The actual research and writing of the self-studyreport normally takes a full academic year. If an institution has special needs or concerns,more time may be needed to emphasizeparticular issues. (See the section on “TheEvaluation Timetable” in Chapter 1 of thishandbook.)

There are three common approaches to initiatingthe self-study process in an institution. One is to have a core group of individuals, appointed bythe chief executive officer, begin early planning.These are people who are familiar with themission and essential functions of the institutionand who will serve on the self-study steeringcommittee. The group should meet as soon aspossible with the institution’s senior administrators to discuss the relevant issues, especially the model that might be used for self-study. A secondapproach is to have the entire steering committeeappointed sufficiently in advance to carry outearly planning functions. Finally, some institutions

11

use an existing committee as the steeringcommittee.

It is never too early to involve the governingboard, faculty, institutional research, and planning staff in preparations for self-study. The chiefexecutive officer may choose to provide a concept paper to the board on the institutional issues thatmay be highlighted in the self-study.

The chief academic officer also may wish to usethis early period to prepare the faculty forparticipation in the process by reviewing academic records, such as program reviews and any external evaluations that may have been conducted.Institutional research and planning personnelshould be consulted about the scope andorganization of available data and its ability to demonstrate compliance with Commissionstandards.

It may be helpful to consider the following as partof early planning for self-study:

Institutional Mission

V Is it current?

V Is it sufficiently detailed to guide planningand decision-making?

V Is it known by the institution’s members?

Recent Significant Changes

V What recent or planned major changesshould be considered in the self-study (e.g. change of presidency, plannedconsortia, or new programs)?

Existing Data and Reports

V What evidence is already available? (See Chapter 4 for suggestions.)

V Is the data organized so that it is accessiblefor the self-study working groups?

V What additional evidence will be neededfor the self-study?

V What types of reports (such as recentplans, reports to federal or state regulatoryagencies, or reports for other accreditingagencies) might be referred to in order to avoid duplication in the self-study?

V Should existing or planned reportsinfluence the type of self-study designand/or emphasis?

Campus CommunityInvolvement and Cooperation

V How will constituents such as faculty,students, trustees, administrators, alumni,parents, employers, neighbors, the widercommunity, and legislative representatives(for publicly funded institutions) beinvolved in the self-study process?

V How will a sense of “ownership” of theself-study recommendations be created?

V How can the self-study process be usedto recognize and resolve tensions andchallenges instead of being hamperedby them?

V Are tensions so intense that self-studyshould be delayed?

The Self-StudySteering Committee

The steering committee has a vital leadership rolethroughout the self-study process. Carefulattention should be given to identifying andappointing competent, well-respected, andcommitted individuals to this committee.

Leadership

All members of the institutional community should feel ownership in the self-study report. For example, the steering committee is led by aChair or co-Chairs and usually is appointed by the institution’s chief executive officer. It is particularly important that there be adequate facultyinvolvement in the self-study process, andappointment of a faculty chair may encouragesuch participation. Involvement of keyadministrators also is important, and appointmentof an administrator as a chair or co-Chair may also be appropriate. The use of co-Chairs allowsrepresentation from several groups, can be helpful in assuring a balance of the skills and attributesnecessary for successful leadership of theself-study effort, and may be particularly useful atlarge and complex universities or multi-campusinstitutions.

12


Role of the President

Except in special circumstances, it is unusual forthe chief executive officer of an institution to serve as a member of the self-study steering committee.When and how the CEO is involved in theself-study process varies with institutionalcircumstances, but the development of goodworking relationships and communicationbetween the steering committee and theexecutive and senior administrators is essential toa successful self-study experience. Furthermore,the self-study report should represent a consensusabout the current state and future prospects of the institution. Working together, the executiveleadership and the steering committee ensure that all relevant perspectives have been consideredand that the institution is accurately portrayedthrough the institutional “voice” of the report.

Membership

The members of the steering committee may beappointed or elected, but they should representthe total campus community and should includeadequate faculty representation. Institutionsshould consider carefully the abilities, credibility,availability, and skills of committee members.Steering committee members must have a senseof commitment to the process and to the goal ofinstitutional improvement. They must have abroad institutional perspective that transcends that of their own department and discipline. They alsomust be given the time, resources, and authorityto carry out their duties.

In addition to faculty members and administrators, students, staff, and trustees should be involved inthe self-study process as appropriate. If aprofessional editor will be used, that personshould be involved in the process from the start.See the section on “Editorial Style and Format ofAll Reports” in Chapter 3 of this handbook. Figure 6 depicts one institution’s criteria forsteering committee membership.

Although some institutions use an existingcommittee to oversee the self-study, most chooseto create a new steering committee because of the value of having fresh insights and judgments. If anew steering committee is formed, it should workclosely with relevant existing committees to avoidduplication or conflict and to ensure that thesteering committee’s work is continued andimplemented by standing committees after theperiod of self-study.

13


Figure 6

One Institution’s SteeringCommittee Membership

Individuals with:

ã the ability to commit the time and effort to the project

ã expertise/talents in particular areas

ã institutional memory

Individuals who are:

ã respected on campus

ã able to inform the institution’s leadership/faculty/or other constituencies on campus

ã well connected to what is happening oncampus

ã goal-oriented

An overall committee that:

ã reflects the diversity of the campus (school/college, position, etc.)

ã includes known “cheerleaders” as well as afew known skeptics

ã includes “resource” members

ã has membership that is based on skills/respect/knowledge

ã facilitates the fee fow of ideas/positions

Adapted from a presentation by Karen Froslid Jones,American University, Washington, DC

Responsibilities

The steering committee is responsible forproviding leadership to the entire self-studyprocess. This includes:

V Determining the key issues for self-study

V Recommending, in consultation withcampus administrative leadership, aself-study model that would best reflectthose issues

V Developing a self-study design

V Establishing and charging working groupsand coordinating their work on the variousissues to be studied

V Ensuring that the timetable is implemented as planned

V Assuring communication within theinstitution about the self-study process

V Arranging for institution-wide review ofand responses to a draft of the self-study

V Overseeing the completion of the finalself-study report and any other documentsrelevant to the self study process and teamvisit

Key Issues and the Self-Study Model. Identifyingkey issues to be addressed and considering whichself-study model would be most useful inaddressing those issues begins with a review of the institution’s mission and goals. Advice from thecampus community may assist the committee.

The Self-Study Design. Once a preferredself-study model has been agreed upon by thesteering committee and campus administrativeleadership, the steering committee is responsiblefor developing and submitting the design to theinstitution’s Middle States staff liaison forcomment and approval. (See “Preparing theSelf-Study Design” in Chapter 3 of this handbook.)

Working Groups. The steering committee decides on the organizational structure of the self-study,establishing working groups on standards orthemes, coordinating the groups’ work on thevarious issues to be studied, and receiving theirreports. (See the section below on workinggroups.)

Timetable. The steering committee is responsible for establishing the overall timetable forcompleting the self-study and ensuring that it isfollowed. (See Chapter 1 of this handbook for anoverview of the evaluation timetable and for

guidance on developing a timetable for aself-study. Figure 3 in that chapter provides asample self-study timetable.)

The timetable should include dates for:

V completing the tasks of each workinggroup, including preparing initial and finalreports;

V writing the final self-study report; and

V supplying necessary documents andinformation to Middle States and theevaluation team.

Progress reports and interactions among thevarious groups will aid in assuring adherence tothe established schedules for completion.

Communication across the Institution. Throughout the entire self-study process, thesteering committee promotes communicationamong the steering committee, the workinggroups, the institution’s administration, and other constituencies, including the institution’sBoard. Such interaction is critical to the honesty,accuracy, and quality of the self-study. Thecampus community should have opportunities atvarious points in the process to learn about andrespond to self-study issues and approaches, aswell as to review the draft self-study. “Townmeetings” can be used to receive feedback onreport drafts, and many institutions effectively usee-mail and the electronic posting of documents tocommunicate with the campus community.

Reports. Whatever self-study model is chosen, the steering committee is responsible for analyzinginterim reports from the various working groups to determine whether the self-study researchquestions have been addressed, whetherassumptions are clear, whether data demonstrateinstitutional performance, whether statistics areappropriately interpreted and discussed, andwhether appropriate analysis andrecommendations are included. It will be thesteering committee’s responsibility to assembleand edit the drafts submitted by each of theworking groups and to prepare the self-studyreport and related documents.

14


The Working Groups

The steering committee organizes a number ofworking groups to research and report on thetopics it has identified as the subjects of theself-study. Although the term “working group” isused in this handbook, institutions may usewhatever terminology is clearest and mostcomfortable for them, such as work group, studygroup, committee, subcommittee, or task force.

There are various ways in which the relationshipbetween the steering committee and the workinggroups can be structured. In order for the steeringcommittee to interact with each working group,steering committee members may be designatedto serve as chairs of the working groups, orworking groups may be allowed to select theirown chairs who report to the steering committee.What is most important is that (1) the workinggroups have designated leaders to keep them ontask and on schedule, (2) there is somemechanism for accountability and effectivecommunication between steering committee andworking groups, and (3) working group membersrepresent a broad range of constituencies withinthe institution.

The steering committee determines the number,size, topics, and tasks of working groups on thebasis of the key issues to be considered in theself-study, the self-study model chosen, theCommission’s standards, and the institution’sculture for organizing such groups. The groupsmay, but need not, directly reflect theorganization of the final self-study report (i.e., each chapter of the report need not comefrom a single working group). Groups can beassigned one or more standards, aspects of theinstitution, or self-study themes. (See“Organization” under “Choosing a Self-StudyModel” in Chapter 3 of this handbook, and“Writing the Self-Study Report” in Chapter 5.)

The charges given to the working groups to definetheir tasks and to provide questions to guide theirresearch, analysis, and reporting are recorded inthe self-study design document. (See “Charges tothe Working Groups and Guidelines for TheirReports” in the section on “The Elements of aSelf-Study Design” in Chapter 3 of this handbook.See also “Developing Effective Self-Study Research Questions” in Chapter 4.)

Keys to Success

Planning and implementing self-study is acomplex process. Each institution follows theguidelines provided in this handbook but alsoadapts the process to its own situation andculture. The advice offered in Figure 7, reflectingthe lessons learned during one institution’sself-study, may be useful to any institutionentering self-study.

15


16


Figure 7

Keys to Success

Focus on the usefulness of self-study to the institution

ã Focus on studying issues of importance to yourinstitution

ã Address all of the standards, but in a way thatreflects the concerns of your institution

ã Shape the self-study to fit your needs

ã Make it a “living document”—one that can beused after the team leaves

Communicate

ã Communicate the purpose of self-study and theaccreditation process

ã Develop strategies to talk with the campus tokeep them updated on the process

ã Ask the president, provost, vice president(s) andothers to emphasize the importance of theprocess

ã Use technology to assist you, when possible

Logistics

ã Get an early start: a 21/2 year timetable allowssufficient time to do everything required

ã Get tech support

ã Expect glitches and the unexpected

ã Depth of community involvement as well asbreadth is really important

ã Pick really good people to chair subcommittees

ã Know the standards

ã Reflect upon the relation between the standardsand your institution—how your specific localcontext will tailor your response to specificstandards

ã Think carefully about your criteria for whoshould be on a visiting team

Document a culture of “continuous improvement”

ã Collect and describe asssessment findings

ã Explain how findings were used

ã Show results

Adapted from a presentation by Karen Froslid Jones, American University, Washington, DC

Chapter 3

Preparing the Self-Study Design

A design for self-study is a blueprint for theself-study process and for the final self-studyreport. It guides the steering committee andworking groups in their discussion, research, andwriting, and the self-study report builds on theoriginal design document. In some cases, actualparts of the design document, such as theinstitutional overview and the statement ofobjectives, can be modified for use in theintroductory chapter of the self-study.

A good design cannot guarantee an effectiveself-study process and an excellent self-studyreport, but a poorly developed design significantly reduces the possibility of producing a useful finaldocument. Because the creation of the design is as significant as the preparation of the finalself-study report, institutions should givethoughtful attention to this early step in theself-study process.

The length of the design document will dependupon several factors, such as the self-study modelselected and the level of detail in the charges tothe various working groups. The document should be sufficiently specific to guide the self-studyprocess and to facilitate the writing of the workinggroups’ reports and the final self-study report. In most cases this can be accomplished in fewerthan 50 pages.

The design document is usually drafted after the institution’s representatives have attended The Self-Study Institute and before the MiddleStates staff liaison comes to campus for theself-study preparation visit. It is often a primaryfocus of the liaison’s discussion with the self-studysteering committee during that visit. After the visit, the steering committee revises the design andsubmits it for the staff liaison’s formal approval.

The Elements of theSelf-Study Design

A design document often begins with briefdescriptions of the institution, its mission,important recent developments, expectations forthe future, and the steps taken to date to preparefor self-study. Whether or not a design includesthose elements, all self-study designs should coverthe topics described in this section.

Information on the self-study models and how to select one is provided below in the section ofthis chapter entitled “Choosing a Self-StudyModel.” Choosing a “Selected Topics” or“Collaborative” model for the self-study, ratherthan a “Comprehensive” model, raises additionalconsiderations related to the design and planning,which are also described later in this chapter.

Nature and Scope of the Self-Study

The nature and scope of an institution’s self-studywill vary with each institution’s needs and specialcircumstances. Therefore this section of the design document should identify the model that theinstitution has chosen and demonstrate that itsapproach to self-study will be useful, attuned tocurrent and future institutional needs andpriorities, and focused on the teaching andlearning process.

Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study

The goals for the self-study process are what theinstitution intends to achieve by an in-depthanalysis of itself. A concise statement of the majoroutcomes expected from the self-study will helpto remind the institution’s community that thepurposes of self-assessment and peer review

17

include deepening institutional self-understandingand advancing institutional self-improvement.

Of course, another self-study goal is demonstrating that the institution possesses the characteristics of excellence described in the Commission’s 14 accreditation standards.

Examples of Self-Study Outcomes

V To compose a concise and constructivedocument that not only meets the needs of the Commission on Higher Education butalso serves as a valuable tool forinstitutional planning, change, and growth.

V To educate all constituencies with regardto the institution’s revised missionstatement.

V To create a common vision of theinstitution’s future direction.

V To take a critical look at the integrity of the institution in a time of rapid change.

V To begin assessing a newcompetency-based core curriculum.

V To examine the effect that the rapidgrowth of branch campuses may have onthe home campus administration.

V To determine how to improve graduateeducation, with special consideration oforganization, size, funding, recruitment,curriculum, research, and student life.

V To study outcomes and practices of peerinstitutions to assess and improve studentlearning results.

V To re-think and revise the institution’sgeneral education program.

Organizational Structure of the Steering Committee and Working Groups

The self-study design document should include aclear description of the structure of the steeringcommittee and of the working groups, as well ashow they relate to each other. Possible ways toorganize the self-study committees are discussedin Chapter 2 of this handbook. The names andtitles of the steering committee members shouldbe included. If possible, those of working groupmembers should also be included.

Regardless of the type of design or format for thereport, it is essential that the evaluation teamunderstand which sections of the report addresseach accreditation standard. (See “Choosing a

Self-Study Model” in this chapter and“Developing Effective Self-Study ResearchQuestions” in Chapter 4.) Therefore, either in thissection of the design, or the next one on workinggroup charges, the relationship among the topicsassigned each working group and theCommission’s standards should be indicated.

