Get documents about "ASSURANCE SECTION
Shared by: yangxichun
-
Stats
- views:
- 0
- posted:
- 2/17/2012
- language:
- pages:
- 48
Document Sample
ASSURANCE SECTION
REPORT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION VISIT
and
A CHANGE REQUEST TO OFFER FOUR ONLINE DEGREES IN CURRICULUM AND
INSTRUCTION (MASTER OF ARTS, EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST, DOCTOR OF
EDUCATION, AND DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY)
TO
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
Berrien Springs, MI 49104
March 23-25, 2009
FOR
The Higher Learning Commission
A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
EVALUATION TEAM
David B. Burks, President, Harding University, Searcy AR 721492256
Mary Ann Danielson, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs for Academic Excellence
and Assessment, Creighton University, Omaha NE 68178
Jeffrey R. Highland, University Provost and Vice President of the College, Saint Mary’s Univer-
sity of Minnesota, Winona MN 559871339
Donna Marie Kempf, Assistant Professor Communication Studies, Marquette University, White-
fish Bay WI 53217
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
Edgar O. Rasch, (Team Chair), Vice President and Professor Emeritus, Maryville University of
Saint Louis, St. Louis, MO 631417299
Roger William Sorochty, Vice President for Enrollment and Student Services, University of
Tulsa, Tulsa OK 74104
Cynthia Tweedell, Executive Director, Center for Research in Adult Learning, Indiana Wesleyan
University, Marion IN 469534974
Jennifer A. Wilson, Retired, Southwest Baptist University, Springfield MO 65810
2
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
Contents
I. Context and Nature of Visit ...................................................................................... 4
II. Commitment to Peer Review ................................................................................ 12
III. Compliance with Federal Requirements .............................................................. 14
IV. Fulfillment of the Criteria...................................................................................... 15
a. Criterion One................................................................................................ 15
b. Criterion Two................................................................................................. 21
c. Criterion Three .............................................................................................. 28
d. Criterion Four ................................................................................................ 32
e. Criterion Five................................................................................................. 35
V. Request for Institutional Change: online degrees in Curriculum and Instruction
(Master of Arts, Educational Specialist, Doctor of Education, and Doctor of Philoso-
phy)………………………………………………………………………………………37
VI. Affiliation Status …………………………………………………………………….42
VII. Additional Comments and Explanations..................................................... …….46
3
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
I. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT
A. Purpose of Visit
An on-site, comprehensive review for continued accreditation of Andrews University was
conducted on March 23-25, 2009, for The Higher Learning Commission of the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The visit also included a change request
to offer online degrees in Curriculum and Instruction (Master of Arts, Educational Spe-
cialist, Doctor of Education, and Doctor of Philosophy).
B. Organizational Context
Andrews University has maintained continued accreditation with HLC/NCA since 1922,
when its first two years of its degree programs were accredited as junior college work
and was known as Emmanuel Missionary College. In 1939 the College received ac-
creditation as a four-year institution.
The most recent comprehensive visit from the Higher Learning Commission occurred in
April 1999. The visiting team recommended approval of requests to offer specific exten-
sion and affiliate programs with continued accreditation and the next comprehensive visit
in 2008-2009.
Two focused site visits have occurred in the past 10 years. In 2001, a team evaluated
the University’s readiness to offer the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree; in 2007, the
Commission approved the following distance education programs:
EdD in Education (Internet)
EdS in Educational Administration (Internet)
MA in Educational Administration (Internet)
MS in Nursing Education (Internet)
PhD in Educational Administration (Internet)
C. Unique Aspects of Visit
The visit also included a change request to offer four online degrees in Curriculum and
Instruction (Master of Arts, Educational Specialist, Doctor of Education, and Doctor of
Philosophy).
A pre-visit to campus was arranged by the President, HLC Vice President, and the team
chair in mid-January for the purpose of discussing components of the self-study, the ac-
companying documentation, review of the conduct of the visit, and the characteristics of
visits to affiliation institutions and extension programs.
The team also found a new senior administrative team at Andrews University, key mem-
bers of which were central to the development of the self-study; in particular, the Provost
and the Vice President for Financial Administration were both new to the institution.
4
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
D. Sites or Branch Campuses Visited
The comprehensive evaluation on the Berrien Springs, MI was followed by visits of two
team members each afterwards to:
1. Four extension programs, where the Andrew University courses are taught by An-
drews’ faculty at a local institution:
• Southwestern Adventist University, Keene TX (April 14, 2009)
• Forest Lake Church, Orlando FL (April 21, 2009)
• University of the Southern Caribbean, Trinidad (May 10, 2009)
• Italian Theological Seminary (Villa Aurora), Florence, Italy (June 7-8, 2009)
2. One institution offering an Andrews University degree program in a affiliated relation-
ship, wherein the affiliated institution provides faculty and facilities, recruits students
and remits an annual fee to cover the work of Andrews University, which continues to
control admission of students, curriculum, and quality of faculty and academic pro-
grams:
• University of the Southern Caribbean, Trinidad (May 10, 2009)
The primary information available to the team about the 4022 students enrolled in the af-
filiations and extensions was included in the Self-Study Report, Chapter 6; with the pro-
grams, locations and administration briefly described in the Andrews University 2008-
2009 Bulletin, pp. 17-18.
E. Interactions with Constituencies
1. Board of Trustees members (7)
2. President
3. Provost
4. Vice President for Enrollment Management, Integrated Marketing & Communication
5. Vice President for Financial Administration
6. Vice President for University Advancement
7. Chief Information Officer
8. Special Assistant to the President for Spiritual Life
9. General Counsel
10. Dean of Affiliations & Extensions
11. Dean of College of Arts and Sciences
12. Dean of College Technology
13. Dean of Libraries
14. Dean of Research & Creative Scholarship
15. Dean of School of Architecture
16. Dean of School of Business Administration
17. Dean of School of Education
18. Dean of School of Graduate Studies
19. Dean of Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary
5
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
20. University Senate members (5)
21. Student leadership members representing the following organizations:
• Swim club
• Adelante Club
• Senator
• Drama Club
• Korean Club
• AFIA Club
• Deliverance Mass Choir
• Student Missionary Club
• Education Club
• Flame Keepers (Dorm Bible Study)
• Social Work Club and Phi Kappa Phi
• Assistant Chaplain for in-reach
• Senior Class Officer
• Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE)
• Anthropology Club
• International Development Club
• Scandinavian Club
22. Open faculty meeting (70)
23. Open student meeting (34)
24. Open staff meeting:
• Elementary School
• Student Success
• Periodicals
• Nutrition and Wellness
• Physics
• Financial Records
• Plant Administration
• Arts and Sciences Dean's Office staff
• Behavioral Sciences
• Public Safety
• Development
• Biology
• Chemistry
• Library
• School of Education
• Custodial Services
• Bookstore
• Information Services
• Family and Graduate Housing
• Seminary
• Music
• Enrollment Management
• Physical Therapy
6
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
• Integrated Marketing and Communications
• Human Resources
• School of Business
• University Assessment
• Internal Audit
• Nursing
• Institute of World Mission
• Student Financial Services
• International Development Program
• Center for Youth Evangelism
• Alumni Services
• Academic Records
25. Self-Study Committee (11 members)
26. University Assessment Committee
27. Budget & Planning Team
28. Director of Students Financial Services
29. Director Student Success Center
30. Assistant Director of Student Success Center
31. Director for Adventist Research
32. School of Education Online Program Committee
33. Alumni (7 Board members)
34. Director of Dining Services
35. Assistant Director of Dining Services
36. Associate Dean of Students
37. Dean of Men
38. Dean of Women
39. Registrar/Associate Provost
40. Assistant Director of Assessment
41. Director, Center of Distance Learning and Instructional Technology/Contract Faculty
in Communications
42. Director for Seminary Assessment/Chair Practical Theology
43. Assistant Dean for Student Life
44. Director of Center for Statistical Services
45. Director, Campus Ministries
46. Chaplain, Campus Ministries
47. Director, Alumni Affairs
48. Director of General Education and Retention/Associate Dean, College of Arts and
Sciences
49. Director, Human Resources
50. Program Director, Curriculum and Instruction
51. Chair, Teaching. Learning and Curriculum
52. Coordinator, Higher Education Administration
53. Director of Distance Education [School of Education]
54. Director, Off-campus Library Services
55. Director of Master of Arts in Teaching
56. School of Education/online students
57. Chair, Leadership/Education Administration
7
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
58. Program Director, Bachelor in Social Work
59. Graduate Council
60. Associate Director of Student Financial Services
61. Faculty School of Architecture (2)
62. Program Director, Physical Therapy
63. Keene, TX Extension program
• Enrollment Counselor
• Graduate Professor teaching current course in the and conference call with
five other faculty
• Students (8)
• Director of the Library
• Assistant to the President, Southwestern Adventist University (site coordina-
tor)
67. Apopka, FL Extension program
• Forest Lake Church administrator (site coordinator)
• Instructor, Adjunct Professor of Homiletics
• Students (6)
• Director of In-Ministry Center in Seminary/Associate Professor of Christian
Ministry (Associate of Ministerial Division of North America)
68. University of the Southern Caribbean, Port of Spain, Trinidad Affiliations and Exten-
sion programs
• President, University of the Southern Caribbean
• Vice President for Academic Administration
• Vice President for Development
• Representative from the Vice President for Student Service
• A Church pastor
• Deans and Chairs (18)
• Undergraduate USC faculty teaching the Andrews University Affiliation
courses (15)
• Undergraduate USC students in Andrews University Affiliation courses (16)
• Graduate Faculty teaching in the Extension program (4)
• MA Educational Psychology program students (36)
• MBA program students (46)
69. Italian Theological Seminary (Istituto Avventista), Villa Aurora, Florence, Italy Exten-
sion program
• President [of Andrews University]
• Dean of Affiliations & Extensions, who also serves as dean of the inter-school
program (Master of Science in Administration: International Development)
• Program Director for the MSA International Development
• Consultant, MSA program
• Graduate faculty member teaching in the MSA International Development
course and academic advisor
• Graduate students (28)
• Financial director, Italian Theological Seminary (Villa Aurora)
8
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
F. Principal Documents, Materials, and Web Pages Reviewed
1. 2004 University Financial Summary
2. 2005 University Financial Summary
3. 2008-2009 Student Planner
4. Academic Integrity Survey Report
5. ACS (Chemistry)
6. Admissions Report 2007
7. Affiliated institutions, sample Memoranda of Understanding
8. Affiliation and Extension Program Governance
9. Affiliation and Extension program listing 2009
10. Affiliation and Extension Programs Committee Minutes (2005-2006) and (2007-2008)
11. Affiliations Agreement between Hong Kong Adventist College and
12. Affiliations and Extensions Audit Protocol
13. Alumni Calendar of Events (2009)
14. Architecture Accrediting Board (NAAB)
15. Articles of Incorporation
16. Assessment Plan Proposal and Protocol Suggestions
17. Assessment Reports 2006, 2007
18. A-Team Final Report & Executive Summary
19. AVLN Online Course Development Standards
20. Board members database: http://www.andrews.edu/board/index.html
21. Board of Trustee survey results, 2008
22. Board of Trustees Bylaws
23. Board of Trustees minutes (past six years)
24. Capital Expenditures Plan, FY 2009
25. CAPTE (Physical Therapy)
26. Categories of Graduate Faculty Membership
27. CDR (Dietetics)
28. Clinical Lab Sciences (NAACLS)
29. Committee membership lists
30. Course evaluations for online classes
31. CSWE (Social Work)
32. Dean’s Council 2007-2008
33. Department Assessment Plans
34. Department Learning Outcomes
35. Department of Curriculum and Instruction website
36. Desire2Learn portal < https://d2l.andrews.edu/index.asp>
37. Distance Learning and Instructional Technology (Dlit) Strategic Plan
38. Diversity Profiles, 2008, 2007, 2006
39. Doctor of Physical Therapy self-study
40. Effective Governance Workshop (October26, 2008)
41. Effective Learning Council, and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (C-
TALE) Publications and minutes
42. Electronic Portfolio site (LiveText)
43. Enrollment Assessment Student Survey
44. Enrollment Management 2008 document
9
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
45. Enrollment Reports: Fall and Spring
46. FAA (Aeronautics)
47. Facilities Expenditures, 1999-2009
48. Faculty – Staff survey
49. Faculty (current rosters)
50. Faculty Development Committee notes – revised
51. Faculty Research and Creative Scholarship Reports
52. Faculty/Staff Survey, Service Report (2008); January 2009 report
53. Financial Statements, January 31, 2009
54. General Education Assessment Report
55. General Education Committee, minutes
56. Graduate Council meeting minutes
57. Graduate Programs Manual
58. Guidelines: Preparation of Portfolio for Rank Promotion and Continuous Appoint-
ment (2007-2008)
