HLC Self-Study Steering Committee

HLC Self-Study Steering Committee

Minutes

April 27, 2007

1:30 p.m.

NE A108, Northeast Campus

The following committee members were present.

Steering Committee Chairs:

Mary Cantrell

Lynn Greene

Mary Walker

Recorder:

Lynn Greene

Subcommittee Co-Chairs:

Terri Alonso

Amanda Blackman

Leanne Brewer

Carol Carr

Jan Clayton

Marvin Cooke

Randy Dominguez

Paula Eggert

Pam Kannady

Pat McCann

Carol Messer

Jona Schweinberg

Jennifer Smith

Sharon Wright

Guest:

Paul Johnson

The following members were not present:

Mike Autrey

Nikki Givens

Valerie Pratt

Ideas from the brunch meeting in Chicago: Carol Carr offered a correction to the minutes from the April 21 meeting at Ada’s Deli in Chicago. Carol said one panel reported that 20% of the committee volunteers (not 20% of the college population) do the majority of the work of the self-study.

The steering committee discussed the idea (inspired by Randy Dominguez’s report at the brunch meeting) of asking departments to create portfolios of their usual reports, newsletters, etc. If the committee wishes to ask departments to accomplish this over the summer, the group recognized this would require an edict from John Kontogianes. Randy Dominguez noted that portfolios, once completed, could be useful to the departments later. Carol Messer reported the Institutional Effectiveness Council has been talking about ways to make administrative unit assessments living documents. Lynn suggested that we need not ask departments to create any new reports; all that’s needed is for existing documents to be loaded into some sort of template.

Sharon Wright and Suzanne Reese, as leaders of the Administrative Unit Assessment subcommittee of the IE Council, will work with Randy to investigate the possibility and the usefulness of having a portfolio as an end-product of assessment. The self-study report could indicate that this project is something TCC is just starting.

Resource Room update: The subcommittees have selected their “point people” who will upload documents to the electronic resource room. These individuals may elect to post documents directly onto Blackboard or may send documents to the logistics committee co-chairs for posting. The “point people” are Amanda Blackman (Criterion One), Carol Carr (Criterion Two), Terri Alonso (Criterion Three), Marvin Cooke (Criterion Four), and Nikki Givens (Criterion Five). In posting a document, the point person should assure that the file is named something short and specific that easily identifies what the document contains. In naming files, underscores should be used rather than spaces.

Jona, Randy, and Pam met two weeks ago. They reviewed the original lists of requested resources and organized all those resources into folders named for the subcommittees. Documents that were requested by more than one committee can be found in more than one folder. This is a “working” directory structure designed to make documents easier for the subcommittees to find. When the self-study is moving into publication, the directory will be restructured for the ease of readers and reviewers.

Emails that constitute gathered documentation can be copied into Word and saved as documents. These can then be uploaded to the electronic site.

If a subcommittee member wants to use a document that is found in another subcommittee’s folder, the file in question can be saved to the individual’s hard drive and then uploaded into another folder.

Reports from subcommittees on evidence gathered and evidence needed:

Criterion One: Jennifer has documents on the creation of TCC’s new mission statement. She will email her core component’s list of resources to the entire steering committee.

Patti Wilson has interviewed Carol Messer about the process of creating TCC’s core values. Leanne reported that her core component has done a survey to locate diversity information; they have a list of documents and reports that they want to receive.

Criterion Two: Core Component A has reviewed organizational, space and facilities planning, and distance learning. They are considering interviewing legislators regarding environmental scanning and getting information from the Community Resource Council.

They are also looking at diversity and how special programs affect diverse populations.

Core Component B is researching TCC’s resource base; TCC’s areas of growth and the degree of growth; enrollment and employment records; employment change as it relates to enrollment; new programs begun since the last comprehensive visit; RISE; the ratio of full- to part-time faculty; how the Office of Institutional Research has changed in 10 years; the college’s reorganization; how the department of Academic Affairs has changed; the One-College concept; FIG grants; the TCC Excellence Awards; the Mercer study; rank and promotion; the new college councils and shared governance; Convocation; staff development; client support/help desk/IT; Every Encounter Counts; First Stop; partnerships with OSU, TTC, etc.; the budget process; benchmark institutions.

Paul Johnson urged the group to be sure they are using all this information to look forward, as opposed to reporting or describing the progress to date. He noted that the site team will want to see that we have the resources to sustain these programs.

Core Component C is looking at assessment data and other data from Institutional Research.