Charges to the Working Groups andGuidelines for Their Reports

The design document should include charges tothe self-study working groups that define theirtasks and provide guidance for their research andreporting. This section should include:

V The standard(s) or topic(s) the workinggroup is to address and the specificactivities and products expected from it,such as developing its own researchquestions or answering those that thesteering committee asks; gathering andanalyzing evidence; and producingoutlines, preliminary drafts, and final draftsof reports.

V Research questions that will guide theworking groups’ tasks of research, analysis,and reporting. Effective questions are vitalto a successful self-study, and this sectionof the design is in many ways theconceptual center of the document. (SeeChapter 4 for a detailed discussion ofdeveloping analytical research questionsand the different roles that the steeringcommittee and working groups can havein that process.)

V A template for working group reports, so that interim reports can be refined and easily edited into a seamless final self-study report. (See Figure 8 for asuggested outline.)

The deadlines for the various tasks and reports ofthe working groups can be included in the chargeor in the section of the design document on theself-study timetable. (See below.)

The working groups should understand that theyare not expected to discover definitive solutionsfor every problem. Their charge is to identifycritical issues for the institution and to proposepossible courses of action that might lead toimprovements.

18


Inventory of Support Documents

This section of the design document shouldinclude an annotated inventory of recent andcurrent self-studies, reports, collections of data,assessment instruments, and other resources thatcan be utilized by the self-study working groups.(See Chapter 4 for detailed examples ofdocuments that may already exist.)

The Organization of The Self-Study Report

The design document should include a cleardescription of the organization and structure thatwill be used for the final self-study report,preferably including an annotated outline. (The organization of the self-study report also isdiscussed in the section on self-study workinggroups in Chapter 2 of this handbook, in the nextsection of this chapter on “Choosing a Self-StudyModel,” and in “Writing the Self-Study Report” in Chapter 5, which includes a template forpreparing the report.)

Editorial Style and Format of All Reports

The design for self-study should include guidelines that will facilitate the compilation of informationand ensure that the final report reflects aconsistent style. These guidelines should befollowed for the self-study design document, theinitial and final reports from the working groups,the steering committee’s final self-study report,and any documents from other sources that areincorporated into the self-study report or itsappendices. The style and format guidelinesshould address such topics as the designated word processing program, fonts, margins, spacing, andthe use of institutional acronyms.

The writing or editing of the self-study report maybe assigned to a professional writer or editor, such as a member of the faculty who need not be amember of the steering committee. However,report writing should be viewed as a multi-phased activity that covers the entire self-study process,beginning with the development of the self-studydesign. If an outside writer or editor is beingutilized, this person should be chosen prior to thestart of the process and should participate in itthroughout.

Timetable for the Self-Study And Evaluation

The timetable for the self-study and team visit,described in the “Overview of the Self-StudyProcess and Result” section of Chapter 1 of thishandbook, should be included in the designdocument.

Profile of the VisitingEvaluation Team

The self-study design should include theinstitution’s recommendations concerning thetype of Chair and types of evaluation teammembers it believes should visit the institution atthe conclusion of the self-study process. In a“Selected Topics” or “Special Emphasis” model,the institution should suggest evaluators withexperience in the relevant areas. Although thefinal decision about team membership remainswith the Commission and its staff, the staff liaisonwill consider carefully the institution’s suggestedteam profile.

19


Figure 8

Template for a Working Group Report

ã An overview of the group’s charge, and thequestions it addressed

ã An analytical discussion of the inquiryundertaken and the outcomes of thatinquiry, including strengths and challenges

ã An explanation of how the group’s findingsand conclusions relate to the Commission’sstandards

ã Discussion of the connection of the group’stopic with those of other groups, and of anycollaboration between groups that took place

ã Recommendations for improvement

In selecting team members, the Commission alsoconsiders the type of institution, the self-studymodel or approach that the institution selects, and the Commission staff liaison’s backgroundknowledge of the institution and the self-study.Teams usually are composed of peers frominstitutions in states other than the state of theinstitution under review, and team members maybe drawn from outside the Middle States region.In unusual circumstances, Commission staff mayrequest the institution’s permission to include an evaluator from the same state. Geography isless important than the evaluator’s expertise,experience, and ability to handle the assignmentin a manner that will be useful to the institutionand to the Commission.

Visiting teams for comprehensive andcollaborative reviews in the Middle States regionusually include from eight to ten evaluators. On occasion, however, the nature of theinstitution and its self-study approach require asmaller or larger team. Multi-unit institutions orsystems may require either separate evaluationteams for each unit or a single evaluation team ofsufficient size to examine all units.

(For more information on the evaluation team, see the section on “The Evaluation Team Visit” inChapter 6 of this handbook, the Commission’spublication Team Visits: Conducting and Hostingan Evaluation Visit, and the Commission’s policystatement on “Selection of Evaluation Teams andChairs.”)

Choosing a Self-Study Model

An institution can select one of several models forself-study. (Candidate institutions must conduct acomprehensive self-study for initial accreditation,and newly accredited institutions must use acomprehensive model for the self-study theyconduct for reaccreditation five years after initialaccreditation.) Each institution approachingreaccreditation for the second time or later isencouraged to select the approach that best suitsits needs and priorities. The specific model chosen is less important than the long-term usefulness ofthe self-study. When choosing a self-study model,the following considerations should be kept inmind.

Link to Planning

One of the goals of selecting a particular modelshould be to foster further institutional self-studyand planning. Institutional growth andimprovement on a continuous basis after theself-study and evaluation team visit are asimportant as the short-range improvements andaccountability typically expected from the process.

The Commission’s Expectations

The approach to self-study that an institutionselects should be sufficiently broad to meet theinstitution’s needs, as well as sufficiently thoroughto provide the basic information that will enablethe Commission to determine whether theinstitution is fulfilling its stated mission and goals.The Commission expects that all the eligibilityrequirements and accreditation standardsidentified and discussed in Characteristics ofExcellence will be addressed, either in theinstitution’s self-study or in other materialsprepared by the institution.

An institution is responsible for all activitiesconducted in its name or under its sponsorship.Therefore, the self-study should address in someform all of those activities and all of theinstitution’s instructional locations. The activitiesand locations include those identified in Standard13 as “related educational activities”: basic skillscourses; certificate programs; experientiallearning; non-credit offerings; branch campuses,additional locations, and other instructional sites;distance or distributed learning; and contractualrelationships and affiliated providers. In addition,research, graduate education, community service,and activities abroad should be analyzed if theyare included in the institution’s goals or activities.

Sometimes, an official action taken by theCommission before the self-study reportrecommends that a specific institution give furtheremphasis to a particular area in its next self-study.The Commission’s staff liaison will assist theinstitution in determining how best to addresssuch required issues.

20


Organization of the Self-Study

For any of the different self-study modelsdescribed below, there are three basic ways to organize self-study groups and the self-studyreport:

One is to have a working group and a chapter inthe report for each of the 14 standards inCharacteristics. (See Figures 9, 10, and 11.)

A second is to group standards together in a waythat makes sense to the institution, so that some or all working groups and report chapters willaddress more than one standard. For example,Standards 2 and 3 on planning and resourcesmight be assigned to one working group,Standards 7 and 14 on institutional and studentlearning assessment to another. (See Figure 10.)

The third approach is to organize the groups andreport thematically, rather than by the standards.This can be done in comprehensive self-studies,but it is more common in comprehensiveself-studies with a special emphasis and inselected topics self-studies in which the topicsselected are other than specific standards. (SeeFigure 13.)

The report of the evaluation team usually will beorganized in the same way as the self-studyreport, but it also must indicate whether theinstitution meets all of the Commission’sstandards. It is, therefore, important that eachself-study report indicate clearly how the evidence and analysis it presents relate to each of thestandards. A thematically-organized report, or one that seeks to tell an institution’s “story” in a waythat reflects its unique history and characteristics,should facilitate the visiting team’s task of ensuring compliance with the standards. This can be donein an introductory section of the report, withcross-references or marginal annotationsthroughout the text, or by means of a tableshowing which sections of the report relate towhich standard.

A Continuum of Models

There are three major models for self-study:comprehensive, selected topics, and collaborative. Within these broad models, there are manypossible approaches to self-study and evaluation.This flexibility recognizes the differences inmission, purpose, internal conditions, needs, andexternal influences at each educational institution.

Each model can be organized by the standards for accreditation, by groups of standards, orthematically.

A design for self-study may be conceptualized aspoints on a continuum in which any particularapproach falls somewhere between a fullycomprehensive self-study and one that is narrowly focused.

The Comprehensive Model

A comprehensive self-study enables an institutionto appraise every aspect of its programs andservices, governing and supporting structures,resources, and educational outcomes in relation to the institution’s mission and goals. As mentionedpreviously, one common approach is to organizethe self-study report to track the accreditationstandards. (See Figure 9.) Another is to reorder,combine, or group the standards to reflect aninstitution’s culture. (See Figure 10.)

A number of institutions elect the comprehensivemodel for self-study, and many institutions benefit from the self-reflection and analysis that thismodel requires. Candidate institutions must usethe comprehensive model for their self-study forinitial accreditation, and newly accreditedinstitutions must use it for their first self-study after initial accreditation. However, if an accreditedinstitution recently conducted a thoroughself-evaluation (perhaps as a part of aninstitution-wide planning process), or wants to focus on a few key issues, the institution mightwant to consider the selected topics approachinstead.

21


22


Figure 9

The Comprehensive ReportIn the Context of the Standards in Characteristics of Excellence


Mission and Goals

Planning, Resource Allocation,and Institutional Renewal

Institutional Resources

Leadership and Governance

Administration

Integrity

Institutional Assessment


Student Admissionsand Retention

Student Support Services

Faculty

Educational Offerings

General Education

Related Educational Activities

Assessment of StudentLearning

Figure 10

The Comprehensive ReportReordering Standards

To Reflect an Institution

Mission, Goals, and Integrity

Standard 1, Mission and Goals

Standard 6, Integrity

Planning, Resources, and Institutional Renewal

Standard 2, Planning,Resource Allocation, and

Institutional Renewal

Standard 3, InstitutionalResources

Leadership, Governance, andAdministration

Standard 4, Leadership andGovernance

Standard 5, Administration

Student Admissions andSupport Services

Standard 8, Student Admissionsand Retention

Standard 9, Student SupportServices

Faculty

Standard 10, Faculty


Standard 11, EducationalOfferings

General Education and Related Educational Activities

Standard 12, General Education

Standard 13, Related EducationActivities

Institutional Assessment andStudent Learning Assessment

Standard 7, InstitutionalAssessment

Standard 14, Assessment ofStudent Learning

Figure 11

The Comprehensive ReportWith Emphasis on

One or More Standards


Mission and Goals

PLANNING, RESOURCEALLOCATION, AND

INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL



Administration

Integrity





Faculty


GENERAL EDUCATION


ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

23


Figure 12

The Comprehensive ReportWith Emphasis onOne or More Issues

[In this example, the issue chosenfor emphasis is OFF-CAMPUS

LOCATIONS.]


Mission and Goals

Planning, Resource Allocation,and Institutional Renewal


– OFF-CAMPUS LOCATIONS


Administration

Integrity






Faculty



General Education



Assessment of StudentLearning

Figure 13

The Selected Topics Report

[In this example, the selected topic is “Undergraduate Education,”

within a research, graduate-degree offering university.]

Within the topic of“Undergraduate Education,”the institution could addresssubstantively the following

accreditation standards:




General Education

Assessment ofStudent Learning

For these remaining standards,the institution would assemble

existing documentation todemonstrate compliance and

provide a roadmap to facilitate review during the Chair’s

preliminary visit (Option 1) orconcurrent with the full team

visit (Option 2):

Mission and Goals

Planning, ResourceAllocation, and

Institutional Renewal



Administration

Integrity


Faculty

Related EducationalActivities

The Comprehensive Self-StudyWith Special Emphasis

An institution may wish to focus on particularstandards or issues. The comprehensive self-studywith special emphasis provides a structure to dothis. It attends to all the standards, as would anycomprehensive self-study, but it adds additionalfocus on standards or issues of particular interestto the institution. Organizing the self-study around one or more themes, or grouping the standards toreflect the institution’s concerns, are simple waysto provide emphasis within a comprehensivereport. The issue need not be one that isemphasized in Characteristics of Excellence; the choice can include any issue of importance to the institution. The visiting team will devotespecial attention to the areas of special emphasis.(See Figures 11 and 12.)

The Selected Topics Model

A selected topics self-study allows analready-accredited institution to devoteconcentrated attention to topics it selects and to concentrate solely on those topics in itsself-study. It demonstrates compliance withaccreditation standards not related to the selectedtopics by providing other documents for theCommission to review. Unlike the comprehensiveself-study, the selected topics approach requiresthat there be existing documentation, such asevaluative reports and other information and data, to demonstrate substantive compliance with those accreditation standards not addressed through the topics selected by the institution.

If an institution determines that the availabledocumentation is not adequate, then theinstitution should follow the comprehensivemodel but consider emphasizing the issues ortopics of greatest interest or usefulness.

In the selected topics approach, there is noopportunity for the institution’s community to engage in the substantive discussion andevaluation of issues or concerns that fall outsidethe selected topics. Similarly, the institution’sself-study report will not address in anysubstantive way those accreditation standards orinstitutional concerns not included within theselected topics. The defining characteristic of thisself-study model is that the review of compliancewith those accreditation standards not addressedwithin the selected topics occurs separately fromthe team visit, and both the self-study and team

visit focus solely on the topics selected by theinstitution.

The Preliminary Proposal

In any selected topics self-study, there is anadditional step before the production of aself-study design. At least 24 months before theanticipated team visit the institution submits to the Commission staff liaison a preliminary proposalidentifying:

V The proposed selected topic(s)

V Why the topic(s) are important to theinstitution

V Which accreditation standards would besubstantively addressed by the proposedself-study (Depending on the selectedtopic(s), it may be that some standards willbe addressed partially by the self-study and partially through documentation separatefrom the self-study.)

V What type of evidence and documentation the institution has available to substantiatecompliance with those standards notaddressed by the proposed self-study(This should be a thorough and detaileddescription.)

(See the section on “Using ExistingDocumentation” in Chapter 4 for a detaileddescription of existing documents that might be available.)

In preparing the preliminary proposal, theinstitution should identify those Commissionstandards it intends to address in the self-study,ensuring that the coverage of those standards willbe sufficiently broad to provide an adequate“window” on the whole institution.

Topics may be aligned with individualaccreditation standards or may reflect issuescommon to several standards. For example, acomplex research university might choose to limitits self-study to undergraduate programs. Someother possibilities include the first-yearexperience, graduate education, and theassessment of student learning.

24


The “Planning and Assessment” Selected Topics Self-Study

A selected topics approach that might workespecially well for many institutions is to selectStandards 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal); 3 (Institutional Resources);7 (Institutional Assessment); and 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). These are interrelated and aremajor areas of emphasis within Characteristics ofExcellence.