59. Hong Kong Affiliation Agreement
60. Hong Kong Exhibit A, B, C, and D
61. Human Subjects Research Approval Guide to Developing an Application for Ap-
proval of Research Involving Human Subjects and forms
62. Implementation of the Strategic Plan 2007-2012
63. Institute of Diversity and Multicultural Formation documents
64. Institutional Advancement 2008
65. Institutional Snap Shot
66. Integration of Faith and Learning, books published
67. ITS Business Continuity Plan
68. J. N. Andrews Honors Program Student Handbook
69. James White Library Annual Report 2006-2007
70. James White Library Instruction Statistics Summary Sheet
71. James White Library SWOT Analysis, 2006
72. Leadership Certificate, Student Life
73. Legacy of Leadership Business Plan
74. Major committee restructuring project (2001-2005)
75. Memorandum of Understanding Columbia Union College
76. Memorandum of Understanding Middle East
77. Minority Faculty/Student Success Initiative.
78. NASM (Music)
79. NCATE (Teacher Preparation)
80. NLNAC (Nursing)
81. Ombudspersons Report for past two years
82. Online Classes: EDC 1636, EDAL670, NRSG527
83. Operation Budgets
84. Peer Review of Teaching form
85. Physical facilities
86. Physical Therapy [Curriculum Review Document, 2008]
87. Policies, procedures and best practices for the development and teaching of online
courses (ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Center for Distance Learning and Instructional
Technology)
88. Program Review
10
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
89. Program Review process documents, and Patricia Mutch, “A Challenging Journey for
Andrews University”
90. Psychology (CACREP)
91. Remuneration – Historical Review and Future Plans
92. Report of the last comprehensive visit, subsequent Commission reviews, official insti-
tutional response to each report to the Commission, Commission action letters re-
lated to each evaluation event
93. Report on General Education Course Reviews
94. Research Council meeting minutes
95. Retention Report 2006
96. School of Education website
97. Selected academic transcripts from student studying in affiliated programs and ex-
tension sites
98. Self-Study subcommittees, minutes and materials
99. Seminary Strategic Plan (2003-2006)
100. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Subsidies, 2003-2008
101. Specialized Accreditation Reports:
102. Spiritual Master Planning: A Student Guide
103. Spring 2009 faculty loads and assignments
104. Strategic Plan – Architecture (2006-2011)
105. Strategic Plan (2009)
106. Strategic Plan Process (2001-2006)
107. Student Complaints resolved by Associate Provost
108. Student Completion Rates
109. Student evaluations of online teaching
110. Student Handbook
111. Student Life Division: “Understanding the Co-Curriculum (2008)”
112. Student Opinion of Teaching notes
113. Tanzania Study Tour Brochure, May 2009
114. “The Spirit of the Place” [Campus Master Plan (2001-2002]
115. Third Party Comment Notice and responses
116. Unit Assessment System (LiveText)
117. University Assessment Reports, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
118. University Senate minutes
119. University Strategic Plan (2001-2006)
120. Working Policy/Admin and Faculty handbook
121. AAA (Adventist Accrediting Association)
122. ABET (Engineering)
123. Marketing materials for the MSA in International Development, Florence Italy
124. Syllabi and comprehensive examination questions for MSA, Florence Italy
125. Faculty curricula vitae for Florence Italy courses
II. COMMITMENT TO PEER REVIEW
A. Comprehensiveness of the Self-Study Process
The self-study process was initiated in Spring 2007, with the Director of Assessment ap-
11
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
pointed by the Provost as Self-Study Coordinator. Teams for each criterion were re-
cruited from across the University utilizing staff, faculty, and student representatives from
all schools and many support departments.
Context for organizing the self-study followed a period (post 9/11 trauma) when the siz-
able enrollments of international students had decreased significantly by 2006. Over the
course of several meetings of the Board of Trustees, resignations of the President, Vice
President for Academic Administration and Vice President for Financial Administration
were requested and accepted. President Niels-Erik Andreasen was later reinstated. In a
restructuring of administration, the Board approved the creation of a provost position to
serve as the Chief Operating Officer, with responsibility for day-to-day operations and
execution of strategy for the University, and to serve also as Chief Academic Officer.
The position was filled in the summer of 2006 and a new Vice President for Financial
Administration was hired in spring 2007.
The events of 2006 were disorienting to the University family and created an ensuing
steep learning curve with a focus on the work of self-study by a reorganized senior ad-
ministration as well as the entire University. The organization of the self-study followed
the structure of the five criteria, but includes a chapter on Distributed Education evaluat-
ing distance education and affiliated institutions and extension programs with a separate
treatment of the five criteria for these engagements. This chapter represents approxi-
mately 5% of the total self-study even though the significant work of nearly the same
headcount as on-campus.
A specialized accreditation review by The Association of Theological Schools recently
preceded The Higher Learning Commission review. With the University having pro-
posed a new site in Lebanon, this specialized review team will not conclude its report un-
til a visit to this new location has been completed. The Adventist Accrediting Association
plans this additional visit Fall 2009 and its report will follow shortly thereafter.
The individual appointed to be the self-study coordinator continued to fulfill significant re-
sponsibilities as the institution’s assessment director and associate professor of nutrition.
Therefore, as late as the pre-visit, a process for making supporting documents refer-
enced in the self-study available in hard or electronic copy to the team members had yet
to be established. The work was generally single-handedly undertaken by the coordina-
tor, with documentation only gradually provided to the team up until its actual arrival on
campus.
B. Integrity of the Self-Study Report
The Andrews University Self-Study Report March 2009 is an attractive document, well-
laid-out and easy to read with “pull-outs” on many pages. Since footnote references and
documents were not immediately available to the team, often context and development
of the summative statements in the self-study were not clear. The incremental placing of
much of the documentation on a secure website throughout the time period up until the
time of the visit complicated the team’s ability to learn about the institution.
The self-study document was significantly descriptive in nature with less focus on data,
12
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
analysis and evaluation. At some places the document could be described as providing
little context for the evolution of the University, leaving the team with a commonly-felt
need to sort for meaning. Hence, the visiting team entered the visit with desire to estab-
lish context for the stories of the last ten years and which would permit the team to pro-
ceed beyond evaluation to a truly consultative visit. The desire was expressed in terms
of “getting the Andrews University ‘family’ to tell their story.”
The organization of the self-study follows the template of the five criteria for accreditation
and their core components, which is appropriate for this document. However, review of
the many endeavors of distributed education, which engage a large percentage of the to-
tal student population of the University, was placed in a separate chapter and thus not
well-integrated into the evaluation of the university. Additionally, a major focus of this
separate chapter was on the execution of the institutional mission through affiliations and
extension programs. Even though the University prides itself on the diversity of its stu-
dent body and institutional culture, little attention was paid to articulating and evaluating
the impact on the people and work on Andrews University of the cultural and student di-
versity inherent in these multiple off-campus programs.
Initial self-study documents were missing a section on Federal compliance and upon re-
quest from the team the University assembled incrementally the elements for this part of
the self-study. Only in the last three days before the visit commenced were these pieces
combined into a document for the team to review for meeting the Federal requirements.
C. Adequacy of Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Challenges
The Team considers the response of the organization to previously identified challenges
to be adequate.
A. Notification of Evaluation Visit and Solicitation of Third-Party Comment
Requirements were fulfilled.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
• The Team reviewed the required Title IV compliance areas and the student com-
plaint information.
• The bulletin (or catalog) needs to include the website and telephone numbers of The
Higher Learning Commission and the respective affiliations with the specialized ac-
creditations (see Handbook of Accreditation, Third Edition).
• Andrews University has little on its website or in written materials about the program
offerings and calendars for off-campus endeavors.
• Requirements were fulfilled.
IV. FULFILLMENT OF THE CRITERIA
13
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
CRITERION ONE: MISSION AND INTEGRITY. The organization operates with integrity to
ensure the fulfillment of its mission through structures and processes that involve the Board,
administration, faculty, staff, and students.
1. Evidence that Core Components are met
• Andrews University’s mission statements are clear and publicly articulate the
commitments of Andrews University. By examining the minutes of Board of Trus-
tees for the past five years, it is obvious that the Board is very much aware of the
mission of the University, and its members are involved in the decision-making
and planning processes in their adopting these statements and its members are
engaged in the decision-making and planning processes of the institution. Fur-
thermore, understanding and support of the mission of Andrews pervades the
University community. It is generally understood, not only by the Board, but by
the faculty, staff, and the student body, particularly on the Berrien Springs cam-
pus. The core mission of seeking knowledge, affirming faith, and changing the
world is carried out in both the curriculum and co-curricular activities. The under-
standing and the consequent commitment of institutional constituencies to the
mission is a significant strength of the University and contribute to advancing ex-
cellence in higher education at Andrews University.
• Commitment to service to the world church includes affiliations with church-
owned colleges in other countries and extended campuses around the world to
help train and professionalize leaders for the church. They are making significant
advances in this area.
• Andrews University is committed not only to the liberal arts education of its stu-
dents in Berrien Springs, but also to a wide array of professional programs which
are offered, not only at the Berrien Springs campus, but at other campuses
around the world through their extension and affiliate programs. They have an
extensive program in architecture and a doctoral program and physical therapy
and numerous other professional programs in addition to graduate offerings
which make Andrews a comprehensive University by terms of the curriculum of-
fered. Andrews is serious in their commitment to excellence in higher education.
• The mission statements of the academic units and the auxiliary units on the Ber-
rien Springs campus are consistent with and amplify the mission documents of
the University. There is a consistent effort, through the strategic planning proc-
ess, to look at academic programs so as to improve their ability to carry out the
mission and needs of the students including the Seventh-day Adventist Church
and society. There is a strong commitment from the University to the Seventh-
day Adventist Church in terms of meeting the needs of both the University and
the church, and this very much evidenced in the efforts to extend the Berrien
Springs’ campus offerings to out-of-state and international student populations
who can benefit from access to its academic offerings. This mission-based
commitment to off-campus educations provides the additional benefit to institu-
14
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
tions in the Adventist network located abroad by providing academic and admin-
istrative assistance as they mature into independent institutions of higher educa-
tion offering their own academic programs.
• Appropriate governance requires that the Board understand its role in establish-
ing both structures and processes to ensure effective leadership and to support
priority decision-making, all focused on implementing the University mission.
Changes put in place since 2006 indicate that a lot of progress has been made in
moving in the direction of having good governance at Andrews University, al-
though this is a work in progress. In 2006, the Board was involved in not only
setting policy, but also in implementation of policy. At that time, the Board asked
the President to resign along with the vice president for financial administration
and the vice president for academic administration. The Board was clearly in-
volved in day-to-day decisions at that point in time. This was the result of a cou-
ple of years of enrollment decline and financial concerns. The Board later re-
scinded their decision relative to the President, and he was reinstated and con-
tinues to this point in time. The Board then hired a new Provost who is also the
chief operating officer. This individual has brought strong leadership to the insti-
tution in terms of the faculty. The president’s duties have been redefined to allow
him more time for fund raising with the chief operating officer responsible for
most areas. The Board regularly receives reports from the President and the
Provost as well as the chief financial officer of the University. As a result of this
administrative restructuring, the Board has begun to refocus its attention from in-
volvement in day-to-day operations of the university to attention to broad policy
and governance agenda.