Core Component D is doing a case study on First Stop. They are looking at annual planning, and how strategic planning is incorporated into budgeting. They will interview Carol Messer and Jan Clayton. They are also working on a survey for faculty and staff regarding their satisfaction with processes for planning, developing, and implementing new programs.

Criterion Three: Terri Alonso asked if there is an assessment of the college’s processes and goals. Paul said the college recognizes this need and is trying to fill it. The president’s idea is that the college’s strategic priorities are an umbrella under which APB goals fit.

Electronic copies of the college budget can be found in the electronic resource room and in board meeting minutes, including the special June board meeting of last year. Audit reports show what has actually been spent, at year end. These are also in the electronic resource room. Gary Crooms has a binder filled with a report that breaks expenses down into percentages of the budget.

The Institutional Effectiveness Council has for years broken down assessment of student learning by course-level, program-level, etc. Bringing those together is a challenge, whether in disciplines or as gen-ed. Much data has been gathered in all those areas. Workforce development advisory committees also have feedback on their programs. Paul Johnson directed the subcommittee to TCC’s annual assessment reports to the Oklahoma State Regents as the best resource for TCC’s reports on learning assessment and feedback from employers.

Criterion Four:

Core Component A has asked Demetrius Bereolos to look into staff development at TCC. Mary Millikin should be able to supply enrollment statistics on staff development courses. Paul mentioned that it is one of the president’s goals to have a director of staff development.

The criterion is also looking at gen-ed programs’ assessment results and at placement data, etc., for major fields.

Marvin surveyed the faculty about their usage of the LRC for their own professional development. Mary Cantrell mentioned that Suzanne Haynes has usage data for the Southeast Campus LRC.

Sharon Wright reported that her group was looking at staff development, how disciplines assess learning, presentations by TCC faculty and students at academic conferences, FIG grants, Honors, LDA, Strategic Horizons, MAGIC.

Paula Eggert reported on Core Component D. Her group has collected materials on ethics, intellectual property, and the ethical use of knowledge. There’s a new college-wide Intellectual Property Committee, under the umbrella of the Academic Council. Mary Cantrell mentioned that the newly formed AAUP Chapter will also have a subcommittee on intellectual property; Cathy Furlong, president of the AAUP, could be contacted for more information. The challenge Paula sees for her component will be intellectual property.

Criterion Five: Criterion Five has four core components. Each co-chair heads one, and the fourth is shared by the whole group.

Core Component A is defining what is meant by engagement and service and finding out how the college defines those things. Service learning is a big part, but so is continuing education. First Stop is also a form of outreach or service. Jan wants to identify existing relationships and partnerships, perhaps by doing a zip survey to faculty. She wondered if such a survey would generate feedback.

Members of the steering committee suggested additional sources of information: External Affairs has data on TCC’s external surveys, for example. Randy suggested that she talk to departments that offer internships. (For example, Annie Malloy offers a humanities class that involves an internship with the opera.) The self-study may provide a forum for writing recommendations on ways to keep this information in better formats in the future.

Jan hasn’t received reports from the other core components. Paul told her that Strategic Horizons has an environmental scan component. The new councils also have strategic plans, and Leanne said that most of those plans are now on the Lotus Notes Bulletin Board.

Randy suggested that at the end of the self-study process, the steering committee should do a de-briefing with TCC’s IT staff to tell them where we had trouble finding materials.

Writing the reports: Mary Cantrell distributed a handout titled “Guidelines for Writing Reports,” which was designed to address questions/requests from the breakfast meeting in Chicago. She stressed the importance of developing data into evidence; the data won’t stand alone. The audience needs our evaluative statements.

Carol Messer suggested that the guidelines be modified to include a place to address concerns from 10 years ago.

The typographical format for all reports will be determined after Mary meets with Susie Brown to solicit her input and discover her needs and preferences.

Other handouts: Lynn Greene distributed numerous handouts from the Higher Learning Commission’s website. These were referenced in one of the first sessions in the Workshop on Self-study; all came from the site instructing consultant evaluators on what they must include in their site-visit reports.

Update on Negotiated Rulemaking: Paul Johnson reported that the negotiated rulemaking in which HLC Executive Director Steven Crow was participating ended without agreement. This means accreditation will be changing in the near future. Focus visits in five years are likely—and these should not be viewed as a message that institutions have failed somehow. Paul will let us know when a recording of the video conference with Steven Crow on the future of higher education becomes available.

###