Staff Review of the Proposal

The Commission staff liaison evaluates theinstitution’s preliminary proposal to determinewhether the institution possesses sufficientdocumentation to substantiate compliance withaccreditation standards not addressed in theproposed self-study. If it does not, or if staffdetermines that the institution would derivegreater benefit from a comprehensive self-study,the liaison works with the institution to develop aself-study design based on an appropriate model.If the liaison approves the preliminary proposal,the institution submits a full self-study design forthe proposed process.

Evaluation Teams for Selected Topics Self-Studies

The size and profile of the evaluation team istailored to the topics selected. Teams forinstitutions conducting selected topics self-studiesmight be smaller than for those undertakingcomprehensive self-studies. Consequently, the team visit focuses exclusively on the topicsselected and the related accreditation standards.For each of the selected standards, the evaluationteam reviews the institution’s self-review andverifies the accuracy of representations made bythe institution.

For those accreditation standards not addresseddirectly in the selected topics self-study, theinstitution collects relevant documentation andmakes it available on campus to one or moregeneralist reviewers, either before or concurrentwith the team visit. (See the section below on“Early or Concurrent Document Review forSelected Topics Self-Studies.”) The institutionprovides the generalists with a document“roadmap” identifying the documents whichrelate to each standard (Figure 14). The document roadmap builds on and expands the description

of documentation included in the preliminaryproposal for a selected topics self-study.

Early or Concurrent Document ReviewFor Selected Topics Self-Studies

This overview is provided to assist institutions inchoosing a self-study model. Detailed guidelinesfor institutions preparing for a selected topicsdocument review, and for generalist evaluators,are provided in Team Visits: Conducting andHosting an Evaluation Visit.

For all selected topics self-studies, the institution,in consultation with Commission staff and theteam Chair, decides whether the review ofdocumentation relative to standards not addressed in the self-study takes place during the Chair’spreliminary visit several months prior to the teamvisit (“Early Document Review”) or immediatelyprior to the team visit (“Concurrent DocumentReview”).

The financial review of the institution usuallyoccurs at the time of the document review.

Early Document Review. Early document reviewusually occurs five to seven months prior to thefull team visit.

The preliminary visit of the team Chair includesmeetings with institutional representatives to discuss the draft self-study and plans for theteam visit. In addition, the team chair and one (orin complex instances, more) designated generalistevaluator(s) use the roadmap provided by theinstitution to review the assembleddocumentation in order to verify institutionalcompliance with those standards that are notsubstantively reflected in the self-study. Thisoption may require extending the length of theChair’s preliminary visit.

The team Chair and the designated generalistevaluator prepare a brief written report, affirmingand certifying that the institution meetsaccreditation standards not being addressedwithin the selected topics model or noting anyareas where compliance is in question. Thissummary report identifies any standards for which the institution will need to provide further orupdated information at the time of the team visit.The report is sent to the Commission and to theinstitution.

25


26


Figure 14

Documentation Roadmap and Self-Study Overview

The Standards

Check one column for each accreditation standard

SubstantivelyAddressed

within self-study

PartiallyAddressed*

within self-study

NotAddressed**

1. Mission and Goals

2. Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

3. Institutional Resources

4. Leadership and Governance

5. Administration

6. Integrity

7. Institutional Assessment

8. Student Admissions and Retention

9. Student Support Services

10. Faculty

11. Educational Offerings

12. General Education

13. Related Educational Activities

14. Assessment of Student Learning

Notes:

* Complete Form B for these standards

** Complete Form C for these standards.

Forms B and C are included in Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit.

The final roadmap prepared for the evaluators’ document review will become part of thedocument reviewer’s report and will be appended to the team report.

A possible advantage of early (rather thanconcurrent) document review is that theinstitution has more time to assemble any furtherinformation that is needed. Otherwise, thesummary report simply affirms that thedocumentation demonstrates that the institutionmeets the specified accreditation standards. It notes any standards for which compliance is inquestion but does not ordinarily includesuggestions for improvement. The report of thegeneralist evaluator(s) must be accompanied bythe institution’s documentation roadmap. The report is shared with the institution soon after the visit. It is also provided to the team Chairso that its findings can be integrated into orappended to the final team report, together withthe document roadmap.

The designated generalist evaluator who is not ateam member also may participate in the fullevaluation team visit if the chair and Commissionstaff determine it to be appropriate. The Chair orthe generalist evaluator reviews any further orupdated information the institution has beenrequested to provide in response to thepreliminary summary report. When necessary,they also verify that the institution continues to meet the standards covered in the summaryreport.

Concurrent Document Review. This optionallows an institution to have separate documentreview at the same time as the team visit.

The preliminary visit of the team Chair isconducted in the usual manner, with a focus onacquiring familiarity with the institution throughmeetings with institutional representatives anddiscussions of the draft self-study and plans for the team visit.

During, or immediately prior to, the full team visit, the team Chair and one (or in complex instances,more) designated generalist evaluator(s) use theroadmap provided by the institution to review theassembled documentation in order to verifyinstitutional compliance with those standards thatare not substantively reflected in the self-study. If needed to verify compliance, additionalinformation may be requested during the visit.

The team Chair and the generalist evaluatorprepare a brief written report, affirming andcertifying that the institution meets accreditationstandards not addressed within the selected topics model or noting any areas where compliance is inquestion. Otherwise, the report simply affirms that

there is sufficient documentation to conclude thatthe institution meets the specified accreditationstandards. This summary report, which does not ordinarily include recommendations forimprovement, is shared with the institution andwith members of the evaluation team. Its findingsare considered in the team’s finalrecommendation for Commission action.

The findings and conclusions of the reportprepared by the team chair and generalistevaluator are incorporated into the team report,and the summary report is appended to the finalteam report.

The Collaborative Model

Institutions that have additional accreditation(e.g., separately accredited programs) may benefitfrom the collaborative self-study model, whichoffers the option of combining the reviewprocesses of Middle States with those of theinstitution’s other accreditor(s).

All institutions of higher education are subject toreview and oversight by multiple agencies ororganizations (e.g., state regulatory or licensureagencies). Some institutions find it helpful tocoordinate one or more of these reviews withtheir Middle States self-study in order to minimizeduplication of effort and to maximize institutionalbenefit.

The collaborative review is a cooperative reviewprocess in which an accredited institution invitesinstitutional, specialized, or professionalaccrediting agencies; state or federal agencies; orother organizations to join with the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education in a review ofthe institution. These reviewing organizations maychoose whether to participate.

The collaborative process usually involves thecompletion of a single institutional self-study (orother similar process or document), one on-sitereview using a single joint visiting team, and onecoordinated report by the visiting team. Theinstitution satisfies each organization’saccreditation or other standards and requirements in a manner acceptable to the organization, andthe organizations cooperate to avoid duplication.

The results of the collaborative review processinform the participating agencies and the public of significant strengths and challenges facing theinstitution and its programs. While each reviewing organization relies on the same information in

27


reaching its decision, each also uses its owndecision-making process and standards and issuesits own accreditation or other decision.

An accredited institution may invite collaborationby two or more reviewing organizations, but aninstitution applying for initial Middle Statesaccreditation generally is not eligible forcollaborative review under these guidelines.

Flexibility and thorough advance planning areessential to the success of any collaboration.When a regional and one or more specializedaccrediting or other organizations agree to conduct a collaborative evaluation visit, the design for a collaborative self-study addressesthe specific concerns of all parties, and a numberof issues should be agreed upon in advance by allparties. Some of the issues to be consideredinclude:

V The structure of the self-study process andthe scope of involvement by institutionalstakeholders in that process;

V The evaluation responsibilities of both theentire collaborative team and the members representing each accrediting body ororganization;

V The protocol to be followed in conductingthe exit interview; and

V The structure, organization, length, andstyle of the evaluation report that will beprepared by the visiting team.

(For further information about this process, consult the Commission’s publication Handbook forCollaborative Reviews.)

Submitting the Design

As noted previously, the design document issubmitted to the institution’s Middle States staffliaison for initial review, it may be discussedduring the self-study preparation visit, it is revisedas needed by the steering committee, and it issubmitted to the liaison for final approval.Everyone directly involved in the process shouldreceive a copy of, or have access to, the designdocument early in the process. It should bereadily available at the institution, and the steering committee and working groups should consult itregularly during the self-study process.

The institution shares its design, along with otherbasic information about the institution, with the

team Chair well in advance of the Chair’spreliminary visit. Team members do not receivethe self-study design, although they have access to it during the team visit. Together with draftself-study materials, the design sets the context for discussions between the Chair and the institution’s representatives. It enables the Chair to plan thedeployment of evaluation team members.

Modifications to the Design

As the self-study proceeds, changes may be madeto the plans and processes described in the design document. Significant changes should bediscussed with the staff liaison. They should alsobe explained to the Chair of the visiting teamduring the Chair’s preliminary visit to theinstitution.

28


Chapter 4

Linking the Design And Self-Study toCommission StandardsAnd Expectations

The self-study process goes beyond complyingwith accreditation standards. It gathers theinstitution’s communities to reach consensus onthe institution’s future course. The Middle Statesaccreditation standards, set forth in Characteristicsof Excellence in Higher Education, emphasize theimportance of institutional mission. Whileaccredited institutions are expected to complywith all standards, the questions that institutionsframe and address in regard to the standards, andthe manner in which institutions demonstratecompliance with those standards, should beresponsive to and support the institutionalmission. (See Standard 1: Mission and Goals.)

Because each institution is governed by its ownmission, goals, and objectives, all of the standardsdo not apply in equal proportion to all institutions. Nonetheless, within the context of the mission,the design for self-study should indicate how theprocess will address all standards and what typesof relevant documentation will be used.

The effective self-study will:

V Emphasize the role of planning andassessment (Standards 2, 7, and 14) inachieving the institution’s mission and inadvancing and renewing itself

V Include research questions that link theaccreditation standards to the institution’sspecific mission and context

V Use existing documentation for referenceand analysis as much as possible

Developing EffectiveSelf-Study ResearchQuestions

Every self-study design should include in itssection on charges for working groups a set ofresearch questions for each group. (See “Chargesto the Working Groups and Guidelines for TheirReports” in the section on “The Elements of aSelf-Study Design” in Chapter 3 of this handbook.)

Institutions develop their self-study questions indifferent ways. Some steering committees draftsets of detailed questions at the outset, possibly inconsultation with working group leaders. Othersprovide only general research questions toworking groups, with the expectation that thosegroups will develop more detailed andinstitutionally-specific questions as part of theirinitial work. If the second approach is followed,the steering committee should review thequestions that the working groups develop to ensure that the questions are consistent, thatthey are not redundant across the groups, and that they collectively ensure the production of acomplete self-study. In either approach, thosedeveloping the questions should consider carefully the following observations and suggestions.

29

The Role of the Questions

The research questions for the working groupsare the heart of the self-study design and acentral driving force in the self-study processbecause they provide structure for the workinggroups’ research, analysis, and reporting. The process of creating the questions helps to focus the institution on the areas of inquirythat are most useful. The self-study researchquestions begin with a review of the institution’seligibility or continued eligibility foraccreditation. They also provide a starting pointfor analyzing the institution’s curricula andoperations in light of the accreditation standards. These questions, and even the areas of inquiry,may change as the work of the groupsprogresses.

The research questions should lead to a finalself-study report that meets the needs of theinstitution’s internal and external audiences andthat fulfills its purposes of (1) demonstratingcompliance with the Commission’s eligibilityrequirements; (2) demonstrating compliancewith the Commission’s standards and (3) deepening institutional self-understandingand advancing institutional self-improvement.Because each institution addresses the standards through the lens of its own mission and history,each institution will create different researchquestions.

Asking Meaningful Questions

The most important attribute of effective self-study questions is that they elicit analytical responsesand suggestions for improvement. (See Figure 15.) A certain amount of description is necessary in aself-study report to demonstrate compliance withthe accreditation standards. Whenever possible,however, existing documents (with briefexplanations) should be cited within the report asevidence. Very few research questions should askfor purely descriptive responses. Those that doshould be balanced by questions that requireevaluation and judgment.

For example, “What is our admissions policy?” isnot an evaluative question, and can be answeredby reference to the institution’s bulletin or otherexisting documents. The working group shouldconcentrate its efforts on answering such questions as:

V How effective is the institution’s admissions policy in producing the students we want?

V Are the goals of the admissions process forthe institution sufficiently clear, realistic,and consistent with the institution’smission?

V Are retention goals consistent with longterm strategic and financial planning?

V What do demographic trends suggest willbe the future of the institution’s studentbase, how is the institution positioning itself to handle any anticipated demographicchanges, and what else should it considerdoing?

30


Figure 15

Good Practices in FramingSelf-Study Research Questions

Ask

ã Questions that stimulate thinking aboutimportant topics

ã Questions that allow the self-study to address the standards through the lens of specificinstitutional traits, developments, or issues

ã Questions that require evaluation andjudgment

ã Questions that are worth the effort it willtake to answer them

ã Questions that connect standards anddifferent dimensions of the institution

Avoid

ã Questions with obvious answers

ã Questions with yes/no answers

ã Unanswerable questions

ã Questions that directly mirror theFundamental Elements of a standard.

The following approach may be helpful indeveloping meaningful self-study questions. In the first section, it is assumed that the self-study group is addressing standards individually or, if it isaddressing several, it is taking them one at a time.The second section, which follows generalcomments and an extensive list of samplequestions that address the standards individually,discusses questions appropriate for addressingseveral standards together.

Questions for a Single Standard

In developing questions for individual standards, a steering committee or working group might beginby asking the following questions.

What are the key requirements or elements of the standard that must be addressed inthe self-study? The group should begin by identifying thecomponents (called here “key requirements”)in that standard that are most relevant to itsown goals and activities. The FundamentalElements identified for each standard inCharacteristics of Excellence are helpful in this process, but they should not be used tothe exclusion of key requirements that theself-study group itself selects. TheFundamental Elements specify particularcharacteristics or qualities that togetherconstitute general compliance with thestandard. Neither the institution norevaluators should use the FundamentalElements as a simple checklist. Both mustconsider the totality that is created by theseelements, in addition to any other relevantinstitutional information and analysis.Research questions may relate to more thanone Fundamental Element. For example, thekey element in Standard 1 (Mission andGoals) for a particular institution might be the requirement of creating specific goals to implement its existing mission.

What are areas of special interest to theinstitution that relate to the standard? The requirements in Characteristics ofExcellence are intended to be tailored to theneeds of different types of institutions in avariety of particular situations. The groupshould attempt to relate each keyrequirement it has articulated to specificdimensions, developments, and issues in itsown institution. For example, in Standard 8(Student Admissions and Retention), a

particular institution might be concerned with falling enrollment numbers, while another isconcerned with the remedial needs ofadmitted students.

Where there are identified institutionalgoals relative to the standard, how does the institution assess whether and how it is meeting those goals?To the extent appropriate, the institutionshould review assessment activities currentlyin place, analyze the results, and proposecontinuing assessment activities.

Institutional improvement is a primary goal ofthe self-study process, and the self-studyreport should be a forward-lookingcontribution to the institution’s on-goingself-assessment and planning processes. Howhave assessment results relative to thestandard been used to improve theinstitution? How might they be used forimprovement? Assessment is not an end initself, but a means by which information, data and analyses are used to improve all aspectsof the institution. Each working group shouldoffer specific recommendations forimprovement in the areas it has studied, andgroups’ recommendations should inform the recommendations offered in the finalself-study report.