• The Board is composed of both lay members and church officials, who are there
by means of their position with the church. The increased proportion of lay mem-
bers is a new development for the Board.
• The officers of the Board are there because of their positions in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. For example, the chair is there because of his position in
Washington, D. C. with the church. The vice chair is new to the Board, because
he carries that position as president of a four-state region of the Seventh-day Ad-
ventist Church. As vice chair, he has attended only one meeting since he is
brand new to this position.
• Recently, the President has brought in staff from the Council for Christian Col-
leges and Universities www.cccu.org to conduct a Board workshop on the role
and function of the Board of Trustees. There is evidence that the Board is seek-
ing to move in the direction of honoring the relationship which should exist be-
tween the Board and the administration. This continues to be a work in progress.
The Board now has 40 members with 20 appointed by the church and 20
elected. The Board meets three times a year.
• With respect to the distribution of responsibilities among the administrators, there
is some confusion over the role of the Provost and the role of the President,
15
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
since the President works closely with the chief financial officer, although the
chief financial officer reports directly to the Provost. Work is being done to create
a better governance structure within the University so that there is a greater voice
for faculty and staff. Faculty and staff reported that they are involved in a mean-
ingful way in strategic planning and budgeting processes. The relatively new po-
sition of Provost has some ambiguity in terms of defined responsibilities and de
facto functioning practice on a day by day basis. The people who are working in
the administrative positions at Andrews are committed to Andrews and are effec-
tive in their work at the present time.
• The Board has put in practice procedures to ensure that Andrews operates with
integrity. Periodically, faculty and staff in-service training sessions are provided
on such topics as FERPA, sexual harassment, academic integrity, and other im-
portant legal and moral issues. Faculty and staff members, as well as students,
are aware of their rights and responsibilities, and appropriate grievance proce-
dures are in place. Faculty and administrators do share responsibility for the co-
herence of curriculum and the integrity of the academic processes.
• The Andrews University mission is often reduced to three words, appearing on
banners and in minds of its on-campus student clientele groups: “seek, affirm
and change.” Fuller explication of these three words includes the seeking of
knowledge, affirming the faith and changing the world. These ideals have some
realized outcomes in the program offerings, in the cultural and ethnic diversity on
campus and through civic engagement as well as adoption of a culture of global
leadership in carrying out the worldwide mission of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. The University is committed to partnering with developing Church-
owned institutions in strengthening their programming through joint recruiting,
staffing, educating and implementing an Andrews curriculum in a number of loca-
tions nationally and internationally. Additionally, where partnering takes on a
more limited scope, Andrews teaches their own courses in a location supportive
of needs and educational goals of a local Church constituency. Since the de-
grees in both cases are Andrews University degrees, there are a significant
number of Church leaders, administrators and other citizens who have received
an Andrews degree.
2. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational at-
tention
• Even though a common mission and generous service to the Church undergirds
and motivates Andrews University affiliation and extension educational commit-
ments, visits by team members to the four off-campus sites gleaned evidence of
differences in the local embracing of the mission and its resultant outreach to the
location’s educational needs. Some of the emerging independence of the local
site was expressed in divergent thinking about the collaboration and its future.
This is more pronounced with students having very little understanding of the
spirit and functioning of the University on its main campus. Among the missing
elements was much familiarity with the institution’s mission or its details. Al-
16
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
though discussions did not give voice to any tensions between Berrien Springs
and the locations, the preoccupation was with the present course in context of
the future and new directions for the site. Therefore, it would serve Andrews
University to be continually cognizant of evolution of thoughts in the local site and
how the relationship serves the broader purposes of both participants in terms of
longer-range plans. Strategies for addressing these differences would also sup-
port the bonding relationship and ties to the University in Berrien Springs. (Core
Component 1c)
• The “mission of generous service” is pervasive across the University. The values
and principles of the University are congruent with the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. It is important that all departments and schools review and develop their
mission statements so that they specifically align with the overall mission state-
ment of the University. (Core Component 1c)
3. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commission
follow-up.
• The revision of Board of Trustees bylaws and its present 50/50 church and public
trustee membership begins to establish the base of a public Board, with more
work yet needed in the practices and process of election of Board officers and
assistance to trustees in their acquiring a capacity for setting policy and safe-
guarding themselves from delving into the operations of the University. The for-
mation of a President’s Council supports this recognized need and shift toward
the public character of the institution as it establishes greater leadership in the
higher education world. These efforts need to continue. (Core Component 1d)
• Concomitantly, internal governance structures, especially academic ones, require
further developing for decision-making, supported by appropriate participation,
ownership, and adequate staffing, which is not highly centralized. Although
some roles in the academic governance are still in a developmental stage, there
is a concern that the Provost’s workload is so extensive as to cause the loss of a
forum for academic discussion and to delay processing academic recommenda-
tions. (Core Component 1d)
• Andrews University has the approval of the Commission to offer existing degree
programs at new sites related to institutional and/or organizations of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church in North America or abroad. Over many years, Andrews
has developed both affiliated and extension programs which deliver graduate and
undergraduate programs in sites around the world and across the United States.
These partnerships and resulting educational programming are directly related to
the mission of the Andrews University and its position as the primary tertiary insti-
tution of the Seventh-day-Day Adventist Church, as demonstrated by the breadth
of its offerings, the nature of its student body, the contents of its library and its ar-
chives, and the demand for its programming a sites across the US and around
the world. There is considerable evidence, however, that integration and over-
sight of affiliations and extensions need to be strengthened. (Core Component
17
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
1d)
• The University is unclear at this time of whether it has the authority to offer de-
grees off of the main camps, in all of its locations in the U.S.A. and internation-
ally. Appropriate records of permission and approval were not available for many
off-campus sites. There was confusion about whether or not this approval could
be inferred from various subsumed permissions of a host university to house An-
drews on its campus. There was also confusion about whether civil authorities
had any responsibility for legal compliance of church-affiliated activities, such as
in the instances of seminary education. Since the institution was unable to pro-
duce evidence of these various authorizations for the 25 locations in the U.S.A.
and abroad, it is the team’s belief that this possibly impacting Federal compliance
be addressed with a sense of urgency. To clarify the matter abroad, the team
members recommend that Andrews obtain the advice of a lawyer who special-
izes in international higher education. (Core Component 1e)
• Off-campus programs are administered through the Office of Affiliation & Exten-
sion Programs; the dean reports to the Provost, and works with other deans and
department chairs to oversee program control and guarantee that degree re-
quirements mirror those of the home campus. While this interaction appears to
be collaborative, the Dean has much authority to act independently in implement-
ing off-site programs. One inter-disciplinary program, the MSA in International
Development Program, is administered in the academic aspects also by the
Dean of Affiliations & Extensions. While the self-study lists the scope of institu-
tional oversight, specifically relating to admission of students, approval of affili-
ated faculty, review of courses and examinations offered at off-campus sites, re-
view of student academic records, and formal audits of each affiliated and exten-
sion site, little evidence could be found to establish the extent and effectiveness
of this oversight. Assessment outcomes data are almost non-existent for these
distant programs. Although transcripts clearly identify affiliation and extension
courses as Andrews University curriculum, and students in these programs earn
an Andrews University degree, off-campus student count is not always included
in institutional reporting. The fact that the self-study placed its review of affiliates
and extensions in a separate chapter lends credence to this concern regarding
lack of integration. The institution is not aware of the HLC statement on Princi-
ples of Good Practice in Overseas International Education Programs for Non-
U.S. Nationals. (Core Components 1d & 1e))
• Hence, oversight of all affiliate and extension programs must be strengthened. In
particular, Andrews University needs to focus on obtaining all legal authorizations
necessary to offer its programs outside of the state of Michigan. (Core Compo-
nent 1e)
• Therefore, the team recommends a focused visit in 2012-2013 with attention to
the following: 1) revising the governance documents that codify the Board’s in-
formal actions in the direction of becoming a public Board; 2) delineating respon-
sibilities for senior administrators in institutional documents, such as, in the Work-
ing Policy to ensure that exercise of the scope of their work is clearly understood
18
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
within the institution; 3) strengthening oversight of all affiliate and extension pro-
grams. In particular, Andrews University needs to obtain all legal authorizations
necessary to offer its programs off of the main campus. (Core Components 1d &
1e)
4. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components are not met and require
Commission follow-up. (Sanction or adverse action may be warranted.)
None.
Recommendation of the Team
Criterion is met. Commission follow-up recommended.
CRITERION TWO: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. The organization’s allocation of re-
sources and its processes for evaluation and planning demonstrate its capacity to fulfill its
mission, improve the quality of its education, and respond to future challenges and opportu-
nities.
1. Evidence that Core Components are met
• The economic viability of Andrews University is good. They have hired a chief fi-
nancial officer with a strong background in accounting, and a program is in place
to tie the University’s strategic planning process, which is fairly new, as a com-
ponent of the budgeting process. The various budget managers meet with their
deans or Provost and then with the chief financial administrator in the establish-
ment of the budget for the upcoming year.
• The Board, along with the President, has put in place an expectation that their in-
come exceed expenses by three percent each year. They are making progress
toward realizing this in each of the past two years. The Board also has a goal of
retiring the operating debt of the University and building working capital reserves
to twenty percent. Debt has been reduced from $11.1 million on June 30, 2003 to
$8.7 million on June 30, 2007, but a good amount of work is still necessary to re-
tire the debt completely. The University has achieved an unrestricted gain in un-
restricted dollars in three of the last five years. They are also working to reach
parity for faculty salaries.
• Total assets for Andrews grew from $128 million to $131 million from June 30,
2007, to June 30, 2008. Total net assets increased from $100 million to $106
million from 2007 to 2008.
• The University has a relatively low endowment, although increasing endowment
funds is now a goal for the current and future campaigns. Consequently, the Uni-
versity has not been hit in terms of its operational budget because of the loss in
19
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
in endowment fund values, due to the recent economic downturn. The University
does not budget for endowment fund revenue as part of the operating budget.
• Andrews’ facilities are sufficient for a campus its size. Andrews is located on ap-
proximately 1600 acres on the St. Joseph River about a mile northwest of Berrien
Springs in a rural setting in the state of Michigan. A 300 acre well-landscaped
campus contains fifty-two major buildings. The University also owns and oper-
ates an 800 acre farm and dairy and an air park.
• Significant money has been put into new construction or major renovations in the
last several years. Total money for new construction, major renovations, and
operations has been in the $10 million range for each of the past four years. A
new performing arts center provides an excellent venue for public events. The
campus also enjoys a beautiful new entrance.
• The University is relatively late in creating an aggressive fund-raising effort in
terms of other church-related colleges. Andrews benefits from approximately $4-
$4.5 million each year coming to the University from the Seventh-day Adventist
Church. The University has recently embarked on a campaign for Andrews
which involves raising $250 million over ten years to create “A New Andrews for
a New Century.” This campaign has goals of raising $90 million for endowed
scholarships and fellowships, $50 million for new academic and spiritual pro-
grams of distinction, $50 million for faculty endowments, and $60 million for addi-
tional capital funds. Three years into the campaign, a total of $76 million has
been raised or pledged for this effort. It is being led by a vice president for de-
velopment and by the President of the University. As a response to the current
economic crisis, one project, Buller Hall, has been put on hold. It is a $10 million
project, and about $5 million of the money needed for this project has been
raised to date.
• Cost center financial analysis for the affiliations and extensions is generally not
part of institutional budgeting since the costs are paid by the local church on a
contractual basis in sponsoring the student enrollments in the program. This is
not universally the process because there are cases where students pay their
own tuition, as some of the extension sites have a reduced tuition and fees com-
pared to on-campus student charges.
