Docstoc

Powerpoint - University of Toledo

Document Sample
Powerpoint - University of Toledo Powered By Docstoc
					UT Self Study All Criterion
     Teams Meeting

 Friday, November 13, 2009
   9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
          SU 2582
                    Welcome
Welcome                        Thomas Sharkey
Overview                       Thomas Sharkey
Introductions                  Thea Sawicki
Draft Timeline                 Thea Sawicki
Peer Reviewer Expectations     Bin Ning
Criterion Team Reports
        Criterion One Team     Charles Blatz
        Criterion Two Team     Bryan Pyles
Social Break – 15 minutes
        Criterion Three Team   Connie Shriner
        Criterion Four Team    Charlene Czerniak
        Criterion Five Team    Mojisola Tiamiyu
Questions & Answers
Information & Resources        Marcia King-Blandford
What’s Next                    Penny Poplin Gosetti

                                                       2
                             Overview
                             Welcome
                                      VISION
The University of Toledo is a transformative force for the world. As such, The
University of Toledo will become a thriving student-centered, community-
engaged, comprehensive research university known for its strong liberal arts
core and multiple nationally ranked professional colleges, and distinguished
by exceptional strength in science and technology.

                            MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of The University of Toledo is to improve the human condition; to advance
knowledge through excellence in learning, discovery and engagement; and to serve as
a diverse, student-centered public metropolitan research university.

                         UT Self Study
         University of Toledo Self-Study for continued
                  accreditation by NCA-HLC

                                                                                  3
             Introductions
      NCA-HLC Self-Study Leadership
Co-Chairs:   Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Professor, College of Business (MC)
             Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Professor, College of Medicine (HSC)

Steering Committee: Team Leaders
      Team 1:   Dr. Charles Blatz, College of A&S
      Team 2:   Mr. Bryan Pyles, HSC Provost’s Office
      Team 3:   Dr. Constance Shriner, College of Medicine
      Team 4:   Dr. Charlene Czerniak, College of Education
      Team 5:   Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, College of A&S

Administrative   Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, MC Provost’s Office
Support:         Dr. Bin Ning, Director, Institutional Research
                 Marcia King-Blandford, MC Provost’s Office

                                                                   4
             Self Study Timeline
2009
 Aug-Sept: Criterion teams populated by subject expertise/knowledge;
           teams begin meetings
 Oct:      Self Study Kick-off with visit by Dr. John Taylor, HLC
           Liaison
 Nov:      All Teams first meeting (11/13/09)
 Dec:      Teams work to identify evidence needed to respond to
           each criterion component
2010
 Jan:      Launch self-study website
 Feb-Mar: All Teams second meeting; teams continue to work/meet;
           Self-Study writing team selected
 April:    NCA-HLC Conference in Chicago (steering committee)
           All teams third meeting (status reports; NCA-HLC reports)
 Oct:      Criterion teams submit first draft of their reports
 Nov-Dec: Drafts reviewed/revised; writing team
           begins first Self Study draft                          5
           6

               Self Study Timeline
2011
  Jan-March:    Finalize self-study report by iterative process of
                review/rewrite
                Prepare Institutional Snapshot (Dr. Ning)
                Prepare for 3rd Party comment
   April-May:   President review/comment; campus review/comment
                NCA-HLC Conference in Chicago-meet with Liaison
                member
   June:        President, senior leadership and BOT approval
   July:         Final Self-Study revision, printing and 3rd party
                comments
   August:      Send final Self-Study Report to HLC

               Nov 14, 2011 or Feb 27 or Mar 19, 2012
        SITE VISIT by peer-reviewers (consultant evaluators)
          HLC Site Visit
      Format and Expectations

 About HLC
 About PEAQ and AQIP
 About Consultant-Evaluators (aka Peer-
  reviewers)
 Site Visit




                                           7
                     HLC Site Visit
 Three-day Peer Review Visit
   Sunday - Team arrives
   Monday-Wednesday - Peer review
      Monday - Entrance conference with CEO and others
   Monday-Wednesday
      Interviews and reviews of documents
   Evenings
      Team reflections, discussions, and decision-making
   Wednesday, before noon
      Announcement of Team’s planned recommendations to
       the CEO, and an Exit Conference
       Source: Dr. John Taylor’s Presentation on Oct 15, 2009

                                                                8
    Sources of Evidence
 Self-study report
 Interviews and meetings with constituent
  groups
 Supporting documents




                                             9
Examples of Evaluative vs. Descriptive Statements

1. The university uses          1. Testing results using
   different methods to            nationally-recognized
   assess general education        instruments (CAAP & CLA)
   outcomes.                       demonstrated a 70% growth
                                   in students’ writing and
                                   mathematic skills between
                                   freshmen and senior year.

2. The merger has               2. As a result of the merger, the
   significantly improved the      amount of Federal-sponsored
   University’s capacity in        research funding has
   obtaining research              increased from $12 million
   funding.                        before the merger to $45
                                   million in 2009.


                                                                10
     Outcomes of Site Visit
 Evidence criterion is met
 Evidence criterion met but needs institutional
  attention
 Evidence that criterion is met but requires
  institutional attention and commission follow-
  up (Progress/Contingency Reports /Focused
  visits)
 Criterion not met



                                              11
          Criterion One

Mission and Integrity

The organization operates with integrity
to insure the fulfillment of its mission
through structures and processes that
involve the board, administration,
faculty, staff, and students.

Dr. Charles Blatz, Criterion One Team Leader
Dr. Penny Poplin Gosetti, Liaison

                                               12
              Criterion Two
Preparing for the future

The organization's allocation of resources 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
opportunities.

Bryan Pyles, Criterion Two Team Leader
Dr. Bin Ning, Liaison


                                                         13
           Criterion Three
Student Learning and Effective Teaching

The organization provides evidence of
student learning and teaching effectiveness
that demonstrates it is fulfilling its education
mission.

Dr. Constance Shriner, Criterion Three Team Leader
Marcia King-Blandford, Liaison


                                                   14
             Criterion Four
Acquisition, Discovery. And Application of Knowledge

The organization promotes a life of learning for the
faculty, administration, staff, and students by
fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice,
and social responsibility in ways consistent with its
mission.

Dr. Charlene Czerniak, Criterion Four Team Leader
Dr. Dorothea Sawicki, Liaison



                                                          15
              Criterion Five
Engagement and Service:

As called for by its mission, the organization identifies
its constituencies and serves them in ways both
value.

Dr. Mojisola Tiamiyu, Criterion Five Team Leader
Dr. Thomas Sharkey, Liaison




                                                       16
UT Self Study Process



Questions & Answers




                        17
       Information Retrieval
• Tracking the progress
• Building a resource room
• Sharing information & resources




                                    18
            What’s Next

Opportunities for in-depth attention
on issues which are critical to the
pursuit of continuous improvement
and educational excellence.
                  Handbook of Accreditation, 2006, p 5-3




                                                           19

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:8/25/2012
language:English
pages:19