Other Considerations

As it develops self-study questions, a steeringcommittee or working group also should considerother factors that affect the process of creatinganalytical questions.

Using existing documents. As noted, descriptionin the self-study report should be kept to aminimum, and existing documents should becited as evidence whenever possible. As theyidentify the key requirements of a standard andrelate them to institutional situations, self-studygroups should determine to what extent theinstitution’s possession of the traits, resources,processes, or abilities identified in the keyrequirement of the standard is demonstrated inexisting documents or other evidence already athand. (The section of this chapter on “UsingExisting Documentation” discusses at length theuse of existing documents and provides sampledocument lists.)

31


Undertaking new research. In an ideal situation,self-study groups should be able to invest most oftheir energy in reviewing and analyzing, ratherthan in gathering, evidence. However, in somecases, well-defined and realistic research projectscan enrich a self-study. The self-study groupshould determine whether new research shouldbe undertaken during the self-study period inresponse to evaluative self-study questions. Such research is not a substitute for the type ofongoing assessment required by Standards 7 and 14, but some research may be necessary ifthe institution’s existing assessment information isinadequate to support the self-study.

Connecting the standards and coordinating the groups. The steering committee and/or theworking groups should consider in what ways thestandard(s) each group is considering relate toother standards, and in what ways the work it willdo in answering its research questions could becoordinated with the work of other groups. Earlyin their planning for self-study, institutions mustdecide how the self-study will address relatedstandards (for instance, Standard 2 on planningand Standard 3 on resources) and the overlapamong standards (with regard to assessment, forexample). Some institutions organize theircomprehensive self-studies around clusters ofstandards or around themes, rather than takingeach standard in its numerical sequence.The comprehensive-with-emphasis and selectedtopics self-studies take this approach further. Buteven when a standard is considered alone, aself-study group developing research questionsmay find it useful to think about the connectionsbetween its standards and others, and between itswork and that of other groups. Questions, topics,and tasks may be exchanged among groups, andgroups may meet together or even merge, asresearch and reflection during the self-studyprovides new insights and perspectives. Howeverit is accomplished, the self-study report shouldreflect an awareness of how the standards and the many dimensions of the institution areinterconnected. (See Figure 16.)

Some Sample Questions

The following examples of analytical self-studyresearch questions are intended to stimulatethought. The suggestions are not directions to be followed rigidly, and the samplequestions are not models to be copiedunreflectively. Self-study groups should developquestions that produce the information andanalysis needed for a thorough and effectiveself-study for their own institution.

Questions are noted with regard to compliance,relevant institutional issues, assessment,improvement, or relationship to other standardsfor purposes of partial illustration, but severalcategories may be combined in one question orarea. Moreover, not all categories or types areexpected to be represented in the researchquestions for each individual standard. Theseexamples illustrate the variety of questions thatshould drive the institutional self-study.

As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, similarapproaches can be used to address a singlestandard, groups of standards, or a theme.

Standard 1: Mission and Goals – Examples

How are the major themes of the missionreflected in the institution’s goals? If themission calls for students to acquire anappreciation of certain values, for example,what activities exist to achieve this?[Compliance/Relevant Institutional Issues]

How are the institution’s operations consistent with its mission and goals? If a small collegewith a liberal arts mission is opening manybranches abroad, is this consistent with itsmission to provide individual attention in asmall institution? [Compliance/RelevantInstitutional Issues]

How does the institution determine whetherit is achieving each aspect of its mission? Forexample, how effectively do stated purposesof scholarship and teaching guide all levels ofplanning? [Assessment]

If the institution’s mission is not adequatelyguiding its activities, how could theinstitution’s constituencies be involved inre-thinking the mission and/or redirectingactivities inconsistent with it? [Improvement]

32


33


Figure 16

Developing Effective Self-Study Research Questions

Identify the key components of the standard that aremost relevant to the institution’s own goals and activities

òDetermine how this standard relates to other standards and

how this group can coordinate with other groups

ò

ò

What assessment has occurred in this area?

ò

What improvements should we consider?

Draft Analytical Charge Questions

ò

Final Analytical Self-Study Questions for Working GroupsLeading to analysis of strengths and weaknesses and

suggestions for improvement

ò

What existing documents can be used (and cited)?

What new research, if any, should be undertakenduring the self-study?

ò

Is the institution admitting the types ofstudents targeted in its mission? [Relationshipto Other Standards]

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal – Examples

To what extent is the conceptual andprocedural relationship between theinstitution’s strategic plan and the budgetdevelopment process (both operational andcapital) well understood and effectivelyimplemented? In what ways do planning andresource allocation processes provideevidence of a commitment to institutionalrenewal? [Compliance]

What prompted recent significant initiativesand changes in the institution’s program,services, and activities? How effectively didthe institution’s strategic plans guide thoseinitiatives and changes? [Relevant InstitutionalIssues]

How and why have institutional planningprocesses changed over the past five years?Have those process changes achieved thedesired impact? [Assessment]

What issues should the institution be planning for? How will an integrated system of planning and resource allocation help address thoseissues? [Improvement]

Are the suggestions for improvement underother standards included in the institutional or strategic plan? [Relationship to OtherStandards]

Standard 3: Institutional Resources – Examples

What steps have been taken to evaluate howeffectively resources are allocated andexpended? What specific changes have beenimplemented and with what results?[Assessment]

Are there specific examples of resources thatmay be available but are not particularlyaccessible? How does the lack of accessibilityaffect the institution’s ability to fulfill itsmission and facilitate the achievement ofstated student learning outcomes?[Compliance]

In what areas, and in what ways in thoseareas, are insufficient or inefficiently-usedresources affecting the institution’s ability to

achieve its mission and goals? [RelevantInstitutional Issues]

How do the institution’s resources and uses of resources compare with those of its peers? Are there appropriate reasons for anysignificant differences? [Assessment]

What are the most significant challengesfacing the institution relative to humanresources, technology resources, and physicalplant resources over the next five years? What is the process by which these challenges have been or will be identified? What is theprocess by which specific and comprehensiveplans for addressing these challenges arebeing formulated within the context of overall institutional planning? [Improvement]

Are there sufficient resources to fundsuggestions for improvement in other areas?[Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance –Examples

To what extent are the distinct role andresponsibilities of each constituent groupwithin arenas of shared governanceunderstood and accepted by those involved?To what extent are existing structures utilizedfor decision-making, and to what extent arestructures circumvented? [Compliance]

How have the institution’s for-profit venturesbeen structured and managed so as to avoidpossible conflict of interest amongparticipating administrators, faculty, or boardmembers? [Relevant Institutional Issues]

In what ways and for what reasons have theinstitution’s governance systems changed over the past five years? What has been the impact of these changes? [Assessment]

What might improve institutional governance? [Improvement]

If appropriate to the institution, is the Boardeffective in raising resources? [Relationship toOther Standards]

34


Standard 5: Administration – Examples

How effective are current processes to reviewand improve administrative operations?[Compliance/Assessment]

In what ways and for what reasons havestaffing patterns and reporting lines beenchanged within the past five years? Howappropriate were those changes? [RelevantInstitutional Issue]

What has been the impact of the recentadministrative reorganization? [Assessment]

When was the most recent review of theeffectiveness of administrative structuresundertaken? What were the findings? Whatactions were taken in response to thefindings? How effective were those actions?[Assessment]

How can we assure that administrativestructures are facilitating learning?[Improvement]

Are student services adequately staffed?[Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 6: Integrity – Examples

How consistently does the institution followthrough on its stated policies incommunicating with students, faculty andstaff, and students? [Compliance]

What evidence is there that the institutionadheres to principles of academic freedom?When there have been challenges toacademic freedom principles, how has theinstitution responded? What has been theoutcome or resolution? [Compliance]

How are the needs of all the constituencies of the institution considered in terms ofcurricular improvement? [RelevantInstitutional Issues]

What patterns, if any, are evident withinstudent grievances over the past three years?What steps, if any, has the institution taken inresponse to these patterns? [RelevantInstitutional Issues/Assessment]

What patterns, if any, are evident withinfaculty or staff grievances over the past threeyears? What steps, if any, has the institutiontaken in response to these patterns? [RelevantInstitutional Issues/Assessment]

How effective is the institution’s mechanismfor handling complaints from outside theinstitution? [Assessment/Improvement]

How does the educational program addressplagiarism? [Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment – Examples

How adequate is campus support forinstitutional assessment, includingcommunication of campus expectations forassessment work; policies and governancestructures to facilitate assessment;administrative, technical, and financialsupport; and professional developmentopportunities and resources? [Compliance]

How well do faculty, academic, andinstitutional leaders understand whatinstitutional assessment is and why it isimportant? [Relevant Institutional Issues]

How well does institutional-leveldocumentation of assessment policies,structures, plans, methods, results, and use ofresults demonstrate coherence amongassessment efforts? (This documentation isreferred to in Commission materials as an“assessment plan.”) [Assessment]

Does the assessment of institutionaleffectiveness incorporate results from studentlearning outcomes assessments as well asassessment of results in other areas, as notedin the standards? Are these related to areas ofemphasis in the institution’s plan(s) and theestablished priorities for resource allocationand budgeting? [Relationship to OtherStandards]

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention –Examples

Are retention goals consistent with long termstrategic and financial plans? Does thestrategic plan provide for improvement ofadmissions services? [Compliance]

If the institution is not meeting its admissionsgoals, are the goals sufficiently clear, realistic,and consistent with the institution’s mission?Has the institution analyzed its recruitingmaterials and processes so that they areco-ordinated and geared towards its goals?Has it interviewed accepted students who donot attend? Transfer students? Does dataanalysis disclose trends? Is the external

35


environment changing? [Relevant InstitutionalIssues]

Is the institution successful in providingfinancial assistance to students? How wouldsuch success be measured? How is thissuccess assessed in terms of how studentlearning outcomes are correlated to thefinancial need of the student?[Compliance/Assessment]

Do comparisons of the institution’s retentionand graduation rates to similar schools,aspirant institutions, and national averagesindicate that the institution is performingeffectively? If not, what should be done?[Assessment]

How are lessons learned from retentionstudies used to improve academic andstudent support programs? [Assessment]

What are the criteria for assessing whetherperiodic review of admissions policies iseffective? Are changes in the process needed? [Assessment]

What do demographic trends suggest will bethe future of the institution’s student base?How is the institution positioning itself tohandle any anticipated demographic changes? What else should it consider doing?[Improvement]

Are enrollment projections sufficiently realistic to support the institution’s financialprojections? [Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 9: Student Support Services – Examples

How effective, well understood, andconsistently implemented are the institution’sprocedures and policies relative to the privacy of student information? [Compliance]

How does the institution provide support toenrolled students who are identified as being“at risk”? How effective are these supportservices. [Compliance]

What type of personal and socialdevelopment does the institution seek tofoster? How effective are programs andservices designed to support thisdevelopment? [Relevant InstitutionalIssues/Assessment]

When was the most recent review of studentsupport services for off-site and distancelearning students? What were the findings?What actions were taken in response?[Relevant Institutional Issues/Assessment]

What changes in the provision of studentsupport services have been implemented over the past five years? What evidence is therethat such changes (addition, expansion,elimination) were based on appropriateassessment results? To what extent do suchchanges demonstrate an institutionalcommitment to student success and theachievement of student learning outcomes?How effective were the changes? [Assessment]

Which services should be improved, added,expanded, or eliminated? How shouldchanges be implemented? [Improvement]

Are inadequate services preventing theinstitution from achieving its student learninggoals? [Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 10: Faculty – Examples

How are faculty involved in academicprogram development, assessment, andimprovement? If the methods or mechanismsfor involvement have changed over the pastfive years, what has been the impact of thesechanges? [Compliance]

Are faculty development opportunitiesequitably distributed? If not, why not? Has the level of institutional supportincreased, decreased, or remained stable over time? What has been the impact?[Compliance/Assessment]

How does the institution know that its policies and practices actually enable it to recruit,develop and retain faculty who support theteacher/scholar model? How does its successin doing that compare to peer institutions?[Compliance/Assessment]

Are there differences across departments inthe criteria for faculty appointment, tenure,and promotion? Identify and evaluate thebasis for such differences. [RelevantInstitutional Issues]

What impact has the introduction of graduate programs had on faculty resources, workload,morale, and collegiality? [RelevantInstitutional Issues]

36


How has the utilization of part-time andadjunct faculty changed over the past fiveyears? What has been the impact on studentlearning and success? [Assessment]

How are graduate students incorporated intothe instructional process for undergraduates?[Assessment]

How will the institution plan for theretirement of a large percentage of the facultywithin a short time period? [RelevantInstitutional Issues/Improvement]

How should expenditures for facultydevelopment be prioritized? [Improvement]

How do faculty issues affect student learning?[Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 11: Educational Offerings – Examples

How well communicated and how easilyaccessible are statements of expected studentlearning outcomes at the institutional,program, and course levels? [Compliance]

In what ways do transfer students have alearning experience that is different from thatof students in the same program who havecompleted all their courses at the institution?What impact does transfer have on theintended coherence of the academicprograms? How should any problems beaddressed? [Relevant InstitutionalIssues\Assessment]

What evidence demonstrates that theinstitution’s educational offerings haveacademic content and rigor appropriate to the degree level(s)? How do the programdevelopment and assessment processes fosterperiodic consideration of academic contentand rigor? [Compliance/Assessment]

What evidence is there that students aremeeting the institution’s goals for studentinformation literacy? How are such goalsassessed, what have been the findings, andwhat actions have been taken in response?[Compliance/Assessment]

How pervasive and effective are opportunities for students to synthesize and reflect on theirlearning? [Assessment]

How well do students understand thepurpose and interrelationship of eachrequirement of their academic programs?[Assessment]

Does an existing mandate of a single coursesyllabus and a required text for multi-sectioncourses enhance or diminish the achievement of student learning outcomes, and whatevidence supports this conclusion? If theinstitution is decentralized, would it benefitfrom greater centralization? [Assessment]

How should we select and assess futureeducational offerings? [Improvement]

Are the institution’s educational offeringsconsistent with its recruiting materials andmission? [Relationship to Other Standards

Standard 12: General Education – Examples

What evidence exists that the institution’sgraduates meet expected, acceptable levels of competency in oral and writtencommunication, scientific and quantitativereasoning, technological capability,information literacy, and critical analysis andreasoning? Are these levels of competencyappropriate given institutional mission and the needs and aspirations of students?[Compliance]

Should responsibility for the “generaleducation” of students be shared across thefaculty instead of being the specialresponsibility of the arts and sciences faculty?[Relevant Institutional Issues]

In what ways and for what reasons has thegeneral education program been changedover the past five years? How has the impactof these changes been assessed? Whatmodifications or further assessments havebeen implemented as a result? What furthermodifications should be considered?[Relevant Institutional Issues]

How effectively are general educationrequirements and academic programrequirements linked and interrelated?[Assessment]

If graduates are not meeting expectedcompetency levels, how does the institutionaddress this? To what extent and in whatparticular ways has the institution usedassessment results to modify the educational

37


program and services? Have suchmodifications brought demonstrableimprovement? What should be done in thefuture? [Improvement]

How do the institution’s planning, resourceallocation, and assessment processes reflectinstitutional commitment to general education goals? [Improvement]