• Several fiscal initiatives have been established to carry Andrews University into
the future. Monthly cash flow analyses are now being conducted, the terms of
reference for the budgeting group were revised to include planning under its pur-
view, the fiscal year was changed to more closely align with academic calendar
and thus maintain a better control over cash flow, a committee to oversee capital
expenditures was formed to review and approve all capital purchases, and an A-
Team was established in 2005 to make specific recommendations to achieve fi-
nancial goals related to income-to-expense ratio, reducing operating debt, build
working capital reserves, fully fund depreciation, and improve faculty salaries.
Through these and similar initiatives, the University has made progress towards
its fiscal goals.
20
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
• With regard to academic programs, the General Faculty monthly meetings serve
as the authoritative forum for decision-making. It appears that much of the basic
planning and evaluation occurs through the General Faculty by means of bodies
such as the Faculty Policy Development Council and an Admissions task force
along with a collection of sub-committees concentrating on Academic Policy,
Peer Review, and Program Review. While decisions made in these committees,
as well as those made through the Graduate Council, are subject to approval by
the General Faculty, it is difficult to ascertain whether work that is done in these
separate entities is guided by or coordinated through a systemic plan that is tied
to the larger institutional strategic plan. This democratic but seemingly loosely-
coupled body (the General Faculty) functions sufficiently in maintaining effective
academic programs. Nevertheless, representatives of the Graduate Council
noted (as did faculty members in the open faculty meeting) that the on-going ab-
sence of a permanent Graduate Dean has created strain within the institution.
While the Provost serves as the Chief Operating Officer as well as the Academic
Officer, it appears that aspects of the Chief Academic Officer’s role are either
delegated or deferred. Though these circumstances will likely be addressed
eventually, there exists a clear desire among the faculty and the academic ad-
ministration for a resolution that will provide dedicated leadership within Andrews
University’s academic affairs.
• In keeping with the University’s mission statement and with world-wide Church
population projections of increasing growth and diversity, Andrews University has
made significant progress in preparing to address the educational needs of this
increasingly diverse Church and its members. Recruitment practices for faculty
and staff and staff positions have resulted in larger proportions of minority repre-
sentation among the employees. An institute and council have been added to
meet the needs of Andrews’ increasingly diverse student body. Professional de-
velopment has been conducted to help prepare administration, faculty and staff
to work with a multicultural student body. The General Education curriculum was
revised to include more emphasis on multiculturalism. Resources have been in-
vested to increase the retention and graduation rates, with increases seen in
both. Online programming (nursing education and educational administration)
and plans to expand this to curriculum and instruction have just begun.
2. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational
attention
• Over half of Andrews University’s faculty are over 50 years of age; 22% are over
60. Succession planning is an obvious need, and admittedly, it provides an op-
portunity to increase further diversity of its faculty and staff. However, succession
planning has yet to be developed at other than the University level and within
several departments. With the hiring screens in place requiring Seventh-day Ad-
ventist affiliation for all personnel, it should be essential to incorporate succes-
sion planning at all levels throughout the University to enable Andrews University
to continue to meet its mission of education and service. (Core Component 2b)
21
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
• Approximately 75% of Andrews University’s faculty are prepared at the doctoral
or terminal degree in their fields. However, again as noted above, a significant
proportion of Andrews University’s faculty are nearing retirement age and suc-
cession planning is not well entrenched throughout the University. Given the
stated need of having Adventist prepared faculty to prepare teachers and minis-
ters for the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist church, Andrews University should
be planning for recruitment of or advanced preparation of current faculty to con-
tinue the high proportion of doctorally and/or terminally degreed faculty it cur-
rently enjoys. (Core Component 2b)
• A campus master plan was developed in 2002 and progress has been made in
implementing that plan; since the previous NCA visit, over $25 million has been
invested in new construction and over $3 million dollars in renovations. New
construction includes a new entrance and gateway to the campus, a much
needed Performing Arts Center, and Tan Hall (Seminary, which also had signifi-
cant renovations technologically during this time). However, while significant
progress has been made in several areas, it was also apparent that many needs
for renovation and/or expansion exist on campus, e.g., laboratory space for in-
struction in science and health-related fields, and an expansion of technologically
integrated classrooms to buildings and programs across campus. Andrews Uni-
versity needs to update its facilities plan to address these needs. (Core Compo-
nent 2b)
• Given the institution’s leadership and organizational transitions that were imme-
diately followed by the efforts involved in conducting a comprehensive self-study
and the preparation for the HLC visit, action on some issues in academic affairs,
including Andrews University’s assessment program, has been postponed. The
Provost appears poised to initiate steps toward building on the planning infra-
structure and, in doing so, enhance the University’s culture of evaluation and as-
sessment. It is unclear as to whether the current staff possesses the actual or
perceived capacity to provide the requisite leadership for this substantive under-
taking that should result in planning that orchestrates all levels of the institution.
As the Provost advances planning and evaluation functions in order to fulfill An-
drews University’s mission while responding to challenges and opportunities,
leadership will do well to seek outside counsel to ensure alignment of assess-
ment with best practices within higher education. (Core Component 2c)
• Andrews University has sought to address faculty morale issues related to salary
by setting a goal to move from the 20th to the 50th percentile based upon CUPA-
HR standards for similar institutions, and to establish a discipline-specific pay
scale rather than one based upon the denomination’s policies. This program
started in fall, 2008 and Andrews University is encouraged to continue making
the progress forward to that goal. It was included as one of the annual goals
within the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. (Core Component 2b)
• The Legacy of Leadership campaign to raise $250 million was established to en-
able Andrews to demonstrate its commitment to the world-wide Seventh-day Ad-
22
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
ventist church and to expand its resource base, fund increased compensation for
Andrews University personnel, student scholarships and endowments. The
2007-2012 Strategic Plan builds on the business plan for this campaign, and the
President’s role was reconfigured to allow more time for this campaign. How-
ever, given the changing economic conditions, it is doubtful this campaign will be
successful at the goal established, and that goal may need to be revised. (Core
Component 2b)
3. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commis-
sion follow-up.
• The cultures of planning and assessment are integrally related; each depends on
a widespread and systematic collection and analysis of data, the use of that data
to drive decisions, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of those decisions. An-
drews University has engaged in strategic planning at the University level, how-
ever, such planning practices have not developed to the degree they need to be
at this stage of the University’s development. Planning is not conducted system-
atically across the University at the departmental level. The SWOT activities
should be expanded to be more than a review of internal environment, and
should include both a systematic review of Andrews University’s internal envi-
ronment (internal strengths and weakness) and an external environmental scan
(opportunities and threats existing outside of the University). That review should
encompass the compilation of data and benchmarking. This process should in-
corporate all segments of the University and drive the planning activities at de-
partmental levels. The progress should be monitored annually and plans revised
based upon changes in Andrews University’s internal and external environment.
The process of planning should drive the budget and budget submissions should
be linked to the planning document for that segment of the University at all levels
of the institution. (Core Component 2a)
• Andrews University has conducted strategic planning activities at the University
level and focused on some specific areas beginning in1991, and this first plan in-
cluded provision for program review. A review of the history of planning refers to
the conduct of SWOT analyses; however a review of the SWOT for the recent
2007-2012 Strategic Plan reveals little quantitative or normative data. Neither is
there much evidence of benchmarking. The inclusion of these data could assist
Andrews University in planning strategies to meet the demands it currently faces
and make decisions that position it to meet its future obligations and to better
compete with peer institutions. In addition, a meaningful strategic plan should be
developed based upon in-depth University-wide participation, and be based on a
careful and deliberative scan of both its internal and external environments. An
implementation plan has been developed for the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan with
annual goals identified as related to each overall strategic goal, and progress has
been made in reaching some of these annual goals. However, it is not clear that
a culture of planning is pervading the institution. The scope, purposes and func-
tioning of the University Planning and Budgeting Committee is not found in An-
drews University’s Working Policy. The presence of strategic planning at the
program level is inconsistent across departments and schools with some pro-
23
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
grams engaging in more in depth planning and others minimal if at all. (Core
Component 2c)
• Although Andrews University has an assessment program, it has not made the
progress that would be expected given this stage of the University’s develop-
ment. The Assessment Committee functions as an advisory committee and is
not referenced in Andrews University’s Working Policy. Assessment reports fo-
cus on general education; program specific information and any data from off-
campus sites do not funnel through the Assessment Committee, but go through
their respective deans. Students at off-campus sites as well as some programs
on campus may participate in satisfaction questionnaires but not assessment of
learning outcomes. Even though the general education component was revised
to include more emphasis on multiculturalism, it is not clear how assessment
data drives curricular decisions across campus. Among certain groups, there is
a lack of understanding of the meaning of outcomes assessment typified in one
faculty comment stating that “we know they are learning because they get good
grades.” Over half of Andrews’ students are enrolled in programs having special-
ized accreditation, and yet it is not clear how the data derived from these as-
sessment programs drive decision making at the program or University level.
When queried, the Assessment Committee members had no knowledge of these
data or their findings, nor the opportunity of cross-comparisons of the lessons de-
rived from these accreditations feedback. When asked about how the policies
regarding use of outcome assessment in faculty annual reports (January Re-
ports), members of the Assessment Committee knew of no consequences for
failure to include these data in either these reports, or in applications for promo-
tion or tenure. Policies without enforcement are not linked to other personnel
policies, and it is questionable that those who resist efforts to bring them along
the assessment path will be so persuaded. (Core Component 2c)
• A review of a number of planning documents available revealed little budgetary
information related to the activity proposed. Even though there are statements at
the University level that the intent is to tie planning and budgeting, it is difficult to
see how this can meaningfully happen without a careful consideration of budget-
ary implications of the various activities and programs. (Core Component 2ad
• Andrews University has conducted program reviews at different times in its his-
tory, but the efforts were not consistent or continuous, and left faculty fearful re-
garding their programs continuance. A revised process was established in 2006
by the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils with the intent to review all pro-
grams within a five to seven year time period. Data to be included are credit hour
production, enrollment, etc. This is an important potential source of internal in-
formation about a program that could feed directly into future SWOT activities,
and needs to be incorporated into the University’s overall and departmental pro-
gram of planning and assessment of institutional effectiveness. (Core Compo-
nent 2c)
• Half of Andrews University’s headcount enrollment is from affiliated and exten-
sion programs located in the US as well as internationally. These sites are de-
veloped in response to requests from the world-wide Church for educational pro-
24
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
gramming. University personnel make regular audit trips to these sites (and a
protocol has been developed to guide these visits), and yet there is not clear evi-
dence regarding the educational effectiveness of the programs offered through
extension and/or affiliated programs; any outcome assessment data collected do
not feed into the University’s annual assessment reports. Consequently there is
little if any data of learning outcomes to drive decisions regarding the educational
aspects of these programs. (Core Component 2c)
• Andrews University’s conduct of its courses off-campus generally limits its view
of assessment to student satisfaction of instruction and content of the courses.
The administrative and faculty view is that exportation of campus courses is iden-
tical to that experienced in Berrien Springs, MI. Some student feedback to team
members was that the adaptation to their situations or cultures was not totally
satisfactory and hoped-for developments would alter this in some cases. Team
members also were concerned that the accelerated course format often caused a
lag between attending day-long class sessions concentrated into a week or two,
left little time for research or accessing library materials. Administrative details
with managing at distances also caused some problems where students didn’t
observe all of the required sequence in admission before beginning classes; an
example is a student who had nearly completed an entire program without com-
pleting the required GMAT exams for acceptance into the program. (Core Com-
ponent 2c)
• The team recommends that, in addition to the topics identified for Criterion #1,
Andrews University demonstrate in its focused visit in 2012-2013 that it has ad-
dressed team concerns relating to 1) institutional planning and 2) assessment of
student learning, with specific attention to the challenges identified in this section
of the team report. (Core Components 2a, 2c, & 2d)
4. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components are not met and re-
quire Commission follow-up. (Sanction or adverse action may be war-
ranted.)
