2004
THE COMMISSION ON COLLEGES
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MEETING THE CHALLENGE:
ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING
THE OFF-SITE AND THE ON-SITE REVIEW:
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR
by Ms. Carol A. Luthman
1
Introduction
Listening to the CD and not attending the presentation made it difficult to summarize the content. The presenter often referred to materials such as handouts, manuals and slides that were not accessible. Also, she referred to earlier presentations not available to me. In addition, questions from the audience interrupted the logical flow of the presentation.
This presentation by Carol Luthman was designed to provide a practical and updated review of what was learned from the pilot and 2004 universities that used the new process.
The presenter focused on areas of challenge and change related to key elements of the new process. The major point was that institutions invest too much labor in accumulating compliance data - streamline, stay on target and use the steering group. There is no intent for institutions to prepare two self-studies.
To assist institutions with the process, the Commission is developing a resource manual with samples. The manual will be available late Spring 2005.
Electronic versus print delivery was the next point of emphasis. Institutions are not compelled to use electronic submission. Each institution should use what works as electronic submission may be labor intensive and stress resources.
Changes
Ms. Luthman highlighted in her presentation the following changes:
- Off-site review committee reports are available via conference call and may be viewed in the Atlanta office - At present, there are 7 - 11 members on the off-site review team - a change from 7 - 9.
1
Institutions are to provide a Focus Report between off-site review report (preliminary) and on-site review addressing issues identified in the off-site report. This is very important.
On-site team has 7 people, 5-core and 2 QEP. The composition changes as it relates to faculty members on the committee. Faculty member composition is driven by the QEP.
Data relative to the impact report is available on the web page.
Learning modules are available to institutions for evaluator training. Chair training is face to face and scheduled for Feb. 2005.
QEP
Quality Enhancement Plan Issues
The following issues relative to the Quality Enhancement Plan were discussed by Ms. Luthman:
- Institutions selection of issues
select large issues
relate issues to student learning, ex. retention may be too narrow
make direct link to student learning
2. Design and implementation
- Keep the design simple
- Pick a significant issue and work with it
- Goals need to be precise
- Assessment instruments link to student learning
Time lines are important
Work sheets are to be user friendly
3. QEP has direct impact on accreditation.
1
Document
Issues addressed pertinent to the document were:
Narrative and documentation must be linked.
Samples in the narrative are helpful.
Streamline the narrative as much as possible.
_ It is important to have narrative read by an outsider before submission.
Culture of integrity requires an honest presentation based on the best professional judgment and documentation.
You assess your own compliance.
_ An institution can be denied or sanctioned based on integrity.
Thirty (30) schools were reviewed and the major issues discussed included resources (audit), faculty (qualifications) and institutional effectiveness.
Summarized by
Carrie Waites
School of Social Work
March 11, 2005