How is general education coordinated withthe overall curriculum? [Relationship to Other Standards]

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities –Examples

Basic Skills

How significant is the institution’scommitment to providing programs andservices for under-prepared students? Doesthe assessment of these programs and services demonstrate that the level of institutionalinvestment and commitment is warranted?Do these programs and services achieve theirstated student learning and developmentgoals? [Assessment]

Certificate Programs

Are the processes for developing, offering,and evaluating certificate programs coherentand consistent across the institution? How, ifat all, do certificate programs relate to existing academic departments, degree programs,existing faculty? Is the level of relationship and connection effective and appropriate?[Compilance]

Experiential Learning

How effectively does the institution assurethat credit granted for experiential learning iswarranted, defensible, and consistentlyapplied? [Assessment]

Non-Credit Offerings

In what ways and for what reasons haveprocedures for approving, administering, andevaluating non-credit offerings changed overthe past five years? What has been the impact of these changes? [Relevant InstitutionalIssues]

Distance Learning

What evidence exists that students in distance learning courses achieve learning goalscomparable to the goals achieved by studentsin face-to-face courses? [Assessment]

Affiliated Providers

How effective is the institutional oversight ofprograms offered through partnerships withinternational entities? What is the impact ofinternational programs on the institution’shuman, fiscal, technological, and otherresources? [Assessment]

Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning –Examples

How effectively do all academic and supportprograms document that the curriculum orprogram helps students achieve each keylearning outcome? How effectively does theinstitution provide students with clearinformation on how they are expected toachieve each key learning outcome (i.e., what assignments and learning experiences willhelp them achieve it)? [Compliance]

How adequate are campus efforts to encourage, recognize, and value facultyefforts to assess student learning and toimprove their teaching? [Relevant Issues]

Are assessments of student learning ofadequate quality? Do they yield directevidence that is clear, tangible, convincing,and purposefully relates to the program’s keylearning outcomes, havingresults that aresufficiently accurate and truthful that they can be used with confidence to make decisions?[Assessment]

If some programs have not yet implementedsufficient assessments of their key studentlearning outcomes, how adequate are theplans in place to do so? [Improvement]

Have assessment results led to appropriatedecisions about teaching, planning,budgeting, etc? [Relationship to OtherStandards]

38


Questions for Multiple Standards and Thematic Self-Studies

This section on developing effective self-studyresearch questions has emphasized theimportance for all self-studies of asking how thestandard being considered relates to otherstandards, and how the efforts of working groupscan be coordinated to avoid unnecessaryduplication. Because the standards and theaspects of institutions they reflect overlap andinteract, addressing each standard separately maynot be the most effective way to organize aself-study or to develop effective self-studyquestions. When the standards are groupedtogether for a working group and a chapter in aself-study report, and especially if the self-study isorganized thematically rather than standard bystandard, the analytical questions developed bythe steering committee and/or working groups could address multiple standards.

Much of the advice given above with regard toquestions for a single standard also applies to thedevelopment of questions covering severalstandards. For example, any of the samplequestions (such as how the institution’s mission isreflected in its strategic planning, admissionspolicies, or curriculum) could be used in aself-study that addressed standards together orthematically.

In a selected topics self-study organized aroundthe theme of undergraduate education, forexample, the standards on planning (2), studentadmissions (8), student support services (9),educational offerings (11), general education (12),and assessment of student learning (14) could beaddressed in whole or in part in the self-study.(See Figure 11 in Chapter 3.) One working groupmight be charged to examine undergraduateacademic affairs and another undergraduatestudent affairs. The academic affairs workinggroup could address all or part of Standards 8, 9,11, 12, and 14. Its research and analysis might beguided by questions such as: “To what extent andhow effectively are the institution’s uniquecharacteristics (for example, as a large, private,global research university in an urbanenvironment) reflected in current efforts toenhance undergraduate education? In what waysshould those characteristics shape a vision forfuture efforts?” The student affairs working groupcould concentrate on Standard 9, but seek to answer questions that relate to more than onestandard, such as: “What is the potential for

enhancing the learning environment in theresidence halls?" (9); "Would involving faculty andgraduate students in residence hall programsenhance the learning environment?" (10); or"Which programs would be most effective?”

Using Existing Documentation

The self-study process should not be seen as onethat creates documentation but, rather, as aprocess for gathering and analyzing existingevidence in order to advance institutionalself-understanding and self-improvement, and to demonstrate that the institution possesses thecharacteristics of excellence identified in theCommission’s standards.

The institution’s self-study design document willinclude an inventory of support documents thatthe self-study working groups can use. It is oftentempting to prepare an exhaustive list ofinstitutional documents, but it is more useful to list only those documents that have beenidentified as relevant to the general or specific fociof the self-study. It may prove useful to organizethe document inventory to match the organization of the self-study (by standard, topic, workinggroup, etc.).

The self-study should draw primarily on thatexisting documentation, with new evidence beinggathered only in a small number of limited andwell-defined research projects. The working group reports and final self-study report should refer toexisting documents, rather than include extensivedescriptions of the evidence contained in thosedocuments. Those documents then are madeavailable to the evaluation team by appendingthem to the self-study, by providing them to teammembers on request by the team chair, and bymaking all of them available to the evaluationteam electronically or in a resource room duringits visit to campus. (See the Commission’spublication Team Visits: Conducting and Hostingan Evaluation Visit for detailed information on thepreparation of the resource library for the team.)Selected topics self-studies depend even moreheavily on documentation to demonstratecompliance with the standards not covered in theself-study. (See the section on “The SelectedTopics Self-Study” in Chapter 3 of this handbook.)

39


Descriptions as Documentation

It is rarely possible to demonstrate an institution’scompliance with a standard solely with existingdocuments. Consequently, documentation for astandard may also include, within the self-study,descriptions of relevant information not includedin support documents. While relying upon existing documents as key resources to the self-studyprocess (and making these resources available tothe team during the evaluation visit), institutionsconducting comprehensive reviews will provide,within their self-studies, both description andanalysis based upon these document resources.Documentation provided in the evaluation team’sresource room also may include detaileddescriptions of processes or institutional initiatives(rather than include the full description within theself-study); these descriptive documents would bereferenced in a summary manner in the actualself-study.

For a selected topics self-study, somesupplemental description for standards notincluded in the self-study may be used andprovided to evaluators at the time of thedocument review. For Standard 1 (mission andgoals), for example, such descriptive materialmight explain the process for reviewing themission, note the constituencies involved inwriting and revising the mission statement, andcite examples of how the mission guidedinstitutional planning. For Standard 2 (planning,resource allocation, and institutional renewal),descriptions might include those of the processesused for each type of planning, the constituenciesinvolved, the decision-makers, and representativeinstitutional and unit improvements based onassessment of the planning process.

Sample document lists

The following list includes examples of existingdocuments that a steering committee might gather for the use of its working groups and visiting team. These are only suggestions; an institution may nothave a particular document or kind of document,but it may have others. If all existing informationresources are identified and organized, they willbe more accessible to the self-study groups fortheir research and analysis and to the visiting team for its evaluation of the institution.

Reports to other accreditors and agencies areincluded in the sample lists. They can serve asresources for the self-study and the visiting teamto the extent that they provide evidence ofcompliance with the Commission’s standards.

In a comprehensive self-study, existing documents are used extensively by the working groups andsteering committee in preparing the self-studyreport. Members of the team might request someof them before the visit or examine some in theresource room during the visit.

In a selected topics self-study, the institutionsubmits a document roadmap as part of thepreliminary proposal and the design document.The documents related to the topics andstandards addressed in the study are used by theworking groups and made available to the teamduring its visit, while those related to the otherstandards are examined by the generalist reviewer in order to determine compliance with thestandards.

These suggestions are intended to stimulatethinking about the range of existing documentsthat might be used in support of self-study andinstitutional management. It may be helpful forthe self-study steering committee to comment onthe availability and usefulness of institutionalinformation and data as well as on any perceivedgaps or improvements that might be made topromote on-going institutional assessment andplanning.

Documents Likely to be Useful

Documents That Apply toMore Than One Standard

V The institution’s published catalog orbulletin

V Institutional data submitted to the federalgovernment in IPEDS reports

V The president’s or the institution's annualreport

V Reports to state and other governmentaleducational agencies

V Reports to specialized accreditingorganizations

V Benchmark reports compiled byinstitutional offices (institutional research,finance, etc.)

40


V Statistical data in an institutional “factbook” and specialized reports by theinstitutional research office

V An institutional strategic plan

V An institutional assessment plan

V Retention studies

V Surveys of students, employees, alumni

V Relevant budget information

V Minutes of relevant and importantmeetings

V Reports on and supporting materials fromrelevant workshops, conferences,orientation/training sessions

V Handbooks/manuals for faculty, staff,students, and institutional committees

V Institutional reports to Middle States:Institutional Profiles, a previous PeriodicReview Report, a previous Self-StudyReport, and any follow-up reports orsubstantive change proposals

V Collective bargaining agreements, asbackground information


V Statements of the institution’s mission andgoals in the catalog and other publicdocuments

V An institution's strategic plan

V Unit annual reports

V Unit strategic plans

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal

V Strategic and capital goals and plans for the institution and its operational units

V Current and projected budgets for theinstitution and its units

V Faculty staffing plans

V Information technology plan(s)

V Institutional and unit-level developmentand fund-raising plans

V Capital facilities master plan

V Library and information resources plan

V Policies and procedures for adding orclosing academic programs


V Audited financial statements for the twoprevious years

V Budget projections and related documents

V Facilities, land use, and other master plans

V Faculty staffing plans

V An institution's strategic plan

V Institutional and unit-level developmentand fund-raising plans


V Governing documents, including charterand bylaws

V List of Board members, with job titles

V Orientation materials and/or handbook forgoverning board members

V Conflict of interest policies for thegoverning board and employees

V Governing board minutes

V Job description and qualifications of thepresident

V Written policies outlining governanceresponsibilities of administration andfaculty

V Student government constitution andbylaws


V Organization chart of senior administration

V Handbooks/manuals for faculty, staff, andinstitutional committees

V Job descriptions and qualifications foradministrators

V Orientation materials and handbooks foremployees


V Descriptions in the catalog and otherpublic documents of student grievanceprocedures, student disciplinaryprocedures, student honors system, fairemployee hiring and review practices, andother policies and practices identified inStandard 6, including the provision ofinformation about MSCHE

V Policies and guidelines regarding plagiarism and use of copyrighted materials

V Conflict of interest and research ethicspolicies

V Policies regarding academic freedom

41


V Policies regarding intellectual propertyrights

V Institutional review board policies andprocedures

V Institutional ethics board policies andprocedures

V Affirmative action policies and handbooks


V Written assessment plan and processdescriptions that meet the requirements ofStandard 7 and identify the linkage tostrategic planning

V Institutional and unit strategic plansreflecting use of assessment results

V Institutional “report cards”

V Results from surveys including internalsurveys of students, staff, faculty, alumni,and external surveys


V Statements in the catalog and elsewhere ofadmissions criteria and policies

V Information and application packets forstudents

V Information supplied to applicantsregarding academic programs (includingrequired placement or diagnostic testing);student learning outcomes; financial aid,scholarships, grants, loans and refunds;transfer credit and credit forextra-institutional college-level learning(which also meet the requirements forStandard 11)

V Retention and graduation statistics andstudies

V Enrollment management strategic plans

V Relevant results of internal surveys ofstudents and alumni, and external surveys


V Student handbooks

V Policies and procedures for studentgrievances, with description of howinformation is disseminated to students

V Reports and plans from student serviceoffices (health, housing, dining, counseling, career services, safety and security,disabled students, social/cultural activities,campus ministries, Greek, and communityservice)

V The policy for maintaining student recordsand a published policy on the release ofstudent information

V Data and reports on athletics

V Relevant results of internal surveys ofstudents and alumni, and external surveys


V List of full- and part-time faculty, withcredentials

V Faculty handbook

V Faculty senate and/or council structure,constitution, and bylaws

V Faculty staffing plan

V Faculty manual or comparable documentsdescribing procedures, policies, andcriteria for hiring and reviewing full andpart-time faculty, and for promotion,tenure, grievance, discipline, and dismissal

V Policy on academic freedom

V Materials from new faculty orientation

V Reports on and plans for facultydevelopment

V Policies for orientation, integration, andprofessional development of part-timefaculty

V Summary of results of student course andteaching evaluations

V Relevant results of internal surveys offaculty

V Ratios of students to full-time and topart-time faculty

V Description of shared governance


V Catalog describing courses and programsand degree requirements

V Representative examples of course syllabiand program descriptions that incorporateexpected learning outcomes

V Course and program developmentguidelines and procedures

V Curriculum audits

V Curriculum committee reports

V Summary results of student course andteaching evaluations

V Summary results of relevant studentsurveys

V Internal and external reviews of academicprograms

42


V Reports to state and other governmentaland regulatory agencies

V Reports to specialized accreditingorganizations

V Library and information services reportsand plans

V Statements of transfer credit policies in theinstitutional catalog and elsewhere

V Representative samples of transferarticulation agreements

V Evidence of appropriate licensure


V Catalog, syllabi, or other officialpublications describing general education,within and outside the major

V Statements of general education learningobjectives

V Samples of syllabi from a representativeselection of general education courses,showing expected course learningoutcomes

V Samples of assessment tools in place in thegeneral education program and courses

V Examples of the use of assessment resultsto improve teaching and learning ingeneral education

V If there is not an implemented assessmentstrategy for general education, the plans for assessment activities and the schedule forimplementing them

V Reports from internal and external reviewsof the general education program


V Documents pertinent to the institution’sspecific activities, such as curriculum plansand evaluations; assessment results forbasic skills, certificate, experientiallearning, and distance learning programs;data and plans for branch campuses andadditional locations; and contracts withaffiliated providers.


V Institutional plan(s) for assessment ofstudent learning

V Institutional and/or unit-level policies andguidelines for assessing student learning

V Institutional and/or unit-level policies andpractices for recognizing and rewardingefforts to assess student learning

V Statements of expected learning outcomesfor the institutional, program, and generaleducation levels

V Samples of syllabi from a broadcross-section of programs and courses,showing course-level expected learningoutcomes

V Evidence of faculty training in assessment

V Samples of assessment tools in place (e.g., rubrics, surveys, portfolios, orcapstone courses) from a broadcross-section of programs and courses

V A cross-section of examples of the use ofassessment results to improve teaching and learning

V Relevant results from student course andteaching evaluations

43


Chapter 5

Implementing the Design andWriting the Self-Study Report

The self-study report summarizes each institution’s self-analysis and future plans. It sets the agenda for the visiting team of peer reviewers. Moreimportantly, it sets the agenda for the institutionitself for several years. As a “living” document, aclear self-study report can serve as a plan and areference source for all of the institution’sconstituencies.

By the time the self-study design has beendeveloped and approved by Middle States, an institutional steering committee should be in place and the process well underway.However, there are a number of broad mattersthat should be kept in mind as the institutionproceeds to complete the self-study.

Managing theSelf-Study Process

The organization of and relationships between the self-study steering committee and working groupsare described in Chapter 2 of this handbook.Steering committees tend to be most active at thebeginning of the self-study process, when they aredeveloping the self-study design and makingdecisions about the organization of the groups and the charges to them, and at the end, when thefindings reported by the working groups are usedto produce the final self-study report.