None
Recommendation of the Team
Criterion is met. Commission follow-up recommended.
CRITERION THREE: STUDENT LEARNING AND EFFECTIVE TEACHING. The organiza-
tion provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is
fulfilling its educational mission.
1. Evidence that Core Components are met
• General education programming plays a pivotal role in curricular design, and re-
siduals of the emphasis and priorities of the undergraduate focus in the institution
25
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
guide and shape most programs. The Measure of Academic Proficiency and
Progress test has been used to study and make changes as the sub-scores are
reported and studied by a committee and then by the faculty. Restructuring of
the Honors program and change in scholarships for undergraduate students
have resulted in increased enrollment of high performing students. Scores in
these general areas have improved over the past decade. The MAPP is com-
plemented by a Senior Survey of satisfaction.
• A large number of students are enrolled in programs with specialized accredita-
tion and the standards of these professional organizations have served to also
focus on placement outcomes of the students.
• A newly-established Center for Teaching & Learning Excellence provides re-
sources for faculty improvement of teaching strategies. This ongoing work is in-
augurated at the time of initial faculty appointment in a new faculty seminar that
includes orientation in a three-day comprehensive set of presentations on faculty
roles and responsibilities, scholarly research, online grading and teaching of
multi-cultural students. As the agenda of this center expands, analysis of differ-
ent teaching strategies needs study should be undertaken for the courses in
varying formats, such as, semester-long, concentrated, accelerated, etc., in con-
junction with learning preferences and needs.
• Faculty workloads are outlined in the Working Policy, albeit often shaped by the
specialized accreditation requirements, needs to fill critical areas without suffi-
cient full-time faculty, desires of some faculty to supplement salary with additional
contract courses in extension locations, etc. The practices and inequities are
currently being examined to alleviate cross-institutional concerns.
• Through an elaborate web of intersecting committees, carefully developed poli-
cies and protocols, and extensive academic mentoring resources, the faculty and
administration clearly support a mission-centered focus on the nurturing and em-
powering of classroom teaching. Examples include both Graduate and Under-
graduate Councils which control curricula and academic policies; a General Edu-
cation Committee which oversees the undergraduate general education curricu-
lum; an Effective Learning Council which organizes faculty development oppor-
tunities relating to best teaching practices; new faculty seminar; and faculty train-
ing workshops. In addition, effective teaching is both recognized and weighted
heavily in promotion and tenure decisions. Teaching is at the heart of the vision
of Andrews University—to demonstrate “the transformative powers of faith and
learning, excellence through diversity, collaborative scholarship, and leadership
development.”
• Learning environments on campus at Andrews University, both physical and ex-
periential, contribute significantly to the quality education provided by faculty and
staff. Several major construction and renovation projects in recent years have
increased the capacity of the institution to provide quality instruction. Continuing
commitment to creating technology-equipped classrooms across departments
26
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
and disciplines has helped to better integrate technology with learning. A new
strategic plan for distance learning and instructional technology has focused at-
tention on standardizing technology across degree sites, an important initiative at
an institutional with multiple course and degree locations. Andrews University
provides a number of experiential learning opportunities, including study abroad,
internships and practica, numerous co-curricular programs, and the availability of
extension programs around the world. Together, these learning environments ef-
fectively support the educational mission of Andrews University.
• A variety of resources support both learning and teaching at Andrews University.
The Student Success Center is a well-organized and valued office, organizing
and coordinating a variety of efforts to support access and success for students.
Typical of other institutions of higher education, Andrews University also has in-
vested institutional resources in an array of other academic support services in-
cluding the Mathematics and Writing Centers, disability services, on-line advising
resources, and programming for probationary students. The advising office pro-
vides a variety of training opportunities for advisors. The Center for Distance
Learning and Instructional Technology provides easily accessible assistance to
faculty, which enhances the classroom and on-line learning experiences. Each
of these programs is professionally staffed and valued by the constituencies they
serve. The retention rate from first to second year in 2008 was a respectable
77.49%, demonstrating that the array of support services for both learners and
teachers enables both to thrive at Andrews University.
2. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational
attention
• General education is a portion of the curriculum which should be regularly
reviewed and refined to better serve the educational mission of the University. At
Andrews University there is evidence to show that general education has been
under review and revision for over a decade. With the adoption of a new Strate-
gic Plan in 2007 and with its modification of the institutional Mission Statement,
there is now more reason than ever to focus on finalizing learning outcomes for
general education and devising an assessment protocol. Eight broad learning
goals for the general education curriculum have been developed, and these are
tied clearly to the three Mission constructs: seek knowledge, affirm faith, and
change the world. Less progress has been made on identifying learning out-
comes for each of these eight learning goals. Measurable learning outcomes
should be identified and implemented in all courses coded in the general educa-
tion curriculum, curriculum maps should be regularly monitored for consistency of
implementation, and an assessment plan based on these outcomes should be
developed. (Core Component 3a)
• The University’s project “Desire to Learn” (D2L) is an online course platform used
to enhance face-to-face courses and deliver online courses. This project was
undertaken as part of the Adventist Digital Education Consortium (ADEC) in or-
der to increase opportunities for collaboration with other Seventh-day Adventist
27
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
colleges and universities in North America. No evidence was found that the use
of this platform is deployed in the teaching/learning dynamic in the University’s
affiliation and extension programs and courses. In the visits to a sampling of two
U.S. and two international locations, nothing was found in the course materials,
printed and electronic that utilized this communication vehicle. Given the paucity
of staffing and need for greater coordination, this University initiative is of para-
mount importance for all to study and embrace as appropriate. (Core Compo-
nent 3c)
3. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commis-
sion follow-up.
• The culture of assessment of student learning is growing at Andrews University,
but it is still immature. This reality is recognized in the institutional Self-Study.
Most programs have identified learning outcomes, a process for reporting has
been articulated and employed, and the institution is able to document some
change for improvement as a result of assessment practice. Programs with ex-
ternal accreditation requirements are better at implementing assessment proto-
cols and constructively using assessment data than those without such accredi-
tation. However, although faculty understanding of assessment is deepening at
Andrews, there are deficiencies across the University in understanding the pur-
poses and processes of effective assessment. Evidence on assessment shows
inconsistency at the department and program levels in collecting, organizing, and
analyzing data on student learning and using it for improvement. While most de-
partments have established learning goals and protocols for assessment, the use
of multiple indirect and direct measurements of learning is still not uniformly ex-
pected nor employed. The Office of University Assessment, with less than one
FTE, leads the assessment effort, monitors the assessment process, and pro-
vides ongoing consultation, but it needs to be supported by both an empowered
University Assessment Committee and attentive academic leadership. As noted
in the self-study, more differentiation needs to occur between undergraduate and
graduate learning goals. There remains some resistance to filing annual as-
sessment reports. An alumni survey, which could include questions relating to
assessment, has not been conducted since 2000. Assessment of student learn-
ing at affiliate and extension sites needs to be both strengthened and integrated
into the University assessment protocols. Little attention in assessment strate-
gies is paid to the impact of venue, class size, and cultural difference on com-
parison and evaluation of student learning. Assessment of co-curricular learning
is in its infancy. (Core Component 3a)
• Planning and budgeting for appropriate levels of staff support is also a concern,
particularly as administrative realignment continues, assessment of student
learning deepens, and online and global education expands. Although the insti-
tution has a record responding as a need is demonstrated, there is some lag be-
tween supporting present commitments at appropriate staffing levels and antici-
pating staffing needs resulting from expansion of the assessment agenda and
growth of online education. For example, the team noted that the present support
staffing for online programs is limited to an U.S. Eastern time zone access. This
28
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
does not accommodate the nature of the time differences inherent in global edu-
cational endeavors and the learning organization patterns in 24/7/365 environ-
ment. (Core Component 3d)
• As part of the focused visit in 2012-2013 (see Critieria #1 and #2 above) the
team recommends that Andrews University 1) demonstrate that it has strength-
ened assessment strategies, broadened the culture of assessment among fac-
ulty, staff, and students, and tied assessment to institutional planning; and 2)
provide evidence that adequate staffing is allocated in support of institutional
commitments to agenda such as assessment, online learning and affiliation and
extension programming. (Core Components 3a & 3d)
4. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components are not met and re-
quire Commission follow-up. (Sanction or adverse action may be war-
ranted.)
None
Recommendation of the Team
Criterion is met. Commission follow-up recommended.
.
CRITERION FOUR: ACQUISITION, DISCOVERY, AND APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students
by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways
consistent with its mission.
1. Evidence that Core Components are met
Because Andrews University is the “flagship educational institution” in the Sev-
enth-day Adventist Church, it carries a special obligation for scholarship and also
has academic resources not found at other educational institutions of the church.
This focus on the value of a life of learning is grounded in the 2007-2012 Strate-
gic Plan, A New Andrews for a New Century, which contains several strategic
goals directly related to promoting the acquisition, discovery, and application of
knowledge. The Andrews University Press, the Center for Adventist Research,
the Institute of Jewish-Christian Studies, and the Greek Manuscript Research
Center are examples of many centers and institutes which help nourish and
maintain a vibrant scholarly energy at the University. The James White Library,
with newly augmented electronic databases, online access to library catalogs,
and several valuable special collections, provides scholarly support for under-
graduate, graduate, and visiting faculty and students. Andrews University takes
its flagship role seriously and serves as a committed custodian of many aca-
demic resources which serve both its own learners and those spread around the
world.
29
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
Andrews University has a forthright policy on academic freedom, which supports
academic inquiry in the pursuit of truth in research, classroom instruction, and
private life. In addition, the Working Policy includes extensive policies relating to
faculty ethics, academic misconduct, and conflict of interest. A grievance policy
for faculty members and administrators is also outlined. These policies are ac-
cepted and understood by members of the academic community and underpin
the code of ethics of the University.
The General Education Program at Andrews University supports the mission of
the University, is part of all undergraduate degree programs, and is valued as
foundational to an Andrews University undergraduate degree. It is based in
breadth of knowledge, development of liberal arts skills, and cultivation of dispo-
sitions characteristics of the Seventh-day Adventist mission of the University.
These foundational characteristics are enumerated in a statement on the Phi-
losophy of General Education, which is found in the 2008-2009 University Bulle-
tin. General education credits range from 46%-51% of the total credits required
for BA/BS degrees, and somewhat less for professional degrees; this is typical of
requirements at other similar universities. The J. N. Andrews Honors Program
(SAGES) is a text-based alternative to the standard general education require-
ment. This highly respected program involves 37 hours of honors courses and
leads to the designation “John Nevins Andrews Scholar” at graduation. All gen-
eral education courses are regularly reviewed by a General Education Commit-
tee. Recent student learning assessments have results in adjustments to the
general education requirements in the areas of diversity learning, wellness,
mathematics, and physical/natural sciences. A more extensive revision of gen-
eral education has been underway since 2007-08, and it is clear that the effort to
strengthen both the content and assessment of the General Education Program
has support from faculty and administration.
Andrews University is well-positioned to prepare its students for a global and di-
verse society and also has organized its resources to do so. As a higher educa-
tion leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the University has a very di-
verse student population (ranked multi-culturally 7th and internationally 6th by U.S.
News & World Report), and it also has access to multiple international sites for
both degree completion and study-abroad opportunities for its students. Its mis-
sion highlights preparing students for service, its general education curriculum is
intentional in addressing multiculturalism/diversity, and general education out-
comes align with the institutional mission of creating a caring culture of global
leadership. Data from the assessment surveys of graduating seniors show that
seniors believe strongly that Andrews University accomplishes the learning out-
come derived from the institutional mission, “respect for ethnic and cultural diver-
sity.”
Andrews University has in place both policies and structures to ensure that fac-
ulty, students, and staff acquire, discover, and apply knowledge responsibly.