The working groups are most active in the middleperiod of the self-study, when they areundertaking research to answer their researchquestions and drafting interim and final reports tothe steering committee.

The structure of the relationships among thesteering committee and working groups will varyby institution, but in all cases it is the steeringcommittee’s responsibility to ensure that the

self-study proceeds on schedule and that there iseffective communication among the self-studygroups, between them and the institution’sadministration and faculty, and with the campuscommunity in general.

Every campus constituency needs to feelownership of the process and of the self-studyproduct. Full and frequent communication is animportant prerequisite to that institutionalownership. The self-study design, organizedaround key issues derived within the institution,should be distributed to every person directlyinvolved in the process and should be madewidely available on the campus. Informationshould be conveyed and opportunities forcomment and review provided at the variousstages of the self-study process.

Potential Pitfalls

Experience has shown that the self-study steeringcommittee must guard against a number ofpotential pitfalls. Some of the most commonproblems and pointers to overcome them areillustrated in the following notes and in Figure 17.Any of these problems or pitfalls can side-track aself-study effort, costing the steering committeetime and endangering successful completion ofthe report.

1. The Benefits of Self-Study

Pitfall: Viewing self-study as peripheral to theinstitution’s work

Pointer: Focus on issues of importance to theinstitution and remember that planning,assessment, and accreditation can help theinstitution to realize greater benefits as itcontinuously improves the quality of educationalprograms.

44

The visiting team will be composed of peers whohave experience in similar institutions and whounderstand the challenges and opportunitiesinherent in the institution’s mission and goals.

2. Description vs. Analysis

Pitfall: Describing what the institution doeswithout analysis

Pointer: Analyze how what the institution doesaffects its students and whether what it does isrelated to the goals set out in its plans and mission statement.

3. Supporting Data

Pitfall: Using unsupported assertions aboutstudent learning and achievement

Pointer: Provide data, explain the methods usedto gather them, and describe how the evidencewill be used to promote institutional change andimprovement.

4. Analyzing and Presenting Data

Pitfall: Using confusing or conflicting data andstatistical jargon

Pointer: Provide analytical reporting to explainwhat was learned about students and theirachievements, programs and their effectiveness,and whether the institution’s mission and goals are being achieved in classrooms and co-curricularprograms. Always confirm data sources andaccuracy.

5. Strategic Planning

Pitfall: Relying on non-specific aspirations

Pointer: A strategic plan typically states goals thatare based on the institution’s mission and valuestatements and that are measurable. Institutionalplans should be consistent, so that goals lead tocurricular design, and the institutional assessmentplan follows from the design.

6. Benchmarks

Pitfall: Assuming that the institution is too“special” to use available benchmarks

Pointer: Use benchmarks to set specific goals forthe strategic plan, and use those goals for realisticassessment. If widely published availablebenchmarks are not a good comparison, use a

variety of sources to construct a useful cohort. If suitable benchmarks are not available, identifyother frames of reference (such as improvementover time, achievement of stated goals, etc.).

7. Role of Special Interest Groups

Pitfall: Allowing a subgroup or individual to standin the way of the whole

Pointer: Establish early in the process how therecommendations of the self-study report will bedetermined. Constituencies should hold eachother accountable for constructive participation inthe self-study.

45


Figure 17

Potential Pitfalls in theSelf-Study Process

1. The Benefits of Self-Study

Viewing self-study as peripheral to theinstitution’s work

2. Description vs. Analysis

Reiterating what the institution does

3. Supporting Data

Using unsupported assertions, such as thatstudents have learned

4. Analyzing and Presenting Data

Using confusing or conflicting data andstatistical jargon

5. Strategic Planning

Relying on non-specific or unrealisticaspirations

6. Benchmarks

Assuming that the institution is too “special”to use available benchmarks

7. Role of Special Interest Groups

Allowing one type of constituency to control or to unreasonably thwart the self-studyprocess

8. Authority of Each Institutional Constituency

Pitfall: Allowing one type of institutionalconstituency (such as faculty or administration orinstitutional researchers) to control or thwart theself-study process

Pointer: Share accountability for leadership—andthe authority to lead—among all key institutionalconstituencies (governing board, administration,faculty, staff, students, and alumni).

Writing the Self-Study Report

The goal of the self-study process is a report thatfairly and honestly represents the institution, thatavoids institutional politics and personal agendas,that warrants and receives broad support amongcampus constituencies, and that demonstratesinstitutional compliance with Commissionstandards. The process leading to that report is aseries of written drafts, punctuated by periods ofdata collection, analysis, and review. Theself-study design (described in Chapter 3) is thefirst document produced, to be followed byreports from the working groups and, finally, theself-study report itself.

Reports from the Working Groups

Working group reports are discussed and asuggested template for them is provided inChapter 3 of this handbook. (See Figure 8.)It may be useful to require the groups to submitoutlines and preliminary drafts at various pointsduring the self-study process before they submittheir final reports. All documents should followthe guidelines for editorial style and formatcontained in the self-study design.

The steering committee should review the working groups’ reports to ensure that all appropriatetopics have been addressed. The steeringcommittee then should determine if self-studyquestions have been appropriately answered andwhether the working groups have developed andpresented sufficient information and evidence to support the writing of the self-study report itself. If the steering committee finds insufficient topiccoverage or inadequate demonstration ofinstitutional compliance with Commissionstandards, relevant working groups should beasked to address these needs within specified time periods.

Initial Draft of the Self-Study Report

After the working group reports and other relevant information have been compiled, the steeringcommittee begins to draft the self-study itself. Thesteering committee should create a concise,readable, and substantial draft document forreview and comment by the campus community.The final report should be no longer than 200double-spaced or 100 single-spaced pages.Length, however, is less important than substance; brevity with substance is ideal. The institution’scommunity includes faculty members, students,trustees, administrators, staff, alumni, parents,employers, neighbors, and for publicly-fundedinstitutions, legislative representatives. The reportalso should be made available, at the discretion of the institution, for informational use by outsidegroups.

Organization of the Report

The self-study report usually incorporates theworking groups’ reports. The template used by the evaluation team in preparing its report is similar.See Figure 18 for an example of the structure of aself-study report. (See the Commission’spublication on Team Visits: Conducting andHosting an Evaluation Visit for additional detailsabout the evaluation team’s report.)

Within each self-study model, reports may beorganized in different ways. The section on“Choosing a Self-Study Model” in Chapter 3includes sample templates for the various kinds ofreports and explains that one common approachis to track the accreditation standards in the orderthey appear in Characteristics of Excellence.Standards may, however, be reordered,combined, or grouped differently, and a reportmay be structured to reflect an institution’sparticular culture, structure, processes, or currentissues.

For a self-study report not organized in the orderof the standards in Characteristics of Excellence,the evaluation team report usually will follow theorder of the institution’s report. In this case, it isimportant that the self-study report indicate clearly how the evidence and analysis presented in eachsection relate to each of the standards, becausethe team must determine and indicate in its report whether the institution meets all the standards.

46


The Writing Process

A concise, coherent self-study report is more thana collection of working group reports. If thesteering committee chooses to have each workinggroup write a chapter of the self-study report, theworking group reports should be consistent instyle, format, and structure. The final reportshould be edited for accuracy, consistency, andcontinuity. Alternatively, the report writers use the working group reports to provide the analysis ofevidence that they use in writing the entire report.

It is important to build into the self-study schedule adequate time for the writing, review, and revision of the final report. Design elements and printing

needs should be established and arranged beforethe final self-study has been completed.

Review, Response, and Revision

Involving the entire campus community in theprocess is one of the prerequisites for effectiveself-study. Steering committees should provideopportunities for the community to review andrespond at key points throughout the self-studyperiod. Students, faculty members, trustees, andothers can provide more informed and valuablesuggestions if they are involved in the productionof the working committee and the final self-studyreport at various stages.

47


Figure 18

Self-Study Report Format

Executive Summary and Eligibility Certification Statement

ã A brief (1-5 pages) description of the major findings and recommendations of the study. For selectedtopics self-studies, the executive summary should also include an explanation of which standards arecovered wholly or partially in the self-study and which in the document review.

ã The Eligibility Certification Statement should be attached to the Executive Summary

Introduction

ã A brief overview of the institution and description of the self-study process

For each standard or topic in the report:

ã A heading indicating the standard or topic under consideration

ã A description of the topic(s) under review and analysis of the evidence considered, with appropriatereference to the standards

ã Cross-references to relevant materials in other parts of the report

ã Analysis of relevant strengths and challenges, with appropriate reference to standards and fundamentalelements

ã Recommendations for improvement

Conclusion

ã A summary of the major conclusions reached and recommendations offered in the report.

Note: Institutions are expected to include within, or as a companion document to, the self-studyreport a list of supporting documents that will be available to the visiting team. This list is sometimesannotated and frequently distinguishes between general institutional resource documents anddocuments pertinent to particular standards or self-study chapters. The listed documents should beavailable in a separate “document room,” in paper or electronic form, for review by the team during its visit. For selected topics self-studies, the report of the generalist evaluator(s) must be accompaniedby the institution’s documentation roadmap.

Careful consideration of the ideas expressed bythe campus community, and modification of thereport where warranted, helps ensure that thefinal document will reflect a common institutionalperspective and that it will be widely acceptedacross the institution.

Providing Draft Report Before The Chair’s Preliminary Visit

The chair of the evaluation team should receivethe latest draft of the self-study report prior to theChair’s preliminary visit to the institution, at leastfour months before the team visit. Any significantdifferences between the report envisioned in theearlier design document and the actual reportshould be explained to the Chair. The Chair reads the draft report with the visiting team in mind,and the Chair may recommend modifications to make the report more useful to the team.

Responses to suggestions by the Chair of theevaluation team should be incorporated prior tofinalization of the self-study report.

After the report has been revised in light of theresponses of the community and the team Chair,it should be endorsed by the institution’sgoverning body.

Certification of Eligibility

At the time the self-study report is submitted, theinstitution also certifies that it meets or continuesto meet all the eligibility requirements of theMiddle States Commission on Higher Education.The eligibility requirements are published in thecurrent edition of Characteristics of Excellence.The Commission will send the institution theCertification Statement form illustrated in Figure 19, which must be completed and attached to the Executive Summary of the final self-studyreport.

Submitting the Final Report

The final self-study report should be ready fordistribution no later than six weeks prior to thescheduled evaluation team visit.

At that time, the institution should send one copyof each of the following directly to the chair andto each member of the evaluation team (and twosets to the Commission office):

V The Self-Study Report, including theEligibility Certification Statement attachedto the Executive Summary

V The most recent Institutional Profilesubmitted to the Commission

V Supporting documents essential tounderstanding the self-study, such asinstitutional catalogs, organizational charts,and faculty and student handbooks

V The institutional financial plan for thecurrent year and for the succeeding yearscovered by the plan

V Actual enrollment for the current year andthe three previous years (if not includedwithin the self-study report)

V Projected enrollment for the periodcovered by the institution’s financial plan(if not included within the self-study report)

In addition, one set of these additional financialdocuments should be sent to the member of theteam assigned to review financial information(and two sets to the Commission):

V The two most recent audited financialstatements and management letters

V The financial information submitted toIPEDS for the three previous years

In some cases, additional financial documentsmay be required. For example, when anaccredited institution is a unit of a largerdiversified corporation, the Commission willrequire sufficient information about the accredited institution to determine its financial health andwell-being.

48


49


Figure 19

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Certification Statement:Compliance with MSCHE Eligibility Requirements

& Federal Title IV Requirements

An institution seeking initial accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation must affirm that itmeets or continues to meet established MSCHE eligibility requirements and Federalrequirements relating to Title IV program participation by completing this certificationstatement. The signed statement should be attached to the Executive Summary of the institution’s self-study report.

If it is not possible to certify compliance with all eligibility requirements and Federal Title IVrequirements, the institution must attach specific details in a separate memorandum.

________________________________________________________ is seeking:(Name of Institution)

(Check one) q Reaffirmation of Accreditation q Initial Accreditation

The undersigned hereby certify that the institution meets all established eligibility requirementsof the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and Federal requirements relating to Title IV program participation.

q Exceptions are noted in the attached memorandum (Check if applicable.)

________________________________ _______________(Chief Executive Officer) (Date)

________________________________ _______________(Chair, Board of Trustees or Directors) (Date)

The Self-Study Report asA Living Document

The self-study process represents a significantcommitment in time and other institutionalresources. It also presents a unique opportunity to reflect on the institution’s progress and toinform institutional plans. The continuingusefulness of the self-study document depends onthe clarity of its content and recommendations, aswell as on its availability to institutionalconstituencies.

The institution may ensure continuing use of theself-study recommendations by taking such stepsas:

V continuing the existence of the steeringcommittee

V creating time lines with assignments ofresponsibility for accomplishing therecommendations of the self-study and the visiting team

V incorporating the recommendations intothe explicit charges to already-existingcommittees

V using institutional research staff to support,assist, and track implementation efforts

V hiring outside consultants to assist with thedevelopment of improvement strategies

Review of implementation should be incorporated into the institution’s ongoing planning andassessment activities.

50


Chapter 6

The Accreditation ProcessAfter the Self-Study Report

Middle States accreditation is based on peerreview. The decennial evaluation culminates in athorough appraisal of the institution by peereducators from similar institutions. These peerevaluators read the self-study report and conducta team visit to assess whether the institution meets the Commission’s accreditation standards, and to help the institution improve by endorsing theinstitution’s recommendations and makingadditional suggestions of their own. The team’sevaluation is followed by discussion anddecision-making by different peers and publicrepresentatives serving on the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education. (See Figure 20.)

The Evaluation Team Visit

The Commission’s publication Team Visits:Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit is thehandbook for evaluation visits and explains theteam visit in detail. What follows here is a briefsummary of the evaluation process that results inthe Commission’s final accreditation action.

Several steps are included in the review process:

1. Commission staff nominate a team Chairapproximately one year in advance of theteam visit (less for fall visits). After the Chairand the institution agree on a date for theteam visit, staff identify several evaluatorsappropriate to the institution under reviewand to the self-study model selected by the

51

Figure 20

Peer Review in the Decennial Evaluation

noit

utitsni

eht stisiv ri

ah

C m

ae

T

ð

TheEvaluation Visit

The Team Meets

Team Interviews

Team Discussion

Chair Writes Report

ð

ð

ðThe institution

disseminates theCommission action

The Committeeon Evaluation

Reports makes arecommendation,

and theCommission takes

formal action

ð

The institutionresponds to the

team report

ð

The team reportis sent to theCommission

ð

ðMSCHE staffreport to theCommission

institution. These evaluators are invited toserve on the team. In making team memberselections, staff consider information provided by the institution in the section of theself-study design document on the profile ofthe visiting team.

2. The institution and team Chair are given an opportunity to review the confirmedmembership of the team and to givecomments before the roster is finalized.However, the final decision about teammembership remains with the Commissionand its staff. Because teams are not finalizeduntil all necessary members have agreed to serve, notification to the Chair andinstitution of the final team may not bepossible prior to the Chair’s preliminary visit.Either can request interim reports on thestatus of the team.