Statements can be found in the Bulletin and in the Working Policy relating to aca-
demic integrity and human research policy and good practice. The Office of Re-
search & Creative Scholarship seeks to foster an attitude of scholarly inquiry
30
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
across the University and oversees both an Institutional Review Board (for fac-
ulty, staff, and students) and the Research Council (for faculty members). These
infrastructures are broadly supported and understood by those who utilize them
and ensure that Andrews University operates in this area with integrity.
2. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational
attention
Commensurate with the national status of a doctoral granting institution, Andrews
University has a “Vision for Assuring a Premier Faculty.” To provide a legacy of
leadership to this country and the world church, Andrews University must en-
courage and provide for its faculty’s professional growth, particularly as the fac-
ulty model evolves from teacher-citizen to teacher-scholar. The combination of
heavy teaching load, lack of institutional support for sabbaticals, and regular loss
of protected reassigned time make appropriate faculty professional growth diffi-
cult. The institution has recognized this challenge, and the academic administra-
tion has included the development of a “system to fund research sabbaticals” in
the Strategic Implementation Plan 2007-2012. This initiative and others involving
both dedicated time and financial resources in support of the life of learning for
faculty should become institutional priorities in the next years. This will contribute
to the development of a highly qualified faculty, with a track record and commit-
ment to transforming students through excellent research, scholarly endeavors,
and creative activities. (Core Component 4a)
Program reviews remain a necessary and valuable component of academic plan-
ning, and can ensure that curricula are updated and resources are appropriately
allocated to ensure students are prepared for service in a diverse, global, and
technologically-driven society. Additionally, program reviews can complement
annual department and school assessment reports and aid institutional strategic
planning. As noted in the self-study recommendations, Andrews University
should continue an intentionally planned and logically sequenced cycle of pro-
gram review. (Core Component 4c)
3. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commis-
sion follow-up.
None
4. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components are not met and re-
quire Commission follow-up. (Sanction or adverse action may be war-
ranted.)
None
Recommendation of the Team
Criterion is met. No Commission follow-up is recommended.
31
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
CRITERION FIVE: ENGAGEMENT AND SERVICE. As called for by its mission, the organi-
zation identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.
1. Evidence that Core Components are met
Service is clearly tied to the University’s mission, and Andrews University has a
rich history of service to the community and to its constituencies. It overtly identi-
fies its constituencies internally, and considers its external constituencies mainly
as its local community and the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church. Stu-
dents engage in service learning projects, including two busloads of students
making humanitarian outreach trips to the Gulf Coast following Hurricanes Ka-
trina and Ike. The Office of Campus Ministries publicizes many opportunities for
students to provide service on campus, in the local community and on short-term
mission trips.
An important arm for service, Andrews University consistently responds to re-
quests from the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church for educational pro-
gramming nationally and internationally. It has both affiliated and extension pro-
grams focusing mainly on Seminary degrees, although programs in business,
education and international development are also available. As affiliated pro-
grams mature to the point of being able to stand alone, the affiliation arrange-
ment ceases. The number of extension sites varies in response to requests from
the Church. The University is very responsive to the constituencies that depend
on it for service, although, as noted elsewhere in this team report, there are un-
solved educational and site approval issues which the University must address.
As noted in the Self Study, the University has a presence on every continent ex-
cept Antarctica and Australia.
The Alumni Office has made significant strides to maintain contact with Andrews
alumni. Through a portal designed especially for alumni, they can update their
contact information and have access to the James White Library, Alumni Survey
(when reinstituted), information about events on campus and post-event ques-
tionnaires. University alumni provide service to its students through Career
Fairs, “Pizza, Pop and Professions,” and career mentoring, both of which serve
to assist the students in career-related matters. Alumni of the University resident
and extension programs have access to the library and the Alumni Newsletter
through the alumni portal on D2L.
The Center for Adventist Research, located in the James White Library, provides
service to the Seventh-day Adventist community through an extensive array of
resources on Adventist history that is open to scholars from Andrews University,
the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church and non-Adventist researchers.
The greatest usage comes from Andrews graduate seminary students and fac-
ulty, although approximately 20% of patrons are from off-campus. The Center
has sponsored events such as a History Day at Battle Creek, MI.
Andrews also operates the Christian Leadership Center, an interdisciplinary or-
32
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
ganization of Andrews University (in Berrien Springs, MI), “providing inspiration,
on-going leadership development, coaching, consultation, and research, for a
network of church and community leadership throughout the world.” The Presi-
dent serves as the vice-chair with a number of faculty constituting the Board.
The Center offers a 120-hour (non-credit) certificated program of study and lead-
ership training. Additionally, symposia, speakers and a conference program are
made available to clergy and other interested individuals. It also supports a pub-
lication, the Journal of Applied Christian Leadership that is a refereed scholarly
journal designed to encourage an ongoing conversation between academicians
and practitioners in the field of applied leadership theory.
Examples of Andrew’s activities, in the international locations, were cited to team
members where its presence and contributions to the broader public good of the
host country were respected.
2. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components need organizational
attention
The University reports in its Self Study that it seeks feedback from its various
constituencies in a number of ways. For example, Senior Surveys provide infor-
mation about spiritual commitment, mission accomplishment, and program satis-
faction. A President’s Council (50% who are major donors) has been estab-
lished, and a large number of institutes and centers have been created to provide
a setting for scholarship and service, and concomitantly develop knowledge
about the needs within the Church and the University. Students are asked to
evaluate services in a variety of ways and the co-curriculum is evaluated by the
Division of Student Life and the Office of Campus Ministries. However, Andrews
University needs to be more consistent and systemic with the analysis and use of
these data about how internal and external constituencies value the services it
provides. The results should be compiled and shared with appropriate constitu-
encies and offices for use in the spirit of continuous quality improvement. (Core
Component 5a)
3. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components require Commis-
sion follow-up.
None
4. Evidence that one or more specified Core Components are not met and re-
quire Commission follow-up. (Sanction or adverse action may be war-
ranted.)
None
Recommendation of the Team
Criterion is met. No Commission follow-up is recommended.
33
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
V. REQUEST FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: to offer four online degrees in Curricu-
lum and Instruction (Master of Arts, Educational Specialist, Doctor of Education,
and Doctor of Philosophy)
1. CONTEXT AND NATURE OF VISIT
An on-site review of the request for institutional change, in conjunction with the
comprehensive visit, was conducted pursuant to The Higher Learning Commis-
sion Policy #1.C.2.B.
2. EVALUATION OF REQUEST
1. Evidence that demonstrates adequate preparation and planning
• Andrews University academic administrative representative have been participat-
ing for the past ten years with North American Seventh-day Adventist institutions
of higher education to support increased course offerings available to Adventist
students in need of courses without travel to multiple sites. The Adventist com-
mitment and University mission of “generous service” is core to the participants’
agenda. Hence, they formed the Adventist Virtual Learning Network to foster
these internet courses. This endeavor was led by the Andrews University School
of Education but in 2007 extended to Nursing education and Educational Admini-
stration. Viewed as a natural extension of the online program in Educational
Administration, the proposed change request for online delivery of four degrees
in Curriculum and Instruction was developed.
• The program outcomes are the same as the ones delivered in the on-campus
courses and programs, namely, “to engage faculty and students as companions
in learning committed to global Christian service through excellence in teaching,
learning and research.” Student outcomes are commensurate with those schol-
arly ones expressed in designing, developing, implementing and evaluating the
educational enterprise.
• Beginning in 2002, a planning document emerged from strategic planning im-
proving technological services and faculty support for advancement of the
agenda of increased utilization in global communication. Barriers were analyzed
with a goal to addressing and implementing the needed changes identified by
stakeholders. Internal approvals became the logical outgrowth of the work on
this agenda and the institutional desire to serve its students and potential learn-
ers more effectively.
• The Curriculum and Instruction program currently has 34 students during the Fall
semester, and anticipate that the online enrollments will increase the enrollment
by 30-40 additional students. Hiring an additional faculty member is anticipated
with the tuition revenue generated.
• Information Technology Services coordinates and provides technical support for
34
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
the electronically-enhanced courses. The staff was increased in 2003 with the
addition of a director for the Center for Distance Learning and Instructional Tech-
nology (DLiT), who serves as part of the academic administration and reports to
the Associate Provost.
• Current online offerings within the Andrews School of Education seem to be
highly effective. The School has committed faculty and administrators who are
enthusiastic about innovative teaching using the latest technology. They cur-
rently have four other online degrees and do a lot of blended (hybrid) teaching
which combines both online and on site delivery modes. Faculty have designed
these courses integrating video, audio, and other technologies. Review of stu-
dent course evaluations indicates that students are highly satisfied with the on-
line courses. It is evident that the School of Education has the capacity to do on-
line programs well.
• There are systems in place in the Andrews School of Education to assure that
the online degrees will have student learning outcomes comparable to on site
degrees. The Curriculum and Instruction degrees which are currently offered in
an on site format include an extensive assessment system. The School has re-
cently introduced LiveText as an assessment system which includes an elec-
tronic student portfolio and evaluative rubrics in each course. A demonstration of
this system indicates that it is still in the process of implementation but shows
much promise.
• The University-wide support for distance education has resulted in technology
improvements for distance education and the development of the Andrews On-
line Course Development Standards. Courses are evaluated for compliance with
these online standards.
• Library holdings have continued to expand during the last five years with a focus
toward increasing the electronic formats for journals and acquiring more eBooks.
Interlibrary loan services supplement the Berrien Springs holdings. Collaboration
with the Curriculum and Instruction faculty, as well as assistance from Andrews’
Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, has guided and targeted the pur-
chases.
• Academic and student support services have grown with the experiences learned
from the other online courses Since the program of studies remains the same in
all of the University’s delivery modalities for the Curriculum and Instruction de-
grees, learning outcomes are already anticipated by the program faculty.
• Two grants totaling $20,000 from the Eli Lilly Foundation and SBC/Ameritech
have constituted assistance in developing some of the guidelines for distance
education. The University has also supported the School of Education’s annual
budget for technology support of faculty and their professional development dur-
ing the years of the new delivery system.
2. Evidence that demonstrates that further organizational attention is required
35
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
• Although there is School of Education commitment to this endeavor, there remain
a number of systemic elements in the general University that would slow this ini-
tiative maturing from its present offerings with 30 students. The University’s or-
ganization of distance learning serving students off campus requires a holistic
approach overcoming the presently fragmented operations. (Core Component
3b)
• The University’s context for this expansion is undergirded by the need to serve
clientele groups not presently being reached. The effectiveness of the University
in such work will require analysis of its similar operations off campus with the
goal of coordination in these learning environments. It is incumbent upon the
University to examine these efforts in order to continue efficiently and support ef-
fectively this type of learning. (Core Component 3b)
3. Evidence that demonstrates that further organizational attention and Com-
mission follow-up are required
• There is an uneven commitment University-wide to the components of online
education. Although the University currently has four online programs, review of
the Self Study Document found little reference to these programs. Online educa-
tion is not mentioned in the Strategic Plan. Tally of courses through The Center
for Distance Learning and Instructional Technology shows as many as 100
courses at the undergraduate or graduate level have some sort of online compo-
nent (in part or entirety). All of this is supported by only 1.5 staff. Development
and support for online education is done at the department level, with little Uni-
versity-wide support. (Core Component 3d)
• A review of current online course offerings found uneven utilization of the Desire
to Learn (D2L) course management software, including as a way to collect as-
signments. Most course sites did not have a syllabus or much content. Inter-
views with undergraduate students revealed some frustration that faculty are not
using D2L and that support was not readily available. Despite having four online
programs, these students do not seem to be very heavy users of their D2L inter-
face. (Core Component 3c)
• The team’s recommendation for a focused visit in 2012-2013 (see Criteria #1, #2,
and #3 above) should include reporting from the institution on its progress in the
present endeavors in online programming with specific attention to adequate
staffing, support of the academics with the D2L software and coordination with
other off-campus endeavors. (Core Components 3c & 3d)
3. Recommendation of the Team
Evidence sufficiently demonstrated to recommend approval of change request
4. Rationale for the Team’s Recommendation
• Andrews University academic administrative representative have been participat-
36
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
ing for the past ten years with North American Seventh-day Adventist institutions
of higher education to support increased course offerings available to Adventist
students in need of courses without travel to multiple sites. The Adventist com-
mitment and University mission of “generous service” is core to the participants.