3. The team Chair makes a preliminary visitfour to seven months prior to the scheduledteam visit to discuss readiness for theevaluation team visit and to review logisticsand preliminary scheduling. Prior to thepreliminary visit, the institution shouldprovide the team Chair with availableinformation. This should include, at aminimum, the institution’s catalog, theself-study design, and the latest draft of theself-study report. If the self-study is a selectedtopics self-study, this preliminary visit mayalso include an additional reviewer(s). In suchcases, the scope of the Chair’s preliminaryvisit may be expanded to encompass a review of documentation related to the standards not addressed in the self-study report. (See thesection of Chapter 3 of this handbook on“Choosing a Self-Study Model.”)

4. Team members read the self-study reportand other background materials prior to theevaluation team visit.

5. During the visit, the team spends severaldays at the institution assessing it in thecontext of the self-study report. (See TeamVisits: Conducting and Hosting an EvaluationVisit.) Team members meet with faculty,students, staff, administrators, trustees, andcommunity members to corroborate theinformation provided in the report and to gather additional perspectives andsometimes additional information. They alsoexamine the documentation that theinstitution has assembled. As the team

examines the institution as a whole, it will give particular attention to any special focus in theself-study. This is especially important if theinstitution has chosen a comprehensiveself-study with an emphasis or a selectedtopics self-study. The team spends the laterpart of the visit assembling its findings into ateam report.

6. At the conclusion of its visit, the team Chair, on behalf of the evaluation team, givesan oral report to the institution. As noted inFigure 21, the team report may includecommendations for significant achievementsand non-binding suggestions forimprovement. It may recommend follow-upaction that must be taken to ensurecompliance with the Commission’saccreditation standards or if there is a concern about the continuing ability of the institutionto meet the Commission’s accreditationstandards. The report will identifyrequirements if the team believes theinstitution is not in compliance with thestandards. (For more detailed informationabout the oral and written team reports, seeTeam Visits: Conducting and Hosting anEvaluation Visit.)

After the Team Visit

Immediately after the visit the Chair drafts awritten team report, consistent with the oral report given to the institution. The draft report is sent tothe institution to be reviewed for factual accuracy. After receiving any factual corrections from theinstitution, the Chair then issues the final writtenversion of the report. The institution then sendsto the Commission a written response to thatreport. (More details on these procedures and atimetable for them are included in Team Visits:Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visit.)

The Chair, on behalf of the team, also makes aconfidential recommendation to the Commissionconcerning accreditation or reaccreditation. The Chair’s confidential brief will contain specificrecommendations for Commission action. (SeeFigure 21 for examples.)

52


53


Figure 21

Examples of Evaluation Team Commendations,Suggestions, Recommendations, and Requirements

Examples In the Team Report

Commendations

m The evaluation team commends the institution for developing and implementing acomprehensive outcomes assessment plan.

m The institution should be commended for its open and participative planning and budgetingprocess.

Suggestions

m Retention has been noted as a significant issue. In order to increase student retention, theinstitution may wish to review its programs for incoming students. The institution may alsowish to consider developing new data-gathering systems to support retention reviews.

m The strategic planning process may be more successful if institutional research data areintegrated into the planning process to facilitate judgments about the success of particularstrategies.

Recommendations

m The institution should complete development of its learning outcomes assessment plan andprocess so that it will be able to evaluate and improve academic programs.

m The institution should complete a review and revision of its mission statement, which appearsto be out-of-date when compared with current operations.

Requirement

m For the reasons explained in this report, the team finds that the institution does not fullycomply with Standard 3 on institutional resources. The institution must immediately develop a long-term financial plan, and it should consider taking the following steps to strengthen itsfinances [specific steps are listed].

Examples in the Chair’s Confidential Brief

The Brief sets forth the specific Commission actions proposed by the team. These are examples of possibleactions based on the examples of “Recommendations” and “Requirement” above. They use theCommission’s standardized language:

Recommendations

m Request that the PRR, due [date], document completion and implementation of acomprehensive plan for the assessment of student learning.

m Request that the institution submit a [progress letter or monitoring report], due by [a date nolater than two years from the date of the action], documenting review and revision of themission statement.

Requirement

m Warn the institution that its accreditation may be in jeopardy, and request a monitoringreport, due in six months, documenting (1) steps taken to strengthen the institution’s financesand (2) development of a long-term financial plan.

Following Commission review, self-study reportsand evaluation team reports become the propertyof the institution. The responsibility for distributing or providing access to these documents rests withthe institution. Unless explicitly permitted by theinstitution or required by Commission policies orapplicable law, the Commission does not sharedocuments from the evaluation process directlywith any of an institution’s constituencies, withgovernmental or any other public or privateagency, or with individuals.

The institution is expected to share the self-studyreport and evaluation team report with thecampus community, with appropriate explanation and contextual information. (For details, see Team Visits: Conducting and Hosting an Evaluation Visitand the Commission’s policy on “PublicCommunication in the Accreditation Process.”)

Commission Action

The Commission’s Committee on EvaluationReports reviews the self-study report, the teamreport, the team chair’s confidential briefpresenting the team’s recommendation for action, and the institution’s formal response to the teamreport. The Chair of the evaluation teamparticipates in the committee meeting. Theparticulars of each case are discussed fully, andthe Committee decides whether to accept ormodify the course of action recommended by theevaluation team. The Committee then makes arecommendation for final action by theCommission.

The Commission’s final decision may includeseveral types of action, ranging from reaffirmationof accreditation or reaffirmation with requiredfollow-up reports, to warning, probation or “showcause” why accreditation should not be removed. The full range of possible Commission actions isincluded in a policy statement in Policies,Guidelines, Procedures, and Best Practices,available on the Commission’s website. In theevent that an adverse action is taken by theCommission, the institution may invoke an appeal process. (See the Commission’s procedures onappeal from Commission actions. )

If the team report includes “recommendations,”the Commission’s formal action may requirespecific follow-up action by the institution, such as submission of additional reports.Recommendations for which specific follow-up

actions are not stipulated will be addressed in thePeriodic Review Report, due five years after thedecennial evaluation. (See the section below onthe Periodic Review Report.) “Suggestions” in theteam report do not require responses in the nextPeriodic Review Report.

“Requirements” are included in the team reportonly if the team finds that the institution is not incompliance with Commission standards.Commission acceptance of those requirementswould lead to warning, probation, or “showcause” why accreditation should not be removed.

The action of the Commission is communicated in writing to the institution within 10 business daysafter a Commission meeting. This communicationis delivered in the form of an action letteraddressed to the institution’s chief executiveofficer. The letter should be circulated to all of the institution’s constituencies in order to meet theCommission’s policy expectation that theinstitution communicate the Commission’s formalaction to institutional constituencies.

The action letter is accompanied by a copy of theinstitution’s Statement of Accreditation Status(SAS), which the institution may review foraccuracy. The SAS, a public informationdocument, includes basic information about theinstitution and its affiliation with the Commission.It provides a context for Commission actions andlists all Commission actions since the most recentdecennial review. A sample Statement ofAccreditation Status can be found in Appendix C.As a public information document, the SAS isprovided upon request to any inquiring individual. In the future, a copy of the institution’s SAS willbe accessible through the Commission’s web site.

When the Commission action involves warning,probation, or show cause, Commission staff willdevelop a Public Disclosure Statement toaccompany the Statement of Accreditation Status.This statement provides background informationand identifies the next steps to be taken by theinstitution and the Commission. If a final decisionis made to place an institution on probation or to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminatecandidacy or accreditation, the Commissionprovides written notice to the U.S. Secretary ofEducation, the appropriate state or other licensingor authorizing agency, and the appropriateaccrediting agencies. (For more information seethe Commission’s policy, "Public Communicationin the Accrediting Process.")

54


Follow-up Reports

As a part of an accreditation action, theCommission may require member institutions to submit a follow-up report, which may be aprogress letter, a monitoring report, or asupplemental information report. In addition, theCommission also may require a follow-up visit toan institution. Follow-up reports and visits may berequired in the event that the Commissiondetermines that there is a particular concern or aneed for additional information about a specificarea not adequately covered within the context of either the self-study, the evaluation team visit, orthe Periodic Review Report. The Commission’spolicy on “Follow-up Reports and Visits” providesguidance on drafting follow-up reports.

Follow-up visits required by the Commission mayinvolve a single Commission staff member orevaluator, or they may involve a special visitingteam. A special financial reviewer may beappointed if significant financial issues areincluded in the follow-up report. Staff follow-upvisits may be directed when the Commissionbelieves that the institution could benefit from aface-to-face discussion with Commission staff.

In cases where the Commission has directed afollow-up visit by an evaluation team, the teammay be limited in number, and it may include a staff observer and a representative of theappropriate state agency. The visiting team willissue a report and will submit a separaterecommendation for action to the Commission’sCommittee on Follow-up Activities/CandidateInstitutions. Institutions will be provided with anopportunity to review and respond to the team’sreport.

After a thorough discussion of the report(s) andany accompanying materials, the Committee willforward its recommendation to the fullCommission for a final decision. TheCommission’s action will follow the optionsprovided in the “Range of Actions” (as previouslydescribed) and will be communicated to theinstitution in an action letter accompanied by thecurrent Statement of Accreditation Status. Actionsusually will be communicated to the institutionwithin 10 business days after the Commission’smeeting.

The Periodic Review Report

One of the principles of voluntary accreditation by the Middle States Commission on HigherEducation is that peer review of written reportsfrom institutional members is required at leastevery five years, and that peer review on-siteevaluation visits are required at least every 10 years. Therefore, a Periodic Review Report(PRR) is due five years after the decennialself-study, and it leads to a decision aboutreaffirmation of accreditation.

The PRR is intended to be a retrospective, current, and prospective analysis of the institution. In thePRR, the institution reviews and analyzes itsresponses to all recommendations contained inthe institutional self-study report and theevaluation team report from the last decennialevaluation (unless they have been addressed inthe interim in required follow-up reports). The institution also assesses the impact of majordevelopments since the last evaluation, offersenrollment and financial projections, examines the status of its assessment activities, and assures thatplanning is linked to budgeting.

Substantive ChangeProposals

Accreditation or re-accreditation actions by theCommission apply to conditions existing at thetime of the Commission’s decision. TheCommission needs current information abouteach institution in order to sustain and satisfy itsaccountability requirements as an accreditingagency recognized by the federal government.

While the decision to modify an institution is aninstitutional prerogative and responsibility, theCommission is obligated to determine the effect that any substantive change may have on thequality, integrity, and effectiveness of the entireinstitution. Therefore, institutions are responsiblefor notifying the Commission of plans for certainimportant proposed or actual changes in theiroperations or status.

(More information about Substantive Change,including the definition, the required content of asubstantive change submission, and the criteriaand process for review, can be obtained from theCommission’s policy statement, "SubstantiveChange.")

55


Appendix A

The Standards inCharacteristics of Excellence in Higher Education



The institution’s mission clearly defines its purpose within the context of higher education and indicates who theinstitution serves and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals, consistent with the aspirationsand expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission. The mission andgoals are developed and recognized by the institution with the participation of its members and its governing body and are used to develop and shape its programs and practices and to evaluate its effectiveness.

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal

An institution conducts ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, developsobjectives to achieve them, and utilizes the results of its assessment activities for institutional renewal.Implementation and subsequent evaluation of the success of the strategic plan and resource allocation support the development and change necessary to improve and to maintain institutional quality.


The human, financial, technical, physical facilities, and other resources necessary to achieve an institution’smission and goals are available and accessible. In the context of the institution’s mission, the effective and efficient uses of the institution’s resources are analyzed as part of ongoing outcomes assessment.


The institution’s system of governance clearly defines the roles of institutional constituencies in policydevelopment and decision-making. The governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficientautonomy to assure institutional integrity and to fulfill its responsibilities of policy and resource development,consistent with the mission of the institution.


The institution’s administrative structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship, foster qualityimprovement, and support the institution’s organization and governance.


In the conduct of its programs and activities involving the public and the constituencies it serves, the institutiondemonstrates adherence to ethical standards and its own stated policies, providing support for academic andintellectual freedom.


The institution has developed and implemented an assessment process that evaluates its overall effectiveness inachieving its mission and goals and its compliance with accreditation standards.

56



The institution seeks to admit students whose interests, goals, and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.


The institution provides student support services reasonably necessary to enable each student to achieve theinstitution’s goals for students.


The institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supportedby qualified professionals.


The institution’s educational offerings display academic content, rigor, and coherence appropriate to its highereducation mission. The institution identifies student learning goals and objectives, including knowledge and skills,for its educational offerings.


The institution’s curricula are designed so that students acquire and demonstrate college-level proficiency ingeneral education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency.


The institution’s programs or activities that are characterized by particular content, focus, location, mode ofdelivery, or sponsorship meet appropriate standards.


Assessment of student learning demonstrates that, at graduation, or other appropriate points, the institution’sstudents have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional and appropriate higher educationgoals.

57


Appendix B

Mission Statement of theMiddle States Commission on Higher Education

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, peer-based membershipassociation dedicated to educational excellence and improvement through peer evaluation and accreditation. As a recognized leader in promoting and ensuring quality assurance and improvement in higher education, theCommission defines, maintains, and promotes educational excellence and responds creatively to a diverse,dynamic, global higher education community that is continually evolving.

The Commission supports its members in their quest for excellence and provides assurance to the general publicthat accredited member institutions meet its standards. The Commission achieves its purposes through assessment, peer evaluation, consultation, information gathering and sharing, cooperation, and appropriate educationalactivities. The Commission is committed to the principles of cooperation, flexibility, openness, and responsivenessto the needs of society and the higher education community.

58


Appendix C

Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness

Understanding Middle States Expectations

In 2002, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education introduced updated accreditationstandards that simplified requirements forresources and processes and concentrated insteadon assessment: evidence that the institution isachieving its goals. Every accreditation standardnow includes an assessment component; theassessment of student learning is addressed inStandard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning);and the assessment of all key institutional goals,including those assessed in the other thirteenstandards, is addressed holistically in Standard 7(Institutional Assessment).

Because Standards 7 and 14 are a significantchange from prior standards, and because theCommission gives institutions great latitude inchoosing approaches to comply with them, thesetwo standards have engendered many questions.This statement is intended to address thesequestions and to clarify the Commission’sexpectations regarding these standards and their relationship to other standards such asStandard 2 (Planning, Resource Allocation, andInstitutional Renewal).

What is the Assessment of InstitutionalEffectiveness (Standard 7)?

Assessment may be characterized as the thirdelement of a four-step planning-assessment cycle:

1. Defining clearly articulated institutional andunit-level goals;

2. Implementing strategies to achieve those goals;

3. Assessing achievement of those goals; and

4. Using the results of those assessments toimprove programs and services and informplanning and resource allocation decisions.

The effectiveness of an institution rests upon the contribution that each of the institution’sprograms and services makes toward achieving the goals of the institution as a whole. Standard 7(Institutional Assessment) thus builds upon allother accreditation standards, each of which

includes periodic assessment of effectiveness asone of its fundamental elements. This standardties together those assessments into an integratedwhole to answer the question, “As an institutionalcommunity, how well are we collectively doingwhat we say we are doing?” and, in particular,“How do we support student learning, afundamental aspect of institutional effectiveness?”(Standard 14). Self-studies can thus documentcompliance with Standard 7 by summarizing theassessments within each accreditation standardinto conclusions about the institution’s overallachievement of its key goals.