Hence, they formed the Adventist Virtual Learning Network to foster these inter-
net courses.
• During the last HLC comprehensive visit the team encouraged the University to
pilot the distance-education program to carry out the mission of Andrews.
• The initial endeavor had been led by the Andrews University School of Education
but in 2007 extended to Nursing education and Educational Administration.
Viewed as a natural extension of the online program in Educational Administra-
tion, the proposed changed for online delivery of four degrees in Curriculum and
Instruction was developed.
• The program outcomes are the same as the ones delivered in the on-campus
courses and programs, namely, “to engage faculty and students as companions
in learning committed to global Christian service through excellence in teaching,
learning and research.” Student outcomes are commensurate with those schol-
arly ones expressed in designing, developing, implementing and evaluating the
educational enterprise.
• The support of library, academic and students services are in place to continue
the expansion of the program. Although the lag in support staff for the online
services needs to be addressed, the experience of the University in conduct of
this modality of education is present.
• The NCATE standing of the School of Education and grants totaling $20,000
from the Eli Lilly foundation and SBC/Ameritech have constituted assistance in
developing some of the guidelines for distance education.
VI. STATEMENT OF AFFILIATION STATUS
A. Affiliation Status
No change
B. Nature of Organization
1. Legal status
No change
2. Degrees awarded
37
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
No change
C. Conditions of Affiliation
1. Stipulation on affiliation status
No change
2. Approval of degree sites
No change
3. Approval of distance education degree
Prior Commission approval required for distance education programs other than the
: Master of Arts (MA), Educational Specialist (EdS), Doctor of Education (EdD), and
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs in Educational Administration, and Curriculum
and Instruction; the program in Nursing with the Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)
with a Nursing Education emphasis; the BA and BS in General Studies, AA in Per-
sonal Ministries and BA in Religion offered through Home Study by correspondence.
4. Other visits scheduled
Type of Visit: Focused visit
Topic(s) and Timing (academic year – 2012-2013)
• The focused visit, scheduled for academic year 2012-2013, should ascertain
if Andrews University has made progress in the following areas: 1) revising
the governance documents that codify the Board’s informal actions in the di-
rection of becoming a public Board; 2) delineating responsibilities for senior
administrators in working documents; 3) strengthening oversight of affiliate
and extension programs and ensuring that all operations of programs off of
the main campus are in compliance through appropriate legal documentation
from controlling jurisdictions; 4) enhancing institutional planning; 5) strength-
ening assessment culture, strategies, and ties to planning; 6) providing ade-
quate staffing in support of institutional commitments to agenda such as as-
sessment and affiliation and extension programming; and 7) implementing
present and new endeavors in online programming, with particular attention
to adequate staffing, support of the academics with D2L software, and coor-
dination with other off-campus endeavors.
Rationale and Expectations:
• The team found that Andrews University merits continued accreditation by
The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Col-
leges and Schools. However, the team also has concerns about several im-
38
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
portant areas of operation at the University which it believes need Commis-
sion follow-up. The context and detail of these concerns can be found in the
text of this report (Criterion #1, Criterion #2, Criterion #3, and the Request for
Institutional Change). In broad strokes, the team had significant concerns in
the areas of:
• University governance—Documents of the Board of Trustees are not current
in regard to the Board becoming a public Board. Following the significant re-
organization of university administration earlier in this decade, it is now impor-
tant for the Board to update its terms of reference, establish protocols, and
engage in practices appropriate to its current role in governance.
• Responsibilities of senior administrators—Given the recent significant reor-
ganization of senior administration, and with the hiring of new administrators,
responsibilities need to be more clearly and publicly delineated to ensure that
the exercise of the scope of administrators’ work is understood within the in-
stitution.
• Oversight of affiliate and extension programs and legal approvals to oper-
ate—Andrews University has not been attentive to the need to obtain legal
approvals to operate at sites away from its main campus; this issue must be
addressed by clarifying controlling laws and regulations, obtaining necessary
legal and regulatory approvals, and developing policies and practices for ap-
propriate vetting of existing and new sites. Additionally, the University should
better integrate the educational programming at these sites into policies and
practices of the institution.
• Institutional Planning—Even though there is evidence that planning occurs at
Andrews University, it is not clear that planning processes are widely en-
gaged by all parts of the institution. The planning process is not well docu-
mented; it is not clear how data is utilized to develop plans; planning at the
department and program levels is inconsistent; and planning is not well linked
to development of the budget.
• Assessment of Learning—Similarly, a culture of assessment also does not
permeate the institution at the expected level. Concerns about assessment
include institutional oversight of the assessment process, collection and use
of data from direct measurements of student learning, using assessment in-
formation for institutional improvement, and connecting assessment to institu-
tional planning.
• Staffing levels—As the institution undertakes additional programming in pur-
suit of its mission and as it addresses good practices in higher education, it is
clear that it must pay attention to staffing levels, particularly in the areas of
assessment, online education, and affiliate and extension programming.
• Online programming—Even though the team recommended approval of the
change request to offer addition online degrees in Curriculum and Instruction,
39
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
there appears to be an uneven commitment to the component of online
education at the University among faculty, staff, and students. A focused visit
will allow the institution to demonstrate its effectiveness in responding to the
challenges of increasing its online educational offerings.
5. Organization change request
Andrews University seeks to offer online degrees in the School of Education’s
Curriculum and Instruction program (Master of Arts, Educational Specialist, Doc-
tor of Education, and Doctor of Philosophy).
B. Summary of Commission Review
Timing for next comprehensive visit (academic year – 2018-2019)
Rationale for recommendation:
• Andrews University’s mission and statements are clear and publicly articulate
the commitments for Andrews University, which are generally understood, not
only by the Board, but by the faculty, staff, and the student body. It is a strength
for the University that people throughout their constituency understand its mis-
sion: “Andrews University, a distinctive Seventh-day Adventist Christian institu-
tion, transforms its students by educating them to seek knowledge and a firm
faith in order to change the world.”
• A point of pride within the University community is the racially diverse national
and international character of the institution allowing it to be cited in U.S. News
and World Report as enjoying a wide variety of students in its courses and an
enriched learning experience.
• Over many years, Andrews has developed both affiliated and extension pro-
grams which deliver both graduate and undergraduate programs in sites around
the world and across the United States. These partnerships and resulting edu-
cational programming are directly related to the mission of the Andrews Univer-
sity and its position as the primary higher education institution of the Seventh-
day-Day Adventist Church. With its prominence expanding, the role of Andrews
University is shifting to one of providing graduate program at extension cam-
puses and facilitating development of graduate programs at Seventh-day Ad-
ventist institution of higher education around the world.
• Andrews University received its first regional accreditation in 1922, as a junior
college. In 1963, the institution began to offer master’s degrees and followed
ten years later with doctoral degrees. A secondary school (Andrews Academy)
and the Ruth Murdoch Elementary School were added to its influence and lead-
ership in the community and Church.
• Professional accreditations have aided the institution in maturation as twelve
40
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
such organizations also recognize and guide the academics in specific program
areas.
• The hard-working and palpable spirit among the stakeholders in the University is
evident to the team. The distinctive nature of Andrews is a point of pride as it
prepares to face its future with confidence, energy, and a commitment to institu-
tional improvements to assure effective students learning and high quality serv-
ice to its primary constituents. As a learning organization with a clear focus on
students, this seriousness of purpose is virtuous for the institution.
• It appears that the University has made considerable progress in reversing the
enrollment downturn on the main campus of earlier in the decade and is poised
to continue making progress as a result of coordinated efforts throughout the
University.
VII. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS
The comprehensive review included visits to the two U.S. and two international sites
where 4000+ students are engaged in courses under Andrews University awards de-
grees.
The team examined available documents and interviewed on-campus administration,
faculty and staff. These documents were supplemented by some materials requested
for the visits. Principal among written materials consulted were: 1) the 1999 Accredita-
tion Team Report, pp. 63 -72 (which gave no indication that any domestic extension site
was visited); 2) Chapter 6 of the March, 2009 Self-Study entitled “Distributed Education,
” pp. 237 – 252; and 3) explanatory documents the Dean of Affiliation & Extension Pro-
grams prepared concerning instructional oversight, academic services, assessment of
student performance, student services, facilities, and marketing and recruitment .
A report on the individual site visits are included below.
A. Andrews University extension site in the Southwestern Union at Southwestern
Adventist University, Keene, TX
Date: 4/14/09
Site Visitors: Cynthia Tweedell,and Roger Sorochty
1. The only degree offered at this site is the Master of Arts in Pastoral Ministry.
Courses and degree requirements are identical to those at the main campus.
However the delivery mode is different. Courses at this site are delivered in one-
week intensives preceded by course readings and followed by several months of
correspondence work.
2. There is a site director who is a staff member of the host institution. Faculty
come from the main campus to teach for one week at a time (seven hours a day).
Other support comes from the appropriate offices on the main campus in Berrien
41
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
Springs.
3. The finances of this particular site are not covered in the Self-Study document.
This extension site, like the other extension sites, relies on the administrative fi-
nancial resources of the main campus. Here, as at other extension sites, there is
a contractual arrangement between the Adventist Conference and Andrews Uni-
versity to provide the courses. All students have tuition, books and some living
expenses provided for them by the denomination.
4. Although these facilities were not described in the Self-Study, the facilities at
Southwestern Adventist University are exemplary. The room used for the An-
drews classes is in the relatively new library building. There is a very comfort-
able student center and cafeteria nearby.
5. The faculty member currently teaching serves as an advisor and tutor as needed.
Students reported satisfaction with the accessibility of the Program Director at
Berrien Springs. After the one week intensive course, the students must com-
plete assignments over the next several months. It was reported by students that
sometimes faculty do not keep in touch with them after the one-week intensive is
over. Also, students report past problem in having access to the Andrews library
for the entire length of the course. Since those taking the classes are employed,
the need for placement services is minimal.
6. Recommendations:
• Since no State of Texas documentation approval was available, the team
recommends that the University’s understanding concerning the exemption of
religious and ministerial programs and degrees offered by Andrews be clari-
fied and updated with current documentation.
• Second, it is important to ensure that all Andrews students have access to
the Andrews Library for the entire length of their course. Therefore, insuring
library access from the beginning of the course/program is of paramount im-
portance to the professional graduate level studies. The Director of South-
western Adventist University library reported that students had been coming
to its library for general assistance and access to some of its undergraduate
holdings; it was likewise their recommendation that Andrews University pro-
vide some library instruction appropriate to the level of studies at Andrews.
• Third, it is advisable that Andrews University formalize the process of admit-
ting these students. It was reported to the team by students that many of
them take as many as two or three classes before being formally admitted.
Also, there is very little orientation to Andrews University for these students
after being admitted.
• Fourth, it is a concern that Andrews is not assessing the learning outcomes at
this site and assuring that the outcomes are comparable at all sites for like
degree programs. The team advises the Andrews University Theological
42
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
Seminary to implement an assessment plan to make program improvements
and assure quality.
• Finally, in the case of the teaching of in the Theological Seminary, the Uni-
versity follows The Association of Theological Schools accreditation require-
ments that the faculty teaching loads include off-campus endeavors. Because
some classes may begin in one semester and be completed several months
later, students are still assigned to that faculty member until they have com-
pleted the course. From the student perspective, often this may be creating
a burden for faculty members providing feedback as they voiced having too
many projects to supervise at one time.
B. Andrews University extension site in the Adventist Southern Union at Forest
Lake Church, Apopka, FL
Date: 4/21/09
Site Visitors: Edgar Rasch and Jennifer Wilson
1. A Seminary faculty member at Andrews, who serves in the capacity as Director
In-Ministry Center and as Associate of Ministerial Division of North America, is
responsible for the oversight and administration of instruction. He also appoints
the faculty (only from the full-time Seminary faculty) who teach in the program.