What is the Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14)?

Assessment of student learning may becharacterized as the third element of a four-stepteaching-learning-assessment cycle that parallelsthe planning-assessment cycle described above:

1. Developing clearly articulated learningoutcomes: the knowledge, skills, andcompetencies that students are expected toexhibit upon successful completion of a course,academic program, co-curricular program, general education requirement, or other specific set ofexperiences;

2. Offering courses, programs, and experiencesthat provide purposeful opportunities for studentsto achieve those learning outcomes;

3. Assessing student achievement of thoselearning outcomes; and

4. Using the results of those assessments toimprove teaching and learning and informplanning and resource allocation decisions.

Because student learning is a fundamentalcomponent of the mission of most institutionsof higher education, the assessment of studentlearning is an essential component of theassessment of institutional effectiveness(Standard 7) and is the focus of Standard 14(Assessment of Student Learning).

59


Why Does the Commission ExpectStudent Learning and InstitutionalEffectiveness to be Assessed?

The fundamental question asked in theaccreditation process is, “Is the institution fulfillingits mission and achieving its goals?” This isprecisely the question that assessment is designedto answer, making assessment essential to theaccreditation process. Assessment processes helpto ensure that:

ã Institutional and program-level goals are clear to the public, students, faculty, and staff.

ã Institutional programs and resources areorganized and coordinated to achieveinstitutional and program-level goals.

ã The institution is indeed achieving itsmission and goals.

ã The institution is using assessment results to improve student learning and otherwiseadvance the institution.

What Are the Characteristics ofAssessment Processes that Meet Middle States Expectations?

Effective assessment processes are useful,cost-effective, reasonably accurate and truthful,carefully planned, and organized, systematic, and sustained.

1. Useful assessment processes help faculty andstaff make appropriate decisions about improvingprograms and services, developing goals andplans, and making resource allocations. Becauseinstitutions, their students, and their environments are continually evolving, effective assessmentscannot be static; they must be reviewedperiodically and adapted in order to remainuseful.

2. Cost-effective assessment processes yielddividends that justify the institution’s investment in them, particularly in terms of faculty and stafftime. To this end, institutions may begin byconsidering assessment measures, indicators,“flags,” and “scorecards” already in place, such asretention, graduation, transfer, and placementrates, financial ratios, and surveys. New or refinedmeasures may then be added for those goals forwhich evidence of achievement is not alreadyavailable, concentrating on the institution’s most

important goals. Effective assessments are simplerather than elaborate, and they may focus on justa few key goals in each program, unit, andcurriculum.

3. Reasonably accurate and truthful assessmentprocesses yield results that can be used withconfidence to make appropriate decisions.Because there is no one perfectly accurateassessment tool or strategy, institutions should usemultiple kinds of measures to assess goalachievement. Assessments may be quantitative orqualitative and developed locally or by an external organization. All assessment tools and strategiesshould clearly relate to the goals they are assessing and should be developed with care; they shouldnot be not merely anecdotal information norcollections of information that happen to be onhand. Strategies to assess student learning shouldinclude direct—clear, visible, andconvincing—evidence, rather than solely indirectevidence of student learning such as surveys andfocus groups.

4. Planned assessment processes that arepurposefully linked to institutional goals promoteattention to those goals and plans and ensure thatdisappointing outcomes are appropriatelyaddressed. Institutions often have a variety ofplans, such as a strategic plan, academic plan,financial plan, enrollment plan, capital facilitiesmaster plan, and technology plan. Just as suchplans should be interrelated to ensure that theywork synergistically to advance the institution,assessments should also be interrelated. At manyinstitutions, effective institutional planning beginswith academic planning, which in turn drives theother plans. If the academic plan calls for a newacademic program, for example, the technologyplan should ensure faculty and students in thenew program will be able to use appropriateinstructional technologies. Assessments of thetechnology plan should evaluate not just whetherinstructional technologies have been put in placebut also how effectively those technologies havehelped students to achieve the program’s keylearning outcomes.

5. Organized, systematized, and sustainedassessment processes are ongoing, notonce-and-done. There should be clearinterrelationships among institutional goals,program- and unit-level goals, and course-level goals.

60


What Should Institutions DocumentRegarding Assessment?

When submitting information on their assessmentefforts to the Commission, institutions areexpected to document:

ã clear statements of key goals, includingexpected student learning outcomes;

ã an organized and sustained assessmentprocess (referred to in some Commissiondocuments as an “assessment plan”)including:

m institutional guidelines, resources,

coordination, and support for assessment;

m assessment activities and initiatives that are presently underway;

m plans to develop and implement future assessment activities and initiatives;

ã assessment results demonstrating that theinstitution and its students are achieving key institutional and program goals; and

ã uses of assessment results to improvestudent learning and advance theinstitution.

How Should This Information Be Organized and Formatted for Review by the Commission and Its Representatives?

Assessment documentation that is organized into a coherent presentation of what the institution isdoing regarding assessment provides a roadmapthat facilitates the work of evaluation teams,reviewers, and the Commission. Assessmentdocumentation is typically a living, fluid,organized collection of documents and/or onlineresources, often with references and/or links tofurther documents and online resources, that areroutinely updated as the institution’s assessmentprocesses evolve. There is not, however, anyprescribed format or organization for thesematerials; institutions have maximum flexibility indesigning and assembling assessmentdocumentation that fits best with the institution’smission, organization, and needs. A single, formal,polished document is not required and, for manyinstitutions, may not be the most suitable format,because it may discourage the continualmodifications that are made in effectiveassessment processes. The existence of aneffective process, clearly described to the

community and the Commission, is moreimportant than a formal plan.

Institutions may choose to include an appropriatecombination of the following in their assessmentdocumentation:

ã An overview in a self-study, periodicreview report, or follow-up report givesthe Commission and its representatives auseful introductory synopsis of theinstitution’s assessment processes.

ã A chart or “roadmap” outliningassessment documentation, providedwithin a self-study or periodic review report or as an appendix, can be especially usefulfor large or complex institutions with abroad array of goals and assessmentprocesses.

ã A written or online assessment plan thatdocuments an organized, sustainedassessment process (including institutionalguidelines, resources, coordination, andsupport for assessment, assessment activities and initiatives that are presently underway,and plans to develop and implement futureassessment activities and initiatives) can bean excellent way to initiate, structure, anddemonstrate compliance with Standards 7and 14, although it is not required.Assessment plans can guide and support the institutional community in its efforts toassess its mission and goals by:

m helping to ensure that assessment isefficient, effective, and purposeful,rather than just a collection ofavailable information,

m providing information needed to carryout assessment practices, and

m helping to ensure that assessment issupported with appropriate resourcesand that results are used appropriately.

ã Assessment documentation incorporatedwithin the institutional (strategic) plan orin separate documentation clearly linked tothe institutional plan.

ã Separate assessment documentation foreach institutional division that is linkedtogether may be a feasible approach,especially for large, complex institutions.

ã More thorough information in an on-siteresource room and/or online enablesevaluation team members to review a

61


cross-section of program- and unit-levelassessment processes.

How Are the Documentation ofInstitutional Assessment and StudentLearning Assessment Related?

As noted earlier, because student learning is afundamental component of the mission of mostinstitutions of higher education, the assessment ofstudent learning is an essential component of theassessment of institutional effectiveness. Aninstitution may therefore create institutionaleffectiveness documentation that includes acomponent on assessing student learning, or itmay create a bridge between two separate sets ofdocumentation, one for the assessment of studentlearning and one for other aspects of institutionaleffectiveness.

What Might the Commission and Its Representatives Look For inAssessment Documentation?

Evaluation team members, reviewers, andCommissioners might look for information on thefollowing questions in an institution’s assessmentdocumentation:

1. Do institutional leaders support and value aculture of assessment? Is there adequate, ongoing guidance, resources, coordination, and support for assessment? (This may include administrativesupport, technical support, financial support,professional development, policies andprocedures, and governance structures that ensure appropriate collaboration and ownership.) Areassessment efforts recognized and valued? Areefforts to improve teaching recognized andvalued?

2. Are goals, including learning outcomes,clearly articulated at every level: institutional,unit-level, program-level, and course-level? Dothey have appropriate interrelationships? Do theundergraduate curriculum and requirementsaddress institutional learning outcomes and thecompetencies listed in Middle States’ Standard 12(General Education)? Are all learning outcomes ofsufficient rigor for a higher education institution?Are learning outcomes for, say, master’s programsmore advanced than those for undergraduateprograms?

3. Have appropriate assessment processes been implemented for an appropriate proportion ofgoals? (Expectations for an “appropriateproportion” are increasing as time elapses sincethe adoption of the new Characteristics ofExcellence in 2002.) Do they meet Middle Statesexpectations, as characterized above?

4. Where assessment processes have not yet been implemented, have appropriate assessmentprocesses been planned? Are the plans feasible?Are they simple, practical, and sufficiently detailed to engender confidence that they will beimplemented as planned? Do they have clearownership? Are timelines appropriate, or are theyeither overly ambitious or stretched out too far?

5. Do assessment results provide convincingevidence that the institution is achieving itsmission and goals, including key learningoutcomes?

6. Have assessment results been shared inuseful forms and discussed widely withappropriate constituents?

7. Have results led to appropriate decisionsand improvements about curricula and pedagogy,programs and services, resource allocation, andinstitutional goals and plans?

8. Have assessment processes been reviewedregularly? Have the reviews led to appropriatedecisions and improvements in assessmentprocesses and support for them?

9. Where does the institution appear to begoing with assessment? Does it have sufficientengagement and momentum to sustain itsassessment processes? Or does it appear thatmomentum may slow? Are there any significantgaps in assessment processes, such as key areaswhere no assessment plans have been developed?

62


63


Appendix D

Sample Statement of Accreditation Status

NAME OF THE INSTITUTIONAddress of Institution

City, State and Zip Code of InstitutionPhone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx; Fax: (xxx) xxx-xxxx

www.xxxxx.edu

Chief Executive Officer:

System Information:

Institutional Information

Enrollment(Headcount):Control:Affiliation:Institution Type: (Carnegie Classification)Degrees Offered:Distance Learning: (Yes if two or more programs have been reviewed)National and Specialized Accreditation: (List includes only accreditationagencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.)

Instructional Locations

Branch Campuses:Additional Locations: Other Instructional Sites:

Accreditation Information

Status: Member since xxxx.Last Reaffirmed: xxxx.

Most Recent Commission Action: (Includes formal language from last action letter.)

Brief History Since Last Comprehensive Evaluation: (Includes summary of all actions taken since last decennial review.)

Next Self-Study Evaluation: xxxx-xxxx.

Next Periodic Review Report: June 1, xxxx.

Date Printed: xx-xxxx-xxxx (Not necessarily updated as of this date.)

Definitions

Branch Campus: A location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus ofthe institution. The location is independent if the location: offers courses in educational programs leading to adegree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential; has its own faculty and administrative orsupervisory organization; and has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Additional Location: A location, other than a branch campus, that is geographically apart from the main campusand at which the institution offers at least 50 percent of an educational program.

Other Instructional Sites: A location, other than a branch campus or additional location, at which the institutionoffers one or more courses for credit.

64


Appendix E

Types of Middle States Publications

Various documents supplement the 2006 edition of Characteristics of Excellence, describing the Middle StatesCommission on Higher Education and its accreditation processes and practices. Many of these materials areavailable on the Commission’s website (www.msche.org) and may be downloaded in PDF or as Word documents. Others may be purchased with the publications order form on the website (Publications/Forms On Line).

The various types of Commission publications include:

Manuals on Accreditation Protocols

For institutions seeking candidacy for accreditation

Guidelines for Institutional Improvement

The assessment of oversall institutional effectiveness and the assessment of student learning in particular, with afree summary available on-line

Commission Policies and Procedures

Current policy, procedural, and advisory statements, available as publications on the web.

Other Materials

An on-line, searchable directory of member and candidate institutions

The Commission’s newsletter, archived and searchable on the website

Index

AAccreditation 1-2

Assessment 4-6, 11, 16, 35, 38, 59-62

Accrediting agencies 6

BBoard (See governing board)

Brief (See Chair’s brief)

CCampus community 12, 54

Chair’s

appointment 9, 19

brief 52-53

oral report 52

preliminary visit 8-9, 25-27, 48, 52

Characteristics of Excellence

(See standards for accreditation)

Charges to working groups 15, 18, 29-43

Chief academic officer 12

Chief executive officer 12-13

Collaborative self-study model 27

Commendations (See evaluation team)

Commission

action 54-55

publications 10, 64

Commission staff liaison 8-10, 20

Communication 14, 16

Comprehensive self-study model 21-24

Comprehensive-with-emphasis self-study model 22-24

DDesign for self-study (See self-study design)

Documentation

assessment documentation 62-63

existing documentation 39-43

documentation roadmap 25-27, 40

EEducational offerings 2, 37, 57

Eligibility requirements 2, 20, 48-49

Evaluation

cycle 1

team members 19-20, 51-52

team report 52

team suggestions, recommendations,and requirements 52-54

team visit 51-54

timetable 7-9, 19

FFaculty 2, 12, 36-37, 57, 59-62

Federal government 6

Follow-up reports 3, 55

GGeneral education 2, 37-38, 57

Generalist evaluators 25-27

Governing board 12

H

IInstitutional

administration 2, 35, 56

effectiveness 6, 60-63

governance 2, 34, 56

integrity 2, 35, 56

leadership 2, 34, 56

resources 1, 23, 56

response to team report 52

J

65

KKeys to success 15-16

LLeadership 12

MModels (See Self-study models)

N

OOral report (See Chair’s oral report)

PPeer review process 1, 3-4, 42-56

Periodic review report 1, 55

Planning 2, 4-6, 11, 20, 35, 44-45, 56

Preliminary visit (See Chair’s preliminary visit)

President’s role in self-study 13

QQuestions (see Self-study research questions)

RRecommendations (See Evaluation team)

Related educational activities 2, 38, 57

Requirements (See Evaluation team)

Research questions 29-43

Roadmap (See Documentation roadmap)

SSelected topics self-study model 19, 23-27, 39-40

Self-study

design 11, 14, 17-44

institute 8

models 9, 14, 20-28

outcomes 17-18

preparation visit 8-10

process 3-4, 44

report 3-4, 11, 14, 19, 21, 44-50

research questions 29-43

steering committee 9, 11-15, 18, 29

timetable 7-9

working groups 9, 14-15, 18-19, 29-43, 46

Standards for accreditation 2, 29-43, 57-58

State government 6-7

Statement of Accreditation Status 54, 64

Student learning assessment 2, 6, 38, 59-62

Student admissions 2, 35-36, 57

Student support services 2, 36, 57

Substantive change 55-56

Suggestions (See Evaluation team)

TTeam chair (See Chair’s)

Team members (See evaluation team members)

Team report (See evaluation team report)

Timetable (See evaluation timetable)

U

V

WWorking groups (See Self-study working groups)

X, Y, Z

66


SELF STUDY - Computing Services for Faculty & Staffmidstate/documents/SelfStudy...Middle States...

Documents

Transcript of SELF STUDY - Computing Services for Faculty & Staffmidstate/documents/SelfStudy...Middle States...