The Andrews University Dean of Affiliations and Extensions is the liaison for non-
academic issues. Since the Seminary faculty member was the primary person in
charge of the academic program, he joined the two visiting team members in a
conference call for discussion about the academic aspects.
2. The primary emphasis on assessment was an input quality control by utilization
of the same syllabus both off and on campus. .Assessment of student learning
was seen as primarily a student satisfaction survey of the course and instruction.
Data collected was generally anecdotal about student issues. Any comparative
data had not been addressed and were not part of the present agenda.
3. Both the Seminary faculty member and the Dean visit sites for audit purposes,
and those data are fed to the Master Program Committee which has oversight of
the program. The data from the generic annual survey admittedly do not figure in
and guide curricular, administrative and budgetary decisions.
4. It was noted that the enrollment this semester is considerably lower than in pre-
vious semesters. Only six students were enrolled in this “intensive.” The reason
given was that program schedules were not published early enough. Even
though the on-campus schedule is published annually in the Bulletin, there does
not seem to be a uniform calendar for the affiliated or extension programs. In
fact, the Dean’s office generally had difficulty scheduling these off-campus visits
because the dates of classes given were not actually observed locally.
5. The Seminary is the primary academic unit offering this program and is opposed
43
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
to a scope and sequence to the program offerings in the hope that it would pro-
vide opportunity for student movement among sites for the personal and profes-
sional needs in their schedules. Since there is an absence of outcomes assess-
ment, effectiveness of this unstructured approach has been not been measured.
6. Student access to onsite advisement in only available through the faculty mem-
ber or when the program director or dean visit the site. Since students’ tuition and
fees are covered by the denomination, financial aid is not usually question except
class attendance in another conference area occurs. Living expenses for those
from out of area may or may not be covered depending on their primary confer-
ence.
7. Unlike the Texas site, students do not have access to any academic library other
the main campus and its electronic data bases. Students reported no orientation
to the library and use of these resources to conduct their research for each
courses. Some of the students indicated they would want to have an orientation
to the library and conducting library research.
8. The Church Administrator is in charge of the facility arrangements for the
courses. Any needs or adjustments are quickly met. The Church Administrator
has scheduled a room adequate to meet the needs of this “intensive” as config-
ured. The room was quite large, given the enrollment, and equipped with a pro-
jector and wall screen for PowerPoint presentations. Wi-Fi is available.
9. Students order their textbooks from Amazon or other online retailer. The An-
drews bookstore does not service these students.
10. The syllabus has a short paragraph pertaining to ADA issues. However, it asks
students to inform faculty of their needs; there is no systematic review of a prob-
lem, requesting of documentation and professional identification of “reasonable
accommodations.” It would seem that this sets the faculty/students/institution up
for an inconsistent application of “reasonable accommodations.” It also assumes
the faculty member is the appropriate person to make these decisions, without
the necessary documentation and diagnostic data to substantiate the student’s
claim of disability.
11. When asked what students would do if they wanted to appeal an academic or
non-academic issue, they responded by first speaking to the faculty, and then the
program director. There was no recognition of what to do beyond that.
12. Information is prepared by the main campus, and a newsletter containing infor-
mation for the course sent out, but not always in time to assist students make the
necessary adjustments to their
13. The recommendations emergent from the visit to Keene, TX are equally applica-
ble to this site. Furthermore, the recommendations which are the subject of fo-
cused visit for additional administrative and supportive personnel are reinforced
by the details from this site visit.
44
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
C. Andrews University affiliation and extension site at the University of the South-
ern Caribbean, Port of Spain, Trinidad
Date: 5/01/09
Site Visitors: Edgar Rasch and Roger Sorochty
1. The site offers graduate extension courses taught by Andrews University faculty
in a two-week intensive format, leading to either an MBA or MA in Educational
Psychology. Under an affiliation agreement undergraduate courses are taught
by University of the Southern Caribbean faculty and lead to BA, BS, and BBA
degrees conferred by Andrews University. At its recent commencement, Andrews
University conferred 271 degrees on the 2009 class.
2. It should also be noted that Andrews University and the USC are in the stages of
closing the affiliation, making a transition so that for undergraduate students en-
tering the USC beginning in the fall of 2009 their degrees will be conferred by the
USC. Similar consideration is being given to the graduate programs being of-
fered in the extension format by Andrews University.
3. Courses and degree requirements are identical to those at the main campus.
However the delivery mode is different for the graduate extension courses.
These courses at this site are delivered in a two-week intensive format with
classes meeting Sunday through Thursday for four hours in the evening pre-
ceded by course readings and followed by several weeks of correspondence
work.
4. The two master’s degree classes had large enrollments in attendance with 36
students in the MA in Educational Psychology and 46 students in the MBA. De-
gree requirements are the same as on the main campus.
5. Faculty who teach the graduate extension courses come from main campus to
teach for two weeks at a time (four hours a day). Other administrative support
comes from the appropriate offices on the main campus in Berrien Springs. Li-
brary support for these students comes from the USC library and the Andrews
University library online.
6. The students in the undergraduate programs have complete access to all of the
human resources - faculty and administrative and support personnel - who are
employees of the USC. However, undergraduate students have access to the
full- time faculty. Students’ comments highlighted the rapid growth in the size of
the student body (from 851 students in the fall of 2004 to about 4,100 in the fall of
2008), resulting in many large classes (with sometimes as many as 80 students
in a class) and less accessibility to full-time faculty than previously as the size of
the faculty has not seen comparable growth. A similar comment from one of the
MBA students raised a concern, noting that he was currently enrolled in the 9th
of 10 courses for the program but had not yet taken the GMAT required for ad-
45
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
mission to the program. The team was asked about what would happen if he did
not receive the required minimum score.
7. The finances of this particular site are in transition with the government of Trini-
dad Tobago engaged in a major initiative to make the country a "First World
Country by 2020." In connection with that, citizens of the country have 100% of
their undergraduate tuition paid by the government if they are in approved pro-
grams and make normal progress toward the degree. (Eighty percent of the un-
dergraduates at the USC are citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.) Graduate stu-
dents have 50% of their tuition paid for by the government with the balance being
paid for by the student or in some cases by employer reimbursement.
8. The facilities were not described in the Self Study. They appear to be minimally
adequate to provide instruction. It's readily apparent that there is a considerable
amount of deferred maintenance. Most rooms are air conditioned with large in-
room units that are quite loud and at times made conversations with the team
members difficult. Students noted these units also made it difficult at times to
hear the professor and each other.
9. The team also noted that the newest classroom building which opened a year
ago and is simply referred to as "New Building" is very attractive on the first floor
but appears to quite worn already.
10. For the graduate extension courses, the faculty member serves as the advisor.
Students reported satisfaction with the follow-up they receive from the faculty
during this post-intensive time frame. They noted, however, that they would ap-
preciate more opportunities to explore career options and even internship oppor-
tunities through the USC's Career Center.
11. Recommendations:
• First and perhaps foremost, attention needs to be paid to student learning
outcomes in both the extension and affiliate (graduate and undergraduate)
programs at the USC with comparison to other sites, both on and off campus.
• Second, it is advisable that Andrews formalize the process of admitting stu-
dents to the graduate programs so it mirrors that on the main campus.
• Third, a number of students in the graduate programs noted that there is very
little orientation to Andrews University for these students. It would seem that
appropriate information could be developed and placed on the Andrews Uni-
versity web site so that students are directed to it in advance of each module
for which they enroll by including such information in the pre-work they re-
ceive for each module.
• Fourth, USC faculty expressed concern about not being able to give ade-
quate attention to all of their students due to class sizes and teaching loads
(of four courses per semester). Additionally as a result of that they have vir-
46
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
tually no time to devote to research and services which, along with teaching,
are the key components assessed in tenure and promotion decisions.
• Fifth, the USC faculty indicated that they have very little contact with their col-
leagues at Andrews University and desired more. Hence, Andrews University
may wish to consider ways to facilitate this interaction and even consider cre-
ating mentoring relationships between experienced faculty at Andrews with
newer faculty at the USC. Perhaps this could fulfill some of the Andrews fac-
ulty expectation for "committee" or "service" work. Undergraduate students
expressed a similar desire to be in contact with students at Andrews who are
in similar majors and student organizations. Perhaps the office of the Vice
President for Student Life at Andrews could facilitate such interaction.
• Finally, both undergraduate and graduate students expressed a desire for
content in some courses to be more locally (Trinidad and Tobago) or region-
ally (the Caribbean/West Indies) focused. As an example, undergraduates
taking sociology courses would like to see more of a focus on the sociological
issues in Trindad and Tobago or the region. The MBA students similarly ex-
pressed a desire to work with local and regional cases studies rather than
those focused principally on the United States.
D. Andrews University extension site at the Italian Theological Seminary (Villa
Aurora), Florence, Italy
Date: 6/07-08/09
Site Visitors: Edgar Rasch and Cynthia Tweedell
1. In addition to the materials mentioned in the prefatory remarks to these visits, the
team members present for this visit received upon arrival a packet of site specific
items: 1) marketing materials for the program; 2) a course syllabus; 3) compre-
hensive exam questions; 4) the faculty member’s curriculum vitae of the site in-
struction.
2. The course presently being taught is a requirement for the Master of Science in
Administration: International Development degree. This program is listed in the
Bulletin as an “Inter-School Program” and, although offered on the main campus,
is not comprised of exactly the same courses. It is administered by the Dean of
Affiliations & Extension under the advisory of the Interdisciplinary Masters Coun-
cil. According to the information given by the on-site Program Director, it is of-
fered in Africa, Asia Pacific, Eurasia, Europe and Latin American. It is offered in
four languages: English, French, Russian, and Spanish with students coming
from a number of different countries. Courses at this site are delivered in three-
week intensives preceded by course readings and followed by six months of cor-
respondence work. Interviews with faculty and students indicated that the course
and degree requirements are as described in the materials. The on-site director
is a staff member of the University and is present for the duration of the course.
A faculty member from the Behavioral Sciences serves as the faculty advisor,
47
Assurance Section Andrews University/09CE1309
and is currently teaching the course being offered. He is present once year and
is available online for academic advising.
3. Andrews offers the program on the premises of the Italian Theological Seminary.
4. This extension site, like the other extension sites, relies on the financial adminis-
trative resources of the main campus. Students pay tuition to Andrews Univer-
sity. According to the students, it is about one quarter of the tuition charged at
the main campus. They pay room and board to the host institution.
5. Facilities at the Italian Theological Seminary serve the students well. Students
rely on the Andrews online library for support. There is a computer lab available.
6. The International Development Program Director is always available onsite to
handle registration, etc. She reported that these students get Andrews University
library access for a full year after their registration. Students reported satisfaction
with the access to the Andrews University online library. Since those taking the
classes are employed, the need for placement services is minimal.
7. Recommendations:
• The financial officer of the Italian Theological Seminary affirmed that the Ital-
ian Government had knowledge of their hosting the Andrews University mas-
ter’s program. No documents were available for this understanding. Clarifi-
cation should be obtained and records kept on the main campus for this ap-
proval.
• Second, the present faculty member teaches this course on overload and
works with the students through the next several moths in completing their
assignments. Since the College of Arts & Sciences’ policy differs from the
Andrews University Seminary, there is some concern about the extent of this
workload and the professor’s on-campus workload.
• Third, although the Office of Affiliations & Extensions brokers many of the
support service contacts for their students, it would serve the institution to
conduct an audit for all of its services to off-campus students. The sampling
of these four sites visited produced a variety of responses leading to a con-
clusion about how each program is handled differently. Such an audit ought
to also include the online and distance education programming and its devel-
opment with the additional education degrees being offered. Included in sur-
veying practices would be included transcript evaluation, billing, library, D2L
services and specific international student services.
48
